Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: A "limited hangout". The best DC Kabuki since Fitzmas. [View all]arendt
(5,078 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
89 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It turns out that Comey gave a performance that would make a ten year old ask questions
arendt
Jul 2016
#16
All of the sudden, you decide the VRWC would just drop her is she wasn't a candidate
arendt
Jul 2016
#61
Because its not true and no proof of that was found in the FBI investigation
stevenleser
Jul 2016
#26
she intended that someone send her something by nonsecure means if secure means
geek tragedy
Jul 2016
#57
you claimed there was a documented breach. I have demonstrated that was your imagination
geek tragedy
Jul 2016
#63
It means that it is impossible for anyone without a high level security clearnace to play this game.
arendt
Jul 2016
#68
yes, protecting classified information is not something people without clearances do nt
geek tragedy
Jul 2016
#70
yawn. do you have anything that isn't hatred of Clinton and rightwing innuendo to contribute here,
geek tragedy
Jul 2016
#73
Chuck Hobbs is flat-out lying when he describes himself as a Clinton backer.
geek tragedy
Jul 2016
#19
I suggest you try citing Wikipedia in your next legal filing, see how that goes nt
geek tragedy
Jul 2016
#44
I know it is over. That's why I wrote this. Did you read my hopelessness or just want to bash me?
arendt
Jul 2016
#13
I'm saying you started with a big old strawman and are beating a dead horse. n/t
JTFrog
Jul 2016
#14
Bottom Line: "FBI director says Clinton did not lie, break law in email handling"
emulatorloo
Jul 2016
#51