HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » A "limited hangout". The ...

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 09:20 PM

A "limited hangout". The best DC Kabuki since Fitzmas.

A limited hangout is, according to former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Victor Marchetti, "spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."

- Wikipedia, Limited Hangout

The Clintons have always been blessed with Republican opponents who are unbelievably stupid, who completely overplay a modestly decent hand and lose. Sometimes I think they have to paid off to be so stupid. The GOP never learn that trying to dirty up the Clintons just gives them more armor against such charges in the future. What the Clintons do to Republicans makes Muhammed Ali's (dog rest his soul) rope-a-dope look clumsy. And, "oops, they've done it again." The email denouement leaves the GOP and the FBI with egg all over their bodies, with any investigation of Hillary for any reason politically pre-empted worse than a Russian nuclear first strike.

The problem I have is that, when this happened to Cheney, when Fitzmas was a flameout that barely got Scooter Libby (whom know one had ever heard of before his indictment), DU was appalled. Go back and look at the disappointment, the conspiracy theorizing that was posted on this very board during 2006-7. Now, turn the volume of GOP rage down by a factor of ten and compare it to Fitzmas. Let me refresh your memory on Fitzmas.

By March 28, 2006, some bloggers were reporting that on the basis of interviews with people close to the Plame investigation, indictments against Rove or National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley were imminent. However, by mid-June 2006, it was announced that no charges would be brought against Rove. In early April, The New York Times ran a front page story linking Libby to a leak, supposedly ordered by Dick Cheney, that Iraq had been attempting to acquire uranium in 2002. By the thirteenth of the month, many media outlets, including the New York Times, retracted this story,...

Robert Novak's testimony in Libby's perjury trial made it known that the two senior administration sources he cited in his article were Richard Armitage and Karl Rove. A month later Armitage claimed Fitzgerald had instructed him not to go public with this information. Journalist Michael Isikoff received confirmation from Rove's lawyer and from lobbyist Richard F. Hohlt that Rove was also faxed an advance copy of the article revealing a CIA covert agent's identity several days before it was published.
- Wikipedia, Fitzmas


Democrats thought their champion, Patrick Fitzgerald was going to indict Rove and Cheney for revealing Valerie Palme as a secret agent. (Just an ironic note: Fitzgerald was appointed by none other than....Jim Comey.) Instead that got some nobody who's sentence was commuted by W.

So, for the purpose of understanding what the GOP are likely to say and do, use Fitzmas times ten to gauge their feelings. And, unfortunately, there are actual Democrats and former terror prosecutors who share the GOP's sense of betrayal by Comey.

They say that Comey made a complete muddle of this. They say he should have indicted because laws were broken. Instead, they say, he rewrote the law; then he smeared HRC. This couldn't have gone better for HRC if she written the script herself: She is exonerated and the FBI look like thugs. From now forward, any time someone asks anything about Hillary's emails, the answer is: Comey, Comey, Comey.

The talking points are: believe the exoneration from the FBI, don't believe that the scandalously unprofessional charge of "extreme carelessness" means anything at all. Heads she wins; tails he loses. Talking points don't care that laws were twisted both to smear her and to protect her. Try explaining those twists to anyone with less than a J.D. in a ten second soundbite. Not going to happen.

I don't have a J.D.; but, unfortunately, I am one of those damn "purists" who thinks that we ought to obey black letter law, whether we are GOP or Democrat, whether we are whistleblowers or office holders. So, just for the record (which shall never again see the light of day), let me list some comments by Law Enforcement officials:

1. Andrew McCarthy – former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman
and eleven others, obtaining convictions for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing:

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense...


2. Former prosecutor (and Clinton supporter) Chuck Hobbs:

With Comey indicating that over 100 emails analyzed by his agents contained some level of classified information, and with him further indicating that Clinton used her private servers in areas where “hostile actors” could have easily accessed her account, as a former prosecutor, I would think that a prosecution should be forthcoming; such would be the logical conclusion considering the facts that Clinton agreed not to break the law and that she broke the law either knowingly or negligently.

Comey’s comments constitute a form of legal sophistry in that prosecutors did not need to prove that Clinton intended to commit a criminal act. Comey and staunch Clinton apologists keep providing cover by adding that element — intent — that simply is not needed. Indeed, under federal and state laws, negligence roughly means an “indifference” or careless attitude toward the proscribed conduct and with Comey calling the conduct “extremely careless,” an argument can be made that Clinton was grossly negligent in her acts.


Since a lot has been made of the fact that the emails were "not properly labelled", I would like someone to explain to me what happened to the charges/evidence that HRC told someone to (paraphrase) "cut off the headers and send it to me"? What happened to the charges that the emails were "born classified", as anyone who has had a high level security clearance should know? What happened to high-level classified CIA info being sent in by Sid Blumenthal? Does he get a pass too, because it wasn't properly labelled? Was any of that addressed in the Comey media circus?

----

Now, here is where it gets really brilliant - limited hangout brilliant. If Comey had just let Hillary go, there would have been a lot of talk about how he "caved", about all the lose ends I just mentioned. But, by stepping all over his own dick on camera, no one is talking about caving. The unforced, mega-error that Comey made is the "new information that so intrigues the public that it never pursues (the original) matter seriously". What Comey did was unprecedented, unprofessional, and just plain wrong.

Either Comey is just another unbelievably stupid GOPer, or he was influenced. We will never know, because it is the perfect hangout. Comey becomes the patsy. Listen to some legal minds:

3. Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker:

I’ve been involved in the criminal investigation for the FBI of Congressmen, Senators, and officials of every description …. I cannot ever remember any FBI director – or any FBI official – coming out with a referral and the substance of a recommendation. So that it in itself is highly, highly unusual.


4. Matthew Miller, who was a spokesman for the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder, called Comey’s press conference an

absolutely unprecedented, appalling, and a flagrant violation of Justice Department regulations.” He told The Intercept: “The thing that’s so damaging about this is that the Department of Justice is supposed to reach conclusions and put them in court filings. There’s a certain amount of due process there.


----

There you have it. Well played by Comey. The best performance at the inside-the-beltway Kabuki Theatre since Scooter Libby took the fall for Darth Cheney. Comey's performance is a thing of beauty. It all depends on what his definition of "negligent" is. He is the pinata that will never break for the Democrats.

Maybe people who think that HRC can do nothing wrong think this whole bit of Kabuki is great. The rest of us are thinking, what if that was Cheney or Bush or (worse) some future rightwing gangster who broke black letter law and got off. We cringed when the Bush-Cheney DOJ made a mockery of the rule of law. We should cringe at this demonstration that the law today is whatever high officials (i.e., Comey) say it is, not what is on the books.

89 replies, 3838 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 89 replies Author Time Post
Reply A "limited hangout". The best DC Kabuki since Fitzmas. (Original post)
arendt Jul 2016 OP
MineralMan Jul 2016 #1
arendt Jul 2016 #5
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #6
arendt Jul 2016 #16
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #20
arendt Jul 2016 #30
randome Jul 2016 #49
arendt Jul 2016 #60
radical noodle Jul 2016 #52
arendt Jul 2016 #61
radical noodle Jul 2016 #89
MineralMan Jul 2016 #7
arendt Jul 2016 #11
MineralMan Jul 2016 #12
arendt Jul 2016 #15
leftofcool Jul 2016 #87
stevenleser Jul 2016 #2
arendt Jul 2016 #8
stevenleser Jul 2016 #17
arendt Jul 2016 #21
stevenleser Jul 2016 #26
arendt Jul 2016 #27
uhnope Jul 2016 #35
arendt Jul 2016 #28
uhnope Jul 2016 #36
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #38
arendt Jul 2016 #41
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #43
arendt Jul 2016 #45
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #48
arendt Jul 2016 #56
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #57
arendt Jul 2016 #59
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #63
arendt Jul 2016 #65
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #66
arendt Jul 2016 #68
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #70
arendt Jul 2016 #71
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #73
arendt Jul 2016 #75
lapucelle Jul 2016 #55
arendt Jul 2016 #58
lapucelle Jul 2016 #62
arendt Jul 2016 #67
lapucelle Jul 2016 #76
arendt Jul 2016 #78
lapucelle Jul 2016 #86
lapucelle Jul 2016 #83
lapucelle Jul 2016 #54
arendt Jul 2016 #74
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #3
arendt Jul 2016 #9
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #19
arendt Jul 2016 #22
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #24
arendt Jul 2016 #25
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #29
arendt Jul 2016 #31
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #34
arendt Jul 2016 #39
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #42
arendt Jul 2016 #47
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #50
arendt Jul 2016 #69
arendt Jul 2016 #32
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #33
uhnope Jul 2016 #37
arendt Jul 2016 #40
geek tragedy Jul 2016 #44
arendt Jul 2016 #46
DanTex Jul 2016 #4
JTFrog Jul 2016 #10
arendt Jul 2016 #13
JTFrog Jul 2016 #14
arendt Jul 2016 #18
arendt Jul 2016 #23
emulatorloo Jul 2016 #51
arendt Jul 2016 #64
emulatorloo Jul 2016 #77
arendt Jul 2016 #79
emulatorloo Jul 2016 #84
arendt Jul 2016 #85
lapucelle Jul 2016 #53
arendt Jul 2016 #72
lapucelle Jul 2016 #81
arendt Jul 2016 #82
arendt Jul 2016 #80
DLCWIdem Jul 2016 #88

Response to arendt (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 09:54 AM

1. I believe you are overthinking this, really.

That a senior administration official from any administration would be prosecuted for mistakes made in the carrying out of their duties, or even for a more serious level of wrongdoing is almost unthinkable in our system. That's why it doesn't happen, unless the wrongdoing is so egregious or goes against the administration's wishes. The problem, really, is a matter of precedent.

Elected officials and top-level administration appointees are almost immune to prosecutions for official actions. For example, members of Congress are actually immune from prosecution for actions taken while acting as a House member or Senator. That's in the Constitution. They can face disciplinary actions in their house of Congress, but not prosecution for what they do on the floor of the body they were elected to.

That principle is pretty much observed throughout the highest levels of government, including cabinet officers. "Executive privilege" is often used to prevent cabinet officers from even testifying in some cases. The laws are not uniformly enforced when it comes to high-level government officials. They have some serious protections against prosecution.

Hillary Clinton was never going to be indicted for sloppy handling of State Department emails. It simply was not going to happen. She was the head of that department, after all, and set policies for it, as an appointed cabinet member. Her immunity from what would be a useless prosecution derives from the fact that she was appointed by the POTUS and was carrying out his wishes in her position.

There is immunity to a large degree for our elected and appointed leadership. Those in Congress enjoy it to an even greater extend than the Executive branch. We should never forget that their immunity is written into the Constitution. That's why a dumbass House representative can do all sorts of ugly crap without every worrying about prosecution. In some cases, members of Congress may even have avoided prosecution for the most heinous of felonies and gone on to become TV celebrities.

Here's a quote from Section I of that document:

Section. 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Hillary was never going to be indicted. Anyone who understands how our system works should have known that. It was all a show put on by the Republicans for their own benefit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 11:31 AM

5. Thank you for validating my utter cynicism

Jimmy Carter is right. We live in an oligarchy.

Is it "pragmatic" that this is the status quo? Do you think we should do something about it?

If not, then why does DU exist? To promote "our side" of the oligarchy?

Just asking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 11:36 AM

6. she didn't break the law, that's why she wasn't prosecuted

 

it turns out the crazy people fantasy of her committing criminal acts--for the 100th time--turned out to be not based in reality

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 12:06 PM

16. It turns out that Comey gave a performance that would make a ten year old ask questions

I'm focused on Comey's behavior and how it completely poisons the well for any future prosecutions.

I'm looking forward, not backwards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #16)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 12:10 PM

20. Comey was one of Ken Starr's attack dogs at the OIC

 

during the Clenis investigation.

One can infer that he wanted to prosecute, but the facts and law simply didn't allow it, hence his dicta flameout.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #20)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 02:15 PM

30. That's one theory. There are others floating out there.

For example, the disgusting Charles Kruthammer, from the Village Gazette, owned by the odious Jeff Bezos, gives Comey a very high motive. I don't buy it; but it is as valid as your speculation.

He did not want the FBI director to end up as the arbiter of the 2016 presidential election. If Clinton were not a presumptive presidential nominee but simply a retired secretary of state, he might well have made a different recommendation.

Prosecuting under current circumstances would have upended and redirected an already year-long presidential selection process. In my view, Comey didn't want to be remembered as the man who irreversibly altered the course of American political history.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4092197-155/krauthammer-a-theory-for-why-comey

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #30)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 04:38 PM

49. No speculation is needed when the facts fit the event.

 

MineralMan is right. You are grossly overthinking this. This is not anything near what Rove did.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #49)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 05:54 PM

60. Rove deliberately outed Plame. Hillary accidentally outted Sid Blumenthal

One was a legitimate spy. The other was a nasty partisan hack who got his hands on CIA intel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #30)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 05:00 PM

52. If she had not be running for president

The whole thing would never have been investigated. Powell was asked to provide the SoS emails that went through his private account and he's never even done that. The FOIA only works if certain papers are in certain hands. Technically, Hillary wouldn't have had to provide the documents if she'd been treated like Powell. It was celebrity hunting at its worst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to radical noodle (Reply #52)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 05:56 PM

61. All of the sudden, you decide the VRWC would just drop her is she wasn't a candidate

Powell did not have a posse who hated her.

Not that it is a good thing, but your assertion is wrong, given the absolute hatred towards her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #61)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 11:03 PM

89. I do think that

I believe they wouldn't have bothered if she hadn't run for president. Instead, they would have spent their time trashing whoever was the nominee. She had very high approval ratings when she left as SoS, and everyone was talking about her running for president. They had to put a stop to it.

She was approved for Secretary of State in the Senate by a vote of 94-2. Granted, a few names changed in those 4 years, but not that many. There would be little motivation to try to skewer her if she retired... even the House who started this particular crap had no reason if she was going back to New York to be Grandma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 11:36 AM

7. Cynicism? I don't see it that way.

We live in a country that has a system of government. It is what it is. Understanding that system and how it works is fundamental to doing anything political.

We are individuals and each have a single vote in whatever we vote on. We don't agree on much here in this country, so everything ends up being a compromise.

DU is a place where we discuss ways to make those compromises more fair. It's a real-world discussion forum, not a fantasy land.

Politics takes place in a real environment. We always have to deal with that environment while we try to change it. The United States runs on momentum. It's a very, very heavy object with lots and lots of inertia.

Reality sucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #7)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 11:45 AM

11. You continue to fuel my cynicism

You try to conflate "compromise" with being "untouchable". Not buying it. If high officials are completely unaccountable, and high office can be bought, thanks to CU, then we are an oligarchy , not a democracy.

Our system of government used to be that people who broke the law got indicted.

The whole point of political gridlock is to elevate the Executive with respect to the Legislative branch. We see that in action. Nothing gets done anymore without an exectutive order.

Given that reality (the reality you agree with), I want the Executive Branch to have some kind of oversight. I want them to be held accountable - because it is the last tenuous grip I have on democracy.

Now, you are telling me I am naive for wanting that. You are telling me to be pragmatic.

Bollocks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #11)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 11:54 AM

12. I'm not responsible for how you feel.

I'll leave that to you, entirely. I'm a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist. That's true both in language and politics.

I have no belief that I can change a system as complex as our political system. It would be ludicrous for me to hold such a belief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 12:04 PM

15. Political change starts from the bottom up, not the top down

What you "describe" is a closed, dead system. The implication of "it cannot be changed by individuals banding together", is that it must be changed by the existing political actors. But the political system is an oligarchy which no longer serves us.

You choose to pretend you have no role in this. You pretend you are a mere observer. But, your implicit prescription is "do nothing" except pick a side in the oligarchy and cheer that side on.

I'd rather be a cynic than a tool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #15)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 09:44 PM

87. And we are still not responsible for "your" feelings

If you want to change the Constitution or the Articles therein, then you have to do the work. If you want to bad together a group of people, please do so. Many of us are busy working to get a Democrat elected to the Oval Office and don't have time to worry about Hillary's emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 10:00 AM

2. The reason why this take is wrong is much simpler.

 

This entire nonsense was predicated on Hillary being able to tell the future in two respects, knowing that someone was about to send her an email and knowing that at some point in the future, the contents of that email was going to be considered classified.

Content that is later classified is pretty regularly sent to non-secure emails throughout all agencies and branches of the government. It's one of the challenges for those trying to protect sensitive information and its a tough challenge to resolve because you can't tell the future. It's as simple as that.

What Comey's testimony to congress yesterday told us is that there was no way for Hillary to know that the 100 or so emails were classified. That is nothing like what the whistleblowers or Petreus did and would be completely ridiculous to prosecute her for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 11:37 AM

8. What complete humbug


You make her out to be some naive ingenue. A SoS, she had a duty to know about what was classified and what wasn't. This classified later game can be played both ways. How do we know what criteria Comey used to decide that they "weren't properly labelled". It is all a fight in the dark behind closed security doors. We hear the noise, we don't see the raw facts.

I will ask again: what happened to the email which said (paraphrase) "cut the security headers off and send it to me".

As for the carefully crafted recital of which email were and weren't classified, what about the other 30k emails, which simply vanished? All this selective, just-so story stuff just sets off my BS detector.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #8)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 12:06 PM

17. Nope, not humbug, facts, and thats what the investigation showed.

 

Questions specifically regarding this were asked of the investigator yesterday in congress under oath.

You are simply wrong. Whether you accept it is another matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #17)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 12:10 PM

21. No answer about "cut off the headers". Why not? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #21)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 01:47 PM

26. Because its not true and no proof of that was found in the FBI investigation

 

You are regurgitating completely unsourced and made up right wing accusations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #26)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 01:52 PM

27. Did the FBI address that specifically...

or are you just going with silence on the topic as finding no proof?

I will google this later, because I thought I saw hard copy of emails saying that. Its one thing to say "made up accusations". Its another to make real emails disappear. If you are correct, I will accept your answer.

I do not read right wing sites. So if I saw it, I saw it here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #27)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 02:55 PM

35. google it later!

 

I read thru this thread trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Now you've been caught pushing falsehoods and your reply is that you "will google this later." What a crock. You might as well be a flat-earther saying you heard some proof of a flat earth but you can't remember right now so you'll google it later. God I know the Internet is dumb but pleeeeeeeeeez.

I'm a Sanders supporter but it's plain to see that the FBI isn't doing anything about this because no crime was committed, and that it would be extremely unusual to prosecute in a case like this anyway. Spin conspiracies and bizarre evidence of oligarchies or whatever out of it all you want but it's a crock

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #26)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 02:06 PM

28. Here's is a report on the incident from CBS

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/

But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means...

Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it.

Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."


The fact that the report says "redacted" means that CBS saw actual emails. Interestingly, the link to the email at the State Department is now DEAD. How convenient.

Here is a site I never heard of, but they are showing actual redacted emails:

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

Could you kindly explain to me what happened to this documented security breach? Did the FBI talk about it at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #28)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 03:02 PM

36. you said you don't read RW websites and now you're linking to Hot Air

 

you're asking questions that are answered in the very next sentence of the news that you quoted. The next part is:

It's unclear whether the talking points themselves contained classified information. Typically, talking points are used for unclassified purposes (e.g. speaking with the media).


So no it's not a "documented security breach" as you put it. WTH you seem just to be hyping this all over again for whatever reason, looking for conspiracies or evidence of oligarchy or whatever belief system you're propagating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #28)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 03:17 PM

38. that's not a documented security breach.

 

You're very late to the party, but we're being polite by educating as to why the stuff you read on rightwing websites like hotair.com is not accurate.


WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department provided more detail Saturday about a 2011 document at the center of Hillary Clinton's latest email controversy, as an official said the former secretary of state never received the paper by nonsecure fax. But many other questions remained unanswered.


Clinton, whose presidential campaign has been challenged by her use of a private email account while secretary of state, is facing questions anew after Friday's revelation that she asked an adviser to go around a secure fax system to transmit a set of "talking points" on an unspecified subject.


Clinton told the adviser to turn it "into nonpaper w/no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Republicans immediately pounced on the exchange and suggested it proved impropriety.


The State Department said Friday that no such document was sent by email.



And on Saturday, a State Department official who wasn't authorized to speak publicly on the increasingly complicated review of Clinton's emails said the agency "checked its records and found no indication that the document in question was sent to Secretary Clinton using nonsecure fax or email."


The official, who demanded anonymity, said records instead turned up a secure fax transmission shortly after Clinton's email exchange with adviser Jake Sullivan on June 17, 2011. The implication was that this was the same document.


http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-09/more-detail-new-questions-about-2011-clinton-email

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #38)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 03:29 PM

41. Already said I never heard of hotair. As for USNWR...

You are saying that the doc I saw is a complete fabrication?

The USNWR story is about as opaque as a barrel of crude oil:

The State Department said Friday that no such document was sent by email.

And on Saturday, a State Department official who wasn't authorized to speak publicly on the increasingly complicated review of Clinton's emails said the agency "checked its records and found no indication that the document in question was sent to Secretary Clinton using nonsecure fax or email."

The official, who demanded anonymity, said records instead turned up a secure fax transmission shortly after Clinton's email exchange with adviser Jake Sullivan on June 17, 2011. The implication was that this was the same document.

While the review appears to rule out the possibility of Clinton improperly receiving sensitive material, it leaves other questions unanswered.

Was the document classified or unclassified? The State Department won't say.


And was Clinton wrong to instruct a senior aide to send it through nonsecure means, even if that request wasn't fulfilled? The department says it isn't making a judgment.

Even the subject matter hasn't been revealed.

The only indication in the email exchange of what the document might have been about was redacted in Friday's release of some 3,000 pages from Clinton's tenure as America's top diplomat.

And it's unclear if any copy of the secure fax remains.


This pile of anonymous self-vindication and stonewalling by the State Department is your proof?

LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #41)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 03:31 PM

43. you claimed it was a documented security breach, was is plainly

 

untrue.

you are speaking from a position of bias, not logic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #43)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 03:35 PM

45. One step at a time

Did the HRC email telling Sullivan to strip the headers exist? Yes or no. That is the document I refer to when I say "documented".

Did the State Department ever reveal the paper trail proving the contorted explanation in USNWR? Or do we just take USNWR's anonymous sources word for it? Even so, what bearing does the rest of the department's reaction have to her action? If she said to shoot someone and others decided to countermand that order, would we say she had no intention to shoot someone?

The email is a document. The refutation by SD is vague BS that does nothing to invalidate the document authorizing a breach of security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #45)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 04:37 PM

48. sigh.

 

you have the burden of showing there was a breach of security, namely that:

1) there was sensitive, classified information; that was

2) actually sent via nonsecure channels

This email fails to prove either element, let alone both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #48)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 05:30 PM

56. No, I have the burden of "intent"

She intended that someone send her secure email. Do we at least agree that she sent those words?

Like I said, its as if she asked someone to shoot someone for her. The intent is what counts; not the lack of followthrough.

Besides, the fact that all the things I need to prove breach are hidden behind layers of national security - which is why everyone was upset in the first place - makes you demand a known impossible; i.e., a joke. You might as well ask me to go to the bottom of the Marianas Trench to find evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #56)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 05:33 PM

57. she intended that someone send her something by nonsecure means if secure means

 

were unavailable.

you don't know that the material to be sent nonsecurely would have been classified, or whether they would have just sent the non-classified stuff.

you don't know that anything was sent nonsecurely.

you are using your imagination, not anything approaching logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #57)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 05:38 PM

59. That's the problem. I am not allowed to know anything

Pardon me for not trusting people who hide behind national security.

You are beating me up for not believing a bunch of scripted bullshit.

This is what democracy has been reduced to: you aren't allowed to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #59)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 05:58 PM

63. you claimed there was a documented breach. I have demonstrated that was your imagination

 

speaking.

And, you should probably realize the folly of protesting the fact you don't have access to classified communications when in fact you're complaining that Clinton allegedly transmitted classified information via nonsecure channels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #63)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:00 PM

65. No. You demonstrated that no informatiion is available to commoners. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #65)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:02 PM

66. which means your claim of a "documented" breach is per se false nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #66)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:04 PM

68. It means that it is impossible for anyone without a high level security clearnace to play this game.

How absolutely democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #68)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:06 PM

70. yes, protecting classified information is not something people without clearances do nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #70)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:07 PM

71. Also something HRC did not do n./t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #71)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:13 PM

73. yawn. do you have anything that isn't hatred of Clinton and rightwing innuendo to contribute here,

 

or can we be done with this sad display?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #73)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:15 PM

75. I get it. You can use the fact, but I can't. We are done here. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #28)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 05:22 PM

55. Comey explained this yesterday. Go back and read it

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265210-email-clinton-asked-adviser-to-send-secure-fax-by-email

The State Department released more than 3,000 of Clinton’s emails from her time as secretary of State on Friday. One of the emails has drawn scrutiny because in it, Clinton, who was awaiting a secure fax detailing talking points, instructed an adviser to turn the talking points into “nonpaper w no identifying heading and send non secure” because the fax wasn’t coming through.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dos-class.pdf

This is what happens when people with no expertise take it upon themselves to pontificate without looking up unfamiliar terms. There is a reason why non of the right wing sites bothers to explain what "turn to nonpaper" actually means,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #55)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 05:36 PM

58. I read page 12. Not one word about "non paper protocol"

As far as I can see, it simply states, for various situations, how long an item shall remain classified.

I see nothing about paper.

Can you find such a reference on that page?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #58)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 05:58 PM

62. Try this then.

https://fam.state.gov/searchapps/viewer?format=html&query=NON-PAPER&links=NON,PAPER&url=/FAM/05FAH01/05FAH010610.html#X611

Scroll down to "non-paper" for the definition.

Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual defines non-paper as

“A written summary of a demarche or other verbal presentation to a foreign government. The non-paper should be drafted in the third person, and must not be directly attributable to the U.S. Government. It is prepared on plain paper (no letterhead or watermark). The heading or title, if any, is simply a statement of the issue or subject."


From the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual and Handbook.
https://fam.state.gov/search?query=NON-PAPER

Even Comey admitted he was unfamiliar with the term. At least he was professional enough to research the question and man enough to admit that it was another dead end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #62)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:02 PM

67. Excuse me, but was HRC saying to redraft and paraphrase? I think not.

I really doubt that she meant any kind of "summary" "in the third person". She meant, xerox the doc, cut off the headers and send me the JPEG.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #67)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:17 PM

76. Turn into "non paper"

means what it means. It's a specific diplomatic term in the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual. Comey explained that yesterday.

You don't want to accept this because it blows your right wing narrative (the one you accidentally found on a right wing site that you didn't know was right wing) right out of the water.

"I doubt Clinton meant what the State Department handbook and the FBI says she meant. It wrecks this really good anti-Clinton narrative that I'm trying to peddle."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #76)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:22 PM

78. I have yet to see that what happened conforms to that definiton.

And I never will, because it is all "above top secret".

I am sick of Democrats hiding behind National Security humbug.

Hillary bitched about over-classification. She was dissatisfied with the rules. Now, I am supposed to simultaneously trust Comey's interpretation without any evidence, while simultaneously villifying him for a hit-job on HRC?

It is a bridge too far. It is all just Kabuki.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #78)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 07:52 PM

86. The evidence is there, and it's documented to the FBI's satisfaction in

the State Department's Foreign Service Handbook, as well as through their interviews with the parties involved. Even Chaffetz knew enough to drop it.

The right wing ace-in-the-hole narrative turned out to be just another bust grounded in an inability and/or unwillingness to understand a marginally complex situation.












Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #26)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:40 PM

83. See the State Department Foreign Affairs Handbook

and Comey's testimony concerning the meaning of "non-paper" the next time someone tries to sell you this garbage.

Actually, Comey gave testimony yesterday that disproves the ridiculous claim that the OP is peddling.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/265367-clinton-defends-telling-aid-to-send-data-through-nonsecure-channel
https://fam.state.gov/search?query=NON-PAPER

Here's Comey bursting the right wing conspiracy bubble.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe&live

"IT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION WHEN I FIRST SAW IT. WHAT SHE EXPLAINED TO US IN HER INTERVIEW IS WHAT SHE MEANT BY THAT IS MAKE IT INTO A NONCLASSIFIED DOCUMENT. THAT IS WHAT A NONPAPER IS IN THEIR WORLD AND SEND IT TO US BECAUSE I DON'T NEED THE CLASSIFIED STUFF."

Use the search term "non-paper" to read the entire exchange in the transcript.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #21)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 05:19 PM

54. Here's your answer.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265210-email-clinton-asked-adviser-to-send-secure-fax-by-email

The State Department released more than 3,000 of Clinton’s emails from her time as secretary of State on Friday. One of the emails has drawn scrutiny because in it, Clinton, who was awaiting a secure fax detailing talking points, instructed an adviser to turn the talking points into “nonpaper w no identifying heading and send non secure” because the fax wasn’t coming through.

See page 12 for "non paper" protocol.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dos-class.pdf

Comey walked the knuckle draggers through this yesterday during his testimony. Go back and read the transcript.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #54)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:13 PM

74. Triple dup. See response #58. nt/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 10:23 AM

3. Andrew McCarthy is an arch-wingnut who wrote a book on impeaching Obama

 

Also, it wasn't Libby who initially leaked Plame's name to Novak, it was Richard Armitage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 11:39 AM

9. OK. I didn't do a Google search on him...

because, as a terror prosecutor for NY, one would assume that he might be sane. Sorry.

Does it change the legal argument he is making? The legal argument also made by a Clinton-backer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #9)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 12:08 PM

19. Chuck Hobbs is flat-out lying when he describes himself as a Clinton backer.

 

He hates her guts.

http://www.langleyharper.com/hillary-clintons-quest-for-the-souls-of-black-folk/

http://blogs.tallahassee.com/community/2016/04/20/sen-bernie-sanders-flames-out-in-his-native-new-york/

As a supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders, I must admit that while watching former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton give her victory speech last night after a resounding win in New York State, my mind drifted towards “Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back” when Darth Vader, dueling with his yet to be revealed son Luke Skywalker, violently threw Luke to the ground and exclaimed “you are beaten—it is useless to resist; don’t let yourself be destroyed as Obi Wan (Kenobi) did….”


So, you essentially quoted two Hillary Haters as your legal authorities here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #19)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 12:16 PM

22. Does that change the law?

Or are we now down to a government of men, not laws? His opinion is worthless because he backed Bernie?

The law said negligence didn't have to be intended. Comey redefined that law by saying carelessness was not negligence - a completely Pharasaical pronouncement.

The people quoted were lawyers, acting as lawyers. Attack their statements, not them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #22)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 12:24 PM

24. There is a big time due process problem with prosecuting people

 

when they don't have the intent to commit a crime, or even know that they're doing something that might be illegal.

The fact that there have been exactly zero prosecutions using that statute based on the standard proposed by the pair of Hillary haters you cited should be a tip off.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #24)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 01:47 PM

25. Obama is prosecuting whistleblowers under a law from WW1

He has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other president.

Lots of people had a problem with that. Not Obama. Not Hillary.

Very selective outrage on your part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #25)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 02:11 PM

29. irrelevant to the issue of mens rea/criminal intent. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #29)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 02:19 PM

31. Relevant to the issue of politically-mandated prosecution. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #31)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 02:45 PM

34. non sequitur

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #34)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 03:21 PM

39. No. Both are about selective enforcement of the law.

Obama has dredged up an awful law from a century ago because that is the only way he can find to get the DOJ to prosecute those pesky whistleblowers.

Comey has invented an interpretation of the legal term "negligence" because it is the only way he can avoid having to indict Hillary.

One guy interprets a law to prosecute; the other guy interprets a law to not prosecute. Both cases involve national security and secrets - guaranteeing plenty of gray area to cover the players' asses.

Finally, realizing the transparency of his selective enforcement, Comey deliberately muddied the waters with his unprofessional conduct. That is all that will be talked about.

Kabuki accomplished.

Pardon my complete cynicism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #39)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 03:30 PM

42. You could not be more wrong if you tried.

 

Comey did not invent the concept of mens rea and the requirement of criminal intent.

It is the cornerstone of criminal law going back to the days of Magna Carta.

There have been ZERO prosecutions EVER under the Espionage Act for someone who was merely careless.

ZERO.

That is not an accident.

There has been ONE--count it--ONE case where someone was prosecuted under the gross negligence language:

For more than two decades, FBI Special Agent James ("J.J." Smith was a highly respected, veteran agent running counterintelligence operations in the Los Angeles area. His main focus was on China: trying to identify the Communist country's intelligence operations in the U.S. and ferret them out.

In 2003, less than three years after he retired from the FBI, Smith was arrested by his former colleagues on shocking and scandalous charges that he carried on a sexual relationship with one of his longtime sources, Katrina Leung. The FBI said in court filings that Smith carried classified documents and other sensitive records in his briefcase and sometimes left the case open and unattended while he visited her residence.

Leung copied many of the records, some of which were recovered from a safe in her home, the court records said. That was particularly worrisome because the FBI had developed Leung as a double agent known to be working with the Chinese government, but in theory working loyally for the FBI.

The story had another major salacious twist: Leung—known by the code name "Parlor Maid"—had also carried on a sexual affair with another FBI agent involved in managing her, Bill Cleveland.

Smith and Leung were arrested and later indicted separately. Smith was charged with four counts of wire fraud for submitting false reports on Leung's activities as an FBI asset and one count of grossly negligent handling of classified information. The latter charge is a component of the Espionage Act, although Smith was not charged with espionage as such.

An FBI official confirmed to POLITICO Thursday that Comey's public references to a single, gross negligence classified information case in the past century were to the indictment of Smith over a decade ago. The FBI director suggested the Smith case was starkly different than Clinton's.

"It's been one case brought on a gross negligence theory," Comey told the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee as Republican lawmakers pressed him on why Clinton wasn't being prosecuted for negligence in operating a private email server that Comey said contained highly classified information.

"I know from 30 years there's no way anybody at the Department of Justice is bringing a case against John Doe or Hillary Clinton for the second time in 100 years based on those facts," Comey added.

The FBI director also appeared to take a shot at former U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani and other ex-prosecutors who have been saying they would've charged Clinton with gross negligence.

"I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying where they would. I wonder where they were the last 40 years, because I'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would, nobody did," Comey said.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/heres-the-other-gross-negligence-case-comey-cited-in-clinton-email-testimony-225266

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #42)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 04:02 PM

47. There has never been gross negligence of this magnitude before

I'm so glad that you are concerned with precedent. Too bad precedent is out the window these days; or have you not noticed the spate of bad SCOTUS rulings overturning hundreds of years of precedents; or denying Habeus Corpus (Gitmo). Obama set a horrible precedent when he decided to declare war on whistleblowers. We were all appalled when those precedents were broken.

Now Hillary has set a new precedent. She has put together a system that manages to comingle personal and government records in such a manner that she chooses what the public sees. She has put together a system that allows her, while acting as SoS, to run private agents (Sidney Blumenthal, et al) who run a private intelligence network - even tho those agents are persona non grata at SD. Finally, she put together a computer system that went against department policy (and she was informed that she should not do what she did) and that system leaked like a sieve. It leaked national security information.

That is a horrible precedent - that the State Department is the private playpen of the SoS, who also happens to be the head of a billion dollar "foundation". The commingling of information and money, the repeated defiance of departmental policy, the disregard for cybersecurity. These are all accepted practice now, as the result of this precedent.
---

The FBI should have allowed this specific and terrible precedent to be adjudicated. Now, it is "law settled by another means". Another nail in the coffin of open government. The American public has been denied a legal resolution. Its stinks as bad as some of the grand jury acquittals of police officers. We can expect to see this on steroids in the next GOP administrtion (whenever that occurs).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #47)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 04:38 PM

50. "a new precedent" Just stop it, you're embarrassing yourself

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #50)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:06 PM

69. So you think because Bush got away with it, HRC should too? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 02:27 PM

32. Then you should correct Wikipedia.

Let me know how that interaction goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #32)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 02:43 PM

33. Lol, nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #33)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 03:07 PM

37. you dare not bow down before the Wiki god!

 

how can anyone google it later if you take that attitude

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #33)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 03:22 PM

40. You are so sure of yourself. You should go correct this terrible falsehood. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #40)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 03:31 PM

44. I suggest you try citing Wikipedia in your next legal filing, see how that goes nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #44)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 03:37 PM

46. Not my point.

Wikipedia encourages people to correct errors.

You were quit to condemn my citing them as an error. I asked you to do me, Wikipedia, and other Wikipedia users a courtesy, which is part of the ethos of Wikipedia.

You just want to sneer, instead of help the community. Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 10:55 AM

4. The indictment fairy is dead. Get over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 11:43 AM

10. What a load of bullshit. The Indictment Fairy is Dead.

 

Anyone who keeps beating that dead horse should really rethink their participation here at DU or they are definitely taking their chances.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 11:56 AM

13. I know it is over. That's why I wrote this. Did you read my hopelessness or just want to bash me?

Are you implying that it is no longer allowed to express complete cynicsm for the media circus that is foisted on us in the name of democracy?

As I said, the whole thing was Kabuki. It all came down to Comey, and he gave a performance that will be spoken of for ages. First he recited all the evidence that she should be indicted. Then, he gave her an out - "not properly labelled". This out was pre-critiqued by former intelligence officials, who said some info is "born classified". This is not the "back classified" out that we had heard about since day 1. It was a brand new bit of misdirection.

Finally, he puts the shiny object - a completely unprofessional criticism - out there to cover the limited hangout. To draw all the fire.

It is pure theater. It just adds to the useless cacophony surrounding this year-long electoral dance marathon. The corporate media will run with this to avoid any discussion of real political issues (TPP, global warming, income inequality, endless warfare).

Are you telling me I have no right to say his performance was absolute scripted bullshit from start to finish? Bullshit that just further compromises any serious discussion of how to get America off its current suicidal, ecocidal course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #13)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 11:59 AM

14. I'm saying you started with a big old strawman and are beating a dead horse. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 12:07 PM

18. Comey's behavior is a brand new horse n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #18)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 12:20 PM

23. A horse that will be ridden from here to the election

Any discussion of Hillary's foreign policy will be deflected with "Comey, Comey, Comey". The damage is as bad for the GOP as Jerry Ford saying that the Soviets did not dominate Eastern Europe. Foreign policy is now off the table.

So, I am really pissed off that this "honest lawman" stuck his dick into politics.

Just getting my two cents in early; that's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #23)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 04:53 PM

51. Bottom Line: "FBI director says Clinton did not lie, break law in email handling"

Doesn't matter how many right-wing articles you post from sources you "never heard of" or how many armchair lawyer crackpot legal arguments you make.

FBI director says Clinton did not lie, break law in email handling

Source: Reuters

FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers on Thursday that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton did not lie to the FBI about her handling of emails as secretary of state and did not break the law.

Comey told a Republican-led oversight panel in the U.S. House of Representatives that no reasonable prosecutor would charge Clinton with a crime over her use of private email servers while she was secretary of state, some of which were used to transmit classified information.

###

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-fbi-idUSKCN0ZN1LS
23

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #51)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 05:59 PM

64. I'm confused. Comey is a slimeball who smeared HRC, but I should trust him.

This is exactly the kind of utterly tortuous reasoning that I normally asssociate with anything involving the Clintons.

Comey is simultaneously to be trusted and to be villified.

How can one possibly make a rational argument in the face of such contradictory attitudes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #64)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:21 PM

77. Am I making such an argument? No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #77)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:25 PM

79. Pray tell, how does ignoring the half of Comey's Kabuki that is inconvenient for this argument...

prevent you from using the other half in the future?

At this point, Comey is a completely tainted citation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #79)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:59 PM

84. Doesn't prevent me from doing anything. I don't agree w your premises.

Honestly, I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

This is more of a struggle for Republicans, which you will see if you get a chance to view some of yesterday's hearing.

They tried to smear Comey and the FBI. Unfortunately for them, Comey didn't allow them to smear the FBI investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #84)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 07:03 PM

85. well, at least you will let us agree to disagree.

Thanks for that.

It's not the FBI investigation that was the problem. It was the black letter law about "negligence" that Comey trashed.

But we disagree about that. So, let's just stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 05:12 PM

53. This conspiracy theory fell apart when the FBI investigated it.

"Since a lot has been made of the fact that the emails were "not properly labelled", I would like someone to explain to me what happened to the charges/evidence that HRC told someone to (paraphrase) "cut off the headers and send it to me"?"

That "charge" was investigated and dismissed as Comey explained during his testimony. Headings were removed and the fax was re-written to conform to "non-paper" format, and then sent via email.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265210-email-clinton-asked-adviser-to-send-secure-fax-by-email

https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dos-class.pdf
See page 12 for information on "non paper".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #53)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:13 PM

72. Dup. See response #58. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #72)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:33 PM

81. Sorry about the dup, but you still don't get to redefine terms

that are in the State Department Foreign Affairs Handbook.

Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual defines non-paper as, “A written summary of a demarche or other verbal presentation to a foreign government. The non-paper should be drafted in the third person, and must not be directly attributable to the U.S. Government. It is prepared on plain paper (no letterhead or watermark). The heading or title, if any, is simply a statement of the issue or subject."

Twenty FBI agents investigated for almost a year. There's a reason why they found nothing.

There is nothing.

Sorry you're disappointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #81)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:34 PM

82. Already addressed this in #67 and #78 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 06:33 PM

80. I'll take Sid Blumenthal for $50

Another great deal for HRC is that no one is talking about that greaseball, Sid Blumenthal.

How is it that no one cares that HRC hired and had a massive email exchange with someone whom the State Department declared persona non grata?

How is it that no one cares Sid was illegally in possession of top secret CIA intelligence?

--

Limited hangouts are such a wonderful thing. So many embarrassing details disappear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Original post)

Reply to this thread