HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » An exerpt of the emails f... » Reply #11

Response to motionspotlight (Original post)

Sun Mar 20, 2016, 11:34 AM

11. Thanks for the collection of emails. Here's more that struck me:

Search result: 259 emails found with the phrase "extremely sensitive", 205 with "extremely sensitive source"

Isn't the state department often supposed to protect their sources? All of the ones I looked at are about foreign countries - "extremely sensitive" information about foreign countries is arguably born classified.

"So why isn't it classified now?" Because for example, Qaddafi is dead - it doesn't need to be classified any more.

334 emails found with "Intel" (short for intelligence)

Meanwhile, Hillary is trying to get us to believe that the more than 2,100+ emails that had classified information were ALL retroactively classified. Can you imagine what the odds are of that in 31,000+ emails - that 2,100+ were retroactively classified and none were classified at the time, when emails with defense, foreign information, intelligence, etc are born classified?

If that was truly so, where are all the emails she did classify? And how did she do it without using a .gov email address - because it's on the record that she did not use one? (Oops, maybe they didn't think that one through).

Why should the 18 emails between the President and the Secretary of State be avilable to hackers and potentially put out on the internet? Why are nine more of them missing after she only deleted personal emails?

If she didn't transmit classified information (which she claims), how come the Inspector General has depositions from agents in his Intelligence Community that say they found emails with classified information at the time of transmission? And why didn't the State Department dispute that finding in their Feb 4th press conference?

Why should 100-150 FBI agents spend many man months looking at this if there was nothing to look at? Don't they have better things to do - like catch some terrorists or something?

Why did Hillary lie about the four significant points she brought up in her first press conference on this (ie she wanted to keep emails between her and Bill confidential when Bill doesn't email)?

Lots of good questions and no good answers from the Clinton camp.

Anyway, here's one more email that stuck out that I happened to stumble into:

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05788505.pdf
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2U11 12:58 1-11v1
Re: Q's military strategy and rebel difficulties
Latest:


I'm not going to quote the whole thing- you can click the link to see it. "Q" in the subject is "Qaddafi". The context is the Libyan civil war is underway and NATO has implemented it's no fly zone - and the US Military is engaged as the email states: "forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi are feeling the effects of the western allies bombing and missile attacks, that began on March 19/20"

Incredibly (and arguably, stupidly), Hillary, the Secretary of State, emails a response to this situation to someone not cleared for classified information with "This fits our info anaysis. Thx." on an unsecure network - that was proven to be easily hacked in 2013.

The context stated another way:
there's military action going on with US forces in the middle east and the Secretary of State is confirming what the Obama Admin and US Military know about their enemy combatant and others in an unsecure email with someone who does not have security clearance for such classified information. How is that legal?

Blumenthal is basically an intelligence mercenary. How does anyone know at the time he's not selling Hillary info to others? I do think the guy is a bit of a weasel.

Hillary's response: "fits our info anaysis" is revealing and bad because it tells whoever may intercept or see the email a bunch about the US thoughts on this matter - confirming that in the eyes of the US President, the US Administration, US Intelligence and the US Military, the email has it right. Doing that potentially puts US military lives or others at risk. This email is so obviously born classified. In the worst case, it's classified erring in the side of caution because it is a discussion about a party the US is in combat against. I don't think that's unreasonable or would take a rocket scientist to figure out. What the US President, the US Administration, US Intelligence and the US Military think about an enemy combatant or a situation when they're at war is nobody's business.


How is this classified email fiasco even debatable about exposing, transmitting or revealing classified info and illegally storing classified information at her home? How can one maintain their innocence with such behavior, facts and evidence? It's so outrageous, callous and stupid that it's breathtaking. It boggles my mind how she could do this. It does undercut her assertion that she's ready to be president - because she looks so clueless with stuff like this - and a bunch of her potential future subordinates will not respect or trust her when they see behavior like this ... and that she's standing in front of the American people lying her head off again about it, over and over.

Whether they indict her or not, the GOP will be pointing this stuff out to the electorate during the general election. Why shouldn't they? If Condoleezza Rice did this, wouldn't Dems do the same thing? Sure they would. So let's not get too hypocritical.

Whether one likes Hillary or not and whether they indict her or not, Hillary has a bigger electability problem than most realize. She's served up irrefutable proof of how careless, naive and dishonest she is. You think what they did swiftboating John Kerry with bogus information was bad? Trump or whoever is going to have a field day with this - and they can pretty much prove it. It's really hard to quickly and convincingly refute the truth in an election. You can try to lie, like she has for years, but up against this, most folks except her most loyal supporters won't buy it.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
motionspotlight Mar 2016 OP
AzDar Mar 2016 #1
Wilms Mar 2016 #7
NWCorona Mar 2016 #12
leveymg Mar 2016 #2
motionspotlight Mar 2016 #5
UglyGreed Mar 2016 #3
Segami Mar 2016 #4
motionspotlight Mar 2016 #6
Wilms Mar 2016 #8
motionspotlight Mar 2016 #9
uppityperson Mar 2016 #10
LineNew Reply Thanks for the collection of emails. Here's more that struck me:
Jarqui Mar 2016 #11
Autumn Mar 2016 #13
Fawke Em Mar 2016 #16
BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #14
Fawke Em Mar 2016 #18
BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #20
slipslidingaway Mar 2016 #15
pdsimdars Mar 2016 #17
pdsimdars Mar 2016 #19
Please login to view edit histories.