Softpanorama May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)	Home	Switchboard	Unix Administration	Red Hat	TCP/IP Networks	Neoliberalism	Toxic Managers
	(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix

eMail Security

In current environment, and especially on cloud servers, emails are never private, nor do they disappear when you delete them. They forever remain as permanent evidence of a temporary lack of judgment

News	Potemkin Villages of Computer Security	Recommended Links	Social Sites as intelligence collection tools	Hillary Clinton email scandal	SpearPhishing	Phishing
Mail Scams	Debt Relief Scams	Podesta emails hack	Nigerian Scam and its derivatives	Spam	Cyberstalking	Email etiquette
Strategies of Defending Windows against Malware	Fighting Spyware	Postfix Connection Refused Problem	Softpanorama Malware Defense Strategy	Non-Scanner AntiSpyware Tools	Research Materials on Nicholas Carr's "IT Does not Matter" Fallacy	Shadow IT
Authentication	Writing Passwords Down	Postfix Troubleshooting	Password Policy	Application password security	SecurID	Password synchronization
		Bare metal recovery of Linux systems	Sysadmin Horror Stories	History	Humor	Etc

Introduction
Never send anything by email about which you can later regret
No matter how many steps you take to secure your email, it will never be foolproof
In case of Webmail pay attention to setting strong password and periodically (say each quarter) change it
Make each password "site-dependent" by associating the first or second word with the particular site
If you mail service allow to reset password using security questions you need to chose custom questions and for standard question non evident answers
Always behave in your Webmail account in such a way, as if it is readable by your friends
Regularly patch your computer but do it yourself
If you mail service allow to reset password using security questions you need to chose custom questions or non evident answers
Use high security setting in IE browsing your emails in Web mail providers like Hotmail, Gmail
Phone is generally safer channel for sensitive communication, especially if you speak foreign language or speak English with strong accent ;-)
Use different email accounts for different types of email messages
If you are targeted
Always print emails before sending; before sending email to multiple recipients think about whether it will be welcomed

Introduction

E-mail is neither private, nor temporary. E-mail messages persist long after you may think you have deleted them forever. In the event of litigation, relevant e-mails are discoverable, potentially providing investigators with evidence of a less-than-exemplary behavior. Emails that are sent to foreign country are recorded as a matter of national security.

The major point that we need to made before starting any detailed discussion is that email is a very dangerous tool that has tremendous potential of compromising your privacy. Assume that everything you wrote by email is recorded and stored for the duration of your life. Use it sparingly. It does not replace real human contact. In many cases it's better to call a person by phone or, if the matter is really important, to talk privately.

Please separate your multiple email accounts into two categories: private and public. Never use gmail and other major web mail providers for private messages. But this is perfect account for registering for sites, newspapers and magazines providing to you world your "public email address".

Private mail should generally be POP based. If you need private Web based account it is better to get a domain and website at some ISP. It cost $5-$7 a month and you can control it much better then services such as Webmail, gmail, etc. For example, you can encrypt all your old emails on the server. And you can really delete those mails that you do not want. It is difficult or may be even impossible in providers such as hotmail and, especially, gmail. Google has a tendency to store information forever. Facebook is even worse. See Privacy is Dead – Get Over It

Generic webmail interface work with smartphones pretty well and you get rid of annoying things gmail enforces on the users.

Password security is also important: never use the same password on multiple sites. And change password each, say, six months (twice a year) putting the dates of such changes in your calendar. One useful trick is to do it on your birthday and birthday of one of your "significant other" that is approximately six months from yours.

Individualize passwords for each site. Never use the same password for multiple sites and, especially, for some sites AND your email account. One way to individualize passwords among multiple sites and still being able to remember them is to make some derivative of the name of the site (but never the exact name of domain, like Google or Yahoo) a part of password

Never send anything by email about which you can later regret

Assume that any email message is stored forever and can be used against you in the most inopportune moment. People working in large corporation routinely use email to send various information and jokes to colleagues mistaking email for private bulletin board for friends and colleagues. Half or even 80% of those email usually should never be send. They will never, and I repeat, never, be deleted. People often forward such emails to their friends creating a chain letter effect. As some of persons to whom your email was eventually forwarded can be outside of corporation, it does not help if corporation deletes email for employees accounts that are more the six months old as a matter of policy. You can never be sure that somebody did not forward them to Yahoo or Gmail account where they stored much longer or saved it on disk as a part of emails archive. This is especially true about "juicy" emails.

It is much better to walk to a colleague or call him/her by phone and talk to him then to send problematic email. One important feature of email is that it tend to exaggerate conflicts.

The fact that emails are stored forever despite corporation efforts to purge them in, say, six month, means that you can never predict how in the future this email can be used against you. So nasty jokes which today seems to be so funny, might be not so funny in a year later if they surface during your performance review.

Another important rule is never send any email in the heat of the moment. If the subject in hot, let the email cool down for 24 hours in your draft folder.

Make yourself a rule that any "fresh email" should go to draft folder first, cool down in the folder for some time (say, 24 hours) and only then on second reading (preferably after reading printed text, as many things that are easily seen in printed text escape you on the screen) can be send.

If email is worth to be sent, it definitely worth to be printed and read attentively

Make yourself a rule that any "fresh email" should go to draft folder first, cool down in the folder for some time (at least 24 hours) and only then on second reading (preferably reading printed text, not screen-based, as many things that are easily seen in printed text escape you on the screen) can be send. Printing email also greatly helps as you will probably spot more errors and inconsistencies. Typos are also visible in printed text much better then on the screen.

Printing email also greatly helps as you will probably spot more errors and inconsistencies. Typos are also visible in printed text much better then on the screen.

No matter how many steps you take to secure your email,
it will never be foolproof

It is prudent to destroy or offload to offline (not network connected) storage such as flash drive, USB drives, etc any (and I mean ANY) sensitive emails. In case you store email on the third party servers such as hotmail, Gmail, etc, the weakest link might be third party software that hackers can breach and this way get to your mailbox. Weak, or rarely changed password also can help intruders.

And your mailbox is an interesting target not only for hackers. Government is sincerely interested in your emails too and generally you can assume that they have direct access to all mailboxes at major cloud providers. At least to meta-data (mail envelope files, such as from, to, subject and date fields). See Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs

Also there might be people in cloud company staff that might cooperate with intruder. For them you just a stranger. If you are a public figure, a high level executive or is engaged is some kind of hot political debate, then attempts to breach your email box are to be expected and you better be prepared...

The less information you trust to your email, the better are your chances to avoid some kind of SNAFU in the future.

In case of Webmail pay attention to setting unique password
and periodically (say each quarter or half a year) change it

It is better not to store anything confidential in webmail servers such as Hotmail, yahoo mail, and especially Gmail. Use them mostly for "junk mails". Remember that in case of Web mail it is prudent to assume that not only you are reading those emails.

Even in this case password security is important. See Password Policy. And BTW Writing Passwords Down is not such a bad idea. It just can to be pen and paper; instead of writing password 'as is" you can provide hints instead of full passwords. For example "standard four" might means 7456. "Short oldie" might means string 'bzz', Blue door can mean 71G. Prius can mean jvm9328. And so on and so forth.

Casio databank watches are also OK (and they have 10 years battery) , but any smart watches connected to the smartphone are not a good idea.

Recent stories about password stolen by hackers and posted on the Net from sites such as Linkedin, make it important that each password contains a "site-specific" part so disclosure of password on one site affected only this site not all your sites (including, God forbid, your email and financial sites). Financial sites usually provide a secure token for minimal price, or, if you have enough money with them, for free. Please use this opportunity to make your account more secure.

Make each password "site-dependent" by associating the first or second word with the particular site

Never use password used for one of shopping or news sites for your email account or God forbid your financial sites or other important accounts. Make them unique. It is easier to use a memorable phrase of regular words (or first letters of a phase from popular song or poem), not some difficult to memorize sequence of symbols. In case of phrase please replace spaces with some delimiter. The main requirement here is length, not complexity. Length of the password is much more important them complexity

!	Length of the password is much more important them complexity. Easily memorizable passwords are preferable

Passwords consisting of two (AOL-style passwords) or more words (possible an easily remembered phrase) connected by some delimiter are inherently more secure and are pretty easy to memorize. For example:

hate=tobe=WATCHED
Hello-my99%-junK
NSA..Ohh..1984
never-again-9/11

Make each password "site-dependent" by associating iether the first or second word with the particular site. For example you can use as the last word of the "two word password" the word derived from the site name:

hotmail -> gatesmail
melissa
coldmail
gmail -> page2nsa
brin73
goospy
yahoo -> hohoho
filo&young

Never use the same password for all your sites. Passwords tend to be stolen "en-mass" from major retailers, and cloud provider sites. Each year we read fascinating stories about several thousand or even million passwords (and sometimes credit card numbers too) stolen from some major site.

Never use the same password for all your sites. Passwords tend to be stolen "en-mass" from major retailers, and cloud provider sites. Each year we read fascinating stories about several thousand or even million passwords (and sometimes credit card numbers too) stolen from some major site.

See Password Policy for more details. Again length is much more important then complexity. All Web mail services allow for long passwords.

If you mail service allow to reset password using security questions you need to chose custom questions and for standard question non evident answers

In case of questions about your identity (what high school did you attended, etc) obscure the answers to your security questions by using some other identity (for example, the identity of your favorite writer or actor). Avoid "honest" answers to questions answer to which can be found in your online profile in Facebook and similar services (your birthday, name of your spouse, etc. Those are generally public information in modern times. Assume that intruder has access to your Facebook page, if you have one, or any other your social site page,

Sarah Palin account was breached because of this vulnerability ( Palin's personal email account hacked, contents leaked - SC Magazine Sarah Palin E-mail Hack Suspect Indicted )

Always behave in your Webmail account in such a way,
as if it is readable by your friends

There should no exceptions to this rule as confidentiality of your emails is a myth, especially if they are stored in Web mail storage. Avoid sending too much photos, or other self-revealing information. The current preoccupation with selfies is really narcissistic and unhealthy. It might be difficult to suppress this pervert desire to splurge all the information about yourself, that is often stimulated and encouraged by social networks, and especially Facebook, but you need to think about possible consequences. Now a lot of hiring interviews involve questions of your Facebook account. So make it boring and safe. Cooling down any "hot" email for 24 hours in the draft folder prevents many blunders.

Regularly patch your computer but do it yourself

Patches are far from being a foolproof defense, but they do somewhat lower the number of exploits that can be used against you. On windows computers most of tasks can be done from a regular account, not administrator account or equivalent. It is much more difficult to breach such an account and steal your data including smtp email. See Strategies of Defending Microsoft Windows against Malware.

But you can apply patches periodically yourself, I would not enable automatic patching as this obscure changes on your OS at random times and make diffing important directories more difficult. If you apply patches yourself that you know that outside patch window abrupt changes of your OS behaviour might be due to hacking. Also sometime in Microsoft Windows 7 patches reboot your PC without warning, if you are working on non-privileged account.

Disable automatic updates for applications too. You need a controlled, predictable environment, not some mess that a half dozen of doing God knows what patching programs possibly snooping on you (thank you Microsoft for completely destroying people trust in Windows). Adobe with his infamous Acrobat reader is a real offender in this respect. And making a backup before applying patches is always a good idea.

Use high security setting in IE browsing your emails in Web mail providers like Hotmail, Gmail

If you are computer savvy, use a separate virtual machine with separate instance of browser and create this instance from a stored image each time you start reading email. This way you can limit the damage of opening an attachment with malware. Or use your tablet or chromebook, which with the exception on Surface-Pro and similar tablets uses different CPUs then PC and (as such) is a more secure environment, as malware is usually PC oriented.

Phone is generally safer channel for sensitive communication, especially if you speak foreign language or speak English with strong accent ;-)

Unless you are using Skype, recording of you call requires pretty sophisticated software on your sell home and generally is out of question for your landline phone. You are not recoded on the other end, no easily retrievable copy of this phone call exists after the conversation (this is not completely true, but still close).

Think twice before sending sensitive information via email. The less emails with important information your send the better. Think about consequences of the email getting in wrong hands...

Use different email accounts for different types of email messages

A good rule of thumb for an average email user is to keep three email accounts:

Personal. This account should be used strictly for personal conversations and contacts. This should be email downloaded to your computer and viewed with local client such as Thunderbird. Never store important emails on the web. Usually we rarely need to consul really old emails so archive one year old emails encrypting them with password using rar, winzip, 7-zip or other file compression program that has functionality of protecting compressed archive with password you trust ("trust but verify") . Write down the password for archive in two places, for example in your Casio watches and with pen and paper in your paper address book or rolodex.

Email from banks and other financial institutions should go only to this account. Regularly backup email folders for this account. Even in this case it make sense to move emails older then 90 days old from this account to a separate archive on a local harddrive and may be encrypt them. You should avoid opening email with attachments in this account. Resent them to "Catch-all account". Hotmail, for example has excellent mail filters that are kept current and this checking might prevent from being infected with various spyware that often is distributed via attachments.

It is highly undesirable to have keep personal mail at Yahoo, hotmail, gmail or other web mail providers. Good old POP3 account at your Internet service provider is safer option, as you can exercise more control over your mailbox.

Work. Your work account should be used exclusively for work-related conversations. Any personal mail should be send via Webmail.
Catch-all Webmail account. This is account at hotmail, gmail (remember Google privacy record is not impressive) or Yahoo. Smaller providers are also OK and actually are better deal if you also have your personal web site. Along with directing to this account all "fluff mail" it also can be used for registrations on non-financial and non-government sites such as newspapers sites, etc.

If you are targeted

If you are targeted, the most common way to breach your email is to install a Trojan on your home computer. This is typically done by constructing carefully socially engineered email coming from one of your trusted friends or relatives. Such a email contain either an attachment or a link to the Web site that has a Trojan. If you are concerned about safety of your POP3 mailboxes on C Drive, store it on other (possibly encrypted) partition. That simplify periodic wiping and replacing with safe copy of content of your C drive which is the most effective measure against installing Trojans on your computer (idea of disposable drive). This also serves as an instant recovery solution if you have the misfortune of succumbing to some social engineering attack against you.

That means that safety of your computer and, especially, safety of your Web browser have direct impact on safety of your email.

My personal experience convincingly demonstrated that usage of "disposable C drive" and keeping most data on D drive is a pretty effective defense strategy even against sophisticated malware.

To prevent infection of computer via Web browsers the best way is to run Web browser of a separate computer (virtual or real) to which to connect using an excellent Windows Desktop Connection or VNC. For laptop it is easy to install a virtual machine and run Web browser from it (Windows 7 Windows XP box is OK for the purpose, those who can use Linux can use it within VMware player or Microsoft Virtual machine). As virtual machine image is disposable you can wipe is out after each session. This provides much higher level of security that any web filters. On Linux AppArmor is a perfect tool for preventing hacking of your computer, but generally most attacks are directed to Windows so using Linux is a good defense by itself. If email security is important for you consider this option. You can go one step further and run Email in one virtual machine and your Web browsers in another but that option requires some training and real interest in virtual machine capabilities.

If you main web browser is IE it is important to use high security setting for internet browser. Then you can visit sites that require lower security by temporary lowering it or, better, by using the second browser, say Firefox. In Firefox you can use NoScript extension to prevent script running on most "grey zone sites" but please remember that Firefox is generally less secure browser then IE9 in high security mode on Windows. It is OK on Linux.

Please note that Google search in "grey areas" consistently presents sites designed for penetration into computers. So it is prudent to set Google as untrusted site and think before clicking on any site that have suspicious DNS name. If you for example made search "keygenerator for Acronis" expect that some results will be sites specifically containing Trojan scripts designed to exploit some recent vulnerability in order to break into your computer.

Advanced users are recommended to configure their own home Web proxy. See Configure Squid. This is not difficult to do and it provides log of all Web accesses that you can later use to detect the extent of the breach. Often the hacking attempt is not detected immediately. See Proxy server trail leads FBI to Palin email hacker | TG Daily. Also proxy server presents almost unlimited capabilities for restricting running scripts from obnoxious, snooping sites like Facebook ("like you in Hell"), etc.

After using a public terminal, it is important that you remember to delete the browser cache, history, and passwords. Most browsers automatically keep track of all the web pages that you have visited, and some keep track of any passwords and personal information that you enter in order to help you fill out similar forms in the future. It's prudent to change password each time after you use it from public computer as such computer sometimes can contain keyloggers -programs that record you keystroke and extract passwords. For the same reason it make sense to make and correct a couple of mistakes when entering your password on public computer.

Always print emails before sending; when sending email to multiple recipients think about whether it will be welcomed

If you send email to multiple addresses use BCC instead of CC, especially if you are not sure that this information will be welcomed by all recipients. Also list of your contacts is an important information that you should not reveal without necessity. When you put a person's email addresses in the BCC: rather than the CC: window, none of the recipients can see the addresses of the other email recipients.

Print all emails before sending. If email is not worth printing it is not worth sending. Remember that each your email can still be around in 10 years from now.

Forwarding emails can be a great way to quickly bring someone up to speed on a subject without having to write up a summary email, but it provides a perfect trail for spammers. .

Regularly clean your voicemail and think about it as unsecure as regular email. Here is one telling post from Slashdot:

Press charges against Murdoch and Brooks (Score:5, Interesting)
by G3ckoG33k (647276) writes: on Monday July 11, @11:45AM (#36721148)

Published: September 1, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05hacking-t.html [nytimes.com]

IN NOVEMBER 2005, three senior aides to Britain’s royal family noticed odd things happening on their mobile phones. Messages they had never listened to were somehow appearing in their mailboxes as if heard and saved. Equally peculiar were stories that began appearing about Prince William in one of the country’s biggest tabloids, News of the World.

As Scotland Yard tracked Goodman and Mulcaire, the two men hacked into Prince Harry’s mobile-phone messages. On April 9, 2006, Goodman produced a follow-up article in News of the World about the apparent distress of Prince Harry’s girlfriend over the matter. Headlined “Chelsy Tears Strip Off Harry!” the piece quoted, verbatim, a voice mail Prince Hary had received from his brother teasing him about his predicament.

The palace was in an uproar, especially when it suspected that the two men were also listening to the voice mail of Prince William, the second in line to the throne

The ones in charge, Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, have known about this for years and approved of it. They are the ones who should be charged, not the pianists, i.e. the reporters. They did what they were told to do.

Read more at http://www.observer.com/2010/media/new-york-times-goes-after-murdoch-and-news-world-phone-hacking-scandal [observer.com]

"When The Times reporters asked one veteran News of the World reporter how many people in the offices knew about the hacks, the reporter said “Everyone knew The office cat knew."

and

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/world/europe/12hacking.html?_r=1&ref=world [nytimes.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/world/europe/11britain.html?ref=world [nytimes.com]

The evidence is there, and everywhere, Murdoch and Brooks are scum.

Top Visited <p>Your browser does not support iframes.</p>					Switchboard
					Latest
					Past week
					Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

20210228 : Keep out ahead of shadow IT by Steven A. Lowe ( Sep 28, 2015 , www.networkworld.com )
20200923* Another sign of the crisis of legitimacy of neoliberal elite: FBI Agent Who Discovered Hillary's Emails On Weiner Laptop Claims He Was Told To Erase Computer ( Sep 23, 2020 , www.zerohedge.com ) [Recommended]
20190820 : BREAKING BOMBSHELL NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails Money Laundering, Sex Crimes with Children, Child Exploitation ( Nov 02, 2016 , truepundit.com )
20190710 : Epstein vs Weiner ( Jul 10, 2019 , www.zerohedge.com )
20190511* Doug Ross @ Journal A TIMELINE OF TREASON How the DNC and FBI Leadership Tried to Fix a Presidential Election [Updated] ( Jan 04, 2018 , directorblue.blogspot.com ) [Recommended]
20190421 : Mark Ames: The FBI Has No Legal Charter But Lots of Kompromat ( May 16, 2017 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20190417 : Trey Gowdy Calls Hillary Clinton a Habitual Serial Liar ( Jan 28, 2018 , www.youtube.com )
20190213 : Microsoft patches 0-day vulnerabilities in IE and Exchange ( Feb 13, 2019 , arstechnica.com )
20181119 : The rise of Shadow IT - Should CIOs take umbrage ( Nov 19, 2018 , cxounplugged.com )
20180910 : Even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her unauthorized basement server ( Sep 10, 2018 , www.theamericanconservative.com )
20180907 : Email Security Systems Miss Thousands of Malicious Links ( Sep 07, 2018 , it.slashdot.org )
20180907 : Yahoo, Bucking Industry, Scans Emails for Data To Sell Advertisers ( Sep 07, 2018 , tech.slashdot.org )
20180907 : Google's $50 Titan Security Keys Are Now Available in the US ( Sep 07, 2018 , it.slashdot.org )
20180826 : Despite Comey Assurances, Vast Bulk of Weiner Laptop Emails Were Never Examined ( Aug 26, 2018 , www.realclearinvestigations.com )
20180824 : I have had my suspicions of the divisions inside the FBI ever since late summer of 2016 when it was reported that the NYC FBI was pushing to reveal the Hillary emails found inside Anthony Weiner's home computer ( Aug 24, 2018 , consortiumnews.com )
20180720 : From the perspective of the Hillary investigation which Strzok was running the fact the emials were Cc-ed to China should have tipped the scale to] gross negligence on her part for not handling classified information in a secure manner. ( Jul 20, 2018 , turcopolier.typepad.com )
20180720 : Congressional Record transcript on Chinagate - 12 July, 2018 ( Jul 20, 2018 , turcopolier.typepad.com )
20180720 : Mrs. Clinton, who was criminally negligent with regard to the most important classified information, has been protected by the politicking Brennan, Clapper, and Mueller ( Jul 20, 2018 , www.unz.com )
20180718 : They call the hack the equivalent of the Cuban Missile crisis but no one in government has seen Hillary's server. ( Jul 18, 2018 , www.zerohedge.com )
20180718 : Page confirmed China penetration of Hillary bathroom server e-mail. ( Jul 18, 2018 , turcopolier.typepad.com )
20180718 : It is hard to reconcile the fact that "Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired Hillarys 30,000+ "missing" emails with the fact that the US "defense" budget is approximately 1.2 trillion dollars a year ( Jul 18, 2018 , www.moonofalabama.org )
20180717 : Criminal negligence on the part of the Strzok in handing Hillary private emeail server case ( Jul 17, 2018 , turcopolier.typepad.com )
20180717 : Sic Semper Tyrannis Editorial - China hacked Clinton s e-mail ( Jul 17, 2018 , turcopolier.typepad.com )
20180716 : Strzok Ignored Evidence That Hillary's Emails Were Sent to a Foreign Entity by S.Noble ( Jul 14, 2018 , www.independentsentinel.com )
20180715* Sic Semper Tyrannis HILLARY CLINTON S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evide ( Jul 15, 2018 , turcopolier.typepad.com ) [Recommended]
20180715 : Majority Of Clinton Emails Funneled To Foreign Entity; When IG Told Strzok - He Completely Ignored ( Jul 14, 2018 , www.zerohedge.com )
20180715* Peter Strzok Ignored Evidence Of Clinton Server Breach ( Mar 06, 2018 , www.zerohedge.com ) [Recommended]
20180715 : It's fascinating, in a creepy way, that the email address to which Hillary emails were forwarded is known to the investigators but remains undisclosed. ( Jul 15, 2018 , www.moonofalabama.org )
20180715 : 'Foreign actors' accessed Hillary Clinton emails, documents show Fox News ( Jun 14, 2018 , www.foxnews.com )
20180715 : I would think a presidential campaign cc-ing all of its emails to a foreign country, not Russia , needs its own investigation ( Jul 15, 2018 , www.unz.com )
20180715 : Every Hillary email except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list ( Jul 15, 2018 , www.moonofalabama.org )
20180624 : Meet Mystery FBI Agent 5 Who Sent Anti-Trump Texts While On Clinton Taint Team Zero Hedge ( Jun 24, 2018 , www.zerohedge.com )
20180616 : FBI shelved probe into Clinton emails on Weiner laptop for Russiagate - DOJ report ( Jun 16, 2018 , www.rt.com )
20180615 : IG Report Confirms Obama Lied About Hillary Email Server ( Jun 15, 2018 , www.zerohedge.com )
20180518 : IG Horowitz Finds FBI, DOJ Broke Law In Clinton Probe, Refers To Prosecutor For Criminal Charges ( May 18, 2018 , www.zerohedge.com )
20180424 : Very Pissed Off Obama DOJ Made Dramatic Call To McCabe To Quash Clinton Probe ( Apr 24, 2018 , www.zerohedge.com )
20180424 : Comey Claims Nobody Asked About Clinton Obstruction Before Today by snoopydawg ( Apr 22, 2018 , caucus99percent.com )
20180417 : Did Comey throw Loretta Lynch under the bus? ( Apr 17, 2018 , turcopolier.typepad.com )
20180415 : Obama And Lynch Jeopardized Clinton Email Investigation Comey ( Apr 15, 2018 , www.zerohedge.com )
20180322 : Some of the crimes were that Comey drafted an exoneration letter of Hillary Clinton months before she was ever interviewed ( Mar 22, 2018 , consortiumnews.com )
20180322 : The law requires "gross negligence" for prosecution, and Peter Strzok had it changed in the report to "extreme carelessness". If that isn't an interference in the judicial process, I don't know what is. ( Mar 21, 2018 , consortiumnews.com )
20180313 : Andrew McCabe Under Active DOJ Investigation For Sitting On Weiner Laptop Emails ( Jan 31, 2018 , www.capitolhilloutsider.com )
20180208 : All of the contacts and addresses of Anthony Weiner's seized laptop just got leaked: ( Feb 08, 2018 , www.unz.com )
20180208 : This was all in the news well before the election, and Clinton s team slow-walked and stone-walled the entire time ( Feb 08, 2018 , www.theamericanconservative.com )
20180207 : FBI lovers texts show Obama wanted info on Clinton probe ( Feb 07, 2018 , dailymail.co.uk )
20180207 : FBI Lovers New Texts Expose Obama Complicity He Wants To Know Everything We re Doing ( Feb 07, 2018 , www.zerohedge.com )
20180207 : why Justice Department officials entered into a pair of "side agreement" with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson ( Feb 07, 2018 , www.zerohedge.com )
20180207 : This was all in the news well before the election, and Clinton's team slow-walked and stone-walled the entire time. To say they were asking for a criminal investigation is an understatement. ( Feb 07, 2018 , www.theamericanconservative.com )
20180207 : Some people at least are circling around the bigger bombshell story - the effort to protect Hillary from the email server story. The story (for me) is NOT that the Russian government somehow colluded with the Trump campaign to get Trump elected. It is instead that members of the Deep State colluded with one another to make sure Hillary got elected. ( Feb 07, 2018 , www.zerohedge.com )
20180207 : Are we going to get from Nunes a smoking memo on the FBI's investigation of Hillary's email? ( Feb 07, 2018 , www.unz.com )
20180128 : John Ratcliffe Shuts Up Lying Loretta Lynch Over Hillary Clinton's Emails ( Jan 28, 2018 , www.youtube.com )
20180127 : Obstruction of Justice -- Special Agent Strzok Text Message Highlights FBI Investigative Intent ( Jan 27, 2018 , theconservativetreehouse.com )
20180124 : Comey is lying to Congress about Clinton Emailgate ( Sep 28, 2016 , www.youtube.com )
20180122 : Was Lynch coordinating with Comey in the Clinton investigation TheHill ( Jan 22, 2018 , thehill.com )
20180122 : Kane Gamble posed as head of CIA to get secret files ( Jan 22, 2018 , dailymail.co.uk )
20180105 : Big trouble for Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, and convicted pedophile Anthony Weiner ( Jan 05, 2018 , theduran.com )
20180105 : Huma Abedin Used Yahoo, That Was Hacked The Daily Caller ( Jan 05, 2018 , dailycaller.com )
20180103 : Chaffetz on the Deep State 'Having Lived Through It, It Is Very Real' ( Jan 03, 2018 , www.breitbart.com )
20180103 : Probe Uncovers Laws Broken, False Statements In FBI Handling of Clinton Emails ( Jan 03, 2018 , www.zerohedge.com )
20180102* What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears ( Jan 04, 2018 , lrb.co.uk ) [Recommended]
20180101 : Classified documents among newly released Huma emails found on Weiner's laptop ( Dec 29, 2017 , www.legitgov.org )
20180101 : Weiner Laptop Doc: Assange Warrant Issued 2 Weeks After Swedish Election Leaks Warning ( Dec 31, 2018 , www.zerohedge.com )
20171230 : Classified Huma Abedin Emails Found On Anthony Weiner s Laptop Discussing Hamas, Israel And Palestinian Authority ( Dec 30, 2017 , www.zerohedge.com )
20171225 : Was The Steele Dossier The FBI's Insurance Policy ( Dec 24, 2017 , www.zerohedge.com )
20171225 : The Federal Bureau of Indiscretion ( Dec 25, 2017 , investmentwatchblog.com )
20171128 : The Cover-Up Begins To End Judicial Watch Hints At Explosive New Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Docs ( Nov 28, 2017 , www.zerohedge.com )
20171105 : FBI Turns Over Hundreds Of Pages Of New Clinton Probe Documents Zero Hedge ( Nov 05, 2017 , www.zerohedge.com )
20171027 : Deep State Gone Wild Comey Asserts Unprecedented FBI Supremacy ( Jun 08, 2017 , www.breitbart.com )
20171024 : Republican-led House committees to investigate Clintons emails again by Associated Press ( Oct 24, 2017 , www.theguardian.com )
20171017 : Google launches advanced Gmail security features for high-risk users ( Oct 17, 2017 , www.msn.com )
20170924 : Weiner faces sentencing in latest chapter of sexting drama ( Sep 24, 2017 , www.msn.com )
20170921 : Emails Hillary Clinton Sought Russian Officials For Pay-To-Play Scheme ( Sep 21, 2017 , www.mintpressnews.com )
20170917 : The Only Safe Email is Text Only Email ( Sep 12, 2017 , yro.slashdot.org )
20170811 : John R. Schindler ( Mar 18, 2016 )
20170717 : CIA sought to hack Apple iPhones from earliest days ( Mar 10, 2015 , The Intercept/Reuters )
20170714 : Peter W. Smith, GOP operative who sought Clinton's emails from Russian hackers, committed suicide, records show by Katherine Skiba, David Heinzmann, Todd Lighty ( Jul 13, 2017 , www.msn.com )
20170627 : Loretta Lynch, the ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign. ( www.unz.com )
20170615 : Was Comeys second thought announcement after Hillary email investigation a naked political gambit? ( Jun 11, 2017 , economistsview.typepad.com )
20170609 : Emailgate had shown staggering incompetence and arrogance of Hillary and her close circle ( Jun 09, 2017 , economistsview.typepad.com )
20170609 : Whether the Russians did it or not, the USA has the dismal failure by the leading political party to secure their digital communications ( Apr 28, 2017 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20170608 : The Six Most Important Revelations from the Comey Hearing ( Jun 08, 2017 , www.breitbart.com )
20170608 : Comey apparently admit leaking stuff to New York Times ( Jun 08, 2017 , www.breitbart.com )
20170608 : Loretta Lynch meddled in the Clinton investigation ( marknesop.wordpress.com )
20170608 : Pot. Kettle. Black. Hilarious. ( Jun 08, 2017 , marknesop.wordpress.com )
20170607 : Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a never-ending stram of bad news about her. In no way they were fake news ( Jun 07, 2017 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20170523* Trumped-up claims against Trump by Ray McGovern ( May 17, 2017 , www.baltimoresun.com ) [Recommended]
20170523* Are they really out to get Trump by Philip Girald ( May 16, 2017 , www.unz.com ) [Recommended]
20170519 : Global Cyberattack Are Private Interests Using States: The global cyberattack, the NSA and Washingtons war propaganda against Russia by Bill Van Auken ( May 16, 2017 , www.defenddemocracy.press )
20170516 : The Real Meaning of Sensitive Intelligence by Philip Giraldi ( May 16, 2017 , www.theamericanconservative.com )
20170516 : Trump facing shark tank feeding frenzy from military industrial media ( May 16, 2017 , www.rt.com )
20170516 : The Real Meaning of Sensitive Intelligence by Philip Giraldi ( May 16, 2017 , www.theamericanconservative.com )
20170516 : Comey and Hypocrisy - Crooked Timber ( May 16, 2017 , crookedtimber.org )
20170510 : FBI Found Email That Lynch Would Do Everything She Could to Protect Hillary from CRIMINAL CHARGES ( May 10, 2017 , nation.foxnews.com )
20170331 : New Emails Release Hillary Clinton Still Haunted by #Emailgate ( Mar 31, 2017 , sputniknews.com )
20170226 : What she did with bathroom email server is worse then a crime. It is a blunder. Which disqualifies Hillary (and her close entourage) for any government position. ( Feb 26, 2017 , economistsview.typepad.com )
20170221 : My Kaspersky Internet Security blocked the No Hesitations link for phishing. I trust Kaspersky more between the two. ( Feb 21, 2017 , economistsview.typepad.com )
20170114 : Whether Hillary really damaged national security with her bathroom server ( Jan 14, 2017 , economistsview.typepad.com )
20170112 : I read all my email on via SSH on a shell server ( Jan 12, 2017 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20161121 : Belgiums Dutroux Pedophile, Child Rape Affair A Road Map for Deep-State Criminality ( Nov 20, 2016 , www.newnationalist.net )
20161114 : Bernie Sanders Indicting Hillary Would Be An Outrage Beyond Belief ( Nov 14, 2016 , www.zerohedge.com )
20161113 : We were told confidently by Clinton surrogates like Krugman and DeLong that Brexit wouldnt happen again ( Nov 13, 2016 , economistsview.typepad.com )
20161111 : Abedin and her husband had money, or a source of income, above beyond what their salaries would indicate. The latter could be the former. ( Nov 11, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20161107 : Mike Pence Responds to FBI Mishandling Classified Information Is a Crime ( www.breitbart.com )
20161107 : Former House Intelligence Chairman Im 100 Percent Sure Hillarys Server Was Hacked ( www.breitbart.com )
20161107 : Gen. Mike Flynn Hillary Clintons Email Setup Was Unbelievable Active Criminal Behavior ( Nov 07, 2016 , www.breitbart.com )
20161106 : Emails Warrant No New Action Against Hillary Clinton, F.B.I. Director Says ( www.nytimes.com )
20161106 : Hillary Accepted Qatar Money Without Notifying Government, While She Was Head Of State Dept ( Nov 06, 2016 , www.zerohedge.com )
20161105 : Clinton Deleted Classified Email To Her Daughter The Daily Caller ( Nov 05, 2016 , dailycaller.com )
20161105 : Hillary's High Crimes and Misdemeanors ( The American Conservative )
20161105 : What does it take to bring Hillary Clinton to justice ( Nov 03, 2016 , thesaker.is )
20161104 : Erik Prince NYPD Ready to Make Arrests in Anthony Weiner Case ( Nov 04, 2016 , www.breitbart.com )
20161103 : And Now For Some Comic Relief by Jonathan V. Last ( Nov 03, 2016 , www.weeklystandard.com )
20161103 : Wiener laptop emails are not duplicates of emails previously found on Hillary private email server. ( www.moonofalabama.org )
20161103 : FBI took Clinton II up on her demand that all the emails be released ( www.moonofalabama.org )
20161103 : Obama created this situation by allowing Loretta Lynch to be compromised ( Nov 03, 2016 , profile.theguardian.com )
20161103 : Senior FBI officials were told of new emails in early October but wanted more information before renewing Clinton probe ( www.washingtonpost.com )
20161103 : Changing subject lines of classified e-mails days before attorneys delete e-mails of personal nature by...subject line contents ( Nov 03, 2016 , www.zerohedge.com )
20161103 : Now being reported that the Cheryl Millls laptop, thought to have been destroyed as part of her immunity deal, is actually intact and being reviewed by the FBI ( Nov 03, 2016 , discussion.theguardian.com )
20161103 : Podesta Files Part 27 Wikileaks Releases Another 1,100 Emails, Total Is Now 44218 ( Nov 03, 2016 , www.zerohedge.com )
20161103 : On 12 June 2016, Petra, the official Press agency of Jordan, published an interview with the crown prince of Arabia, Mohamed Ben Salmane, in which he affirmed the modernity of his family, which had illegally financed Hillary Clintons Presidential campaign to the tune of 20 percent, despite the fact that she is a woman ( Nov 03, 2016 , www.zerohedge.com )
20161103 : Democrats should ask Clinton to step aside - Chicago Tribune ( www.chicagotribune.com )
20161103 : Classified Email - Changed subject when returned to Hillary (Personal Subject) Proof of changing subject Lines for Deletion ( www.reddit.com )
20161101 : Ed Klein Comey Under Pressure to Redeem Himself ( Nov 01, 2016 , www.breitbart.com )
20161101 : Why FBI Director Comey jumped at chance to reopen Hillary Clinton email investigation ( Oct 31, 2016 , dailymail.co.uk )
20161101 : Top Constitutional Law Expert Comey Did NOT Violate Law By Announcing Email Investigation ( Nov 01, 2016 , www.zerohedge.com )
20161031 : Obama lied: he knew about Hillarys secret server and wrote to her using a pseudonym ( Oct 31, 2016 , stateofthenation2012.com )
20161031 : The FBIs Clinton Investigation Is Wider Than Assumed ( Oct 31, 2016 , www.moonofalabama.org )
20161031 : Team Clinton tracked Weiners sexting since 2011 ( Oct 31, 2016 , nypost.com )
20161031 : Hillary has only herself to blame for the mess she's in ( nypost.com )
20161031 : FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe - WSJ ( Oct 31, 2016 , archive.fo )
20161031 : Eight days before the election: Overview of political situation ( Oct 31, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20161031 : Their IT guy, Justin Cooper I believe, put spyware on Bills phone ( Oct 31, 2016 , www.zerohedge.com )
20161031 : In the second act of this movie, Comey learns that the Weiner laptop had emails that were so damning it would be a crime against the public to allow them to vote without first seeing a big red flag ( Oct 31, 2016 , blog.dilbert.com )
20161031 : 12 Facts About the FBI Investigation of Hillary Clintons Emails ( Oct 31, 2016 , www.breitbart.com )
20161031 : ITS OVER Huma Abedin Just Flipped! What She Did Minutes Ago Has Hillary In Tears… ( Oct 31, 2016 , endingthefed.com )
20161031 : Roger Stone Its Time America Got Some Answers About Huma Abedin EndingFed News Network ( Oct 31, 2016 , endingthefed.com )
20161031 : Watch the Post twist itself into a pretzel, trying to explain, carefully walking through this latest Clinton mess, picking certain facts, ignoring others, not asking the obvious questions ( Oct 31, 2016 , washingtonpost.com )
20161031 : Sherlock Holmes: How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? ( Oct 31, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20161031 : FBI investigating new e-mail tied to Clinton scandal ( Oct 31, 2016 , arstechnica.com )
20161030 : The FBIs email inquiry is a fitting end to this dumpster fire of an election by Richard Wolffe ( www.theguardian.com )
20161030 : M of A - Unprincipled WaPo Editors Damned Comey Critics - Now Join Them ( Oct 30, 2016 , www.moonofalabama.org )
20161030 : House Committee Chairmen Lay Out Case For Perjury Against Hillary ( Aug 15, 2016 , www.breitbart.com )
20161030 : Report Huma Abedin Doesnt Know How Her Emails Wound Up on Her Husbands Computer - Breitbart ( Oct 30, 2016 , www.breitbart.com )
20161030 : Former FBI Official Calls Bill, Hillary Clinton a Crime Family ( Oct 30, 2016 , www.breitbart.com )
20161030 : The elections became a referendum on Mrs Clinton fitness for office, and that had increasingly seemed to be Mrs. Clintons to lose ( Oct 30, 2016 , economistsview.typepad.com )
20161029 : Phishing for Fools, Hipster Edition ( Oct 29, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20161029 : Clinton Right Hand Woman Huma Abedin Takes the Stage at Center of Email Scandal ( Oct 29, 2016 , www.breitbart.com )
20161029 : James Comey was on the Board of Directors of HSBC while they were money laundering for drug runners and terrorists, he has done squat to stop GamerGate ( Oct 29, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20161029 : Two word summary: CORNERED RAT ( Oct 29, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20161029 : Cyberspace opened up the Clinton Foundation's Pay for Play scams for scrutiny despite the best efforts of corporate media and the connected elite to keep it closed ( Oct 29, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20161029 : DOJ Complaint Filed Against FBI Director James Comey For Interfering In Presidential Election ( Oct 29, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20161029 : Huma abedin became also intanged in mishandling classified materials and may face criminal procecution ( Oct 29, 2016 , economistsview.typepad.com )
20161028 : Clinton camp blindsided by email story ( Oct 27, 2016 , thehill.com )
20161028 : Breaking: Clinton Journalists Already Spinning Latest FBI Revelation by Michael Sainato ( Oct 28, 2016 , observer.com )
20161028 : Carlos Danger Reopens EmailGate and Team Clinton Trembles ( Oct 28, 2016 , observer.com )
20161028 : New Emails in Clinton Case Came From Devices Once Used by Anthony Wiener ( Oct 28, 2016 , economistsview.typepad.com )
20161028 : Trump Hopes Justice Will Finally Be Done As FBI Reopens Probe Into Hillary Clinton Emails ( Oct 28, 2016 , www.zerohedge.com )
20161028 : Hillary Holds 4 Minute Press Conference Demands Full And Complete Facts From FBI Zero Hedge ( Oct 28, 2016 , www.zerohedge.com )
20161028 : New Clinton Emails Emerged As Part Of Probe Into Anthony Weiner's Electronic Devices NYT ( Oct 28, 2016 , www.zerohedge.com )
20161027 : Podesta wants Clintons Email Aide to be Drawn and Quartered ( sputniknews.com )
20161026 : Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, FBI documents reveal ( Oct 26, 2016 , www.politico.com )
20161025 : Ex-State Department IT Staffer Pleads the Fifth on Clinton Email Questions ( Oct 25, 2016 , freebeacon.com )
20161024 : Clinton ally gave $500K to wife of FBI agent on email probe ( nypost.com )
20161019 : Wikileaks Releases Another 1803 Podesta Emails In Part 12 Of Data Dump; Total Is Now 18953 ( Oct 19, 2016 , www.zerohedge.com )
20161018 : Dear Clinton Team We Noticed You Might Need Some Email Security Tips ( theintercept.com )
20161015 : FBI Dump Reveals Obama's Pseudonym Use, Private Email Traffic with Hillary's Private Email ( Oct 15, 2016 , www.breitbart.com )
20161015 : Where Is Sidney Blumenthal's 16th Missing Email Zero Hedge ( Oct 15, 2016 , www.zerohedge.com )
20161013 : WikiLeaks pumps out Clinton emails by Katie Bo Williams and Julian Hattem ( Oct 12, 2016 , TheHill )
20161012 : Very Damaging News Regarding Hillary Clinton's Emails ( Oct 10, 2016 , observer.com )
20161012 : A majority of Americans believed Hillary should have been prosecuted for her handling of the emails ( Oct 12, 2016 , crookedtimber.org )
20161012 : More Evidence Reveals Obama Influenced Clinton's FBI Investigation by Michael Sainato ( Oct 12, 2016 , observer.com )
20161012 : James Comey and Loretta Lynch Should Be Impeached for Whitewashing Clintons Crimes ( Oct 11, 2016 , observer.com )
20161010 : Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to weigh in. It smacks of acting above the law ( Oct 10, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20161009 : Contradicting FBI view, Clintons leaked speeches portray her as computer savvy ( Oct 09, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20161008 : WikiLeaks makes it official, Obama knew about Hilary's email, of course he knew. So a bald-faced lie from the president of the United States to millions of Americans: ( Oct 08, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20161006 : Hacker Releases Emails From Clinton State Department Insider ( Oct 06, 2016 , dailycaller.com )
20161005 : EMAIL RELEASE: Citizens United Releases 198 Pages Of Emails Between State Department And Clinton Foundation ( Oct 05, 2016 , www.zerohedge.com )
20161005 : Chaffetz Blasts DOJ On Side Agreements That Effectively Prohibited FBI From Proving Intent ( Oct 05, 2016 , www.zerohedge.com )
20160928 : Yahoo email capture FT Alphaville ( Sep 28, 2016 , ftalphaville.ft.com )
20160928 : James Comey, FBI director, rejects calls to reopen Clinton email case ( Sep 28, 2016 , www.washingtontimes.com )
20160927 : Whos protecting Hillary Clinton ( Sep 27, 2016 , www.voltairenet.org )
20160926 : So Obama sent Emails to Clintons private Email address that contained classified information. Was his handle BBC ? Truly funny! ( Sep 26, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20160924 : Hillary Clinton in painfully awkward 'Between Two Ferns' interview -- 'I really regret doing this' - Washington Times ( www.washingtontimes.com )
20160924 : State Department reveals FBI uncovered 2,800 emails Clinton never turned over - Washington Times ( www.washingtontimes.com )
20160924 : Obama used pseudonym in emails with Hillary Clinton FBI ( www.washingtontimes.com )
20160920 : Neoliberal media attempt to suppress emailgate failed by FRANK NEWPORT ( Sep 19, 2016 , The New York Times )
20160918 : DNC Emails Possibly Exposed By Hillarys Private Server ( Jul 26, 2016 , strata-sphere.com )
20160916 : Clinton's First Email Server Was a Power Mac Tower ( Sep 16, 2016 , news.slashdot.org )
20160914 : Judge Napolitano FBI Tricked Hillary ( The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity )
20160909 : Platte river networks: Clinton e-mail server was never in Denver ( Aug 19, 2015 , denverpost.com )
20160909 : Hillary Clinton Used BleachBit To Wipe Emails - Slashdot ( Sep 05, 2016 , news.slashdot.org )
20160909 : Quite panic in Hillary camp over transfer of FBI documents to Congress ( Aug 16, 2016 , www.washingtonpost.com )
20160909 : Hillary Clinton lied about not receiving email subpoena, Benghazi chair claims ( Jul 09, 2015 , The Guardian )
20160909 : Hillary Clintons email system was insecure for two months ( Mar 11, 2015 , computerworld.com )
20160906 : After Bush II administration it is generally unclear what should be the level of crime committed to be arrested. ( Sep 05, 2016 , economistsview.typepad.com )
20160906 : Paul Krugman Hillary Clinton Gets Gored ( Sep 05, 2016 , economistsview.typepad.com )
20160904 : The FBIs Fake Investigation of Hillarys Emails ( Sep 03, 2016 , www.strategic-culture.org )
20160903 : Hillary Clinton Incompetent, Or Criminal ( The American Conservative )
20160903 : Sounds like Hillary used burner phones like a drug dealer ( Sep 03, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20160903 : Hillary Clintons Team Lost a Laptop Full of Her Emails in the Actual Mail ( Sep 03, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20160903 : Clinton emails wiped clean after NYT story ( Sep 02, 2016 , TheHill )
20160903 : Were headers of Hillary emails from her private server manipulated to hide her address? ( nytimes.com )
20160903 : In December 2014, while Hillary was under investigation, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton told the company that housed her server to delete an archive of emails from her account ( Sep 02, 2016 , )
20160902 : Longtime Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who was not Department of State employee, managed Hillary Blackberries, synching them to the server ( Sep 02, 2016 , www.politico.com )
20160902 : Looks like Pagiano was an amateur: low quality or no spam filter on "bathroom" server ( www.politico.com )
20160902 : Bathroom email server was actually a series of three servers but the main Windows server administered by Pagiano was in use from 2009 till 2013 ( www.politico.com )
20160902 : 13 Blackberries and 5 iPads ( www.politico.com )
20160902 : The art of bleaching the bathroom email server to delete traces of potencially compromizing Hillary Clinton emails ( www.politico.com )
20160902 : Emails destruction and bleaching the server were a deliberate act of sabotage of FOIA ( www.politico.com )
20160902 : FBI Hillary Clinton Lost Cell Phones with Classified Emails ( Sep 02, 2016 , www.breitbart.com )
20160902 : Clinton allowed handling of her classified emails by a loyalist without any security clearance ( www.politico.com )
20160902 : So what I said, not what I do ( www.politico.com )
20160902 : Pathological liar Hillary Clinton pretended to be ignorant with FBI investigators; that was a silly defense strategy, but it worked probably beacuse of Obama meddling in the investigation ( www.politico.com )
20160902 : Clinton was not part of the decision to move from the Apple server managed by Cooper to a [windows] server built by Bryan Pagliano ( www.politico.com )
20160902 : F.B.I. Papers Offer Closer Look at Hillary Clinton Email Inquiry ( Sep 02, 2016 , The New York Times )
20160902 : FBI Releases Documents Related To Its Clinton Email Investigation ( www.huffingtonpost.com )
20160902 : Clinton Email Hairball ( Sep 02, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20160902 : Looks like Clinton did nt recall some really important things. So this detail-oriented policy wonk think that it is somebody else's fault if classified information was handled improperly. ( Sep 02, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20160902 : Someone using Tor breached email account on Clinton server ( www.politico.com )
20160830 : Mark Cuban Its Not Hillarys Fault Her Email Server Wasnt Set Up Right ( Breitbart )
20160829 : Is Huma still under the gun for emailgate scandal? ( Aug 29, 2016 , www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20160829 : The emails – a self-inflicted tragedy of almost Shakespearean proportions – won't go away, and now they suggest a pattern of appointments with supporters of the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State that was, at best, inappropriate, at worst, illegal ( www.commondreams.org )
20160828 : Gowdy Says FBI Failed To Ask Clinton Right Questions About Email Server ( Aug 28, 2016 , www.westernjournalism.com )
20160827 : Hillary Clinton Had Private Server To Hide Clinton Foundation Dealings ( Aug 27, 2016 , www.westernjournalism.com )
20160827 : Gowdy: Clintons Method Of Deletion Proves Nature Of Her Emails ( Aug 27, 2016 , www.westernjournalism.com )
20160827 : Clinton calendars wont be released until after election ( Aug 27, 2016 , www.wnd.com )
20160827 : Clinton Emails On Film - Huma Abedin's Deposition ( Aug 27, 2016 , www.youtube.com )
20160826 : Clinton emails - Proof that the West had lost control of the situation in Libya already since 2011 ( Aug 23, 2016 , failedevolution.blogspot.gr )
20160826 : Rep. Gowdy Hillary Clinton is a 'habitual, serial liar' ( Fox News Video )
20160826 : State Department "intent" to release the withheld emails only after the election met with a federal court order ( Aug 25, 2016 , www.moonofalabama.org )
20160825 : Judge orders State to begin releasing Clinton emails next month ( Aug 25, 2016 , thehill.com )
20160825 : FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To Prevent Recovery And Hide Traces Of Deleted Emails Zero Hedge ( Aug 25, 2016 , www.zerohedge.com )
20160825 : Clinton Criminal Emails Scandal will not go away anytime soon ( www.huffingtonpost.com )
20160824 : That is why she went to the extraordinary step of deleting everything the high-ranking source told The ENQUIRER ( Apr 15, 2015 , blindgossip.com )
20160823 : Congress subpoenaed three technology companies involved in Clinton bathroom server setup and maintenance ( www.cnn.com )
20160823 : The FBI Is Hiding Something About Their Investigation Into Hillary Clinton ( conservativerevival.com )
20160822 : Hillary Clinton is Blaming Colin Powell for her Private Email Problem - The Atlantic ( www.theatlantic.com )
20160822 : Thousands of Missing Hillary Emails Could Go Public Just In Time for Election Day by Shane Harris ( Aug 22, 2016 , www.thedailybeast.com )
20160822 : The Missing Man at the Center of Hillary Clinton's Email Scandal ( Jul 24, 2016 , The Daily Beast )
20160821 : The NSA Leak Is Real, Snowden Documents Confirm by Sam Biddle ( Aug 19, 2016 , theintercept.com )
20160821 : Hillary blames Colin Powell for email scandal by Matt Palumbo ( August 19, 2016 , AllenBWest.com )
20160821 : Clinton Finds New People To Blame For Email Scandal ( The Unofficial Megyn Kelly )
20160820 : Ouch Congressman Cries Hillary is Honest, She Only Perjured Herself Three Times ( sputniknews.com )
20160817 : FBI hands over Clinton email interview summary to Congress by Rachael Bade and Josh Gerstein ( Aug 15, 2016 , POLITICO )
20160815 : Hillary Clinton Short-Circuited ( August 11, 2016 , The Unz Review )
20160808 : The subtext is that it was Clintons carelessness with classified material which got him killed ( marknesop.wordpress.com )
20160804 : Hillary Clintons own campaign is hacked: Dems were warned they were a target in March but REFUSED to help FBI probe ( July 30, 2016 )
20160802 : NSA Architect: Agency Has ALL of Clinton's Deleted Emails ( www.breitbart.com )
20160723 : Hillary Clinton: Electing a Foreign Spy for President? by James Petras ( petras.lahaine.org )
20160720 : Hillary Clinton Email Scandal A Cancer on the Clinton Candidacy ( www.politico.com )
20160719 : Hillary Clinton had right to delete personal emails, says US justice department ( www.theguardian.com )
20160714 : Hillary (while Sec. of State) forced the resignation, in June of 2012, of US Ambassador to Kenya J. Scott Gration for using unauthorized (personal) email account to conduct official government business ( www.foxnews.com )
20160714 : FBI investigation into Clinton email scandal damaged candidate's popularity – poll ( RT America )
20160712* DNI Clapper Denies Paul Ryan Request to Block Clinton From Classified Intel Briefings ( www.nbcnews.com ) [Recommended]
20160712 : Hillary lied about just one device : fact-checking Clinton's statements on email inquiry ( www.theguardian.com )
20160712 : Sellout: Bernie Sanders decided to help a war hawk get elected ( www.theguardian.com )
20160712 : GOP Seeks Criminal Inquiry of Hillary Clintons Testimony to Congress ( www.nytimes.com )
20160712 : Hillary Clinton emails: State Department reopens investigation into 'mishandling' of 'classified' information by Feliks Garcia New York ( independent.co.uk )
20160711 : Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama prefer the elephant to the emails in the room ( www.theguardian.com )
20160710 : Here Are The 23 Classified Memos Sidney Blumenthal Sent To Hillary Clinton by Chuck Ross ( dailycaller.com )
20160710 : Hillary Clinton Emailed Names of US Intelligence Officials, Unclassified by Peter Van Buren ( June 06, 2016 , antiwar.com )
20160708 : Despite FBI findings, experts say Clintons email likely hacked ( POLITICO )
20160708 : Elizabeth Warrens AWKWARD Tweet Might Upset Hillary - ( www.youtube.com )
20160708 : FBI Invents A New Standard To Let Hillary Clinton Off The Hook ( Jul 7, 2016 , www.youtube.com )
20160708 : Now Chaffetz Wants Clintons Lawyers Prosecuted For Defending Her ( YouTube )
20160708 : Chaffetz promises referral to FBI on Clinton testimony for perjury ( POLITICO )
20160708 : Representative Gary Palmer: she is stunningly incompetent in handling e-mail and classified information ( Jul 07, 2016 , Ars Technica )
20160706 : Eight Laws Hillary Clinton Could Be Indicted For Breaking The Daily Caller ( dailycaller.com )
20160706 : Fact Check Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law Its All Politics ( www.npr.org )
20160706 : 3 Federal Laws Hillary May Have Violated By Using Personal Email Accounts for State Business by Larry O'Connor ( ijr.com )
20160706 : FBI Director Thought He'd Drop Hillary Charges Walk Away. Now, Congress Says 'Not So Fast' ( ijr.com )
20160706 : The Strange Gaps in Hillary Clintons Email Traffic ( www.politico.com )
20160706 : WikiLeaks Published Over 1,200 of Hillary Clintons Iraq War Emails by legitgov ( www.legitgov.org )
20160706 : The worst thing Hillary Clinton did with her email ( finance.yahoo.com )
20160706 : The FBI gave Hillary Clinton a legal victory – and a political setback ( www.theguardian.com )
20160706 : Clinton's main talking point on the email scandal is false by Michael Garofalo ( www.salon.com )
20160706 : Ex-DOJ Spox Rips FBI Director's 'Really Reckless Statements' ( Jul 05, 2016 , Crooks and Liars )
20160706 : Are We a Post-Justice Society? ( RPI 5 July Update )
20160705 : Clinton Offers New Contract To Attorney General - Escapes Indictment ( www.moonofalabama.org )
20160705 : Forget It Jake, It's Clintontown ( Jul 05, 2016 , The American Conservative )
20160705 : FBI rebukes Clinton but recommends no charges in email investigation ( www.theguardian.com )
20160705 : Giuliani: Dissapointed in FBI's Comey ( www.youtube.com )
20160705 : Hillary Clinton vs. James Comey: Email Scandal Supercut ( Jul 5, 2016 , youtube.com )
20160705 : Rand Paul Rule of law 'turned upside down' on Clinton emails ( TheHill )
20160705 : Off the hook: FBI directors statement on Hillary Clinton email investigation ( www.theguardian.com )
20160704 : Hillary Clinton Wanted to Keep Up Appearances Regarding Private Email Server as Early as 2009 ( Jun. 29, 2016 , Reason.com )
20160702 : Dems had to come up with a Plan B ( www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20160702 : Makes ya wonder how treacherous Lynch and the shadowy figures pulling her strings could be ( www.nakedcapitalism.com )
20160702 : Clinton Says Knows of No Timeline to Wrap Up FBI E-Mail Inquiry by Chris Strohm, Ben Brody & Margaret Talev ( Jul 02, 2016 , Bloomberg Politics )
20160702 : FBI to Interview Hillary Clinton in Coming Days About Email Scandal, Source Says ( Jul 01, 2016 , ABC News )
20160702 : Loretta Lynch to follow FBI guidance in Hillary Clinton email investigation ( www.theguardian.com )
20160702 : Obama's Latest Attempt to Save Clinton From Indictment by Michael Sainato ( observer.com )
20160701 : Could Hillary Clinton really be indicted over her emails? ( Jun 10, 2016 , theguardian.com )
20160628 : Democratic donor lobbied Secretary of State Hillary Clintons office for board appointment despite lack of experience ( Jun 27, 2015 , mcclatchydc.com )
20160628 : Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria ( truepundit.com )
20160628 : President Obama, Hillary Clinton Knew of Weapons Supplied from Benghazi to Al-Qaeda in Syria ( truepundit.com )
20160626 : Hillary Clinton email scandal shines light on specter of shadow IT ( Mar 6, 2015 , Information Age )
20160626 : Hillary Clinton takes shadow IT mainstream by Larry Dignan ( March 4, 2015 , ZDNet / Between the Lines )
20160626 : BlackBerry-crazed Hillary Clinton ignored warnings about email security ( www.bostonherald.com )
20160626 : Hillary clintons private email account hacked the perils of shadow IT ( www.tripwire.com )
20160626 : Hillary clinton jokes wiping email server cloth ( abcnews.go.com )
20160625 : A Very Clinton E-Mail Scandal by Ryan Lizza ( The New Yorker )
20160625 : Clinton's e-mail scandal another case of the entitled executive syndrome ( arstechnica.com )
20160625 : Clinton email flap highlights issues of shadow IT by Aaron Boyd ( March 4, 2015 , .federaltimes.com )
20160625 : The Perils of Shadow IT Your Most Senior Executives Are Doing It ( duckduckgo.com )
20160625 : Hillary Clinton's Shadow IT Problem ( March 20, 2016 , Techcafeteria )
20160625 : How to Turn Hillary Clintons Shadow IT Habits into Opportunity ( The Motley Fool )
20160625 : Huma abedins private emails and the muslim brotherhood by Frank Gaffney, Jr. ( Mar 06, 2015 , centerforsecuritypolicy.org )
20160625 : State Department: Mills and Abedin official BlackBerrys likely gone by Josh Gerstein ( www.politico.com )
20160625 : Judicial Watch Sues for Hillary and Huma's Egypt Emails ( Mar 04, 2015 , judicialwatch.org )
20160625 : Hillary Clinton Wouldn't Take an Official BlackBerry: State Department ( www.newsmax.com )
20160625 : NSA denied hillary secure blackberry ( www.wired.com )
20160625 : Hillary Clinton's BlackBerry envy failed to impress the NSA ( www.cnet.com )
20160625 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huma_Abedin ( en.wikipedia.org )
20160625 : Hillary Clinton's aide Huma Abedin's emails now face disclosure lawsuit ( May 5, 2015 , The Washington Times )
20160625 : Hillary email probe turns to Huma by Rachael Bade ( Aug 13, 2015 , .politico.com )
20160625 : How to Email Like Hillary Clinton ( March 4, 2015 , TIME )
20160623 : Clinton's email server ran without security software, new records reveal by Mike Segar ( Jun 23 , 2016 , www.rt.com )
20160608 : Hillary Clinton and the FBI Primary ( Fox News )
20160608 : Hillary Clinton Emailed Names of US Intelligence Officials, Unclassified ( June 06, 2016 , Antiwar.com )
20160602 : Gaius Publius Bernstein – The White House Is Terrified the Clinton Campaign Is in Freefall ( naked capitalism )
20160528 : Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer? ( May 28, 2016 , krebsonsecurity.com )
20160509 : Hillary Clinton demonstrated gross negligence in handling classified information - former FBI agent ( May 8, 2016 , RT Op-Edge )
20160311 : Hillarys Other Server Scandal ( www.wsj.com )
20160303 : Obamas Justice Department Just Gave Bryan Pagliano Immunity and Bernie Sanders the Presidency ( www.huffingtonpost.com )
20160227 : As One Clinton Email Nightmare Nears an End, Another Begins ( finance.yahoo.com )
20160129 : US government finds top secret information in Clinton emails ( www.theguardian.com )
20151204 : Heres Why the Media Stopped Reporting on Clintons New Emails ( finance.yahoo.com )
20151014 : Security farce at Datto Inc that held Hillary Clintons emails revealed by Louise Boyle & Daniel Bates ( Oct 13, 2015 , Daily Mail Online )
20151013 : Hillary Clintons private server was open to low-skilled-hackers ( Daily Mail Online )
20150917 : Hillary Clinton had right to delete personal emails, says US justice department ( www.theguardian.com )
20150910 : Hillary Clinton admits private email server was a mistake ( Sep 08, 2015 , The Guardian )
20150818 : Mom and pop shop Clintons private emails housed on server in a bathroom closet - report ( Aug 18, 2015 , RT America )
20150816 : Liar, Liar, Pantsuit On Fire ( Zero Hedge )
20150809 : Hillary Clinton State Department Emails, Mexico Energy Reform, and the Revolving Door ( naked capitalism )
20150727 : Clinton Favorability Plunges, Sanders Surges Amid Classified Emails Scandal ( www.zerohedge.com )
20150724 : Justice Dept. Is Asked to Investigate Clinton Email by MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MATT APUZZO ( Jul 24, 2015 , nytimes.com )
20150724 : Hillary Legal Troubles ( www.nytimes.com )
20150710 : Hillary Clinton emails reveal Cherie Blair acted as go-between for leading Qatari and the-then US Secretary of State ( Jul 10, 2015 , independent.co.uk )
20150330 : IRS Scandal Deja Vu Hillary Clintons Email Server Wiped Clean ( www.zerohedge.com )
20150330 : Private Emails Reveal Ex-Clinton Aides Secret Spy Network ( March 28, 2015 , State of the Nation )
20150321 : The NSAs plan: improve cybersecurity by hacking everyone else by Trevor Timm ( Mar 21, 2015 , The Guardian )
20150314 : Clinton defence of personal email server fails to placate critics ( Mar 14, 2015 , The Register )
20150314 : http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/14/hillary-clinton-arkansas-friends ( Mar 14, 2015 , The Guardian )
20150314 : How your phone and fitness band could end up giving evidence against you by Ben Lovejoy ( February 24, 2015 , The Guardian )
20150312 : Hillary Clinton is now the face of shadow IT ( Mar 12, 2015 , www.cio.com )
20150310 : Killary Clinton faces new questions over personal emails she 'chose not to keep' by Jon Swaine ( 10 March 2015 , The Guardian )
20150308 : Clinton email domain shows effort for security and obscurity, say experts ( Mar 08, 2015 , The Guardian )
20150307 : Email scandal Hillary Clintons impulse to secrecy by Ruth Marcus ( March 3, 2015 , delawareonline.com )
20150307 : Under the Radar, Big Media Internet Giants Get Massive Access to Everything About You ( March 5, 2015 , alternet.org )
20150306 : Hillary Clinton is learning another hard lesson in presidential campaigning ( Mar 06, 2015 , The Guardian )
20140503 : Ask Slashdot What To Do With Misdirected Email ( Jan 13, 2014 , Slashdot )
20131002 : Google Accused of Wiretapping in Gmail Scans ( Google Accused of Wiretapping in Gmail Scans, Oct 02, 2013 )
20130813 : NSA surveillance: the long fight to close backdoor into US communications ( The Guardian )
20130813 : NSA spying on email content at super-fast speeds still violates Fourth Amendment by Ms. Smith ( 08/12/13 , networkworld.com )
20130628 : 11 Really Dumb Things You Do With Your Email ( finance.yahoo.com )
20130103 : Whats In Steve Ballmers Inbox ( Slashdot )
20120210 : Florida Man Charged in Celebrity Email Hacking Case ( WSJ.com )
20120210 : Hollywood hacking case victims include Johansson ( Yahoo! )
20120210 : How to Protect Your Email from Hackers ( How to Protect Your Email from Hackers, Feb 10, 2012 )
20120210 : Proxy server trail leads FBI to Palin email hacker by Humphrey Cheung ( September 19, 2008 , TG Daily )
20110711 : News of the World Investigation Expanded to 9-11 Victims - ( Slashdot )
20060831 : Draft Special Publication 800-45A, Guidelines on Electronic Mail Security ( Aug 31, 2006 )
20060831 : SmtpRC - Smtp Relay Checker by Spencer Hardy - Thursday, July 18th 2002 14:08 EDT ( SmtpRC - Smtp Relay Checker, )
20060831 : Usage of O Privacy Options=goaway ( )

Old News ;-)

[Feb 28, 2021] Keep out ahead of shadow IT by Steven A. Lowe

Sep 28, 2015 | www.networkworld.com

Shadow IT has been presented as a new threat to IT departments because of the cloud. Not true -- the cloud has simply made it easier for non-IT personnel to acquire and create their own solutions without waiting for IT's permission. Moreover, the cloud has made this means of technical problem-solving more visible, bringing shadow IT into the light. In fact, "shadow IT" is more of a legacy pejorative for what should better be labeled "DIY IT." After all, shadow IT has always been about people solving their own problems with technology.

Here we take a look at how your organization can best go about leveraging the upside of DIY IT.
What sends non-IT problem-solvers into the shadows
The IT department is simply too busy, overworked, understaffed, underutilized, and sometimes even too disinterested to take on every marketing Web application idea or mobile app initiative for field work that comes its way. There are too many strategic initiatives, mission-critical systems, and standards committee meetings, so folks outside IT are often left with little recourse but to invent their own solutions using whatever technical means and expertise they have or can find.

How can this be a bad thing?

They are sharing critical, private data with the wrong people somehow.

Their data is fundamentally flawed, inaccurate, or out of date.

Their data would be of use to many others, but they don't know it exists.

Their ability to solve their own problems is a threat to IT.

Because shadow IT practitioners are subject matter experts in their domain, the second drawback is unlikely. The third is an opportunity lost, but that's not scary enough to sweat. The first and fourth are the most likely to instill fear -- with good reason. If something goes wrong with a home-grown shadow IT solution, the IT department will likely be made responsible, even if you didn't know it existed.
RECOMMENDED WHITEPAPERS

The Forrester Wave™ Endpoint Detection & Response, Q1 2020 Report

Sunburst On-Demand Attack Simulation

On-Demand Attack Simulation

The wrong response to these fears is to try to eradicate shadow IT. Because if you really want to wipe out shadow IT, you would have to have access to all the network logs, corporate credit card reports, phone bills, ISP bills, and firewall logs, and it would take some effort to identify and block all unauthorized traffic in and out of the corporate network. You would have to rig the network to refuse to connect to unsanctioned devices, as well as block access to websites and cloud services like Gmail, Dropbox, Salesforce, Google apps, Trello, and so on. Simply knowing all you would have to block access to would be a job in itself.

SponsoredPost Sponsored by Lenovo & Intel

Everything You Need to Know About Cloud Migration That No One Told You

Can you name the 3 biggest misconceptions about cloud migration? Here's the truth - and how to solve the challenges.
MORE ON NETWORK WORLD: 26 crazy and scary things the TSA has found on travelers
Worse, if you clamp down on DIY solutions you become an obstacle, and attempts to solve departmental problems will submerge even further into the shadows -- but it will never go away. The business needs underlying DIY IT are too important.

The reality is, if you shift your strategy to embrace DIY solutions the right way, people would be able to safely solve their own problems without too much IT involvement and IT would be able to accomplish more for the projects where its expertise and oversight is truly critical.
Embrace DIY IT
Seek out shadow IT projects and help them, but above all respect the fact that this problem-solving technique exists. The folks who launch a DIY project are not your enemies; they are your co-workers, trying to solve their own problems, hampered by limited resources and understanding. The IT department may not have many more resources to spread around, but you have an abundance of technical know-how. Sharing that does not deplete it.

You can find the trail of shadow IT by looking at network logs, scanning email traffic and attachments, and so forth. You must be willing to support these activities, even if you do not like them . Whether or not you like them, they exist, and they likely have good reasons for existing. It doesn't matter if they were not done with your permission or to your specifications. Assume that they are necessary and help them do it right.

SponsoredPost Sponsored by Cisco

What is SecureX?

See how SecureX turns security from a blocker into an enabler.
Take the lead -- and lead
IT departments have the expertise to help others select the right technical solution for their needs. I'm not talking about RFPs, vendor/product evaluation meetings, software selection committees -- those are typically time-wasting, ivory-tower circuses that satisfy no one. I'm talking about helping colleagues figure out what it is they truly want and teaching them how to evaluate and select a solution that works for them -- and is compliant with a small set of minimal, relevant standards and policies.

That expertise could be of enormous benefit to the rest of the company, if only it was shared. An approachable IT department that places a priority on helping people solve their own problems -- instead of expending enormous effort trying to prevent largely unlikely, possibly even imaginary problems -- is what you should be striving for.

Think of it as being helpful without being intrusive. Sharing your expertise and taking the lead in helping non-IT departments help themselves not only shows consideration for your colleagues' needs, but it also helps solve real problems for real people -- while keeping the IT department informed about the technology choices made throughout the organization. Moreover, it sets up the IT department for success instead of surprises when the inevitable integration and data migration requests appear.

Plus, it's a heck of a lot cheaper than reinventing the wheel unnecessarily.
Create policies everyone can live with
IT is responsible for critical policies concerning the use of devices, networks, access to information, and so on. It is imperative that IT have in place a sane set of policies to safeguard the company from loss, liability, leakage, incomplete/inaccurate data, and security threats both internal and external. But everyone else has to live with these policies, too. If they are too onerous or convoluted or byzantine, they will be ignored.

Therefore, create policies that respect everyone's concerns and needs, not IT's alone. Here's the central question to ask yourself: Are you protecting the company or merely the status quo?

Security is a legitimate concern, of course, but most SaaS vendors understand security at least as well as you do, if not better. Being involved in the DIY procurement process (without being a bottleneck or a dictator) lets you ensure that minimal security criteria are met.

Data integrity is likewise a legitimate concern, but control of company data is largely an illusion. You can make data available or not, but you cannot control how it is used once accessed. Train and trust your people, and verify their activities. You should not and cannot make all decisions for them in advance.

Regulatory compliance, auditing, traceability, and so on are legitimate concerns, but they do not trump the rights of workers to solve their own problems. All major companies in similar fields are subject to the same regulations as your company. How you choose to comply with those regulations is up to you. The way you've always done it is not the only way, and it's probably not even the best way. Here, investigating what the major players in your field do, especially if they are more modern, efficient, and "cloudy" than you, is a great start.

The simplest way to manage compliance is to isolate the affected software from the rest of the system, since compliance is more about auditing and accountability than proscriptive processes. The major movers and shakers in the Internet space are all over new technologies, techniques, employee empowerment, and streamlining initiatives. Join them, or eat their dust.
Champion DIY IT
Once you have a sensible set of policies in place, it's high time to shine a light on shadow IT -- a celebratory spotlight, that is.

By championing DIY IT projects, you send a clear message that co-workers have no need to hide how they go about solving their problems. Make your intentions friendly and clear up front: that you are intent on improving business operations, recognizing and rewarding innovators and risk-takers, finding and helping those who need assistance, and promoting good practices for DIY IT. A short memo/email announcing this from a trusted, well-regarded executive is highly recommended.

Here are a few other ideas in helping you embrace DIY IT:

Establish and publicize "office hours" for free consultations to help guide people toward better, technically informed choices. Offer advice, publish research, make recommendations, and help any way you can.

Offer platform services to make it easier for co-workers to get the cloud resources they need while providing known, safe environments for them to use.

Ask people what software or systems they're using -- a simple survey or email can reveal a lot. Offer a checklist of software you think people might or should be using with a few blanks for services not listed to get the conversations started. Encourage people to track what they really use for a day or a week. Let them know you are looking for existing solutions to enhance and support, not searching for "contraband."

Examine your internal server/email traffic. Are there patterns or spikes of large documents or long-running connections? Investigate the source of these, and help them optimize. For example, if design engineers routinely email each other gigantic design documents every Wednesday, provide them with a secure shared drive to use instead. Follow the bandwidth to get to the source -- and help them work better.

Examine your support load for patterns, such as an uptick in calls for new software or unsupported/unrecognized software, or a severe downturn in calls for old software. This may indicate that an older, problematic system has been surreptitiously replaced.

Publicize and praise prior DIY IT projects, recognize and reward their creators, and share their results and techniques with other departments. To spread successful practices, provide proof of your good intentions and publicize the benefits of reasonable IT efforts outside the IT department. Make it known, with strong executive support, that you want these projects to succeed and you want the fruits of these labors to be recognized, applauded, and shared for the betterment of the company.

Ask everyone, systematically, what they've done and/or need help with. Don't ask, "Are you doing shady shadow IT things?" The answer will be no, of course not. Instead ask, "How can we help you eliminate or simplify repetitive, mind-numbing activities?"

If possible, provide a roving high-caliber but small team of IT and devops specialists to make "house calls" to help people get set up, fix problems, and improve DIY IT projects. This will help the projects succeed while remaining compliant with balanced IT policies. Plus, being visibly proactive and helpful is good for public relations.

When warranted, embed a small IT team within a business unit to help them solve their larger problems, and share that learning with the rest of the company.

DIY IT can be a great benefit to your organization by relieving the load on the IT department and enabling more people to tap technical tools to be more productive in their work -- a win for everyone. But it can't happen without sane and balanced policies, active support from IT, and a companywide awareness that this sort of innovation and initiative is valued.

[Sep 23, 2020] Another sign of the crisis of legitimacy of neoliberal elite: FBI Agent Who Discovered Hillary's Emails On Weiner Laptop Claims He Was Told To Erase Computer

Highly recommended!

It would be interesting if Durham prove result revealed in October, not matter how whitewashed they are.

From comments below it is lear that for this particular subset neoliberal elite lost all legitimacy

Notable quotes:

"... Told to Erase Laptop Containing Investigation of Anthony Weiner Laptop ..."

"... Robertson alleges that the FBI did nothing for a month after discovering Clinton's emails on the Anthony Weiner laptop. It was only after he spoke with the U.S. Attorney's office overseeing the case, he claims, that the agency took action. ..."

"... Robertson's assertions match up with a Wall Street Journal report from 2018 . In that report, text messages between agent Peter Strzok and his girlfriend, lawyer Lisa Page, indicated the former had been called to discuss the newly discovered emails on September 28th. Those emails wouldn't be revealed until former Director James Comey notified Congress about them on October 28th. ..."

"... A book written by James B . Stewart in 2019 asserts that FBI agents had referred to the discovery of Hillary Clinton's emails as an "oh s***" moment." One agent admitted there were "ten times" as many emails as Comey admitted to publicly. ..."

"... These allegations make it difficult to say Comey did not lie to the public – if not Congress . ..."

"... Recently released documents from the DOJ show multiple FBI officials had "accidentally wiped" their phones after the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) requested them . ..."

"... Erasing evidence is a consistent theme for the Obama-era FBI. Meanwhile, the Senate Homeland Security Committee has voted to authorize over three dozen subpoenas and depositions of some of these officials, including Comey. ..."

"... The difficulty is not just that Comey and his underlings were obstructing justice to benefit Clinton, and made a total **** show of it. It is that Sessions was, "to protect the DOJ"... and Barr, also, clearly, as long he continues to run interference for Comey, Clinton, et al, is also obstructing justice. Barr has crafted a veneer, it seems... in the Durham probe... to provide himself plausible deniability. That veneer can remain plausible only as long as Durham does nothing, and fails to make the files public. ..."

"... It was the NYPD. And, that cadre of NYPD officers recognized what was likely to happen when they did turn it over to the FBI. So they made copies. And, the copies got distributed to the cloud. ..."

"... The emails are in the stellarwind database , according to William Binney. So are all the texts that the Mueller crew "erased." IntercoursetheEU is correct - every email and text ever sent is archived in that database. ..."

"... Where is that slimy, former CIA Director who wouldn't shut-up on national TV from late 2016 to early 2020? Hhmm, not a freaking peep nor have I seen any recent images. How about the dirtball, prior FBI Dir? His Twitter acct has only had "quotes" posted for about a month now. ..."

"... Clapper? Another Trump trasher on constant TV the last few years.....where is he? NOT A PEEP. Why wouldn't he keep trashing to diminish DJT's election chances? ..."

"... Brennan was on an MSNBC panel last week pale, sweating, moving around in his seat at the mere mention of John Durham. Not his usual cocky self that's for sure. ..."

Sep 23, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Rusty Weiss via The Political Insider blog,

FBI agent John Robertson, the man who found Hillary Clinton's emails on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, claims he was advised by bosses to erase his own computer.

Former FBI Director James Comey, you may recall, announced days before the 2016 presidential election that he had "learned of the existence" of the emails on Weiner's laptop .

Weiner is the disgraced husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

Robertson alleges that the manner in which his higher-ups in the FBI handled the case was "not ethically or morally right."

His startling claims are made in a book titled, "October Surprise: How the FBI Tried to Save Itself and Crashed an Election," an excerpt of which has been published by the Washington Post .

Told to Erase Laptop Containing Investigation of Anthony Weiner Laptop

Robertson alleges that the FBI did nothing for a month after discovering Clinton's emails on the Anthony Weiner laptop. It was only after he spoke with the U.S. Attorney's office overseeing the case, he claims, that the agency took action.

"He had told his bosses about the Clinton emails weeks ago," the book contends . "Nothing had happened."

"Or rather, the only thing that had happened was his boss had instructed Robertson to erase his computer work station."

This, according to the Post report, was to "ensure there was no classified material on it," but also would eliminate any trail of his actions taken during the investigation.

FBI Did Nothing About Hillary Clinton's Emails For Months?

Robertson's assertions match up with a Wall Street Journal report from 2018 . In that report, text messages between agent Peter Strzok and his girlfriend, lawyer Lisa Page, indicated the former had been called to discuss the newly discovered emails on September 28th. Those emails wouldn't be revealed until former Director James Comey notified Congress about them on October 28th.

A book written by James B . Stewart in 2019 asserts that FBI agents had referred to the discovery of Hillary Clinton's emails as an "oh s***" moment." One agent admitted there were "ten times" as many emails as Comey admitted to publicly.

These allegations make it difficult to say Comey did not lie to the public – if not Congress .

Robertson's story is being revealed as U.S. Attorney John Durham is investigating the FBI's role in the origins of the Russia probe into President Trump's campaign.

Recently released documents from the DOJ show multiple FBI officials had "accidentally wiped" their phones after the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) requested them .

Erasing evidence is a consistent theme for the Obama-era FBI. Meanwhile, the Senate Homeland Security Committee has voted to authorize over three dozen subpoenas and depositions of some of these officials, including Comey.

Democrats seem skittish about what Durham is uncovering .

Four House committee chairs last week asked for an "emergency" review of Attorney General William Barr's handling of Durham's probe.

"We are concerned by indications that Attorney General Barr might depart from longstanding DOJ principles," a letter to the IG reads .

They contend Barr may "take public action related to U.S. Attorney Durham's investigation that could impact the presidential election." Top Democrats have also been threatening to impeach Barr over the investigation.

Kevin Clinesmith, one of the FBI officials involved in gathering evidence in the Russia investigation, pled guilty last month to making a false statement. He was accused by the Inspector General of altering an email about former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

President Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, said in July that he expects further indictments and jail time to come out of Durham's probe. Democrats, Comey, and others at the FBI might be a little nervous.

DaiRR , 12 hours ago

DemoRat operatives still pervade the DOJ and to a lesser extent the FBI. Treasonous F's all of them. Andrew Weissmann is an evil a Rat as any of them and he should be tried, disbarred and punished for all his lying and despicable crimes while at the DOJ. Of course MSNBC now loves paying him to be their "legal analyst".

MissCellany , 13 hours ago

What, like with a cloth or something?

RoadKill4Supper , 12 hours ago

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

FBGnome , 3 hours ago

The current election would be at stake.

Unknown User , 14 hours ago

Unless the Swamp does it. Not just a post or a website disappear, people disappear.

Sense , 13 hours ago

The difficulty is not just that Comey and his underlings were obstructing justice to benefit Clinton, and made a total **** show of it. It is that Sessions was, "to protect the DOJ"... and Barr, also, clearly, as long he continues to run interference for Comey, Clinton, et al, is also obstructing justice. Barr has crafted a veneer, it seems... in the Durham probe... to provide himself plausible deniability. That veneer can remain plausible only as long as Durham does nothing, and fails to make the files public.

Only if Durham proceeds to use the files, and/or makes the files public, will we find out if we get prosecutions, or if we get more obstruction under Barr's watch. So, Barr is carrying a pretty big hammer. It isn't at all clear what he intends to do with that hammer, or how he intends to use it if he does.

A wild card, perhaps, in the potential for an Senate or House investigation including Barr's forced participation... in response to which he might be compelled to answer the unasked question ? Makes it kind of hard to see how "investigating Barr"... poses a threat to Barr, or Trump... rather than a threat to those investigating him ? The fact they're even twittering about it suggests more than awareness about the content of that information... and thus maybe complicity in the effort to cover it up ?

That would explain most of the events of the last four years.

And, as a note, it wasn't "the FBI" that "found the e-mails" (and other files) on the Weiner laptop.

It was the NYPD. And, that cadre of NYPD officers recognized what was likely to happen when they did turn it over to the FBI. So they made copies. And, the copies got distributed to the cloud.

It is not possible, I'd think, that Julian Assange didn't get a copy... in case you wonder why Barr's DOJ is still prosecuting journalism. I doubt they're doing that because of past publication... rather than in an effort to prevent future publication. Because Assange... in all likelihood... might be the only journalist left in the world... who will not be coerced into withholding publication.

ElmerTwitch , 12 hours ago

The emails are in the stellarwind database , according to William Binney. So are all the texts that the Mueller crew "erased." IntercoursetheEU is correct - every email and text ever sent is archived in that database.

The DOJ is indeed protecting Obama, Hillary, Comey, Brennan, Clapper et al. by claiming "the emails are gone! The texts are gone, too!"

sparky139 , 12 hours ago

What is the stellarwind database

TheReplacement's Replacement , 1 hour ago

Look up NSA.

takeaction , 15 hours ago

As all of us here on ZH understand. NOTHING WILL EVER HAPPEN... And Trump Team....if you are reading this... THIS IS THE BIGGEST LET DOWN OF YOUR ENTIRE PRESIDENCY...

No_Pretzel_Logic , 14 hours ago

takeaction - I disagree. I think things are happening right now....out of the country.

TRIALS.....

Where is that slimy, former CIA Director who wouldn't shut-up on national TV from late 2016 to early 2020? Hhmm, not a freaking peep nor have I seen any recent images. How about the dirtball, prior FBI Dir? His Twitter acct has only had "quotes" posted for about a month now.

Clapper? Another Trump trasher on constant TV the last few years.....where is he? NOT A PEEP. Why wouldn't he keep trashing to diminish DJT's election chances?

I'm telling ya, I think they are on a certain Caribbean Island. And my wager is that Trump is going to toss a wild curveball into this election about the 3rd week of Oct.

Treason convictions announced, is my bet.

maggie2now , 13 hours ago

Brennan was on an MSNBC panel last week pale, sweating, moving around in his seat at the mere mention of John Durham. Not his usual cocky self that's for sure. HRC was online flapping her yap with Jennifer Palmieri not too long ago trying to convince the Biden campaign not to concede the 2020 election under any circumstances. As for Clapper, I don't know - maybe hiding in a remote location ****ting himself?

MoreFreedom , 12 hours ago

They've shut up because their actions betray them. Publicly they say Trump is a Russian spy or puppet, while under oath, in a closed room, representing their former government position and top secret clearance, they've no information to support it. That shows an anti-Trump political motivation, regarding their prior actions in government. It's also defrauding the public and government.

YouJustCouldnt , 2 hours ago

Couldn't agree more. How many times have we been here before!

20 years on from 9/11 - From the thousands of experts on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth , the latest news is that The National Institute of Standards and Technology ( NIST ) is now more than a week late in issuing its "initial decision" on the pending "request for correction" to its 2008 report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Big Whoop - and just another nothing burger.

Ms No , 15 hours ago

Uhhhh.....yeah.

We have seen this type of thing since JFK. If you hadn't long ago figured this out then you are either an amateur or a paid internet herd-moving troll/anti-human.

Some of us aren't part of the herd.

(((Anthony Weiner))), just like (((Mossad Epstein honeypot))) and (((lucky Larry Silverstein))), countless other examples that blow statistical likelihood way beyond coincidence.

Not rocket science. Its a mob and these are their puppets and fronts. They dont just own the FBI. They own all branches of your government and all the alphabets.

Enjoying the covid hysteria and run-up to WWIII?

Unknown User , 14 hours ago

If by (((they))) you mean the British who created the OSA and then the CIA. They also created all the think-tanks, like the CFR. They own the Fed and run the worldwide banking cartel. The British Crown owns all the countries of the Commonwealth. And they started the COVID-19 delusion. Yes. Make no mistake. It is (((THEY))).

VWAndy , 15 hours ago

An he didnt go public with it either.

occams razor. they are all corrupt.

Stackers , 15 hours ago

Anyone who thinks that anybody beyond this low level flunky, Kliensmith, is going to get any kind of prosecution is dreaming. None of these people will face any consequences to their outright sedition and they know it. Disgusting.

radical-extremist , 15 hours ago

She created a private personal server to purposely circumvent the FOIA system and any other prying eyes. Her staff was warned not to do it, but they refused to confront her about it. They were so technically inept that they didn't understand emails are copied on to servers everywhere...including the pentagon and the state department. And Huma's laptop that her perv husband used to sext girls.

She maintained and exchanged Top Secret information on a personal/private/unsecured server in her house. That is a crime punishable with prison time...and yet she skates.

High Vigilante , 15 hours ago

This guy should avoid walking out in dark.

His name was Seth!

Bay of Pigs , 13 hours ago

We have to face reality. If Durham doesn't indict some of these people before the election, nothing is going to happen. It's the end of the line. Time has run out.

"We bullsh#tted some folks...."

dogfish , 13 hours ago

Trump is a charlatan and a fraud. The only winners with Trump are the Zionist they are Trumps top priority.
play_arrow
OCnStiggs , 13 hours ago

Good thing NYPD copied the HD on that laptop for just this occurrence. There reportedly at least two copies in safes in NYC. Criminality of the highest order that eclipses by 100,000,000 whatever happened in Watergate. These FBI people need to hang.

Sparehead , 13 hours ago

Safe in NYC? Like all the evidence of criminal banking activity that was lost in World Trade Center 7?

4Y_LURKER , 12 hours ago

Oh look! We found passports even though steel and gold was vaporized by jet fuel!!

NIST is a cornspiracy theory!

you're cornfused

[Aug 20, 2019] BREAKING BOMBSHELL NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails Money Laundering, Sex Crimes with Children, Child Exploitation

There were no prosecution in three years since publication of this article

Notable quotes:

"... New York Police Department detectives and prosecutors working an alleged underage sexting case against former Congressman Anthony Weiner have turned over a newly-found laptop he shared with wife Huma Abedin to the FBI with enough evidence "to put Hillary (Clinton) and her crew away for life," NYPD sources told True Pundit. ..."

"... NYPD detectives and a NYPD Chief, the department's highest rank under Commissioner, said openly that if the FBI and Justice Department fail to garner timely indictments against Clinton and co- conspirators, NYPD will go public with the damaging emails now in the hands of FBI Director James Comey and many FBI field offices. ..."

"... Meanwhile, FBI sources said Abedin and Weiner were cooperating with federal agents, who have taken over the non-sexting portions the case from NYPD. The husband-and-wife Clinton insiders are both shopping for separate immunity deals, sources said. ..."

"... Prosecutors in the office of US Attorney Preet Bharara have issued a subpoena for Weiner's cell phones and travel records, law enforcement sources confirmed. NYPD said it planned to order the same phone and travel records on Clinton and Abedin, however, the FBI said it was in the process of requesting the identical records. Law enforcement sources are particularly interested in cell phone activity and travel to the Bahamas, U.S. Virgin Islands and other locations that sources would not divulge. ..."

"... Both NYPD and FBI sources confirm based on the new emails they now believe Hillary Clinton traveled as Epstein's guest on at least six occasions, probably more when all the evidence is combed, sources said. Bill Clinton, it has been confirmed in media reports spanning recent years, that he too traveled with Epstein over 20 times to the island. ..."

"... Because Weiner's campaign website is managed by the third-party consultant and political email guru, FBI agents are burdened with the task of trying to decipher just how many people had access to Weiner's server and emails and who were these people. Or if the server was ever compromised by hackers, or other actors. ..."

"... Abedin told FBI agents in an April interview that she didn't know how to consistently print documents or emails from her secure Dept. of State system. Instead, she would forward the sensitive emails to her yahoo, Clintonemail.com and her email linked to Weiner. ..."

"... Abedin said, according to FBI documents, she would then access those email accounts via webmail from an unclassified computer system at the State Dept. and print the documents, many of which were classified and top secret, from the largely unprotected webmail portals. ..."

Nov 02, 2016 | truepundit.com

New York Police Department detectives and prosecutors working an alleged underage sexting case against former Congressman Anthony Weiner have turned over a newly-found laptop he shared with wife Huma Abedin to the FBI with enough evidence "to put Hillary (Clinton) and her crew away for life," NYPD sources told True Pundit.

NYPD sources said Clinton's "crew" also included several unnamed yet implicated members of Congress in addition to her aides and insiders.

The NYPD seized the computer from Weiner during a search warrant and detectives discovered a trove of over 500,000 emails to and from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and other insiders during her tenure as secretary of state. The content of those emails sparked the FBI to reopen its defunct email investigation into Clinton on Friday.

But new revelations on the contents of that laptop, according to law enforcement sources, implicate the Democratic presidential candidate, her subordinates, and even select elected officials in far more alleged serious crimes than mishandling classified and top secret emails, sources said. NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to:

Money laundering

Child exploitation

Sex crimes with minors (children)

Perjury

Pay to play through Clinton Foundation

Obstruction of justice

Other felony crimes

NYPD detectives and a NYPD Chief, the department's highest rank under Commissioner, said openly that if the FBI and Justice Department fail to garner timely indictments against Clinton and co- conspirators, NYPD will go public with the damaging emails now in the hands of FBI Director James Comey and many FBI field offices.

"What's in the emails is staggering and as a father, it turned my stomach," the NYPD Chief said. "There is not going to be any Houdini-like escape from what we found. We have copies of everything. We will ship them to Wikileaks or I will personally hold my own press conference if it comes to that."

The NYPD Chief said once Comey saw the alarming contents of the emails he was forced to reopen a criminal probe against Clinton.

"People are going to prison," he said.

Meanwhile, FBI sources said Abedin and Weiner were cooperating with federal agents, who have taken over the non-sexting portions the case from NYPD. The husband-and-wife Clinton insiders are both shopping for separate immunity deals, sources said.

"If they don't cooperate they are going to see long sentences," a federal law enforcement source said.

NYPD sources said Weiner or Abedin stored all the emails in a massive Microsoft Outlook program on the laptop. The emails implicate other current and former members of Congress and one high-ranking Democratic Senator as having possibly engaged in criminal activity too, sources said.

Prosecutors in the office of US Attorney Preet Bharara have issued a subpoena for Weiner's cell phones and travel records, law enforcement sources confirmed. NYPD said it planned to order the same phone and travel records on Clinton and Abedin, however, the FBI said it was in the process of requesting the identical records. Law enforcement sources are particularly interested in cell phone activity and travel to the Bahamas, U.S. Virgin Islands and other locations that sources would not divulge.

The new emails contain travel documents and itineraries indicating Hillary Clinton, President Bill Clinton, Weiner and multiple members of Congress and other government officials accompanied convicted pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein on his Boeing 727 on multiple occasions to his private island in the US Virgin Islands, sources said. Epstein's island has also been dubbed Orgy Island or Sex Slave Island where Epstein allegedly pimps out underage girls and boys to international dignitaries.

Both NYPD and FBI sources confirm based on the new emails they now believe Hillary Clinton traveled as Epstein's guest on at least six occasions, probably more when all the evidence is combed, sources said. Bill Clinton, it has been confirmed in media reports spanning recent years, that he too traveled with Epstein over 20 times to the island.

Laptop Also Unveiled More Classified, Top Secret Breaches

According to other uncovered emails, Abedin and Clinton both sent and received thousands of classified and top secret documents to personal email accounts including Weiner's unsecured campaign web site which is managed by Democratic political consultants in Washington D.C.

Weiner maintained little known email accounts that the couple shared on the website anthonyweiner.com. Weiner, a former seven-term Democratic Congressman from New York, primarily used that domain to campaign for Congress and for his failed mayoral bid of New York City.

At one point, FBI sources said, Abedin and Clinton's classified and top secret State Department documents and emails were stored in Weiner's email on a server shared with a dog grooming service and a western Canadian bicycle shop.

However, Weiner and Abedin, who is Hillary Clinton's closest personal aide, weren't the only people with access to the Weiner's email account. Potentially dozens of unknown individuals had access to Abedin's sensitive State Department emails that were stored in Weiner's email account, FBI sources confirmed.

FEC records show Weiner paid more than $92,000 of congressional campaign funds to Anne Lewis Strategies LLC to manage his email and web site. According to FBI sources, the D.C.-based political consulting firm has served as the official administrator of the anthonyweiner.com domain since 2010, the same time Abedin was working at the State Department. This means technically Weiner and Abedin's emails, including top secret State Department emails, could have been accessed, printed, discussed, leaked, or distributed by untold numbers of personnel at the Anne Lewis consulting firm because they can control where the website and it emails are pointed, FBI sources said.

According to FBI sources, the bureau's newly-minted probe into Clinton's use and handling of emails while she served as secretary of state, has also been broadened to include investigating new email-related revelations, including:

Abedin forwarded classified and top secret State Department emails to Weiner's email

Abedin stored emails, containing government secrets, in a special folder shared with Weiner warehousing over 500,000 archived State Department emails.

Weiner had access to these classified and top secret documents without proper security clearance to view the records

Abedin also used a personal yahoo address and her Clintonemail.com address to send/receive/store classified and top secret documents

A private consultant managed Weiner's site for the last six years, including three years when Clinton was secretary of state, and therefore, had full access to all emails as the domain's listed registrant and administrator via Whois email contacts.

Because Weiner's campaign website is managed by the third-party consultant and political email guru, FBI agents are burdened with the task of trying to decipher just how many people had access to Weiner's server and emails and who were these people. Or if the server was ever compromised by hackers, or other actors.

Abedin told FBI agents in an April interview that she didn't know how to consistently print documents or emails from her secure Dept. of State system. Instead, she would forward the sensitive emails to her yahoo, Clintonemail.com and her email linked to Weiner.

Abedin said, according to FBI documents, she would then access those email accounts via webmail from an unclassified computer system at the State Dept. and print the documents, many of which were classified and top secret, from the largely unprotected webmail portals.

Clinton did not have a computer in her office on Mahogany Row at the State Dept. so she was not able to read timely intelligence unless it was printed out for her, Abedin said. Abedin also said Clinton could not operate the secure State Dept. fax machine installed in her Chappaqua, NY home without assistance.

Perhaps more alarming, according to the FBI's 302 Report detailing its interview with Abedin, none of the multiple FBI agents and Justice Department officials who conducted the interview pressed Abedin to further detail the email address linked to Weiner. There was never a follow up, according to the 302 report.

But now, all that has changed, with the FBI's decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation and the husband and wife seeking immunity deals to testify against Clinton and other associates about the contents of the laptop's emails.

[Jul 10, 2019] Epstein vs Weiner

Jul 10, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Bunga Bunga , 2 hours ago

So there might be interesting stuff on the DVDs found in Epstein's vaults.

SergeA.Storms , 2 hours ago

They will be stowed with Weiner's laptop.

PGR88 , 2 hours ago

the Problem with blackmailing powerful people is that eventually you get killed

[May 11, 2019] Doug Ross @ Journal A TIMELINE OF TREASON How the DNC and FBI Leadership Tried to Fix a Presidential Election [Updated]

Highly recommended!

This was clearly an attempt to entrap Trump in connections to Russia and fuel anti-Russian hysteria and defense spending. Both goals were accomplished under Trump without much resistance. Still Russiagate persists. Why?

Notable quotes:

"... 05/03/16 Email from DNC contractor Ali Chalupa states she connected Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News "to the Ukrainians" DNC https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/3962 ..."

"... 05/15/16 Crowdstrike claims it investigated DNC hacking and that Russians were responsible; FBI still denied access to server to confirm Crowdstrike https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ ..."

Jan 04, 2018 | directorblue.blogspot.com

Date Description Source Link

07/23/14 House Select Committee on Benghazi reaches agreement with State Dept. to produce Clinton emails relevant to their investigation USNews https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/paul-combetta-computer-specialist-who-deleted-hillary-clinton-emails-may-have-asked-reddit-for-tips

07/24/14 Clinton IT aide Paul Combetta, using the alias "stonetear", requests assistance on Reddit for deleting VIP email addresses USNews https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/paul-combetta-computer-specialist-who-deleted-hillary-clinton-emails-may-have-asked-reddit-for-tips

10/15/14 Clinton team instructs Datto to begin purging emails from their backup storage devices, which they apparently failed to do Exam http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clintons-tech-firm-worried-about-involvement-in-cover-up/article/2573526

03/02/15 News that Hillary Clinton exclusively used a private email server for official State Dept. business is disclosed in the New York Times NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html

03/03/15 Clinton aides call Platte River Networks, which operated her email server, to confirm all emails were deleted per their 2014 order NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-investigation.html?_r=1&mtrref=undefined

03/09/15 Clinton associate Terry McCauliffe meets with Andrew McCabe's wife Jill to encourage her to run for office JW https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-fbi-records-show-fbi-leaderships-conflicts-interest-discussions-clinton-email-investigation/

03/12/15 Jill McCabe announces her candidacy for the state senate in Virginia JW https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-fbi-records-show-fbi-leaderships-conflicts-interest-discussions-clinton-email-investigation/

03/31/15 Clinton IT specialist Paul Combetta realizes he had not deleted all of Clinton's emails, uses BleachBit software to do so Politico https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/best-of-clinton-fbi-report-227692

05/19/15 DOJ official Peter Kadzik, writing from personal email account, emails John Podesta to warn of House probe into Clinton's emails Wikileaks https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150

06/24/15 Discovery of classified information on Clinton's private email server announced; the matter is referred to the FBI Time http://time.com/4774278/james-comey-fired-timeline/

07/15/15 FBI opens criminal investigation into Clinton's email server and mishandling of classified data led by Andrew McCabe in DC office FBI https://vault.fbi.gov/october-2016-application-affidavit-and-search-warrant-related-to-email-server-investigation/October%202016%20Application%20Affidavit%20and%20Search%20Warrant%20Related%20to%20Email%20Server%20Investigation%20Part%2001%20of%2001

07/20/15 DOJ DAG Sally Yates writes to Inspector General, saying the National Security Division of DOJ is not subject to IG review DOJ https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/OLC%20IG%20Act%20Opinion%20-%207-20-15%20.pdf

07/24/15 State Dept. and other officials make security referral related to classified information possessed by Clinton and associates WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/20/timeline-james-comeys-decision-making-on-the-clinton-probe/?utm_term=.0cead386f5ef

07/24/15 After complaints from Clinton camp, New York Times edits story about email probe, removing "criminal" references TheWrap https://www.thewrap.com/new-york-times-alters-hillary-clinton-story-in-response-to-complaints-we-received-from-the-clinton-camp/

08/15/15 McCabe uses his official FBI email to promote his wife's candidacy for the State Senate in Virginia JW https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-doj-mccabe-2-production-01494-pg-24-25/

10/01/15 FBI official Andrew McCabe's wife Jill starts receiving bulk of $700,000 from Clinton associate Gov. Terry McCauliffe's political entities Ballotopedia https://ballotpedia.org/Jill_McCabe https://truepundit.com/fbi-director-lobbied-against-criminal-charges-for-hillary-after-clinton-insider-paid-his-wife-700k/

10/03/15 FBI seizes the Platte River Networks server as well as the "Pagliano" server, which were used to host Clinton email services Thompson http://www.thompsontimeline.com/tag/david-kendall/

10/05/15 FBI's Strzok sends letter to Datto, Inc. demanding the newly discovered backup server be turned over DOJ https://twitter.com/TruthinGov2016/status/945115416736796673

10/06/15 FBI receives backup of Clinton emails held by Datto, Inc. (possibly claimed by Agent Strzok) McClatchy http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article37968711.html

10/15/15 On or around this date, McCabe emails investigators that Clinton will get an "HQ Special" (special or lenient treatment) Fox https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/944439946416340992

10/11/15 On 60 Minutes , President Obama absolves Hillary Clinton of blame for her private email server: did not pose "a national security problem" CNN http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/11/politics/barack-obama-60-minutes-hillary-clinton/index.html

01/15/16 John Giacalone, head of FBI's National Security Division, retires after reportedly seeing Clinton probe go "sideways" TruePundit https://truepundit.com/fbi-director-lobbied-against-criminal-charges-for-hillary-after-clinton-insider-paid-his-wife-700k/

01/19/16 Intelligence Community Inspector General reports Clinton's private email server had SAP (highest classification level) data on it Fox http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/inspector-general-clinton-emails-had-intel-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html

01/29/16 FBI director James Comey names Andrew McCabe deputy director, with responsibility for oversight of Clinton investigation FBI https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/andrew-mccabe-named-deputy-director-of-the-fbi

02/15/16 State Dept. finds that 2,115 of the 30,490 emails produced by Clinton were classified and therefore grossly mishandled FBI https://vault.fbi.gov/october-2016-application-affidavit-and-search-warrant-related-to-email-server-investigation/October%202016%20Application%20Affidavit%20and%20Search%20Warrant%20Related%20to%20Email%20Server%20Investigation%20Part%2001%20of%2001

03/04/16 FBI's Peter Strzok texts his mistress Lisa Page, an FBI attorney, calling Trump "an idiot", whose nomination would be "good for Hillary" DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/strzoks-texts-and-the-clinton-trump-investigations-a-definitive-timeline/

03/06/16 Former Hillary State Dept. representative George Papadopoulos learns he will join Trump campaign as a low-level foreign policy adviser DOJ https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download

03/15/16 Between this date and 9/15/16, Papadopoulos tries 6 times to arrange meetings between Trump campaign and Russians, all are rejected ABC http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-russian-businessman-source-key-trump-dossier-claims/story?id=45019603

03/19/16 Hackers gain access to emails of Democrat operative John Podesta CNN http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/politics/donald-trump-jr-wikileaks-timeline/index.html

03/28/16 Paul Manafort hired as Trump campaign manager (Fusion GPS's Simpson and wife had reported on Manafort's Russian ties in 2008) Tablet http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/251897/obama-steele-dossier-russiagate

04/05/16 FBI's Strzok interviews Clinton aide Huma Abedin DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/strzoks-texts-and-the-clinton-trump-investigations-a-definitive-timeline/

04/09/16 FBI's Strzok interviews Clinton aide Cheryl Mills DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/strzoks-texts-and-the-clinton-trump-investigations-a-definitive-timeline/

04/12/16 Law firm Perkins Coie, using money from the Clinton campaign and DNC, hires Fusion GPS to find incriminating data on Trump FEC http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/28/finally-a-definitive-timeline-showing-when-clinton-dnc-started-the-russian-dossier/

04/19/16 Wife of Fusion GPS founder Simpson, Mary Jacoby, visits White House and meets with Obama and/or Obama aides CTH https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/21/oh-dear-trail-of-russian-dossier-origination-now-directly-leads-to-the-obama-white-house/

04/25/16 Obama campaign organization makes first of its payments to Perkins Coie (OFA payments to firm would total $972,000) FEC http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/29/obamas-campaign-gave-972000-law-firm-funneled-money-fusion-gps/#.WjwY4L_iThg.twitter

04/25/16 FBI's James Baker and DOJ's FISA attorneys visit White House for two back-to-back meetings White House https://twitter.com/ckadoodldooUS/status/944982488497172482

04/26/16 Low-level Trump staffer George Papadopoulos meets with Russian contact in London and is reportedly offered "dirt" on Clinton NRO http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453264/donald-trump-george-papadopoulos-indictment-exculpatory-trump

04/30/16 DNC IT staff reports suspected hacking on its server(s) to FBI, but fails to turn over the server to the agency, instead hires Crowdstrike Politico https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/russian-government-hackers-broke-into-dnc-servers-stole-trump-oppo-224315

05/02/16 FBI director Comey drafts statement exonerating Clinton before interviewing her or other key witnesses WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/20/timeline-james-comeys-decision-making-on-the-clinton-probe/?utm_term=.0cead386f5ef

05/03/16 Trump becomes the presumptive Republican nominee for the office of president Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier

05/03/16 Clinton IT specialist Paul Combetta admits lying to the FBI about erasing emails using BleachBit but is not charged for the crime WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/20/timeline-james-comeys-decision-making-on-the-clinton-probe/?utm_term=.0cead386f5ef

05/03/16 Email from DNC contractor Ali Chalupa states she connected Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News "to the Ukrainians" DNC https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/3962

05/05/16 FBI's Lisa Page and James Baker meet with Obama deputy at White House, likely topic is forthcoming FISA request White House https://twitter.com/ckadoodldooUS/status/944982488497172482

05/05/16 Washington Post reports there is "scant evidence" of a crime committed by Clinton through her use of a private email server WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/20/timeline-james-comeys-decision-making-on-the-clinton-probe/?utm_term=.0cead386f5ef

05/15/16 Crowdstrike claims it investigated DNC hacking and that Russians were responsible; FBI still denied access to server to confirm Crowdstrike https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

05/16/16 Draft statement by FBI directory Comey exonerating Clinton, before key interviews, is circulated to FBI leadership WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/20/timeline-james-comeys-decision-making-on-the-clinton-probe/?utm_term=.0cead386f5ef

05/15/16 Nellie Ohr, wife of DOJ executive Bruce Ohr, is secretly hired by Fusion GPS, presumably to work on Russian "Dossier" Fox http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/11/wife-demoted-doj-official-worked-for-firm-behind-anti-trump-dossier.html

05/21/16 According to Mueller investigation, Trump campaign official refuses Papadopoulos offer to broker meetings with Russian officials NRO http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453264/donald-trump-george-papadopoulos-indictment-exculpatory-trump

05/23/16 Nellie Ohr applies for HAM radio license, presumably to create covert communication channel and avoid government surveillance FCC http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/LicArchive/license.jsp?archive=Y&licKey=12382876

06/04/16 Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post reports, via anonymous sources, that Russians hacked the DNC WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name:page/breaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.94b04ef12773

06/09/16 Donald Trump Jr. meets with Russian attorney after being lured by the promise of opposition research NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html

06/09/16 After meeting with Bernie Sanders in White House, President Obama endorses Hillary Clinton USA Today https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/06/09/barack-obama-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democratic-party/85639104/

06/12/16 Wikileaks' Assange warns that Clinton emails will be leaked ITV http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-12/assange-on-peston-on-sunday-more-clinton-leaks-to-come/

06/15/16 Ex-MI-6 agent Christopher Steele is hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign through Fusion GPS, according to UK court filings UK https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzgzy2KXyxqtVUxEb2pwRmphOXM/view?usp=sharing

06/15/16 Romanian hacker "Guccifer" claims to have hacked DNC; analysis indicates faux "Russian" fingerprints were inserted into some files The Nation https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/guccifer-20-claims-credit-for-dnc-hack/2016/06/15/abdcdf48-3366-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.b2fbd3eadc9c

06/15/16 FBI agent Peter Strzok changes wording of Clinton charges from criminal designation "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" Fox http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/fbi-agent-fired-from-russia-probe-oversaw-flynn-interviews-changed-comey-memos-on-clinton-charges.html

06/20/16 Fusion GPS contractor Christopher Steele releases first memo related to Russian "Dossier" DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/28/finally-a-definitive-timeline-showing-when-clinton-dnc-started-the-russian-dossier/

06/27/16 A.G. Loretta Lynch secretly meets with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac; they later deny discussing the investigation Time http://time.com/4774278/james-comey-fired-timeline/

07/02/16 Clinton interviewed by FBI and Peter Strzok for 3.5 hours; she is not placed under oath nor recorded WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/20/timeline-james-comeys-decision-making-on-the-clinton-probe/?utm_term=.0cead386f5ef

07/05/16 FISA Court denies FBI request for surveillance of Trump campaign NRO http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443768/obama-fisa-trump-wiretap

07/05/16 Fusion GPS contractor Christopher Steele shares Russian "Dossier" with the FBI DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/28/finally-a-definitive-timeline-showing-when-clinton-dnc-started-the-russian-dossier/

07/05/16 FBI director Comey announces he does not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton for use of her email server Time http://time.com/4774278/james-comey-fired-timeline/

07/05/16 Romanian hacker "Guccifer" claims to have hacked DNC again The Nation https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/guccifer-20-claims-credit-for-dnc-hack/2016/06/15/abdcdf48-3366-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.b2fbd3eadc9c

07/05/16 Date that forensics indicate that DNC emails were copied by an insider via USB and not hacked via external actors The Nation https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

07/06/16 A.G. Loretta Lynch accepts Comey's recommendation not to charge Clinton for mishandling classified information USA Today https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/06/07/james-comey-testimony-a-timeline-fbi/102581874/

07/10/16 DNC staffer Seth Rich murdered in as yet unsolved case Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich

07/22/16 Wikileaks releases archive of emails stolen from Democrat National Committee (DNC) that show undermining of Sanders campaign Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

07/24/16 Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigns as Chair of DNC due to Wikileaks revelations about Sanders WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacked-emails-cast-doubt-on-hopes-for-party-unity-at-democratic-convention/2016/07/24/a446c260-51a9-11e6-b7de-dfe509430c39_story.html?utm_term=.d6ba79f39f23

07/24/16 Clinton aide Robbie Mook claims Russians hacked DNC and Clinton campaign to aid Trump Politico https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/robby-mook-russians-emails-trump-226084

07/25/16 Wikileaks' Assange says he timed release of DNC emails to impact convention; says "no one" knows who provided emails NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.html

07/25/16 FBI announces it will investigate the DNC hack revealed by Wikileaks, Peter Strzok handpicked to lead investigation Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

07/30/16 FBI opens counterintelligence investigation into possible Russian "collusion" with Trump campaign led bt Peter Strzok DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/28/finally-a-definitive-timeline-showing-when-clinton-dnc-started-the-russian-dossier/

08/06/16 FBI investigator Strzok texts mistress about a "menace", presumably meaning Trump DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/strzoks-texts-and-the-clinton-trump-investigations-a-definitive-timeline/

08/10/16 Bernie Sanders reported to have purchased a $575,000 lakeside home WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2016/08/10/bernie-sanders-buys-a-half-million-dollar-vacation-home-and-the-internet-cries-hypocrisy/?utm_term=.63d263792364

08/10/16 Washington Post implies John Brennan may have shared "Dossier" with President Obama around this date WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.fcda779022f5

08/15/16 FBI investigator Strzok texts mistress about needing an "insurance policy" against Trump CNN https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/12/12/politics/peter-strzok-texts-released/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

08/16/16 FBI writes Congress defending decision not to prosecute Clinton, stating it was 'extreme carelessness' and not 'gross negligence' WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/09/comey-timeline-everything-that-led-up-to-his-firing/?utm_term=.1d521047582b

08/17/16 On this day, NBC's Dilanian, Windrem, Arkin report claim M. Flynn clashed with intel officials during initial briefing with Trump team NBC https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/u-s-official-donald-trump-s-body-language-claim-doesn-n644856

08/25/16 CIA director James Brennan informs Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid about possible Russian "collusion" with Trump campaign DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/28/finally-a-definitive-timeline-showing-when-clinton-dnc-started-the-russian-dossier/

08/27/16 Reid sends a letter to Comey referencing allegations made about Carter Page in the dossier DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/strzoks-texts-and-the-clinton-trump-investigations-a-definitive-timeline/

09/05/16 Hillary Clinton accuses Russia of interfering with U.S. election NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-russia.html

09/08/16 NYT reports that Paul Combetta, Clinton's IT specialist, mass-deleted emails from her server in spite of records preservation request NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-investigation.html?_r=1&mtrref=undefined

09/15/16 Papadoulos emails Russian contact Boris Epshteyn trying to connect him with Sergei Millian, author of much of the Fusion GPS "Dossier" WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-low-level-volunteer-papadopoulos-sought-high-profile-as-trump-adviser/2017/10/31/dc737a42-be5f-11e7-8444-a0d4f04b89eb_story.html?utm_term=.19bfd4df75f5

09/15/16 FISA Court approves FBI request for surveillance of Trump campaign based upon Russian "Dossier" DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/03/report-trump-campaign-adviser-was-under-secret-surveillance-much-earlier-than-previously-thought/

09/21/16 New York Times, Washington Post, and Yahoo News verbally briefed by Steele on Russian "Dossier" according to court filings UK https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzgzy2KXyxqtVUxEb2pwRmphOXM/view?usp=sharing

09/23/16 Yahoo News publishes report based upon Russian "Dossier" and possible Russian collusion with Trump campaign Yahoo http://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_151322062469013&key=e7609c039c08d3ae00aebd97e6f0bffd&libId=jb5p32l3010110e3000DAbwwoz62t&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F2017%2F10%2F28%2Ffinally-a-definitive-timeline-showing-when-clinton-dnc-started-the-russian-dossier%2F&v=1&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fu-s-intel-officials-probe-ties-between-trump-adviser-and-kremlin-175046002.html&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&title=Timeline%20Showing%20When%20Clinton%2C%20DNC%20Started%20Th%20%7C%20The%20Daily%20Caller&txt=an%20article

09/26/16 DOJ National Security Divison (NSD) admits to FISC that surveillance included Obama's political opponents FISC https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/OLC%20IG%20Act%20Opinion%20-%207-20-15%20.pdf

09/27/16 John Carlin, head of DOJ National Security Division and involved with FISA requests, announces he is resigning WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/head-of-justice-departments-national-security-division-to-step-down/2016/09/27/59cb95c4-84e6-11e6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html?utm_term=.5b0c867c3a69

09/28/16 Comey claims his decision to exonerate Clinton was not made until after her interview with FBI agents WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/20/timeline-james-comeys-decision-making-on-the-clinton-probe/?utm_term=.0cead386f5ef

10/03/16 FBI agents seize computer of Anthony Weiner during investigation of his communications with underage females Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-fbi-emails-investigation-20161102-story.html

10/07/16 Access Hollywood releases graphic audiotape of Donald Trump bragging about hitting on women CNN http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/07/politics/one-year-access-hollywood-russia-podesta-email/index.html

10/07/16 Wikileaks releases archive of emails stolen from Clinton operative John Podesta CNN http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/07/politics/one-year-access-hollywood-russia-podesta-email/index.html

10/07/16 Obama administration officially accuses Russia of meddling in 2016 presidential election WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/09/comey-timeline-everything-that-led-up-to-his-firing/?utm_term=.1d521047582b

10/12/16 FBI agents tell McCabe and Strzok it's discovers 650,000 emails on Weiner's laptop, many of which were Huma Abedin's WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/laptop-may-include-thousands-of-emails-linked-to-hillary-clintons-private-server-1477854957

10/13/16 McCabe organizes FBI response to WSJ revelations that his wife's campaign was funded by Clinton associates JWS https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-fbi-records-show-fbi-leaderships-conflicts-interest-discussions-clinton-email-investigation/

10/14/16 Strzok's wife Melissa Hodgman given a major promotion to deputy director of SEC's Enforcement Division TP https://truepundit.com/insurance-policy-fbis-mccabe-and-strzok-concealed-damaging-hillary-clinton-evidence-for-weeks-just-before-the-election/

10/15/16 FBI meets with Fusion GPS contractor Steele and offers to pay him for more Russian "Dossier" material DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/28/finally-a-definitive-timeline-showing-when-clinton-dnc-started-the-russian-dossier/

10/24/16 NSA director Rogers apprises FISA Court (FISC) of numerous cases where U.S. persons were improperly/illegally surveilled FISC http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Top-Secret-FISA-Court-Order.pdf

10/24/16 CBS reveals McCabe's wife received $700K in campaign donations from Clinton associate Gov. Terry McCauliffe CBS https://www.cbsnews.com/news/terry-mcauliffes-pac-donated-to-campaign-of-fbi-officials-wife/

10/27/16 During Comey staff meeting, McCabe and Strzok are asked why they're sitting on the Huma/Weiner email disclosure Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-fbi-emails-investigation-20161102-story.html

10/28/16 Comey announces he is reopening investigation into Clinton's email server due to information found on Anthony Weiner's computer Time http://time.com/4774278/james-comey-fired-timeline/

10/30/16 Judge Kevin Fox grants a search and seizure warrant to the FBI for Clinton emails on Huma Abedin's laptop FBI https://vault.fbi.gov/october-2016-application-affidavit-and-search-warrant-related-to-email-server-investigation/October%202016%20Application%20Affidavit%20and%20Search%20Warrant%20Related%20to%20Email%20Server%20Investigation%20Part%2001%20of%2001

10/30/16 Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's writes to James Comey asking him to release "explosive" information on Russian "collusion" TPM http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/trump-dossier-timeline-whats-known

10/31/16 FBI lead counsel James Baker leaks "Dossier" information to David Corn of Mother Jones that ties Trump to Russian "collusion" Mother Jones https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/22/trump-dossier-fbi-james-baker-david-corn-mother-jones-316157

10/31/16 Clinton campaign issues statement, citing Slate, about server in Trump Tower that secretly communicated with Russia Clinton https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/793250312119263233

11/01/16 In spite of numerous conflicts of interest, Andrew McCabe waits until this date before recusing himself from Clinton email probe JW https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-documents-show-fbi-deputy-director-mccabe-not-recuse-clinton-email-scandal-investigation-week-presidential-election/

11/06/16 Comey exonerates Clinton again after Weiner documents are reviewed "around the clock" WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/09/comey-timeline-everything-that-led-up-to-his-firing/?utm_term=.1d521047582b

11/08/16 Donald Trump is elected President of the United States Time http://time.com/4774278/james-comey-fired-timeline/

11/15/16 DOJ official Bruce Ohr meets in secret with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele regarding Russian "Dossier" Fox http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/07/top-doj-official-demoted-amid-probe-contacts-with-trump-dossier-firm.html

11/15/16 FBI agrees to continue funding Steele and his "Dossier" TPM http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/trump-dossier-timeline-whats-known

11/17/16 NSA Head Mike Rogers travels to Trump Tower (likely warning of illegal surveillance); Trump transition team immediate moves to NJ CTH https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/03/occams-razor-did-nsa-admiral-mike-rogers-warn-trump-on-november-17th-2016/

11/18/16 WaPo reports that James Clapper and other officials want Rogers removed from his post WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-and-intelligence-community-chiefs-have-urged-obama-to-remove-the-head-of-the-nsa/2016/11/19/44de6ea6-adff-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html?utm_term=.b82f16d866de

11/18/16 Sen. John McCain told of the Russian "Dossier"; a copy is sent to McCain and key aides DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/28/finally-a-definitive-timeline-showing-when-clinton-dnc-started-the-russian-dossier/

12/09/16 CIA tells Congress that they believe the Russians hacked the DNC to help defeat Hillary Clinton's campaign WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html

12/09/16 McCain provides a copy of Russian "Dossier" to FBI director James Comey DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/28/finally-a-definitive-timeline-showing-when-clinton-dnc-started-the-russian-dossier/

12/09/16 President Obama orders intelligence community to investigate Russian influence on U.S. election Time http://time.com/4774278/james-comey-fired-timeline/

01/02/17 Wikileaks' Assange says he guarantees emails did not come from Russia; that Obama administration is trying to undermine Trump Time http://time.com/4620806/julian-assange-russia-hack-fox-hannity/

01/05/17 FBI says DNC refused to turn over server to determine nature of leaks CNN http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/fbi-russia-hacking-dnc-crowdstrike/index.html

01/06/17 Comey briefs President-Elect Trump on existence of "salacious and unverified" Russian "Dossier" CNS https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/comey-even-though-it-was-salacious-and-unverified-we-knew-media-was-about

01/06/17 Within hours of Comey's meeting with Trump, existence of "Dossier" leaked by CNN (James Clapper named as possible leaker) FNC https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/31/ron-desantis-nyt-papadopoulos-russia-probe-claim-not-what-fbi-and-doj-told-congressional-investigators/

01/10/17 U.S. intelligence chiefs Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Rogers brief Obama on Russian "Dossier" and attempts to "influence" Trump CNN http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html

01/10/17 BuzzFeed releases full Fusion GPS "Dossier" BuzzFeed https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.wao5vgDE6#.io8bXPQ9V

01/11/17 WSJ identifies author of Russian "Dossier" as Christopher Steele WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/christopher-steele-ex-british-intelligence-officer-said-to-have-prepared-dossier-on-trump-1484162553

01/12/17 DOJ IG Michael Horowitz announces probe into actions of FBI including McCabe's role in Clinton email scandal DOJ https://oig.justice.gov/press/2017/2017-01-12.pdf

01/19/17 NYT reports law enforcement officials "intercepted" communications of Trump officials, including Paul Manafort NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?

01/22/17 Michael Flynn sworn in as National Security Adviser Moyer http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/

01/24/17 Michael Flynn gives voluntary interview to FBI regarding Russian "collusion"; interviewer is Peter Strzok NPR https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568319589/the-10-events-you-need-to-know-to-understand-the-michael-flynn-story

01/26/17 Acting A.G. Sally Yates and Bill Priestap inform White House counsel that Flynn was "compromised" by Russian actors NPR https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568319589/the-10-events-you-need-to-know-to-understand-the-michael-flynn-story

01/27/17 Former Clinton State Dept. representative George Papadopoulos interviewed by FBI, which results in his eventual indictment DOJ https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download

01/30/17 Russian operative Sergei Millian named as source of information for "Dossier" fed to Steele and Fusion GPS ABC http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-russian-businessman-source-key-trump-dossier-claims/story?id=45019603

01/30/17 Acting A.G. Sally Yates fired by President Trump for refusing to enforce his travel ban orders NPR https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568319589/the-10-events-you-need-to-know-to-understand-the-michael-flynn-story

02/08/17 Jeff Sessions confirmed as Attorney General WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/18/10-things-to-know-about-sen-jeff-sessions-donald-trumps-pick-for-attorney-general/

02/13/17 Flynn fired by President after leaks claim that the aide has discussed sanctions with Russian actors, which Flynn denies NPR https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568319589/the-10-events-you-need-to-know-to-understand-the-michael-flynn-story

02/14/17 In meeting with Trump, Comey says he was asked by President if he could see fit to "letting Flynn go" NPR https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568319589/the-10-events-you-need-to-know-to-understand-the-michael-flynn-story

03/02/17 A.G. Jeff Sessions recuses himself from Russia "collusion" investigation, citing prior contacts with the Russian Ambassador NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/jeff-sessions-russia-trump-investigation-democrats.html

03/20/17 Comey testifies before Congress that FBI secretly investigated potential Trump "collusion" and hid that fact from Congress Time http://time.com/4774278/james-comey-fired-timeline/

03/20/17 Vanity Fair publishes puff piece on Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS and their work to create the "Dossier" Vanity Fair https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/how-the-explosive-russian-dossier-was-compiled-christopher-steele

03/20/17 Comey denies accusations that the Trump campaign had been wiretapped by the U.S. government WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/09/comey-timeline-everything-that-led-up-to-his-firing/?utm_term=.1d521047582b

03/20/17 Press Secretary Sean Spicer strongly denounces surveillance and unmasking of Trump aides by Obama officials Exam http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/spicer-blasts-unmasking-of-flynn/article/2617884

03/27/17 Former Obama official Evelyn Farkas admits Obama administration spied on Trump to find Russian "collusion" ties MSNBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=gapRNpEjXUo

03/28/17 Sen. Chuck Grassley writes to Comey over concern that McCabe's investigation of Clinton was tainted by campaign donations SJC https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-examines-potential-conflicts-top-fbi-official%E2%80%99s-role-russia-collusion

05/09/17 Trump fires FBI director James Comey Time http://time.com/4774278/james-comey-fired-timeline/

05/10/17 Washington Post asserts Comey had requested additional funding and resources for Russia investigation before his firing WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/09/comey-timeline-everything-that-led-up-to-his-firing/?utm_term=.1d521047582b

05/10/17 Huma Abedin husband Anthony Weiner signs plea agreement for crime of transmitting obscene material to a minor Hill http://thehill.com/homenews/news/334255-anthony-weiner-pleads-guilty-i-have-a-sickness

05/12/17 Trump tweets that Comey better hope there are no tapes of their conversations "before he starts leaking to the press" Hill http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333081-trump-warns-comey-better-hope-there-are-no-tapes-of-our-meeting

05/17/17 DOJ names Robert Mueller special counsel to investigate Russian influence on election NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html

06/08/17 Comey admits he leaked records of his conversation in order to spur the naming of a special counsel CNN http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/08/politics/james-comey-testimony-donald-trump/index.html

06/15/17 Former DHS head Jeh Johnson tells Congress that the DNC refused to turn over its server so it could throughly investigate "hack" Times https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/5/dnc-email-server-most-wanted-evidence-for-russia-i/

06/24/17 Wife of Fusion GPS founder Simpson, Mary Jacoby, writes on Facebook that her husband deserves the credit for "Russia-gate" Tablet http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/251897/obama-steele-dossier-russiagate

07/07/17 Comey asserts "Dossier" was "salacious and unverified", but was important because media was prepared to report it CNS https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/comey-even-though-it-was-salacious-and-unverified-we-knew-media-was-about

07/13/17 CNN reports Strzok is working for Mueller's special counsel investgiation CNN http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/13/politics/peter-strzok-special-counsel-russia-fbi/index.html

07/14/17 DNC contractor Ali Chalupa denies working with Ukrainians to undermine Trump in spite of her leaked email from 5/3/16 CNN http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/14/politics/dnc-contractor-ukraine-alexandra-chalupa-trump/index.html

07/20/17 DOJ Inspector General receives compromising texts of Mueller investigator Peter Strzok from FBI DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/13/new-details-emerge-about-discovery-of-fbi-agents-anti-trump-texts/

07/24/17 Consortium of Intelligence Professionals (VIPS) reports that there is no evidence that Russians hacked DNC (see 7/5/16) VIPS https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/

07/27/17 DOJ Inspector General meets with Mueller and Rosenstein to inform them of Strzok's text messages DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/13/new-details-emerge-about-discovery-of-fbi-agents-anti-trump-texts/

08/09/17 The Nation reports evidence that DNC insiders, not Russian hackers, compromised Democrat IT systems The Nation https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

08/10/17 DOJ Inspector General requests all communications between Strzok and Page DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/13/new-details-emerge-about-discovery-of-fbi-agents-anti-trump-texts/

08/22/17 Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson meets with Senate committee for 10 hours, but refuses to divulge who funded "Dossier" DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/28/finally-a-definitive-timeline-showing-when-clinton-dnc-started-the-russian-dossier/

08/24/17 House Intel Chair Nunes subpoenas DOJ and FBI for documents related to "Dossier", which Strzok is believed to be behind DC http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/13/politics/peter-strzok-special-counsel-russia-fbi/index.html

09/01/17 NBC's Dilanian, believed to be a Fusion GPS flack, misreports on Trump Jr.'s 6/9 meeting with Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya Federalist http://thefederalist.com/2017/12/04/fusion-gps-scandal-implicates-media-possible-pay-publish-scheme/

09/14/17 Susan Rice admits she surveilled Trump administration after the election and later unmasked the identities of key aides Times https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/14/susan-rice-reveals-why-she-unmasked-trump-campaign/

10/18/17 Two Fusion GPS officials plead the Fifth Amendment during House Intelligence Committee interviews DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/18/fusion-gps-partners-plead-the-fifth-during-house-intel-appearance/

10/24/17 Washington Post reveals Clinton campaign and DNC funded Fusion GPS and Russian "Dossier" TPM http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/trump-dossier-timeline-whats-known

10/29/17 NBC's Delanian reports upon an illegal leak from the Mueller investigation that the first indictment will be issued Monday NBC https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/grand-jury-approves-first-charges-mueller-s-russia-probe-report-n815246

10/30/17 Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos indicted as part of Mueller's investigation NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/special-counsel-indictments.html

10/31/17 FBI refuses House Intel Committee (chaired by Nunez) request to interview Strzok DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/strzoks-texts-and-the-clinton-trump-investigations-a-definitive-timeline/

11/30/17 Flynn signs please agreeement with special counsel, admitting he lied about sanctions conversations NPR https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568319589/the-10-events-you-need-to-know-to-understand-the-michael-flynn-story

12/02/17 Washington Post reveals existence of incriminating messages between Peter Strzok revealing anti-Trump biases WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/two-senior-fbi-officials-on-clinton-trump-probes-exchanged-politically-charged-texts-disparaging-trump/2017/12/02/9846421c-d707-11e7-a986-d0a9770d9a3e_story.html?utm_term=.2fa2cb13cf0c

12/04/17 CNN reveals Strzok changed wording of Clinton investigation to avoid criminal charges CNN http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey/index.html?sr=twCNNp120417peter-strzok-james-comey0420PMStory&CNNPolitics=Tw

12/06/17 DOJ executive Bruce Ohr demoted after revelations he secretly met with Fusion GPS, which had secretly employed his wife Nellie Fox http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/07/top-doj-official-demoted-amid-probe-contacts-with-trump-dossier-firm.html

12/06/17 Rep. Adam Schiff accused of leaking privileged notes of meeting between Trump. Jr and House Intelligence Committee to CNN Hill http://thehill.com/homenews/house/365470-republicans-call-for-an-inquiry-into-house-intel-panel-russia-investigation

12/07/17 Fox News reveals Ohr was in contact with Fusion GPS at the same time the FISA application was submitted and granted Fox http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/07/top-doj-official-demoted-amid-probe-contacts-with-trump-dossier-firm.html

12/07/17 Rep. Jim Jordan grills FBI director Wray: was Dossier used to secure FISA warrant? Wray refuses to answer RCP https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/07/rep_jim_jordan_grills_fbi_director_wray_about_peter_strzok.html

12/07/17 Judge presiding over Michael Flynn criminal case, Rudolph Contreras, is recused, according to court statement for reasons unknown Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-flynn/judge-presiding-over-michael-flynn-criminal-case-is-recused-court-idUSKBN1E202V

12/11/17 Fox News reveals Ohr's wife was hired by Fusion GPS to create opposition research against Trump Fox http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/11/wife-demoted-doj-official-worked-for-firm-behind-anti-trump-dossier.html

12/12/17 375 text messages between Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page are released CNN https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/12/12/politics/peter-strzok-texts-released/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

12/12/17 Deputy FBI director Anrew McCabe cancels testimony before Congress after revelations about Nellie and Bruce Ohr's ties to Fusion GPS Breitbart http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/12/deputy-fbi-director-delays-testimony-after-report-reveals-fusion-gps-paid-officials-wife/

12/13/17 Deputy A.G. Rosenstein refuses to tell Congress whether the FBI paid for the Fusion GPS "Dossier" DC http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/13/deputy-ag-wont-say-whether-the-fbi-paid-for-dossier/

12/14/17 Rep. Jim Jordan states DOJ/FBI leadership attempted to fix the presidential election by inventing a "Russian Collusion" narrative Fox http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/12/boom-gop-rep-jim-jordan-proof-fbi-worked-republican-party-election-video/

12/18/17 Demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr fails to appear before Congress FoxBiz http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/12/just-incredible-tom-fitton-stunned-bruce-ohr-ditches-senate-intel-committee-hearing-video/

12/18/17 GOP lawmakers call for investigation into leaks of privileged interview between Trump Jr. and House Intelligence Committee Hill http://thehill.com/homenews/house/365470-republicans-call-for-an-inquiry-into-house-intel-panel-russia-investigation

12/18/17 Senate Judiciary Chair Grassley calls for the firing of FBI's McCabe Fox http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/19/fbi-s-mccabe-faces-gop-calls-for-ouster-ahead-closed-door-testimony.html

12/19/17 FBI's McCabe testifies in private to House Intel Commitee a day after and is unable to answer questions about the "Dossier" Exam http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-frustrated-lawmakers-pressed-fbis-mccabe-for-answers-on-trump-dossier-they-got-nothing/article/2644225

12/21/17 FBI's top General Counsel -- James A. Baker -- said to have leaked "Dossier" to Mother Jones, is reassigned by FBI Director Wray WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbis-top-lawyer-said-to-be-reassigned/2017/12/21/2ac76640-e6b5-11e7-833f-155031558ff4_story.html?utm_term=.418ee85e094c

12/29/17 State Dept. releases cache of emails found on Weiner-Abedin laptop, several of which contained classified information CNN https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/12/29/politics/huma-abedin-state-department-email-release/index.html

12/30/17 Sen. Lindsey Graham cites major concern over how "Dossier" was used by the DOJ, implying it was disguised and presented to FISC Fox http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/12/lindsey-graham-doj-used-anti-trump-dossier-in-court.php?

12/30/17 DNC-linked NYT's Haberman markets narrative that FBI opened Trump investigation due to George Papadopoulos, not "Dossier" NYT https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/947185141306101760.html

12/31/17 NY Times reports Clinton associates offered up to $500,000 to females to report sexual harrassment by Trump NYT http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/31/hillary-clinton-backer-paid-500g-to-fund-women-accusing-trump-sexual-misconduct-before-election-day-report-says.html

01/02/18 Fusion GPS founders write NYT op-ed asserting "Dossier" claims; fail to address funding sources, Nellie Ohr involvement, etc. NYT http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/02/fusion-gps-partners-make-first-public-comments-about-the-dossier/

01/03/18 Senate Judiciary Chair Grassley writes DAG Rosenstein: did Comey leak classified info to Columbia Professor Daniel Richman? SJC https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-presses-justice-department-about-classification-comey-memos

01/15/18 Date that DOJ Inspector General expected to turn over 1.2 million documents related to DOJ/FBI handling of Clinton probe CTH https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/28/intelligence-committee-chairman-devin-nunes-gives-doj-until-january-3rd-to-produce-documents/

[Apr 21, 2019] Mark Ames: The FBI Has No Legal Charter But Lots of Kompromat

Notable quotes:

"... Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues (such as street murders in Mexico). ..."

"... The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving the FBI in 2005. ..."

"... Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins, is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI. All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration itself. ..."

"... Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations, particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the 1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at either. ..."

May 16, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

By Mark Ames, founding editor of the Moscow satirical paper The eXile and co-host of the Radio War Nerd podcast with Gary Brecher (aka John Dolan). Subscribe here . Originally published at The Exiled

I made the mistake of listening to NPR last week to find out what Conventional Wisdom had to say about Trump firing Comey, on the assumption that their standardized Mister-Rogers-on-Nyquil voice tones would rein in the hysteria pitch a little. And on the surface, it did-the NPR host and guests weren't directly shrieking "the world is ending! We're all gonna die SHEEPLE!" the way they were on CNN. But in a sense they were screaming "fire!", if you know how to distinguish the very minute pitch level differences in the standard NPR Nyquil voice.

The host of the daytime NPR program asked his guests how serious, and how "unprecedented" Trump's decision to fire his FBI chief was. The guests answers were strange: they spoke about "rule of law" and "violating the Constitution" but then switched to Trump "violating norms"-and back again, interchanging "norms" and "laws" as if they're synonyms. One of the guests admitted that Trump firing Comey was 100% legal, but that didn't seem to matter in this talk about Trump having abandoned rule-of-law for a Putinist dictatorship. These guys wouldn't pass a high school civics class, but there they were, garbling it all up. What mattered was the proper sense of panic and outrage-I'm not sure anyone really cared about the actual legality of the thing, or the legal, political or "normative" history of the FBI.

For starters, the FBI hardly belongs in the same set with concepts like "constitutional" or " rule of law." That's because the FBI was never established by a law. US Lawmakers refused to approve an FBI bureau over a century ago when it was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt. So he ignored Congress, and went ahead and set it up by presidential fiat. That's one thing the civil liberties crowd hates discussing - how centralized US political power is in the executive branch, a feature in the constitutional system put there by the holy Founders.

In the late 1970s, at the tail end of our brief Glasnost, there was a lot of talk in Washington about finally creating a legal charter for the FBI -70 years after its founding. A lot of serious ink was spilled trying to transform the FBI from an extralegal secret police agency to something legal and defined. If you want to play archeologist to America's recent history, you can find this in the New York Times' archives, articles with headlines like "Draft of Charter for F.B.I. Limits Inquiry Methods" :

The Carter Administration will soon send to Congress the first governing charter for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The proposed charter imposes extensive but not absolute restrictions on the bureau's employment of controversial investigative techniques, .including the use of informers, undercover agents and covert criminal activity.

The charter also specifies the duties and powers of the bureau, setting precise standards and procedures for the initiation ,and conduct of investigations. It specifically requires the F.B.I. to observe constitutional rights and establishes safeguards against unchecked harassment, break‐ins and other abuses.

followed by the inevitable lament, like this editorial from the Christian Science Monitor a year later, "Don't Forget the FBI Charter". Which of course we did forget-that was Reagan's purpose and value for the post-Glasnost reaction: forgetting. As historian Athan Theoharis wrote , "After 1981, Congress never seriously considered again any of the FBI charter proposals."

The origins of the FBI have been obscured both because of its dubious legality and because of its original political purpose-to help the president battle the all-powerful American capitalists. It wasn't that Teddy Roosevelt was a radical leftist-he was a Progressive Republican, which sounds like an oxymoron today but which was mainstream and ascendant politics in his time. Roosevelt was probably the first president since Andrew Jackson to try to smash concentrated wealth-power, or at least some of it. He could be brutally anti-labor, but so were the powerful capitalists he fought, and all the structures of government power. He met little opposition pursuing his imperial Social Darwinist ambitions outside America's borders-but he had a much harder time fighting the powerful capitalists at home against Roosevelt's most honorable political obsession: preserving forests, parks and public lands from greedy capitalists. An early FBI memo to Hoover about the FBI's origins explains,

"Roosevelt, in his characteristic dynamic fashion, asserted that the plunderers of the public domain would be prosecuted and brought to justice."

According to New York Times reporter Tim Wiener's Enemies: A History of the FBI , it was the Oregon land fraud scandal of 1905-6 that put the idea of an FBI in TR's hyperactive mind. The scandal involved leading Oregon politicians helping railroad tycoon Edward Harriman illegally sell off pristine Oregon forest lands to timber interests, and it ended with an Oregon senator and the state's only two House representatives criminally charged and put on trial-along with dozens of other Oregonians. Basically, they were raping the state's public lands and forests like colonists stripping a foreign country-and that stuck in TR's craw.

TR wanted his attorney general-Charles Bonaparte (yes, he really was a descendant of that Bonaparte)-to make a full report to on the rampant land fraud scams that the robber barons were running to despoil the American West, and which threatened TR's vision of land and forest conservation and parks. Bonaparte created an investigative team from the US Secret Service, but TR thought their report was a "whitewash" and proposed a new separate federal investigative service within Bonaparte's Department of Justice that would report only to the Attorney General.

Until then, the US government had to rely on private contractors like the notorious, dreaded Pinkerton Agency, who were great at strikebreaking, clubbing workers and shooting organizers, but not so good at taking down down robber barons, who happened to also be important clients for the private detective agencies.

In early 1908, Attorney General Bonaparte wrote to Congress asking for the legal authority (and budget funds) to create a "permanent detective force" under the DOJ. Congress rebelled, denouncing it as a plan to create an American okhrana . Democrat Joseph Sherley wrote that "spying on men and prying into what would ordinarily be considered their private affairs" went against "American ideas of government"; Rep. George Waldo, a New York Republican, said the proposed FBI was a "great blow to freedom and to free institutions if there should arise in this country any such great central secret-service bureau as there is in Russia."

So Congress's response was the opposite, banning Bonaparte's DOJ from spending any funds at all on a proposed FBI. Another Congressman wrote another provision into the budget bill banning the DOJ from hiring Secret Service employees for any sort of FBI type agency. So Bonaparte waited until Congress took its summer recess, set aside some DOJ funds, recruited some Secret Service agents, and created a new federal detective bureau with 34 agents. This was how the FBI was born. Congress wasn't notified until the end of 1908, in a few lines in a standard report - "oh yeah, forgot to tell you-the executive branch went ahead and created an American okhrana because, well, the ol' joke about dogs licking their balls. Happy New Year!"

The sordid history of America's extralegal secret police-initially named the Bureau of Investigation, changed to the FBI ("Federal") in the 30's, is mostly a history of xenophobic panic-mongering, illegal domestic spying, mass roundups and plans for mass-roundups, false entrapment schemes, and planting what Russians call "kompromat"- compromising information about a target's sex life-to blackmail or destroy American political figures that the FBI didn't like.

The first political victim of J Edgar Hoover's kompromat was Louis Post, the assistant secretary of labor under Woodrow Wilson. Post's crime was releasing over 1,000 alleged Reds from detention facilities near the end of the FBI's Red Scare crackdown, when they jailed and deported untold thousands on suspicion of being Communists. The FBI's mass purge began with popular media support in 1919, but by the middle of 1920, some (not the FBI) were starting to get a little queasy. A legal challenge to the FBI's mass purges and exiles in Boston ended with a federal judge denouncing the FBI. After that ruling, assistant secretary Louis Post, a 71-year-old well-meaning progressive, reviewed the cases against the last 1500 detainees that the FBI wanted to deport, and found that there was absolutely nothing on at least 75 percent of the cases. Post's review threatened to undo thousands more FBI persecutions of alleged Moscow-controlled radicals.

So one of the FBI's most ambitious young agents, J Edgar Hoover, collected kompromat on Post and his alleged associations with other alleged Moscow-controlled leftists, and gave the file to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives-which promptly announced it would hold hearings to investigate Post as a left subversive. The House tried to impeach Post, but ultimately he defended himself. Post's lawyer compared his political persecutors to the okhrana (Russia, again!): "We in America have sunk to the level of the government of Russia under the Czarist regime," describing the FBI's smear campaign as "even lower in some of their methods than the old Russian officials."

Under Harding, the FBI had a new chief, William Burns, who made headlines blaming the terror bombing attack on Wall Street of 1920 that killed 34 people on a Kremlin-run conspiracy. The FBI claimed it had a highly reliable inside source who told them that Lenin sent $30,000 to the Soviets' diplomatic mission in New York, which was distributed to four local Communist agents who arranged the Wall Street bombing. The source claimed to have personally spoken with Lenin, who boasted that the bombing was so successful he'd ordered up more.

The only problem was that the FBI's reliable source, a Jewish-Polish petty criminal named Wolf Lindenfeld, turned out to be a bullshitter-nicknamed "Windy Linde"-who thought his fake confession about Lenin funding the bombing campaign would get him out of Poland's jails and set up in a comfortable new life in New York.

By 1923, the FBI had thoroughly destroyed America's communist and radical labor movements-allowing it to focus on its other favorite pastime: spying on and destroying political opponents. The FBI spied on US Senators who supported opening diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union: Idaho's William Borah, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Thomas Walsh of the Judiciary Committee, and Burton K Wheeler, the prairie Populist senator from Montana, who visited the Soviet Union and pushed for diplomatic relations. Harding's corrupt Attorney General Dougherty denounced Sen. Wheeler as "the Communist leader in the Senate" and "no more a Democrat than Stalin, his comrade in Moscow." Dougherty accused Sen. Wheeler of being part of a conspiracy "to capture, by deceit and design, as many members of the Senate as possible and to spread through Washington and the cloakrooms of Congress a poison gas as deadly as that which sapped and destroyed brave soldiers in the last war."

Hoover, now a top FBI official, quietly fed kompromat to journalists he cultivated, particularly an AP reporter named Richard Whitney, who published a popular book in 1924, "Reds In America" alleging Kremlin agents "had an all-pervasive influence over American institutions; they had infiltrated every corner of American life." Whitney named Charlie Chaplin as a Kremlin agent, along with Felix Frankfurter and members of the Senate pushing for recognition of the Soviet Union. That killed any hope for diplomatic recognition for the next decade.

Then the first Harding scandals broke-Teapot Dome, Veterans Affairs, bribery at the highest rungs. When Senators Wheeler and Walsh opened bribery investigations, the FBI sent agents to the senators' home state to drum up false bribery charges against Sen. Wheeler. The charges were clearly fake, and a jury dismissed the charges. But Attorney General Dougherty was indicted for fraud and forced to resign, as was his FBI chief Burns-but not Burns' underling Hoover, who stayed in the shadows.

"We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail This must stop."

With the Cold War, the FBI became obsessed with homosexuals as America's Fifth Column under Moscow's control. Homosexuals, the FBI believed, were susceptible to Kremlin kompromat-so the FBI collected and disseminated its own kompromat on alleged American homosexuals, supposedly to protect America from the Kremlin. In the early 1950s, Hoover launched the Sex Deviates Program to spy on American homosexuals and purge them from public life. The FBI built up 300,000 pages of files on suspected homosexuals and contacted their employers, local law enforcement and universities to "to drive homosexuals from every institution of government, higher learning, and law enforcement in the nation," according to Tim Weiner's book Enemies. No one but the FBI knows exactly how many Americans' lives and careers were destroyed by the FBI's Sex Deviants Program but Hoover-who never married, lived with his mother until he was 40, and traveled everywhere with his "friend" Clyde Tolson .

In the 1952 election, Hoover was so committed to helping the Republicans and Eisenhower win that he compiled and disseminated a 19-page kompromat file alleging that his Democratic Party rival Adlai Stevenson was gay. The FBI's file on Stevenson was kept in the Sex Deviants Program section-it included libelous gossip, claiming that Stevenson was one of Illinois' "best known homosexuals" who went by the name "Adeline" in gay cruising circles.

In the 1960s, Hoover and his FBI chiefs collected kompromat on the sex lives of JFK and Martin Luther King. Hoover presented some of his kompromat on JFK to Bobby Kennedy, in a concern-trollish way claiming to "warn" him that the president was opening himself up to blackmail. It was really a way for Hoover to let the despised Kennedy brothers know he could destroy them, should they try to Comey him out of his FBI office. Hoover's kompromat on MLK's sex life was a particular obsession of his-he now believed that African-Americans, not homosexuals, posed the greatest threat to become a Kremlin Fifth Column. The FBI wiretapped MLK's private life, collecting tapes of his affairs with other women, which a top FBI official then mailed to Martin Luther King's wife, along with a note urging King to commit suicide.

FBI letter anonymously mailed to Martin Luther King Jr's wife, along with kompromat sex tapes

After JFK was murdered, when Bobby Kennedy ran for the Senate in 1964, he recounted another disturbing FBI/kompromat story that President Johnson shared with him on the campaign trail. LBJ told Bobby about a stack of kompromat files - FBI reports "detailing the sexual debauchery of members of the Senate and House who consorted with prostitutes." LBJ asked RFK if the kompromat should be leaked selectively to destroy Republicans before the 1964 elections. Kennedy recalled,

"He told me he had spent all night sitting up and reading the files of the FBI on all these people. And Lyndon talks about that information and material so freely. Lyndon talks about everybody, you see, with everybody. And of course that's dangerous."

Kennedy had seen some of the same FBI kompromat files as attorney general, but he was totally opposed to releasing such unsubstantiated kompromat-such as, say, the Trump piss files-because doing so would "destroy the confidence that people in the United States had in their government and really make us a laughingstock around the world."

Imagine that.

Which brings me to the big analogy every hack threw around last week, calling Trump firing Comey "Nixonian." Actually, what Trump did was more like the very opposite of Nixon, who badly wanted to fire Hoover in 1971-2, but was too afraid of the kompromat Hoover might've had on him to make the move. Nixon fell out with his old friend and onetime mentor J Edgar Hoover in 1971, when the ailing old FBI chief refused to get sucked in to the Daniel Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers investigation, especially after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. Part of the reason Nixon created his Plumbers team of black bag burglars was because Hoover had become a bit skittish in his last year on this planet-and that drove Nixon crazy.

Nixon called his chief of staff Haldeman:

Nixon: I talked to Hoover last night and Hoover is not going after this case [Ellsberg] as strong as I would like. There's something dragging him.

Haldeman: You don't have the feeling the FBI is really pursuing this?

Nixon: Yeah, particularly the conspiracy side. I want to go after everyone. I'm not so interested in Ellsberg, but we have to go after everybody who's a member of this conspiracy.

Hoover's ambitious deputies in the FBI were smelling blood, angling to replace him. His number 3, Bill Sullivan (who sent MLK the sex tapes and suicide note) was especially keen to get rid of Hoover and take his place. So as J Edgar was stonewalling the Daniel Ellsberg investigation, Sullivan showed up in a Department of Justice office with two suitcases packed full of transcripts and summaries of illegal wiretaps that Kissinger and Nixon had ordered on their own staff and on American journalists. The taps were ordered in Nixon's first months in the White House in 1969, to plug up the barrage of leaks, the likes of which no one had ever seen before. Sullivan took the leaks from J Edgar's possession and told the DOJ official that they needed to be hidden from Hoover, who planned to use them as kompromat to blackmail Nixon.

Nixon decided he was going to fire J Edgar the next day. This was in September, 1971. But the next day came, and Nixon got scared. So he tried to convince his attorney general John Mitchell to fire Hoover for him, but Mitchell said only the President could fire J Edgar Hoover. So Nixon met him for breakfast, and, well, he just didn't have the guts. Over breakfast, Hoover flattered Nixon and told him there was nothing more in the world he wanted than to see Nixon re-elected. Nixon caved; the next day, J Edgar Hoover unceremoniously fired his number 3 Bill Sullivan, locking him out of the building and out of his office so that he couldn't take anything with him. Sullivan was done.

The lesson here, I suppose, is that if an FBI director doesn't want to be fired, it's best to keep your kompromat a little closer to your chest, as a gun to hold to your boss's head. Comey's crew already released the piss tapes kompromat on Trump-the damage was done. What was left to hold back Trump from firing Comey? "Laws"? The FBI isn't even legal. "Norms" would be the real reason. Which pretty much sums up everything Trump has been doing so far. We've learned the past two decades that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What does bind them are "norms"-and while those norms may mean everything to the ruling class, it's an open question how much these norms mean to a lot of Americans outside that club.
Huey Long , May 16, 2017 at 2:33 am

Wow, and this whole time I thought the NSA had a kompromat monopoly as they have everybody's porn site search terms and viewing habits on file.

I had no idea the FBI practically invented it!

3.14e-9 , May 16, 2017 at 3:04 am

The Native tribes don't have a great history with the FBI, either.

https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/culture/thing-about-skins/comey-fbi-destructive-history-native-people/

voteforno6 , May 16, 2017 at 6:06 am

Has anyone ever used the FBI's lack of a charter as a defense in court?

Disturbed Voter , May 16, 2017 at 6:42 am

The USA doesn't have a legal basis either, it is a revolting crown colony of the British Empire. Treason and heresy all the way down. Maybe the British need to burn Washington DC again?

Synoia , May 16, 2017 at 9:46 pm

Britain burning DC, and the so call ed "war" of 1812, got no mention in my History Books. Napoleon on the other hand, featured greatly

In 1812 Napoleon was busy going to Russia. That went well.

Ignim Brites , May 16, 2017 at 7:55 am

Wondered how Comey thought he could get away with his conviction and pardon of Sec Clinton. Seems like part of the culture of FBI is a "above and beyond" the law mentality.

Watt4Bob , May 16, 2017 at 7:56 am

Back in the early 1970s a high school friend moved to Alabama because his father was transferred by his employer.

My friend sent a post card describing among other things the fact that Alabama had done away with the requirement of a math class to graduate high school, and substituted a required class called "The Evils of Communism" complete with a text-book written by J. Edgar Hoover; Masters of Deceit.

JMarco , May 16, 2017 at 2:52 pm

In Dallas,Texas my 1959 Civics class had to read the same book. We all were given paperback copies of it to take home and read. It was required reading enacted by Texas legislature.

Watt4Bob , May 16, 2017 at 4:47 pm

So I'd guess you weren't fooled by any of those commie plots of the sixties, like the campaigns for civil rights or against the Vietnamese war.

I can't really brag, I didn't stop worrying about the Red Menace until 1970 or so, that's when I started running into returning vets who mostly had no patience for that stuff.

Carolinian , May 16, 2017 at 8:35 am

We've learned the past two decades that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What does bind them are "norms"

Or as David Broder put it (re Bill Clinton): he came in and trashed the place and it wasn't his place.

It was David Broder's place. Of course the media play a key role with all that kompromat since they are the ones needed to convey it to the public. The tragedy is that even many of the sensible in their ranks such as Bill Moyers have been sucked into the kompromat due to their hysteria over Trump. Ames is surely on point in this great article. The mistake was allowing secret police agencies like the FBI and CIA to be created in the first place.

Katharine , May 16, 2017 at 8:37 am

Sorry, my initial reaction was that people who don't know the difference between "rein" and "reign" are not to be trusted to provide reliable information. Recognizing that as petty, I kept reading, and presently found the statement that Congress was not informed of the founding of the FBI until a century after the fact, which seems implausible. If in fact the author meant the end of 1908 it was quite an achievement to write 2008.

Interesting to the extent it may be true, but with few sources, no footnotes, and little evidence of critical editing who knows what that may be?

Carolinian , May 16, 2017 at 9:12 am

Do you even know who Mark Ames is?

Petty .yes.

Katharine , May 16, 2017 at 10:08 am

Who he is is irrelevant. I don't take things on faith because "the Pope said" or because Mark Ames said. People who expect their information to be taken seriously should substantiate it.

Bill Smith , May 16, 2017 at 12:00 pm

Yeah, in the first sentence

Interesting article though.

Fiery Hunt , May 16, 2017 at 9:21 am

Yeah, Kathatine, you're right .very petty.

And completely missed the point.

Or worse, you got the point and your best rejection of that point was pointing out a typo.

Katharine , May 16, 2017 at 10:13 am

I neither missed the point nor rejected it. I reserved judgment, as I thought was apparent from my comment.

sid_finster , May 16, 2017 at 10:50 am

But Trump is bad. Very Bad.

So anything the FBI does to get rid of him must by definition be ok! Besides, surely our civic-minded IC would never use their power on the Good Guys™!

Right?

JTMcPhee , May 16, 2017 at 9:21 am

Ah yes, the voice of "caution." And such attention to the lack of footnotes, in this day when the curious can so easily cut and paste a bit of salient text into a search engine and pull up a feast of parse-able writings and video, from which they can "judiciously assess" claims and statements. If they care to spend the time, which is in such short supply among those who are struggling to keep up with the horrors and revelations people of good will confront every blinking day

Classic impeachment indeed. All from the height of "academic rigor" and "caution." Especially the "apologetic" bit about "reign" vs "rein." Typos destroy credibility, don't they? And the coup de grass (sic), the unrebuttable "plausibility" claim.

One wonders at the nature of the author's curriculum vitae. One also marvels at the yawning gulf between the Very Serious Stuff I was taught in grade and high school civics and history, back in the late '50s and the '60s, about the Fundamental Nature Of Our Great Nation and its founding fathers and the Beautiful Documents they wrote, on the one hand, and what we mopes learn, through a drip-drip-drip process punctuated occasionally by Major Revelations, about the real nature of the Empire and our fellow creatures

PS: My earliest memory of television viewing was a day at a friend's house - his middle-class parents had the first "set" in the neighborhood, I think an RCA, in a massive sideboard cabinet where the picture tube pointed up and you viewed the "content" in a mirror mounted to the underside of the lid. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5onSwx7_Cn0 The family was watching a hearing of Joe McCarthy's kangaroo court, complete with announcements of the latest number in the "list of known Communists in the State Department" and how Commyanism was spreading like an unstoppable epidemic mortal disease through the Great US Body Politic and its Heroic Institutions of Democracy. I was maybe 6 years old, but that grainy black and white "reality TV" content had me asking "WTF?" at a very early age. And I'd say it's on the commentor to show that the "2008" claim is wrong, by something other than "implausible" as drive-by impeachment. Given the content of the original post, and what people paying attention to all this stuff have a pretty good idea is the general contours of a vast corruption and manipulation.

"Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no."

Katharine , May 16, 2017 at 10:19 am

It is the author's job to substantiate information, not the reader's. If he thinks his work is so important, why does he not make a better job of it?

Edward , May 16, 2017 at 9:22 pm

I think the MLK blackmail scheme is well-established. Much of the article seems to be based on Tim Wiener's "Enemies: A History of the FBI".

nonsense factory , May 16, 2017 at 11:16 am

Interesting article on the history of the FBI, although the post-Hoover era doesn't get any treatment. The Church Committee hearings on the CIA and FBI, after the exposure of notably Operation CHAOS (early 60s to early 70s) by the CIA and COINTELPRO(late 1950s to early 1970s) by the FBI, didn't really get to the bottom of the issue although some reforms were initiated.

Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues (such as street murders in Mexico).

The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving the FBI in 2005.

Maybe this is legitimate, but this only applies to their protection of the interests of large corporations – as the 2008 economic collapse and aftermath showed, they don't prosecute corporate executives who rip off poor people and middle-class homeowners. Banks who rob people, they aren't investigated or prosecuted; that's just for people who rob banks.

When it comes to political issues and national security, however, the FBI has such a terrible record on so many issues over the years that anything they claim has to be taken with a grain or two of salt. Consider domestic political activity: from the McCarthyite 'Red Scare' of the 1950s to COINTELPRO in the 1960s and 1970s to targeting of environmental groups in the 1980s and 1990s to targeting anti-war protesters under GW Bush to their obsession with domestic mass surveillance under Obama, it's not a record that should inspire any confidence.

Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins, is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI. All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration itself.

As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about the Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences. The Saudi intelligence agency role in 9/11 was buried for over a decade, as well. Since 9/11, most of the FBI investigations seem to have involved recruiting mentally disabled young Islamic men in sting operations in which the FBI provides everything needed. You could probably get any number of mentally ill homeless people across the U.S., regardless of race or religion, to play this role.

Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations, particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the 1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at either.

Ultimately, this is because FBI executives are paid off not to investigate Wall Street criminality, nor shady U.S. government activity, with lucrative positions as corporate board members and so on after their 'retirements'. I don't doubt that many of their junior members mean well and are dedicated to their jobs – but the fish rots from the head down.

Andrew Watts , May 16, 2017 at 3:58 pm

As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about the Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences.

The Clinton Administration had other priorities. You know, I think I'll let ex-FBI Director Freeh explain what happened when the FBI tried to get the Saudis to cooperate with their investigation into the bombing of the Khobar Towers.

"That September, Crown Prince Abdullah and his entourage took over the entire 143-room Hay-Adams Hotel, just across from Lafayette Park from the White House, for six days. The visit, I figured, was pretty much our last chance. Again, we prepared talking points for the president. Again, I contacted Prince Bandar and asked him to soften up the crown prince for the moment when Clinton, -- or Al Gore I didn't care who -- would raise the matter and start to exert the necessary pressure."

"The story that came back to me, from "usually reliable sources," as they say in Washington, was that Bill Clinton briefly raised the subject only to tell the Crown Prince that he certainly understood the Saudis; reluctance to cooperate. Then, according to my sources, he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the still-to-be-built Clinton presidential library. Gore, who was supposed to press hardest of all in his meeting with the crown Prince, barely mentioned the matter, I was told." -Louis J. Freeh, My FBI (2005)

In my defense I picked the book up to see if there was any dirt on the DNC's electoral funding scandal in 1996. I'm actually glad I did. The best part of the book is when Freeh recounts running into a veteran of the Lincoln Brigade and listens to how Hoover's FBI ruined his life despite having broken no laws. As if a little thing like laws mattered to Hoover. The commies were after our precious bodily fluids!

verifyfirst , May 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm

I'm not sure there are many functioning norms left within the national political leadership. Seemed to me Gingrich started blowing those up and it just got worse from there. McConnell not allowing Garland to be considered comes to mind

lyman alpha blob , May 16, 2017 at 1:14 pm

Great article – thanks for this. I had no idea the FBI never had a legal charter – very enlightening.

JMarco , May 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm

Thanks to Mark Ames now we know what Pres. Trump meant when he tweeted about his tapes with AG Comey. Not some taped conversation between Pres. Trump & AG Comey but bunch of kompromat tapes that AG Comey has provided Pres. Trump that might not make departing AG Comey looked so clean.

[Apr 17, 2019] Trey Gowdy Calls Hillary Clinton a Habitual Serial Liar

Highly recommenced to listen. Judge Napolitano is an interesting speaker (start at 41 min)

As CIA in the USA government organizational chart stands above the Presidential Office Hillary is really untouchable, unless the Presidential Office is also occupied by CIA-democrat like Obama.

Notable quotes:

"... She absolutely thinks she is untouchable ..."

"... Every corrupt person was praised and given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!! ..."

"... Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25% of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States. ..."

Jan 28, 2018 | www.youtube.com
Jeanne Stjohn 1 month ago

Congress is a waste of tax money, they have no power, so obvious! Criminal leaders just lie to them, knowing they can't do a thing and most of them are paid off anyway, they don't want to do anything! Elections are rigged, so they don't have to worry about, "we the poor, lowly people!" We are not even in the equation!

Giorgio Cooper 1 month ago

Why is this pathological liar Hillary still running around free ?? Isn't lying to Congress a felony ??? If this lowlife is simply above the law lets change the laws !

Ann Martin-Frey 1 month ago (edited)

Prosecute everyone of them that knew and allowed even the smallest bit of knowledge and make every one of them ineligible for their pensions. They do not deserve those pensions, they stole them, treasonous acts against your government does not make you eligable..they do not deserve it!!

Kathie Logan 2 months ago

Not only a habitual serial liar but a career Criminal! Hillary and Bill have been involved in illegal manners for over 40 years! Hillary stated it best last year during the time of the election!. " If Donald Trump becomes president, WE WILL ALL HANG!" She finally told the truth!

Pamela Dunford 1 week ago

She absolutely thinks she is untouchable because not one person has been brave enough and bold enough to take her down the Clinton's have been corrupt and evil from child good and they were taught from NWO that they will never be taken down go child rob steel kill do everything in the power we Give you both and bring me all glory!!! We will let you control the United States as long as you want!!!

All the connected deaths that embrace the Clinton's and not single piece of evidence is kept found or stored that it doesn't come up missing so they sit back and allow these foreign governments to take over major areas and promote child sex trafficking who're houses with kids being sold to any man with air in his lungs!

Every corrupt person was praised and given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!!

She gas lied straight face looked him dead in the eyes and laughed at the bengahzi deaths that She is on record having him killed she laughed and she didn't Give a f*** about killing him and leaving his remains behind but my question is why hasn't she been arrested booked finger printed and mugshot took with a huge bond or mot and put behind bars until you beat the f******truth out if her??? I would get the death penalty she wouldn't and hasn't gotten a contempt of court for not complying with mr. Gowdy

CB 2 weeks ago

Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25% of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States.

To say that 80 million people are "deplorable" IS TRULY DEPLORABLE!!! After hearing this I can't really understand WHY she got even a single vote!

tropolite 3 weeks ago

This is a fantastic mosaic of the state of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. It is absolutely clear that she is an habitual liar, corrupt to the extreme and has absolutely no credibility.

I'd love to see Mr Gowdy take the gloves off and take her down. She must be removed from the public as she is a menace. She is the mother of deplorable.

[Feb 13, 2019] Microsoft patches 0-day vulnerabilities in IE and Exchange

It is unclear how long this vulnerability exists, but this is pretty serious staff that shows how Hillary server could be hacked via Abedin account. As Abedin technical level was lower then zero, to hack into her home laptop just just trivial.

Feb 13, 2019 | arstechnica.com

Microsoft also patched Exchange against a vulnerability that allowed remote attackers with little more than an unprivileged mailbox account to gain administrative control over the server. Dubbed PrivExchange, CVE-2019-0686 was publicly disclosed last month , along with proof-of-concept code that exploited it. In Tuesday's advisory , Microsoft officials said they haven't seen active exploits yet but that they were "likely."

[Nov 19, 2018] The rise of Shadow IT - Should CIOs take umbrage

Notable quotes:

"... Shadow IT broadly refers to technology introduced into an organisation that has not passed through the IT department. ..."

"... The result is first; no proactive recommendations from the IT department and second; long approval periods while IT teams evaluate solutions that the business has proposed. Add an over-defensive approach to security, and it is no wonder that some departments look outside the organisation for solutions. ..."

Nov 19, 2018 | cxounplugged.com

Shadow IT broadly refers to technology introduced into an organisation that has not passed through the IT department. A familiar example of this is BYOD but, significantly, Shadow IT now includes enterprise grade software and hardware, which is increasingly being sourced and managed outside of the direct control of the organisation's IT department and CIO.

Examples include enterprise wide CRM solutions and marketing automation systems procured by the marketing department, as well as data warehousing, BI and analysis services sourced by finance officers.

So why have so many technology solutions slipped through the hands of so many CIOs? I believe a confluence of events is behind the trend; there is the obvious consumerisation of IT, which has resulted in non-technical staff being much more aware of possible solutions to their business needs – they are more tech-savvy. There is also the fact that some CIOs and technology departments have been too slow to react to the business's technology needs.

The reason for this slow reaction is that very often IT Departments are just too busy running day-to-day infrastructure operations such as network and storage management along with supporting users and software. The result is first; no proactive recommendations from the IT department and second; long approval periods while IT teams evaluate solutions that the business has proposed. Add an over-defensive approach to security, and it is no wonder that some departments look outside the organisation for solutions.

[Sep 10, 2018] Even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her unauthorized basement server

Notable quotes:

"... "Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation. ..."

"... "Yet even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security. ..."

Sep 10, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Winston , September 9, 2018 at 11:56 am

"If neocons and neolibs succeed tearing this president down, than 65 million folks like me will have absolute, incontrovertible evidence that we no longer live in a democracy and our vote means nothing, therefore we are powerless unless we take to the streets with..."

It was incontrovertible long ago, these are just the more blatant latest examples. For instance, giving just one example, a Sec of State using an unauthorized, unsecured personal email server in her basement most likely to avoid the ability of FOIA requests to find anything on a particular topic, a server which contained classified emails up to TS/SCI/TK/NOFORN (spysat stuff) being given a total pass for what anyone who has ever handled classified materials would know they'd be put in a small room at Leavenworth for.

Then, the now known to be false claim by Comey that the Weiner laptop which almost certainly contained even the deleted Clinton emails was thoroughly examined:

"Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.

"Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation.

"Yet even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.

"Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage assessment" directive.

"The newly discovered classified material "was never previously sent out to the relevant original classification authorities for security review," the official, who spoke to RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.

To conclude:

Mark Baum: It's time to call BS.
Vinnie Daniel: BS on what?
Mark Baum: Every-f'ing-thing.
-- film "The Big Short" (2015)

[Sep 07, 2018] Email Security Systems Miss Thousands of Malicious Links

Sep 07, 2018 | it.slashdot.org

(betanews.com) 45 Mimecast examined more than 142 million emails that had passed through organizations' email security vendors. The latest results reveal 203,000 malicious links within 10,072,682 emails were deemed safe by other security systems -- a ratio of one unstopped malicious link for every 50 emails inspected . The report also finds an 80 percent increase impersonation attacks in comparison to last quarters' figures. Additionally, 19,086,877 pieces of spam, 13,176 emails containing dangerous file types, and 15,656 malware attachments were all missed by these incumbent security providers and delivered to users' inboxes.

[Sep 07, 2018] Yahoo, Bucking Industry, Scans Emails for Data To Sell Advertisers

Sep 07, 2018 | tech.slashdot.org

(wsj.com) 88 Yahoo still sees the practice as a potential gold mine . From a report: Yahoo's owner, the Oath unit of Verizon Communications has been pitching a service to advertisers that analyzes more than 200 million Yahoo Mail inboxes and the rich user data they contain, searching for clues about what products those users might buy, said people who have attended Oath's presentations as well as current and former employees of the company. Oath said the practice extends to AOL Mail, which it also owns. Together, they constitute the only major U.S. email provider that scans user inboxes for marketing purposes.

[Sep 07, 2018] Google's $50 Titan Security Keys Are Now Available in the US

Sep 07, 2018 | it.slashdot.org

(engadget.com) 125 Google introduced its Titan Key -- a physical security key used for two-factor authentication -- and now it's widely available for purchase in the US through company's Google Store . Almost any modern browser and mobile device, as well as services such as Dropbox, Twitter, Facebook, Salesforce, Stripe support the Titan Key. It's Google's take on a Fast Identity Online key, a physical device used to authenticate logins over Bluetooth. From a report: For $50, you'll get a USB security key and a Bluetooth security key as well as a USB-C to USB-A adapter and a USB-C to USB-A connecting cable. What happens if you lose them? From a report: A downside of physical keys is that if lose them, you're toast. That's why you have two keys -- one is meant to be a backup. Google says it can help you gain access to your account again but the recovery process can take days. VentureBeat adds : It's not meant to compete with other FIDO keys on the market, stressed Sam Srinivas, product management director for information security at Google, during a press pre-briefing. Rather, it's "for customers who want security keys and trust Google," he said. Further reading: None of Google's 85,000 Employees Have Been Phished in More Than a Year After Company Required Them to Use Physical Security Keys For 2FA .

[Aug 26, 2018] Despite Comey Assurances, Vast Bulk of Weiner Laptop Emails Were Never Examined

Amazing level of corruption.

Notable quotes:

"... In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges. ..."

"... "Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation. ..."

"... Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security. ..."

"... Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage assessment" directive . ..."

"... "There was no real investigation and no real search," said Michael Biasello, a 27-year veteran of the FBI. "It was all just show -- eyewash -- to make it look like there was an investigation before the election." ..."

"... Many Clinton supporters believe Comey's 11th hour reopening of a case that had shadowed her campaign was a form of sabotage that cost her the election. But the evidence shows Comey and his inner circle acted only after worried agents and prosecutors in New York forced their hand. At the prodding of Attorney General Lynch, they then worked to reduce and rush through, rather than carefully examine, potentially damaging new evidence. ..."

"... However, conducting a broader and more thorough search of the Weiner laptop may still have prosecutorial justification. Other questions linger, including whether subpoenaed evidence was destroyed or false statements were made to congressional and FBI investigators from 2014 to 2016, a time frame that is within the statute of limitations. The laptop was not searched for evidence pertaining to such crimes. Investigators instead focused their search, limited as it was, on classified information. ..."

"... The headers indicated that the emails on the laptop included ones sent and/or received by Abedin at her clintonemail.com account, her personal Yahoo! email account as well as a host of Clinton-associated domains including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, presidentclinton.com and hillaryclinton.com. ..."

"... (McCabe told Horowitz he didn't remember Sweeney briefing him about the Weiner laptop, but personal notes he took during the teleconference indicate he was briefed. Sweeney also updated McCabe in a direct call later that afternoon in which he noted there were potentially 347,000 relevant emails, and that the count was climbing. McCabe was fired earlier this year and referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for possible criminal investigation into allegations he made false statements to federal agents working for Horowitz.) ..."

"... FBI officials in New York assumed that the bureau's brass would jump on the discovery, particularly since it included the missing emails from the start of Clinton's time at State. In fact, the emails dated from the beginning of 2007 and covered the entire period of Clinton's tenure as secretary and thereafter. The team leading the Clinton investigation, codenamed "Midyear Exam," had never been able to find Clinton's emails from her first two months as secretary. ..."

"... Lynch -- who had admonished Comey to call the Clinton case a "matter" and not an investigation, aligning FBI rhetoric with the Clinton campaign, and who inappropriately agreed to meet with Bill Clinton aboard her government plane five days before the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton -- sought to keep the Weiner laptop search quiet and was opposed to going to Congress with the discovery so close to the election. ..."

"... But this time, Comey made no public show of his announcement. On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey quietly sent a terse and private letter to the chairs and the ranking members of the oversight committees on the Hill, informing them, vaguely, that the FBI was taking additional steps in the Clinton email investigation. ..."

"... The unnamed agent, who is identified in the IG report only as "Agent 1," is now married to another Midyear investigator, who on Election Day IM'd her then-boyfriend to say Clinton "better win," while threatening to quit if she didn't. Known as "Agent 5," she also stated, "fuck trump," while calling his voters "retarded." ..."

"... Also excluded were Abedin's Yahoo emails, even though investigators had previously found classified information on her Yahoo account and would arguably have probable cause to look at those emails, as well. ..."

"... Also removed from the search were the BlackBerry data -- even though the FBI had previously described them as the "golden emails," because they covered the dark period early in Clinton's term. ..."

"... In addition to limiting the scope of their probe, the agents were also under pressure from both Justice Department prosecutors and FBI headquarters to complete the review of the remaining emails in a hurry. ..."

"... Lynch urged Comey to process the Weiner laptop "as fast as you can," according to notes from a high-level department meeting on Oct. 31, 2016, which were obtained by the IG. ..."

"... Advanced new "de-duplicating" technology would allow them to speed through the mountain of new emails automatically flagging copies of previously reviewed material. ..."

"... But according to the IG, FBI's technology division only "attempted" to de-duplicate the emails, but ultimately was unsuccessful. The IG cited a report prepared Nov. 15, 2016, by three officials from the FBI's Boston field office. Titled "Anthony Weiner Laptop Review for Communications Pertinent to Midyear Exam," it found that "[b]ecause metadata was largely absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against prior emails recovered during the investigation." ..."

"... Contrary to Comey's claim, the FBI could not sufficiently determine how many emails containing classified information were duplicative of previously reviewed classified emails. As a result, hundreds of thousands of emails were not actually processed for evidence, law enforcement sources say. ..."

"... Later that evening of Nov. 6, after he announced to Congress that Clinton was in the clear again, an exuberant Comey gathered his inner circle in his office to watch football. ..."

"... Page noted that "Trump is talking about [Clinton]" on Fox News, and how "she's protected by a rigged system." ..."

"... RCI has learned that these highly sensitive messages include a Nov. 25, 2011, email regarding talks with Egyptian leaders and Hamas, and a July 9, 2011, "call sheet" Abedin sent Clinton in advance of a phone conversation she had that month with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The document runs four pages. ..."

"... Another previously unseen classified email, dated Nov. 25, 2010, concerns confidential high-level State Department talks with United Arab Emirates leaders. The note, including a classified "readout" of a phone call with the UAE prime minister, was written by Abedin and sent to Clinton, and then forwarded by Abedin the next day from her [email protected] account to her then-husband's account identified under the rubric "Anthony Campaign." ..."

"... Comey and Strzok also decided to close the case for a second time without interviewing its three central figures: Abedin, Weiner and Clinton. ..."

"... In a statement, Strzok's attorney blamed the delays in processing the new emails on "bureaucratic snafus," and insisted they had nothing to do with Strzok's political views, which he said never "affected his work." ..."

"... "When informed that Weiner's laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators," Goelman said. Still, contemporaneous messages by Strzok reveal he was not thrilled about re-investigating Clinton. On Nov. 5, for example, he texted Page: "I hate this case." ..."

"... A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today? ..."

"... Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving potentially serious federal crimes -- including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and obstruction of justice -- that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement authorities. ..."

Aug 26, 2018 | www.realclearinvestigations.com

When then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was closing the Hillary Clinton email investigation for a second time just days before the 2016 election, he certified to Congress that his agency had "reviewed all of the communications" discovered on a personal laptop used by Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.
James Comey, above. Top photo: His certification to Congress just before Election Day clearing Hillary Clinton a second time. That certification is challenged by new reporting. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File Top: AP Photo/Jon Elswick
At the time, many wondered how investigators managed over the course of one week to read the "hundreds of thousands" of emails residing on the machine, which had been a focus of a sex-crimes investigation of Weiner, a former Congressman.

Comey later told Congress that "thanks to the wizardry of our technology," the FBI was able to eliminate the vast majority of messages as "duplicates" of emails they'd previously seen. Tireless agents, he claimed, then worked "night after night after night" to scrutinize the remaining material.

But virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.

In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.

"Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation.

Yet even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.

Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage assessment" directive .

The newly discovered classified material "was never previously sent out to the relevant original classification authorities for security review," the official, who spoke to RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.

Other key parts of the investigation remained open when the embattled director announced to Congress he was buttoning the case back up for good just ahead of Election Day.

One career FBI special agent involved in the case complained to New York colleagues that officials in Washington tried to "bury" the new trove of evidence, which he believed contained the full archive of Clinton's emails -- including long-sought missing messages from her first months at the State Department.
Timeline: How the FBI Ignored Hundreds of Thousands of Clinton Emails
RealClearInvestigations pieced together the FBI's handling of the massive new email discovery from the "Weiner laptop." This months-long investigation included a review of federal court records and affidavits, cellphone text messages, and emails sent by key FBI personnel, along with internal bureau memos, reviews and meeting notes documented in government reports. Information also was gleaned through interviews with FBI agents and supervisors, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials, as well as congressional investigators and public-interest lawyers.

If the FBI "soft-pedaled" the original investigation of Clinton's emails, as some critics have said, it out-and-out suppressed the follow-up probe related to the laptop, sources for this article said.

"There was no real investigation and no real search," said Michael Biasello, a 27-year veteran of the FBI. "It was all just show -- eyewash -- to make it look like there was an investigation before the election."

Although the FBI's New York office first pointed headquarters to the large new volume of evidence on Sept. 28, 2016, supervising agent Peter Strzok, who was fired on Aug. 10 for sending anti-Trump texts and other misconduct, did not try to obtain a warrant to search the huge cache of emails until Oct. 30, 2016. Violating department policy, he edited the warrant affidavit on his home email account, bypassing the FBI system for recording such government business. He also began drafting a second exoneration statement before conducting the search.

The search warrant was so limited in scope that it excluded more than half the emails New York agents considered relevant to the case. The cache of Clinton-Abedin communications dated back to 2007. But the warrant to search the laptop excluded any messages exchanged before or after Clinton's 2009-2013 tenure as secretary of state, key early periods when Clinton initially set up her unauthorized private server and later periods when she deleted thousands of emails sought by investigators.

Far from investigating and clearing Abedin and Weiner, the FBI did not interview them, according to other FBI sources who say Comey closed the case prematurely. The machine was not authorized for classified material, and Weiner did not have classified security clearance to receive such information, which he did on at least two occasions through his Yahoo! email account – which he also used to email snapshots of his penis.

Many Clinton supporters believe Comey's 11th hour reopening of a case that had shadowed her campaign was a form of sabotage that cost her the election. But the evidence shows Comey and his inner circle acted only after worried agents and prosecutors in New York forced their hand. At the prodding of Attorney General Lynch, they then worked to reduce and rush through, rather than carefully examine, potentially damaging new evidence.

Comey later admitted in his memoir "A Higher Loyalty," that political calculations shaped his decisions during this period. But, he wrote, they were calibrated to help Clinton: "Assuming, as nearly everyone did, that Hillary Clinton would be elected president of the United States in less than two weeks, what would happen to the FBI, the Justice Department or her own presidency if it later was revealed, after the fact, that she still was the subject of an FBI investigation?"

What does it matter now? Republicans are clamoring for a special counsel to reopen the Clinton email case, though a five-year statute of limitations may be an issue concerning crimes relating to her potential mishandling of classified information.

However, conducting a broader and more thorough search of the Weiner laptop may still have prosecutorial justification. Other questions linger, including whether subpoenaed evidence was destroyed or false statements were made to congressional and FBI investigators from 2014 to 2016, a time frame that is within the statute of limitations. The laptop was not searched for evidence pertaining to such crimes. Investigators instead focused their search, limited as it was, on classified information.

Also, the FBI is still actively investigating the Clinton Foundation for alleged foreign-tied corruption. That probe, handled chiefly out of New York, may benefit from evidence on the laptop.

The FBI did not respond to requests for comment.
The Background
In March 2015, it was revealed that Hillary Clinton had used a private email server located in the basement of her Chappaqua, N.Y., home to conduct State Department business during her 2009-2013 tenure as the nation's top diplomat. The emails on the unsecured server included thousands of classified messages, including top-secret information. Federal law makes it a felony for government employees to possess or handle classified material in an unprotected manner.

By July, intelligence community authorities had referred the matter to the FBI.

That investigation centered on the 30,490 emails Clinton handed over after deeming them work-related. She said she had deleted another 33,000 because she decided they were "personal." Also missing were emails from the first two months of her tenure at State – from Jan. 21, 2009, through March 18, 2009 -- because investigators were unable to locate the BlackBerry device she used during this period, when she set up and began using the basement server, bypassing the government's system of archiving such public records as required by federal statute.
Comey faces media on July 5, 2016. AP Photo/Cliff Owen
One year later, in a dramatic July 2016 press conference less than three weeks before Clinton would accept her party's nomination for president, Comey unilaterally cleared Clinton of criminal wrongdoing. While Clinton and her aides "were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," he said, "no charges are appropriate in this case."

Comey would later say he broke with normal procedures whereby the FBI collects evidence and the Department of Justice decides whether to bring charges, because he believed Attorney General Loretta Lynch had engaged in actions that raised doubts about her credibility, including secretly meeting with Clinton's husband, the former president, just days before the FBI interviewed her.

Fast-forward to September 2016.

FBI investigators in New York were analyzing a Dell laptop, shared by Abedin and Weiner, as part of a separate sex-crimes investigation involving Weiner's contact with an underage girl. A former Democratic congressman from New York, Weiner is serving a 21-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to sending obscene material to a 15-year-old.

On Sept. 26, 2016, the lead New York agent assigned to the case found a large volume of emails – "over 300,000" – on the laptop related to Abedin and Clinton, including a large volume of messages from Clinton's old BlackBerry account.

The headers indicated that the emails on the laptop included ones sent and/or received by Abedin at her clintonemail.com account, her personal Yahoo! email account as well as a host of Clinton-associated domains including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, presidentclinton.com and hillaryclinton.com.

The agents had reason to believe that classified information resided on the laptop, since investigators had already established that emails containing classified information were transmitted through multiple email accounts used by Abedin, including her clintonemail.com and Yahoo! accounts. Moreover, the preliminary count of Clinton-related emails found on the laptop in late September 2016 -- three months after Comey closed his case -- dwarfed the total of some 60,000 originally reported by Clinton.

The agent described the discovery as an "oh-shit moment." "Am I seeing what I think I'm seeing?" he asked another case agent. They agreed that the information needed "to get reported up the chain" immediately.

The next day, Sept. 27, the official in charge of the FBI's New York office, Bill Sweeney, was alerted to the trove and confirmed "it was clearly her stuff." Sweeney reported the find to Comey deputy Andrew McCabe and other headquarters officials on Sept. 28, and told Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz that "everybody realized the significance of this."

(McCabe told Horowitz he didn't remember Sweeney briefing him about the Weiner laptop, but personal notes he took during the teleconference indicate he was briefed. Sweeney also updated McCabe in a direct call later that afternoon in which he noted there were potentially 347,000 relevant emails, and that the count was climbing. McCabe was fired earlier this year and referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for possible criminal investigation into allegations he made false statements to federal agents working for Horowitz.)

McCabe, in turn, briefed Strzok - who had led the Clinton email probe - that afternoon, text messages show.

Comey was not on the conference call, but phone records show he and McCabe met privately that afternoon and spoke during a flurry of phone calls late that evening. McCabe said he could not recall what they discussed, while Comey told investigators that he did not hear about the emails until early October -- and then quickly forgot about them. ("I kind of just put it out of my mind," he said, because he claimed it did not "index" with him that Abedin was closely connected to Clinton. "I don't know that I knew that [Weiner] was married to Huma Abedin at the time.")

FBI officials in New York assumed that the bureau's brass would jump on the discovery, particularly since it included the missing emails from the start of Clinton's time at State. In fact, the emails dated from the beginning of 2007 and covered the entire period of Clinton's tenure as secretary and thereafter. The team leading the Clinton investigation, codenamed "Midyear Exam," had never been able to find Clinton's emails from her first two months as secretary.

By Oct. 4, the Weiner case agent had finished processing the laptop, and reported that he found at least 675,000 emails potentially relevant to the Midyear case (in fact, the final count was 694,000). "Based on the number of emails, we could have every email that Huma and Hillary ever sent each other," the agent remarked to colleagues. It appeared this was the mother lode of missing Clinton emails. But Strzok remained uninterested. "This isn't a ticking terrorist bomb," he was quoted as saying in the recently issued inspector general's report. Besides, he had bigger concerns, such as, "You know, is the government of Russia trying to get somebody elected here in the United States?"

Strzok and headquarters sat on the mountain of evidence for another 26 days. The career New York agent said all he was hearing from Washington was "crickets," so he pushed the issue to his immediate superiors, fearing he would be "scapegoated" for failing to search the pile of digital evidence. They, in turn, went over Strzok's head, passing their concerns on to career officials at the National Security Division of the Justice Department, who in turn set off alarm bells at the seventh floor executive suites of the Hoover Building.

The New York agent has not been publicly identified, even in the recent IG report, which only describes him as male. But federal court filings in the Weiner case reviewed by RCI list two FBI agents present in court proceedings, only one of whom is male - John Robertson. RCI has confirmed that Robertson at the time was an FBI special agent assigned to the C-20 squad investigating "crimes against children" at the bureau's New York field office at 26 Federal Plaza, which did not return messages.

The agent told the inspector general that he wasn't political and didn't understand all the sensitive issues headquarters may have been weighing, but he feared Washington's inaction might be seen as a cover-up that could wreak havoc on the bureau. "I don't care who wins this election," he said, "but this is going to make us look really, really horrible."

Once George Toscas, the highest-ranking Justice Department official directly involved in the Clinton email investigation, found out about the delay, he prodded headquarters to initiate a search and to inform Congress about the discovery.

By Oct. 21, Strzok had gotten the word. "Toscas now aware NY has hrc-huma emails," he texted McCabe's counsel, Lisa Page, who responded, "whatever."

Four days later, Page told Strzok - with whom she was having an affair - about the murmurs she was hearing from brass about having to tell Congress about the new emails. "F them," Strzok responded, apparently referring to oversight committee leaders on the Hill.

The next day, Oct. 26, the New York agent finally was able to brief Strzok's team directly about what he had found on the laptop. On Oct. 27, Comey gave the green light to seek a search warrant.

Michael Horowitz: Pressure from New York was key to reopening email case.

"This decision resulted not from the discovery of dramatic new information about the Weiner laptop, but rather as a result of inquiries from the Weiner case agent and prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office [in New York]," Horowitz said in his recently released report on the Clinton investigation.

Former prosecutors say that politics is the only explanation for why FBI brass dragged their feet for a month after the New York office alerted them about the Clinton emails.

"There's no rational explanation why, after they found over 300,000 Clinton emails on the Wiener laptop in late September, the FBI did nothing for a month," former deputy Independent Counsel Solomon "Sol" L. Wisenberg said in a recent interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham. "It's pretty clear there's a real possibility they did nothing because they thought it would hurt Mrs. Clinton during the election."

Horowitz concurred. The IG cited suspicions that the inaction "was a politically motivated attempt to bury information that could negatively impact the chances of Hillary Clinton in the election."

He noted that on Nov. 3, after Comey notified Congress of the search, Strzok created a suspiciously inaccurate "Weiner timeline" and circulated it among the FBI leadership.

The odd document, written after the fact, made it seem as if New York hadn't fully processed the laptop until Oct. 19 and had neglected to fill headquarters in on details about what had been found until Oct. 21. In fact, New York finished processing on Oct. 4 and first began reporting back details to top FBI executives as early as Sept. 28.
Fearing Leaks
Fears of media leaks also played a role in the ultimate decision to reopen the case and notify Congress.

FBI leadership worried that New York would go public with the fact it was sitting on the Weiner emails, because the field office was leaking information on other sensitive matters at the time, including Clinton-related conflicts dogging McCabe, which the Wall Street Journal had exposed that October. At the same time, Trump surrogate and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who was still in touch with FBI sources in the city, was chirping about an "October surprise" on Fox News.

Loretta Lynch: Stop those leaks.

During the October time frame, McCabe called Sweeney in New York and chewed him out about leaks coming out of his office. On Oct. 26, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch was so worried about the leaks, she called McCabe and Sweeney and angrily warned them to fix them. Sweeney confirmed in an interview with the inspector general that they got "ripped by the AG on leaks." McCabe said he never heard the attorney general "use more forceful language."

Lynch -- who had admonished Comey to call the Clinton case a "matter" and not an investigation, aligning FBI rhetoric with the Clinton campaign, and who inappropriately agreed to meet with Bill Clinton aboard her government plane five days before the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton -- sought to keep the Weiner laptop search quiet and was opposed to going to Congress with the discovery so close to the election.

"We were quite confident that somebody is going to leak this fact, that we have all these emails. That, if we don't put out a letter [to Congress], somebody is going to leak it," then-FBI General Counsel James Baker said. "The discussion was somebody in New York will leak this."

Baker advised Comey that he also was under obligation to update Congress about any new developments in the case. Just a few months earlier, the director had testified before Hill oversight committees about his decision to close the case. Baker said the front office rationalized that since Clinton was ahead in the polls, the notification would not have a big impact on the race. The Democratic nominee would likely win no matter what the FBI did.

But this time, Comey made no public show of his announcement. On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey quietly sent a terse and private letter to the chairs and the ranking members of the oversight committees on the Hill, informing them, vaguely, that the FBI was taking additional steps in the Clinton email investigation.

Those steps, of course, started with finally searching the laptop for relevant emails.
'Giant Nothing-Burger'
Prosecutors and investigators alike, however, approached the search as an exercise in futility, even prejudging the results as a "giant nothing-burger."

That was an assessment that would emerge later from David Laufman, then a lead prosecutor in the Justice Department's national security division assigned to the Clinton email probe. He had "a very low expectation" that any evidence found on the laptop would alter the outcome of the Midyear investigation. And he doubted a search would turn up "anything novel or consequential," according to the IG report.

Mary McCord: Discounted laptop trove, and she wasn't the only one.

Hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder, Laufman complained it was "exceptionally inappropriate" to restart the investigation so close to the election. (Records show Laufman, who sat in on Clinton's July 2016 interview at FBI headquarters, gave money to both of Barack Obama's presidential campaigns.)

His boss, Mary McCord, discounted the laptop trove as emails they'd already seen. "Hopefully all duplicates," she wrote in notes she took from an October 2016 phone call she had with McCabe, who shared her hope. McCord opposed publicly opening the case again "because it could be a big nothing."

In an Oct. 27 email to the lead Midyear analyst, Strzok suggested the search would not be serious, that they would just need to go through the motions, while joking about "de-duping," or excluding emails as ones they'd already seen.

The reactivated Midyear investigators were not eager to dive into the new emails, either. They also prejudged the batch as evidence they had already analyzed -- while at the same time expressing pro-Hillary and anti-Trump sentiments in internal communications.

For example, the Midyear agent who had called Clinton the "future pres[ident]" after interviewing her in July, pooh-poohed the idea they would find emails substantively different than what the team had previously reviewed. Even though he expected they'd find some missing emails, even new classified material, he discounted their significance.

"My best guess -- probably uniques, maybe classified uniques, with none being any different tha[n] what we've already seen," the agent wrote in an Oct. 28 instant message to another FBI employee on the bureau's computer system. (Back in May 2016, as Clinton was locking up the Democratic primary, the agent had revealed in another IM that there was "political urgency" to wrap up her email investigation.)

The unnamed agent, who is identified in the IG report only as "Agent 1," is now married to another Midyear investigator, who on Election Day IM'd her then-boyfriend to say Clinton "better win," while threatening to quit if she didn't. Known as "Agent 5," she also stated, "fuck trump," while calling his voters "retarded."

At the same time, the lead FBI attorney on the Midyear case, Sally Moyer (whose lawyers confirmed is the anonymous "FBI Attorney 1" cited in the IG report), was in no hurry to process the laptop. Before examining them, she expressed the belief that the massive volume of emails "may just be duplicative of what we already have," doubting there was a "smoking gun" in the pile.
A Hurried, Constrained Search
Moyer, a registered Democrat, was responsible for obtaining legal authority to review the laptop's contents. She severely limited the scope of the evidence that investigators could search on the laptop by setting unusually tight parameters.

Working closely with her was Strzok, who forwarded a draft of the warrant to his personal email account in violation of FBI policy, where he helped edit the language in the affidavit. By processing the document at home, no record of his changes to the document were captured in the FBI system.

(Strzok had also edited the language in the drafts of Comey's public statement about his original decision on the Clinton email investigation. He changed the description of Clinton's handling of classified information from "grossly negligent" -- which is proscribed in the federal statute -- to "extremely careless," eliminating a key phrase that could have had legal ramifications for Clinton.)

The next day, the search warrant application drafted by Strzok and Moyer was filed in New York. It was inexplicably self-constraining. The FBI asked the federal magistrate judge, Kevin N. Fox, to see only a small portion of the evidence the New York agent told headquarters it would find on the laptop.

"The FBI only reviewed emails to or from Clinton during the period in which she was Secretary of State, and not emails from Abedin or other parties or emails outside that period," Horowitz pointed out in a section of his report discussing concerns that the search warrant request was "too narrow."

That put the emails the New York case agent found between 2007 and 2009, when Clinton's private server was set up, as well as those observed after her tenure in 2013, outside investigators' reach. The post-tenure emails were potentially important, Horowitz noted, because they may have offered clues concerning the intent behind the later destruction of emails.

Also excluded were Abedin's Yahoo emails, even though investigators had previously found classified information on her Yahoo account and would arguably have probable cause to look at those emails, as well.

Also removed from the search were the BlackBerry data -- even though the FBI had previously described them as the "golden emails," because they covered the dark period early in Clinton's term.

"Noticeably absent from the search warrant application prepared by the Midyear team is both any mention that the NYO agent had seen Clinton's emails on the laptop and any mention of the potential presence of BlackBerry emails from early in Clinton's tenure," Horowitz noted.

Even though the BlackBerry messages were "critical to [the] assessment of the potential significance of the emails on the Weiner laptop, the information was not included in the search warrant application," he stressed, adding that the application appeared to misrepresent the information provided by the New York field agent. It also grossly underestimated the extent of the material. The affidavit warrant mentioned "thousands of emails," while the New York agent had told them that the laptop contained "hundreds of thousands" of relevant emails.

That meant that the Midyear team never got to look, even if it wanted to, at the majority of the communications secreted on the laptop, further raising suspicions that headquarters wasn't really interested in finding any evidence of wrongdoing – at least on the part of Clinton and her team.

"I had very strict instructions that all I was allowed to do within the case was look for Hillary Clinton emails, because that was the scope of our work," an FBI analyst said, even though Horowitz said investigators had probable cause to look at Abedin's emails as well.

In addition to limiting the scope of their probe, the agents were also under pressure from both Justice Department prosecutors and FBI headquarters to complete the review of the remaining emails in a hurry.

One line prosecutor, identified in the IG report only as "Prosecutor 1," argued that they should finish up "as quickly" as possible. Baker said there was a general concern about the new process "being too prolonged and dragged [out]."

Lynch urged Comey to process the Weiner laptop "as fast as you can," according to notes from a high-level department meeting on Oct. 31, 2016, which were obtained by the IG.

On Nov. 3, Strzok indicated in a text that Justice demanded he update the department twice a day on the FBI's progress in clearing the stack. "DOJ is hyperventilating," he told Page.
De-Duplicating 'Wizardry'
Before the search warrant was issued, the Midyear team argued that the project was too vast to complete before the election. According to Comey's recently published memoir, they insisted it would take "many weeks" and require the enlistment of "hundreds of FBI employees." And, they contended, not just anybody could read them: "It had to be done by people who knew the context," and there was only a handful of investigators and analysts who could do the job.

"The team told me there was no chance the survey of the emails could be completed before the Nov. 8 election," Comey recalled, which was right around the corner.

But after Comey decided he'd have to move forward with the search regardless, Strzok and his investigators suddenly claimed they could finish the work in the short time remaining prior to national polls opening.

At the same time, they cut off communications with the New York field office. "We should essentially have no reason for contact with NYO going forward on this," Strzok texted Page on Nov. 2.

Strzok followed up with another text that same day, which seemed to echo earlier texts about what they viewed as their patriotic duty to stop Trump and support Clinton.

"Your country needs you now," he said in an apparent attempt to buck up Page, who was "very angry" they were having to reopen the Clinton case. "We are going to have to be very wise about all of this."

"We're going to make sure the right thing is done," he added. "It's gonna be ok."

Responded Page: "I have complete confidence in the [Midyear] team."

"Our team," Strzok texted back. "I'm telling you to take comfort in that." Later, he reminded Page that any conversations she had with McCabe "would be covered under atty [attorney-client] privilege."

Suddenly, however, the impossible project suddenly became manageable thanks to what Comey described as a "huge breakthrough." As the new cache of emails arrived, the bureau claimed it had solved one of the most labor-intensive aspects of the previous Midyear investigation – having to sort through the tens of thousands of Clinton emails on various servers and electronic devices manually.

Advanced new "de-duplicating" technology would allow them to speed through the mountain of new emails automatically flagging copies of previously reviewed material.

Strzok, who led the effort, echoed Comey's words, later telling the IG's investigators that technicians were able "to do amazing things" to "rapidly de-duplicate" the emails on the laptop, which significantly lowered the number of emails that he and other investigators had to individually review manually.

But according to the IG, FBI's technology division only "attempted" to de-duplicate the emails, but ultimately was unsuccessful. The IG cited a report prepared Nov. 15, 2016, by three officials from the FBI's Boston field office. Titled "Anthony Weiner Laptop Review for Communications Pertinent to Midyear Exam," it found that "[b]ecause metadata was largely absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against prior emails recovered during the investigation."

Trump at rally Nov. 7, 2016, in Manchester, N.H. : "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days."

The absence of this metadata -- basically electronic fingerprints that reveal identifying characteristics such as To, CC, Date, From, Subject, attachments and other fields – informed the IG's finding that "the FBI could not determine how many of the potentially work-related emails were duplicative of emails previously obtained in the Midyear investigation."

Contrary to Comey's claim, the FBI could not sufficiently determine how many emails containing classified information were duplicative of previously reviewed classified emails. As a result, hundreds of thousands of emails were not actually processed for evidence, law enforcement sources say.

"All those communications weren't ruled out because they were copies, they were just ruled out," the federal investigator with direct knowledge of the case said. The official, who wished to remain anonymous, explained that hundreds of thousands of emails were simply overlooked. Instead of processing them all, investigators took just a sample of the batch and looked at those documents.

After Comey announced his investigators wrapped up the review in days – then-candidate Donald Trump expressed skepticism. "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days," he said during a rally on Nov. 7. He was more correct than he knew.
Exoneration Before Investigation
At the urging of Lynch, Comey began drafting a new exoneration statement several days before investigators finished reviewing the sample of emails they took from the Weiner laptop. High-level meeting notes reveal they even discussed sending Congress "more-clarifying" statements during the week to "correct misimpressions out there."

A scene from the documentary "Weiner."

As the search was under way, one of the Midyear agents – Agent 1 -- confided to another agent in a Nov. 1 instant message on the FBI's computer network that "no one is going to pros[ecute Clinton] even if we find unique classified [material]."

On Nov. 4 – two days before they had completed the search – Strzok talked about "drafting" a statement. "We might have this stmt out and be substantially done," Page texted back about an hour later.

The pair seemed confident at that point that Clinton's campaign had weathered the new controversy and would still pull off a victory.

"[O]n Inauguration Day," Page texted Strzok, "in addition to our kegger, we should also have a screening of the Weiner documentary!" The film, "Weiner," documented the former Democratic lawmaker's ill-fated run for New York mayor in 2013.
Filtering
Even after the vast reservoir of emails had been winnowed down by questionable methods, the remaining ones still had to be reviewed by hand to determine if they were relevant to the investigation and therefore legally searchable as evidence.

Moyer, the lead FBI attorney on the Midyear team who had initially discounted the trove of new emails as "duplicates" and failed to act upon their discovery, was also head of the "filtering" team. After various searches of the laptop, she and the Midyear team came up with 6,827 emails they classified as being tied directly to Clinton. Moyer then culled away from that batch emails she deemed to be personal in nature and outside the scope of legal agreements, cutting the stack in half. That left 3,077 which she deemed "work related."

On Nov. 5, Moyer, Strzok and a third investigator divided up the remaining pool of 3,077 emails -- roughly 1,000 emails each -- and rifled through them for classified information and incriminating evidence in less than 12 hours, even though the identification of classified material is a complicated and prolonged process that requires soliciting input from the original classification authorities within the intelligence community.

"We're doing it ALL," Strzok told Page late that evening. The trio ordered pizza and worked into the next morning combing through the emails. "Finishing up," Strzok texted Page around 1 a.m. that Sunday.

By about 2 a.m. Sunday, he declared they were done with their search, noting that while they had found new State Department messages, they had found "no new classified" emails. And allegedly nothing from the missing period at the start of Clinton's term that might suggest a criminal motive.

Later that evening of Nov. 6, after he announced to Congress that Clinton was in the clear again, an exuberant Comey gathered his inner circle in his office to watch football.

As news of the case's swift re-closure hit the airwaves, Page and Strzok giddily exchanged text messages and celebrated. "Out on CNN now And fox I WANT TO WATCH THIS WITH YOU!" Strzok said to Page. "Going to pour myself a glass of wine ."

Page noted that "Trump is talking about [Clinton]" on Fox News, and how "she's protected by a rigged system."
New Classified Information
Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, earlier prognostications that the results of the laptop search would not be a game-changer turned out to be accurate. Yet investigators nonetheless found 13 classified email chains on the unauthorized laptop just in the small sample of 3,077 emails that were individually inspected, and four of those were classified as Secret at the time.

Contrary to the FBI's public claims, at least five classified emails recovered were not duplicates but new to investigators.

RCI has learned that these highly sensitive messages include a Nov. 25, 2011, email regarding talks with Egyptian leaders and Hamas, and a July 9, 2011, "call sheet" Abedin sent Clinton in advance of a phone conversation she had that month with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The document runs four pages.

Another previously unseen classified email, dated Nov. 25, 2010, concerns confidential high-level State Department talks with United Arab Emirates leaders. The note, including a classified "readout" of a phone call with the UAE prime minister, was written by Abedin and sent to Clinton, and then forwarded by Abedin the next day from her [email protected] account to her then-husband's account identified under the rubric "Anthony Campaign."

Tom Fitton: "sham" investigation.

Judicial Watch, a Washington-based government watchdog group which has filed a lawsuit against the State Department seeking a full production of Clinton records, confirmed the existence of several more unique classified emails it has received among the rolling release of the 3,077 "work-related" emails.

"These classified documents are not duplicates," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told RCI. "They are not ones the FBI had already seen prior to their November review."

He accused the FBI of conducting a "sham" investigation and called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to order a new investigation of Clinton's email.

The unique classified emails call into question Comey's May 2017 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when he maintained that although investigators found classified email chains on the laptop, "We'd seen them all before."
No Damage Assessment
Comey, in subsequent interviews and public testimony, maintained that the FBI left no stone unturned. This, too, skirted the truth.

Although Comey claimed that investigators had scoured the laptop for intrusions by foreign hackers who may have stolen the state secrets, Strzok and his team never forensically examined the laptop to see if classified information residing on it had been hacked or compromised by a foreign power before Nov. 6, law enforcement sources say. A complete forensic analysis was never performed by technicians at the FBI's lab at Quantico.

Nor did they farm out the classified information found on the unsecured laptop to other intelligence agencies for review as part of a national security damage assessment -- even though Horowitz confirmed that Clinton's illegal email activity, in a major security breach, gave "foreign actors" access to unknowable quantities of classified material.

Without addressing the laptop specifically, late last year the FBI's own inspection division determined that classified information kept on Clinton's email server "was compromised by unauthorized individuals, to include foreign governments or intelligence services, via cyber intrusion or other means."

Judicial Watch is suing the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the State Department to force them to conduct, as required by law, a full damage assessment, and prepare a report on how Clinton's email practices as secretary harmed national security.

Comey and Strzok also decided to close the case for a second time without interviewing its three central figures: Abedin, Weiner and Clinton.

Abedin was eventually interviewed, two months later, on Jan. 6, 2017. Although summaries of her previous interviews have been made public, this one has not.

Investigators never interviewed Weiner, even though he had received at least two of the confirmed classified emails on his Yahoo account without the appropriate security clearance to receive them.

The IG concluded, "The FBI did not determine exactly how Abedin's emails came to reside on Weiner's laptop."
Premature Re-Closure
In his May 2017 testimony, however, Comey maintained that both Abedin and Weiner had been investigated.
Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana: Investigating investigators. AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.): Is there an investigation with respect to the two of them?

Comey: There was, it is -- we completed it.

Pressed to answer why neither of them was charged with crimes, including mishandling classified information, Comey explained:

"With respect to Ms. Abedin, we didn't have any indication that she had a sense that what she was doing was in violation of the law. Couldn't prove any sort of criminal intent."

At the time, the Senate Judiciary Committee was unaware that the FBI had not interviewed Abedin to make such a determination before the election. What about Weiner? Did he read the classified materials without proper authority? the committee asked. "I don't think so," Comey answered, before adding, "I don't think we've been able to interview him."
Pro-Clinton Bias
The IG report found that Strzok demonstrated intense bias for Clinton and against Trump throughout the initial probe, followed by a stubborn reluctance to examine potentially critical new evidence against Clinton. These included hundreds of messages exchanged with Page, embodied by a Nov. 7 text referencing a pre-Election Day article headlined, "A victory by Mr. Trump remains possible," about which Strzok stated, "OMG THIS IS F*CKING TERRIFYING."

Strzok is a central figure because he was a top agent on the two investigations with the greatest bearing on the 2016 election – Clinton emails and the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. These probes overlapped in October as the discovery of Abedin's laptop renewed Bureau attention on Clinton's emails at the same time it was preparing to seek a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Some Republicans have charged that the month-long delay between the New York office's discovery of the laptop and the FBI's investigation of it can be explained by Strzok's partisan decision to prioritize the Trump investigation over the Clinton one.

Among the evidence they cite is an Oct. 14 email to Page in which Strzok discussed applying "hurry the F up pressure" on Justice Department attorneys to secure the FISA surveillance warrant on Page approved before Election Day. (This also happened to be the day the Obama administration promoted his wife, Melissa Hodgman , a big Hillary booster, to associate director of the SEC's enforcement division.) On Oct. 21, his team filed an application for a wiretap to spy on Carter Page.

IG Horowitz would not rule out bias as a motivating factor in the aggressive investigation of Trump and passive probe of Clinton. "We did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," he said.

Asked to elaborate in recent Senate testimony, Horowitz reaffirmed, "We did not find no bias in regards to the October events."

Throughout that month, the facts overwhelmingly demonstrate that instead of digging into the cache of new Clinton evidence, Strzok aggressively investigated the Trump campaign's alleged ties to Moscow, including wiretapping at least one Trump adviser based heavily on unverified allegations of espionage reported in a dossier commissioned by the Clinton campaign.

In a statement, Strzok's attorney blamed the delays in processing the new emails on "bureaucratic snafus," and insisted they had nothing to do with Strzok's political views, which he said never "affected his work."

The lawyer, Aitan D. Goelman, a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP in Washington, added that his client moved on the new information as soon as he could.

"When informed that Weiner's laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators," Goelman said. Still, contemporaneous messages by Strzok reveal he was not thrilled about re-investigating Clinton. On Nov. 5, for example, he texted Page: "I hate this case."
Recovering the Laptop
A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today?

The whistleblower agent in New York said that he was "instructed" by superiors to delete the image of the laptop hard drive he had copied onto his work station, and to "wipe" all of the Clinton-related emails clean from his computer.

But he said he believes the FBI "retained" possession of the actual machine, and that the evidence on the device was preserved.

The last reported whereabouts of the laptop was the Quantico lab. However, the unusually restrictive search warrant Strzok and his team drafted appeared to remand the laptop back into the custody of Abedin and Weiner upon the closing of the case.

"If the government determines that the subject laptop is no longer necessary to retrieve and preserve the data on the device," the document states on its final page, "the government will return the subject laptop."

Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving potentially serious federal crimes -- including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and obstruction of justice -- that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement authorities.

[Aug 24, 2018] I have had my suspicions of the divisions inside the FBI ever since late summer of 2016 when it was reported that the NYC FBI was pushing to reveal the Hillary emails found inside Anthony Weiner's home computer

Aug 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

. Joe Tedesky , August 16, 2018 at 7:40 pm

I have had my suspicions of the divisions inside the FBI ever since late summer of 2016 when it was reported that the NYC FBI was pushing to reveal the Hillary emails found inside Anthony Weiner's home computer. If you recall rumor had it, that the NYC insistence to go public forced Comey to reopen the Hillary case uh-oh, darn. I also see Rudy as representative of the opposing faction against the Comey/Brennan/Claper cabal. The only thing after Trump bumps these guys off, is how he should shuttle CNN & MSNBC to be continued.

[Jul 20, 2018] From the perspective of the Hillary investigation which Strzok was running the fact the emials were Cc-ed to China should have tipped the scale to] gross negligence on her part for not handling classified information in a secure manner.

Notable quotes:

"... Watching Strzok perform, I was reminded of another performance of a similar nature by one Oliver North. Back in the days of plausible deniability and so forth. I recall reading that North got acting coaching for a few months, and intense preparation (as most who testify substantively before Congressional committees do) before the actual appearance. ..."

"... The gritty earnestness of Strzok was very reminiscent of North's gig. In neither case is it likely that any kind of penalty under existing laws or as an exercise of honest governance will apply, nor will the behaviors of the empire's acting principals change even a whit. ..."

"... "I'm unconvinced Strzok knew" Knew what, exactly? Did he know that Hillary Clinton's emails were being bcc'ed to China? Yeah, he know that with a certainty, because ICIG sent investigator Frank Rucker and ICIG attorney Janette McMillan to personally brief Strzok on that very fact. ..."

"... As one of the top counter-intelligence agents it would have been his duty to ensure that the Chinese stealing of classified information was investigated by the FBI CI team and a damage assessment made. ..."

"... I am surprised that you do not wish to understand that it was the sworn duty of the FBI as the chief federal police force to pursue this, not cover it up for the obvious purpose of improving the felon Clinton's chances. ..."

Jul 20, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

robt willmann , 7 hours ago

Here is the Congressional Record with the speech by Rep. Gohmert. The excerpt above starts at the 8th paragraph. The version in the pdf computer file format is three pages long and starts down in the third column. It can be printed out and shown to your friends as a conversation starter--
http://www.congress.gov/con...

http://www.congress.gov/cre...

richardstevenhack , 16 hours ago
Good stuff. Hangs it around the Dems' necks for sure - now what are they going to do about it?
This part "because they are not going to be able to adequately research all of those emails in just a matter of 2 or 3 days" isn't necessarily correct, if the emails were duplicates of the others the FBI looked at, which is alleged to be the case. Is it the case? Who knows? But they could verify that in 2 or 3 days by computer using hashes of the originals compared to the new ones.

But can we trust them on this? Again, who knows, given what we know now.

JTMcPhee98 , 5 hours ago
Watching Strzok perform, I was reminded of another performance of a similar nature by one Oliver North. Back in the days of plausible deniability and so forth. I recall reading that North got acting coaching for a few months, and intense preparation (as most who testify substantively before Congressional committees do) before the actual appearance.
The gritty earnestness of Strzok was very reminiscent of North's gig. In neither case is it likely that any kind of penalty under existing laws or as an exercise of honest governance will apply, nor will the behaviors of the empire's acting principals change even a whit.

Steve Sisson , 18 hours ago
Always kind of amusing hearing a member of Congress accusing someone else of lying. Kind of like one expert acknowledging another.
Johnboy4546 -> Mark Logan , 12 hours ago
"I'm unconvinced Strzok knew" Knew what, exactly? Did he know that Hillary Clinton's emails were being bcc'ed to China? Yeah, he know that with a certainty, because ICIG sent investigator Frank Rucker and ICIG attorney Janette McMillan to personally brief Strzok on that very fact.
So you can't claim that he didn't *know*, and even Strzok is only claiming that he can't remember that he once knew about this.

Apparently his Alzheimer's is so bad that he forgot about it the moment he walked out of the briefing room, because that's the only possible explanation for why he failed to pass this new information on to the "FBI's geek squad" for their own investigative pleasure.

Gee, why am I standing here outside the Briefing Room? Must have been heading to the cafeteria to gra . oh, look, a squirrel!

blue peacock -> Mark Logan , 4 hours ago
As one of the top counter-intelligence agents it would have been his duty to ensure that the Chinese stealing of classified information was investigated by the FBI CI team and a damage assessment made.
Of course from the perspective of the Hillary investigation which he was running this should have tipped the scale to "gross negligence" on her part for not handling classified information in a secure manner. But as the IG report showed this was always a political investigation and not a criminal one as it did not follow normal procedures for such cases and exoneration was decided well in advance. It is good to be the Borg Queen!

Pat Lang Mod -> Mark Logan , an hour ago
I am surprised that you do not wish to understand that it was the sworn duty of the FBI as the chief federal police force to pursue this, not cover it up for the obvious purpose of improving the felon Clinton's chances. IMO she could be charged with being an accessory before the fact to espionage against the US.

[Jul 20, 2018] Congressional Record transcript on Chinagate - 12 July, 2018

Jul 20, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Here's the Congressional Record transcript of an exhaustive speech Representative Louis Gohmert (R-Tex) gave on the floor of the US House of Representatives about the penetration of Hillary Clinton's e-mail system.

{time} 1815

"So, unfortunately, what I brought out in that hearing and he denied recalling should not be lost in the exchange about his lying. It is far more important.

But for the record, as a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a felony judge, a chief justice, and as a Member of Congress, I have asked thousands of witnesses questions. When you have somebody who has just gotten so good at lying that there is no indication in their eyes whatsoever that it bothers them to lie, somebody has got to call them out on it. It is just not good for the state of this Union.

It is also denying credibility to actually have the witness say he doesn't recall getting information about a foreign entity that is not Russia getting every--actually, it was over 30,000 emails, emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through the unauthorized server and unsecured server and every email she sent out. There were highly classified--beyond classified--top secret-type stuff that had gone through that server.

Out of the over 30,000 emails that went through that server, all but 4 of them--no explanation why those 4 didn't get the same instruction, but we have some very good intelligence people--when they were asked to look at Hillary Clinton's emails, they picked up an anomaly. As they did forensic research on the emails, they found that anomaly was actually an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the email server telling the server to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton through that unauthorized server and every email that she sent out through that server, to send it to this foreign entity that is not Russia.

We know that efforts were made to get Inspector General Horowitz to receive that information. He would not return a call. Apparently, he didn't want that information because that would go against his saying that the bias did not affect the investigation.

Of course it affected the investigation. It couldn't help but affect the investigation. It denies logic and common sense to say somebody with that much animus, that much bias and prejudice would not have it affect their investigation.

Madam Speaker, I can tell you I know there are people in this House who don't care for me, but I can also tell you there is no one in this House on either side of this aisle who I would put up with being investigated and prosecuted by somebody with the hatred, the absolute nasty prejudice that Peter Strzok had for Donald Trump. I wouldn't put up with it. I would go to bat for any Democrat in this House, any Republican in this House, the ones who don't like me on either side. It wouldn't matter.

Nobody in the United States of America should have the full power of the Federal Government coming after them in the hands of somebody prejudiced, full of hate for that individual. But such is what we are dealing with here. That is why I laid the groundwork, gave the names of the people--some of them--that were there when Peter Strzok was informed about Hillary Clinton's emails for sure going to a foreign entity. This is serious stuff.

What came of our intelligence community providing that information to the FBI agent in charge, Peter Strzok? Nothing. Peter Strzok received the information that it wasn't speculation, that maybe Hillary Clinton's emails were capable of being hacked, but we have no evidence that they were hacked.

All this garbage that we have heard about from reports? No. When the FBI was told her emails were hacked and every email she received, every email she sent out--over 30,000, except for 4--over 30,000 were compromised and going to a foreign entity not Russia, and Mr. Strzok did nothing about it.

When I started laying the groundwork pointing out the people, I am told an attorney behind Mr. Strzok mouthed, ``Oh, my gosh,'' something like that, as I was laying the groundwork. I don't know if she knew what I was talking about or not, but I thought I picked up just a fleeting note of detection in Peter Strzok's eyes that he knew what I was talking about.

But, again, for my friends who are not familiar with the true rules of the House, let me explain. In trial courts, for example, the felony court over which I was a judge, the rules of evidence are very strict, and we protect the jury from hearing things that don't have any basis for believability. That is why most hearsay cannot come in, but there are exceptions.

But one rule that you always find in any court, no matter how strict the rules are, the credibility of the witness is always in evidence, always relevant, always material. The witness' credibility is always material and relevant.

When it has been as open and everyone in our hearing room knew what has been going on for such a prolonged period and I saw that look, that is all I could think is: I wonder if that is the same look you gave your wife over and over when you lied to her about Lisa Page.

The credibility of a witness is always material and relevant. Mark it down.

Now, in our House hearings, the rules are not that strict. It is more in the nature of anything that we feel may be relevant to the subject at hand. But in a hearing like today, even things that have nothing to do--they are not germane, they are not relevant, they are not material to what we are doing, we still have people bring in posters about something that is not germane, not relevant, not material; and they can get away with doing it, in some cases, as they did today, even though the rules probably could have restricted keeping some of that out. We have very relaxed rules, so these kind of things happen.

Like I say, to yell out I am off my meds, yes, that violates the rule, but I am sure my Democratic friend didn't realize what a rule-breaker she was as she tried to claim I was breaking the rules, which I was not.

But what really came home, too, is, again, Inspector General Horowitz did a good job gathering the evidence, except he refused to get the evidence that was offered to him about Hillary Clinton's emails absolutely, unequivocally being hacked and everything over 30,000, except for 4, going to a foreign entity not Russia.

You get the picture. The bias made a lot of difference in the outcome of the case.

Horowitz is just wrong about that. He was obviously--as I said at the hearing: So you give us over 500 pages showing bias by the investigators on the Republican side, and since you don't want your Democratic friends mad at you, you conclude there is no indication all of this evidence showed any affect on the outcome.

Well, hello. When you show such hatred and animus in the mind of the lead

[*6168]

Page 6168

investigator and you show that everything that concluded from that investigation was 100 percent consistent with the bias and hatred, you don't have to have the witness agree: You are right; you caught me. All my bias affected the outcome of my investigation.

Just like a prosecutor who puts on evidence that a guy gets in a car, drives to a bank, pulls out a gun, holds it to the head of the teller, makes the teller give him money, and leaves in that car, you have to prove intent, that he intended to rob the bank, but you don't have to have evidence that the bank robber said, ``Hey, I intend to rob this bank.'' No.

When the results--and there are a lot of results--all of them are consistent with the bias and the hatred, the disdain, the animus, then you have got at least a de facto case, certainly one that can get past a motion for summary judgment and get to the jury and put in the hands of the fact finder.

Again, when you have somebody who is as good at lying to folks over and over and over again with a straight face, gets a lot of practice, and he comes before Congress--the guy is good. He is really good.

As I told him--I think, obviously, he and his lawyer had a different opinion, but it seemed to me it would have been more credible to come in and do what Inspector General Horowitz did, and say: Yeah, there is a lot of bias here, no question, but I don't think it affected the outcome.

Of course, he wasn't 100 percent sure, it didn't sound like, that it didn't affect when Strzok decided to end the Hillary Clinton investigation and when he immediately decided to pick up the investigation against Trump.

As I heard my friend say over and over about how Comey, of course, just really harmed the Clinton campaign, they are ignoring something that appeared pretty clear, even without resorting to people who have provided information about what went on.

{time} 1830

We know Hillary Clinton's emails that she claimed were missing were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop. Maybe it was Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, one of their laptops. They found those emails there.

Of course, Peter Strzok, helping the woman whom he thought ought to win 100 million to 0 for President, wow, that was not good news for people like him who wanted to help Hillary.

They couldn't help the fact that FBI agents, when investigating something else, find all these missing 30,000 or so emails on this laptop. And they have got the information at least for some weeks, maybe 2, maybe 3, maybe 4. We are not sure, but they had found this information.

So Comey was in a difficult situation. He wanted Hillary to win, no question. He did not want Donald Trump to win. He never did like Trump, never has, apparently, things he has said and done.

So what could he do that would cause the least amount of problems for Hillary Clinton?

There was a threat, apparently, that FBI agents were going to go public that they had found these missing emails and that Comey was blocking reopening the investigation now that we have all these emails. And if FBI agents, who are righteous, unlike Peter Strzok, really righteous people--and I know a lot of them around the country. They are good, decent, upstanding, honorable, give-their-life-for-their-country kind of people, not give their affair for themselves but give their lives for their country. Those people have gotten a big blemish on them because of Peter Strzok and others at the top of the Department of Justice in the last administration, as they held over. They would never do what Peter Strzok did. They would never do that.

So it gets a little like they erect a straw dog: You are condemning the thousands of great FBI agents around the country.

No, I am blaming you. We know they are good, but you are not.

And that is where we have been here. This country is in a lot of trouble. But it was very clear: Peter Strzok, intentionally and knowingly, with demonstrated prejudice, refused to pursue the disclosed fact to him, in his presence, that a foreign entity not Russia was getting every email that Hillary Clinton sent and received. There was classified material in there, and there was higher than just plain classified. There was extremely sensitive information in there."

What else did we know? Actually, if you dig what has been uncovered during the last 2 years, Hillary Clinton had the President's Daily Briefing going to her home. And there are times that the young man--I believe his name was Oscar Flores--who worked there, they may have tried to get him a clearance at one time, but, apparently, from what I could read, he didn't have any kind of clearance, yet he would print stuff off.

The President's Daily Briefing is some of the most sensitive information in the entire United States Government, extreme sensitivity, and she violated the law by making it accessible to people without the proper clearance and, certainly, her young man, or man, who was working there for her.

She violated the law. It wasn't necessary that she have intent; it was just necessary that she broke the law in that case.

I really would like to have intent be an element of most every crime that is in the Federal law. I think it would be a good idea. But right now it is not part of the laws she broke.

Yet people like Peter Strzok covered for her. They refused to pursue the things that would have made her guilty. They went after things to try to hurt Donald Trump.

When you look at that October press conference that Comey had, you realize, gee, what if he had not called that press conference and you had one or more FBI agents come out and say: ``Hey, we found these emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop weeks ago, and Comey refused to reopen the investigation''; that would have doomed her election far worse than what happened.

So what, under the circumstances, was the best thing that Comey could do for his friend Hillary Clinton? It was to get out ahead of anybody disclosing that they had been sitting on the thought-to-be-lost emails and say: We have got them.

Then, as I had said back at the time, well, we will find out how serious Comey is. If he comes back within 2 or 3 days and says they have examined all 30,000 or so, whatever, of the emails, then we will know that this was just a charade to cover for Hillary Clinton, because they are not going to be able to adequately research all of those emails in just a matter of 2 or 3 days.

He came back very quickly, so that it would not affect the election coming up, and announced: No. Clean bill of health. We looked at all the new evidence. Nothing was there.

Except they still didn't bother to use the information provided by the intelligence community that was available. They didn't pick it up, didn't do anything with what was disclosed.

I am telling you, I am very grateful we have people working in this government who want to protect the United States and want to protect the United States' people. They don't get a lot of credit, usually don't get any credit, but they do a good job for this country; and my head and my heart and my salute go out to them as we deal with the mess that has been created by those with far more selfish motives.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Congressional record

----------

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

[Jul 20, 2018] Mrs. Clinton, who was criminally negligent with regard to the most important classified information, has been protected by the politicking Brennan, Clapper, and Mueller

Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

annamaria , July 20, 2018 at 12:22 pm GMT

@Ludwig Watzal

"The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many subordinate political Mafiosi "

What is going on in the US is systematic. Assange, an investigative journalist who became the light of truth worldwide, is under a grave danger from US' and UK' Intelligence Communities of the non-intelligent opportunists and real traitors: https://www.rt.com/news/433783-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-uk/

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton, who was criminally negligent with regard to the most important classified information, has been protected by the politicking Brennan, Clapper, and Mueller: " it was over 30,000 emails , emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through the unauthorized server and unsecured server and every email she sent out.

There were highly classified -- beyond classified -- top secret-type stuff that had gone through that server. an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the email server telling the server to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton through that unauthorized server and every email that she sent out through that server, to send it to this foreign entity that is not Russia." http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/congressional-record-transcript-on-chinagate.html

The Awan Affair, the most serious ever violation of national cybersecurity, has demonstrated the spectacular incompetence of the CIA and FBI, which had allowed a family of Pakistani nationals to surf congressional computers of various committees, including Intelligence Committee, for years. None of the scoundrels had a security clearance! Their ardent protector, Wasserman-Schultz (who threatened the DC Marschall) belongs to the untouchables, unlike Assange: https://www.theepochtimes.com/awan-congressional-scandal-in-spotlight-as-president-suggests-data-could-be-part-of-court-case_2500703.html

[Jul 18, 2018] They call the hack the equivalent of the Cuban Missile crisis but no one in government has seen Hillary's server.

Jul 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

NumberNone -> 847328_3527 Tue, 07/17/2018 - 09:45 Permalink

Personally I'm getting fucking sick of all this. They call the hack the equivalent of the Cuban Missile crisis but no one in government has seen Hillary's server. This is like Kennedy going on tv and saying 'we are going to threaten Russia with nuclear war over Cuba. No government agency has actually seen the photos of missiles but we are told by a credible source of the "Americans against Russia" group that they are there'
Even NBC can't find verbal gymnastics to dispute this.

The FBI did not examine the DNC servers -- after allegations that they had been hacked by the Russians -- and says it was rebuffed by the DNC in efforts to do so. The DNC insists the FBI never asked to see the server.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna891756

Why the fuck are they still denying the FBI access? Why do the Dems hate and mistrust the fine men and women that serve our country in the FBI?
scribe1 -> NumberNone Tue, 07/17/2018 - 10:40 Permalink

NYPD has Weiner's laptop with all the goods. they will not release the evidence. obviously. they would all hang.
Jim in MN -> scribe1 Tue, 07/17/2018 - 11:09 Permalink

My favorite line in the FBI IG report was when the NYPD analyst mirrored the Weiner laptop hard drive. They opened one email at random, looked at it and said:
'We can't be reading this'

And promptly reported it to the FBI.

Which buried it.
GeezerGeek -> NumberNone Tue, 07/17/2018 - 11:39 Permalink

Perhaps it's the Mandala effect, but I recall watching Adlai Stevenson laying out black-and-white pictures of Soviet missiles on some military base which he claimed was in Cuba (Cuber in Kennedy-speak). He did this while giving a speech to the UN Security Council in October 1962 berating the Soviet Union and Nikita Khrushchev in particular for putting missiles in Cuba. For those too young to remember or too lazy to look it up, Stevenson was Kennedy's Ambassador to the UN.
Are you telling me that Stevenson lied about where the military base was? Do we owe a posthumous apology to Nikita, who incidentally transferred political control of Crimea from the Russian portion of the USSR to the Ukrainian portion of the USSR (where Khrushchev was from)?

History certainly is convoluted enough; I hope it's not changing on me.
NumberNone -> GeezerGeek Tue, 07/17/2018 - 12:01 Permalink

I don't think you were catching my point. I was not disputing the basis for the Cuban Missile crisis from the US side.
My point being that we are willing to bare our teeth and threaten Russia on the basis of a 3rd party review of the DNC server paid for by the DNC.

If we are going to raise the Russian hack to the equivalency of Russia placing nuclear missiles off the coast of Florida...shouldn't the basis for this be based upon an actual government agency review of the hack?
Jim in MN -> GeezerGeek Tue, 07/17/2018 - 13:10 Permalink

No, he meant that the current BS story is like IF Kennedy had made it all up. Not that Kennedy actually did make it all up.
Those U2s were pretty cool in their day.

[Jul 18, 2018] Page confirmed China penetration of Hillary bathroom server e-mail.

Notable quotes:

"... Sir, in my cynical old age, I have a hard time believing there will be any prosecution of the Deep State top echelons. The DOJ and FBI it seems are very focused on protecting their own. If Rosenstein is impeached then one could say the tide is turning. Otherwise it would appear to be more kabuki. ..."

Jul 18, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

"Former top FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified during two days of closed-door House hearings, revealing shocking new Intel against her old bosses at the Bureau, according the well-placed FBI sources.

Alarming new details on allegations of a bureau-wide cover up. Or should we say another bureau-wide cover up.

The embattled Page tossed James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap among others under the Congressional bus, alleging the upper echelon of the FBI concealed intelligence confirming Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 30,000+ "missing" emails, federal sources said.

The Russians didn't do it. The Chinese did, according to well-placed FBI sources.

And while Democratic lawmakers and the mainstream media prop up Russia as America's boogeyman, it was the ironically Chinese who acquired Hillary's treasure trove of classified and top secret intelligence from her home-brewed private server.

And a public revelation of that magnitude -- publicizing that a communist world power intercepted Hillary's sensitive and top secret emails -- would have derailed Hillary Clinton's presidential hopes. Overnight. But it didn't simply because it was concealed." True Pundit

------------

A woman scorned? Maybe, but Page has done a real job on these malefactors. And, who knows how many other penetrations of various kinds there were in Clinton's reign as SecState?

"You mean like with a towel?" Clinton mocked a reporter with that question when asked if her servers had been wiped clean. It is difficult to believe that there won't be prosecutions. pl

https://truepundit.com/fbi-lisa-page-dimes-out-top-fbi-officials-during-classified-house-testimony-bureau-bosses-covered-up-evidence-china-hacked-hillarys-top-secret-emails/

richardstevenhack , 8 hours ago

Putin offered to allow Mueller's team to go to Russia and interrogate the suspects in the Mueller indictment provided 1) that Russian investigators could sit in on the interrogations, and 2) that the US would allow Russian investigators to investigate people like Bill Browder in the US.
This would be done until the existing treaty which allows the US and Russia to cooperate in criminal investigation cases.

Vladimir Putin just made an unexpected offer to Mueller's team
http://theduran.com/vladimi...

Quote:

Now, let's get back to the issue of this 12 alleged intelligence officers of Russia. I don't know the full extent of the situation. But President Trump mentioned this issue. I will look into it.

So far, I can say the following. Things that are off the top of my head. We have an existing agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, an existing treaty that dates back to 1999. The mutual assistance on criminal cases. This treaty is in full effect. It works quite efficiently. On average, we initiate about 100, 150 criminal cases upon request from foreign states.

For instance, the last year, there was one extradition case upon the request sent by the United States. This treaty has specific legal procedures we can offer. The appropriate commission headed by Special Attorney Mueller, he can use this treaty as a solid foundation and send a formal, official request to us so that we could interrogate, hold questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy to some
crimes. Our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the appropriate materials to the United States. Moreover, we can meet you halfway. We can make another step. We can actually permit representatives of the United States, including the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can let them into the country. They can be present at questioning.

In this case, there's another condition. This kind of effort should be mutual one. Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate. They would question officials, including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States whom we believe have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.

End Quote

Putin then proceeds to stick it to Hillary Clinton with the bombshell accusation that Bill Browder - possibly with the assistance of US intelligence agencies - contributed a whopping $400 million dollars to Clinton's election campaign!

Quote:

For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes. Neither in Russia nor in the United States. Yet, the money escapes the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. [He presents no evidence to back up that $400 million claim.] Well, that's their personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself. But the way the money was earned was illegal. We have solid
reason to believe that some intelligence officers guided these transactions. [This allegation, too, is merely an unsupported assertion here.] So we have an interest of questioning them. That could be a first step. We can also extend it. There are many options. They all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.

End Quote

This article mentions the above and provides background information on Browder and the US Magnitsky Act which he finagled Congress into passing which were the original Russian sanctions.

Putin Bombshell: US Intelligence Funneled $400 Million to Clinton Campaign From Russia
https://russia-insider.com/...

Despite Putin's claim that this was "off the top of his head", I'd say this was a calculated response to the Mueller indictment as well as a calculated attack on Hillary Clinton and the US intelligence agencies who were clearly in support of her election campaign. Frankly, it's brilliant. It forces Mueller to "put up or shut up" just as much as the company which challenged the previous indictment over Russian ads.

Lillll -> richardstevenhack , 4 hours ago
"US would allow Russian investigators to investigate people like Bill Browder in the US."
The example would be a good one, except, the US has no power to allow anybody to investigate Bill Browder (grandson of the head of the American Communist Party, btw) because Browder gave up his US citizenship, it is said, to avoid paying taxes

Andrey Subbotin -> richardstevenhack , 5 hours ago
Putin since then stated that he misspoke and the number was $400K not 400 million
Valissa Rauhallinen -> Eric Newhill , 4 hours ago
Skepticism is always prudent when it comes to any news source.
Regarding the issue of "trust"... Putin himself said that he and Trump shouldn't be basing their discussions on trust of each other. While I trust Putin to be skillful and strategic that doesn't mean I trust all of his words. After all, he is a politician and a powerful leader. Respect is the key here, not trust.

From a transcript http://time.com/5339848/don...
PUTIN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): As to who is to be believed and to who's not to be believed, you can trust no one if you take this.

Where did you get this idea that President Trump trusts me or I trust him? He defends the interests of the United States of America, and I do defend the interests of the Russian Federation.

We do have interests that are common. We are looking for points of contact. There are issues where our postures diverge, and we are looking for ways to reconcile our differences, how to make our effort more meaningful.
-----------------

Of course both countries spy on each other and engage in various forms of cyber warfare, as do many other countries. It's business as usual. That's why the Mueller investigation is bullshit. It doesn't acknowledge that most basic fact of geopolitics. It posits Russia as the only bad actor in the relationship. I was very pleased that Trump acknowledge that both sides created the issues the countries have with each other, though of course the Borg and their media puppets went wild over that.

Trump and Putin both have excellent trolling skills. I very much enjoy this aspect of the great Game!

Though perhaps Putin botched his trolling of Hillary by getting the number wrong. Or may be he pulled a Trump maneuver and purposely gave the wrong number to force reporters to research it and post the correction.

VietnamVet , 5 hours ago
Let's see if "China hacked Clinton's server and got the 30,000 e-mails" goes mainstream. This would nail the Borg dead. What has been peculiar about the last four years is that there are concerted proxy operations to take down the Iranian and Russian governments to get at their resources at the risk of crashing the world economy; let alone, a nuclear war that would destroy the earth. But, nothing against China other than bleating about freedom of passage in South China Sea. China is #2 and rising by all criteria. It is restoring its ancient Imperial power to rule the civilized world. Europe has much more in common with Russia. Over the centuries they keep battling the Kremlin over Crimea.
Jack , 2 hours ago
. It is difficult to believe that there won't be prosecutions.
Sir, in my cynical old age, I have a hard time believing there will be any prosecution of the Deep State top echelons. The DOJ and FBI it seems are very focused on protecting their own. If Rosenstein is impeached then one could say the tide is turning. Otherwise it would appear to be more kabuki.

I don't get why President Trump does not declassify the documents that the DOJ are withholding from Congress rather than tweet "witch hunt".

[Jul 18, 2018] It is hard to reconcile the fact that "Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired Hillarys 30,000+ "missing" emails with the fact that the US "defense" budget is approximately 1.2 trillion dollars a year

Notable quotes:

"... There was also the stunning Awan affair when a family of Pakistanis (with no security clearance) had been surfing congressional computers for years and perhaps selling the obtained classified information to the third parties. So much for the mighty mice CIA and FBI. ..."

Jul 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

It is hard to reconcile this, "Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 30,000+ "missing" emails" with that, "the US "defense" budget is approximately 1.2 trillion dollars a year."

There was also the stunning Awan affair when a family of Pakistanis (with no security clearance) had been surfing congressional computers for years and perhaps selling the obtained classified information to the third parties. So much for the mighty mice CIA and FBI.

Posted by: Anya | Jul 17, 2018 7:06:41 PM | 147

[Jul 17, 2018] Criminal negligence on the part of the Strzok in handing Hillary private emeail server case

Jul 17, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Britam • 8 hours ago ,

Sir;
Looks like Strzok is about to be thrown under the bus.
He and his paramour have been portrayed as enthusiastic Democrat Party partizans. Would an operative at Strzoks' level of responsibility be able to do something as negligent as to ignore solid evidence as this on his own?

At the least, some section of the anti espionage laws appear to have been transgressed.
This entire 'Russia, Russia, Russia' campaign is now in criminal conspiracy territory.
I can imagine the Maoist Mandarins in Pekin chuckling as they contemplate Americas' new "Interesting Times."

Mark McCarty • 13 hours ago ,

So China was the "non-Russian foreign power" that Gohmert referred to when interrogating Strozok. Veeeery interesting!

owoicho owoicho • 41 minutes ago ,

PL,
What an absolute mess.
Never suspected the Chicoms. They obviously saw the pivot to Asia as a threat and pitched their tent with the other team (Or anybody but Clinton (ABC)).
I write a "mess" because we also have the GCHQ/Skripal/ Steele dossier angle to mash into this story too. Crikey.
It'd make a nice John Le Carre book though.

Johnboy4546 • 9 hours ago ,

How is Strzok still employed? Ignoring such a revelation is - at best - a display of such monumental incompetence that he should have been cashiered long ago. Claiming not to remember being told about this is..... well..... words fail me.

[Jul 17, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis Editorial - China hacked Clinton s e-mail

This is a real bombshell, if true.

Jul 17, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Editorial - China hacked Clinton's e-mail I have some inside information.

Looks like a hacking operation by China. They nailed Clinton's completely unprotected system and then inserted code that gave them all her traffic over e-mail subsequent to that.

That included all her State Department classified traffic which she had her staff illegally scan and insert in her private e-mail. We are talking about 30,000+ messages.

Strzok was told that by the Intelligence Community Inspector General WHILE he was running the Clinton e-mail investigation and chose to ignore it. pl

Valissa Rauhallinen , an hour ago

Given the likely culprits, China made the most sense. Thanks for the confirmation!
Meanwhile, under the radar, another segment of the "Gordian knot" is getting ready to be cut.

White House Orders Direct Taliban Talks to Jump-Start Afghan Negotiations https://www.nytimes.com/201...
The Trump administration has told its top diplomats to seek direct talks with the Taliban, a significant shift in American policy in Afghanistan, done in the hope of jump-starting negotiations to end the 17-year war.

The Taliban have long said they will first discuss peace only with the Americans, who toppled their regime in Afghanistan in 2001. But the United States has mostly insisted that the Afghan government must take part.

The recent strategy shift, which was confirmed by several senior American and Afghan officials, is intended to bring those two positions closer and lead to broader, formal negotiations to end the long war.
-----------------------

Bring home the troops!

Jay M , 2 hours ago
Glad to hear we are vassals of China and others. That multipolar world must have been part of someone's 13 dim chess?
Harlan Easley , 3 hours ago
I am an independent. I voted for Obama twice because his opponents were so unappealing. I am starting to hate the left. I view them and the neocon establishment behavior nothing short of treasonous.
Mark McCarty , 3 hours ago
So China was the "non-Russian foreign power" that Gohmert referred to when interrogating Strozok. Veeeery interesting!
Fred S , 4 hours ago
To ask the obvious question: when did the IC inform President Obama?

[Jul 16, 2018] Strzok Ignored Evidence That Hillary's Emails Were Sent to a Foreign Entity by S.Noble

Notable quotes:

"... When Rucker spoke with Strzok, he nodded but was remarkably uninterested in what Rucker had to say, Gohmert said. The DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz received a call about it four times and never returned the calls. He's the other DoJ official described as having an impeccable reputation, but he can't seem to find bias when it slaps him in the face. ..."

"... McCullough, hired during the Obama administration, told Fox News's Catherine Herridge he faced intense backlash. In a Clinton administration, he would be one of the first two fired, he was told. ..."

"... Fox News reported ..."

"... John Schindler confirmed the Fox News report. He wrote at The Observor : Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton's "unclassified" emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage. This included the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. ..."

Jul 14, 2018 | www.independentsentinel.com

Rep. Louis Gohmert, a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, said during a hearing Thursday that a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails were sent to a foreign entity. The FBI, specifically Strzok, did not follow-up. And, the foreign entity wasn't Russia. The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) in 2016 Charles McCullough III found an "anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok. "It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia," he added. According to Gohmert, McCullough sent his ICIG investigator Frank Rucker to present the findings to Strzok who remembered meeting with him but nothing else.

Conveniently, Strzok couldn't remember what they talked about.

When Rucker spoke with Strzok, he nodded but was remarkably uninterested in what Rucker had to say, Gohmert said. The DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz received a call about it four times and never returned the calls. He's the other DoJ official described as having an impeccable reputation, but he can't seem to find bias when it slaps him in the face.

In January 2016, in response to an inquiry, Charles McCullough III informed the Republican leadership on the Senate intelligence and foreign affairs committees that emails beyond the "Top Secret" level passed through Hillary Clinton's unsecured personal server. Democrats immediately responded by trying to intimidate McCullough.

Despicable Adam Schiff told Chris Wallace: "I think the inspector general does risk his reputation. And once you lose that as inspector general, you're not much good to anyone. So I think the inspector general has to be very careful here."

McCullough, hired during the Obama administration, told Fox News's Catherine Herridge he faced intense backlash. In a Clinton administration, he would be one of the first two fired, he was told.

Fox News reported that the emails contained "operational intelligence," which is information about covert operations to gather intelligence as well as details about the assets and informants working with the U.S. government.

John Schindler confirmed the Fox News report. He wrote at The Observor : Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton's "unclassified" emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage. This included the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover.

It appears that the DoJ and FBI like to remain ignorant.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/oGN9C2UsQP4?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

THE ODDS ARE IT HAPPENED

In January, 2016, Robert Gates told Hugh Hewitt that the "odds are pretty high" that Russia, China, and Iran had compromised Hillary's home-brew server...

[Jul 15, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis HILLARY CLINTON S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evide

Highly recommended!

Notable quotes:

"... "an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia." ..."

Jul 15, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

HILLARY CLINTON'S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evidence Report from Decameron

FBI Peter Strzok – the philandering FBI chief investigator who facilitated the FISA surveillance of Trump campaign officials in 2016 – has been exposed for ignoring evidence of major Clinton-related breaches of national security and has been accused of lying about it.

Hillary Clinton's emails, "every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution l ist," Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert said on Friday. And they went to "an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia." The information came from Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough, who sent his investigator Frank Rucker, along with an ICIG attorney Janette McMillan, to brief Strzok.

Gohmert nailed Strozk at the open Congressional hearing on Friday the 13 ^th in Washington, but Strzok claimed no recollection. Gohmert accused him of lying. Maybe Strzok's amnesia about the briefing on Hillary Clinton's email server is nothing but standard FBI training: i.e., when in doubt, don't recall. It's far more likely that there is a campaign of deliberate obstructing justice, selective prosecution, and political targeting by top officials embedded in the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department, FBI, and broader IC. Strzok is not alone.

And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British Intelligence and those in Israel who want to manipulate the US presidency – whatever party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington that it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump advisers. Time to follow that thread.

Both Representatives Gohmert (TX) and Trey Gowdy (SC) did a great job trying to pierce the veil of denials. But, right after Strzok's amnesia in Congress, the Justice Department announced the indictment of GRU members. Change of subject. The same foul stench noted by Publius Tacitus about the GRU indictment filled Congress as Agent Strzok testified.

... ... ...

Congressional hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXTAlUormPA

Gohmert on Fox: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5808969622001/?#sp=show-clips

Pat Lang Mod , 24 minutes ago

So, a foreign power (not Russia but "hostile" according to Gohmert) modified internal instructions in HC's server so that a blind copy went to this other country, all 30,000 e-mails. I wonder what was different about the four that were not so copied. What are likely countries? The UK, China and Israel would be at the top of my list
James Thomas , 9 hours ago
So the emails were being bcc-ed or the server was set up to copy all emails passing through it to some foreign server? I am curious about the mechanics.
Pat Lang Mod -> James Thomas , 42 minutes ago
It seems that the server was the mechanism. Whether that was by physical access to the server or electronically at a distance. Her entire system was not secure and could be easily penetrated.

[Jul 15, 2018] Majority Of Clinton Emails Funneled To Foreign Entity; When IG Told Strzok - He Completely Ignored

Jul 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
As we sift through the ashes of Thursday's dumpster-fire Congressional hearing with still employed FBI agent Peter Strzok, Luke Rosiak of the Daily Caller plucked out a key exchange between Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tx) and Strzok which revealed a yet-unknown bombshell about the Clinton email case.
Nearly all of Hillary Clinton's emails on her homebrew server went to a foreign entity that isn't Russia. When this was discovered by the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), IG Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Ruckner and an attorney to notify Strzok along with three other people about the "anomaly."

Four separate attempts were also made to notify DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz to brief him on the massive security breach , however Horowitz "never returned the call." Recall that Horowitz concluded last month that despite Strzok's extreme bias towards Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump - none of it translated to Strzok's work at the FBI.

In other words; Strzok, while investigating Clinton's email server, completely ignored the fact that most of Clinton's emails were sent to a foreign entity - while IG Horowitz simply didn't want to know about it.

The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an "anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000 , were going to an address that was not on the distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok. - Daily Caller

Gohmert continued; " It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia. "

https://www.youtube.com/embed/pkJDo17_Ydk

Strzok admitted to meeting with Ruckner but said he couldn't remember the "specific" content of their discussion.

"The forensic examination was done by the ICIG and they can document that," Gohmert said, "but you were given that information and you did nothing with it ."

Meanwhile, "Mr. Horowitz got a call four times from someone wanting to brief him about this, and he never returned the call," Gohmert said - and Horowitz wouldn't return the call.

And while Peter Strzok couldn't remember the specifics of his meeting with the IG about the giant "foreign entity" bombshell, he texted this to his mistress Lisa Page when the IG discovered the "(C)" classification on several of Clinton's emails - something the FBI overlooked:

"Holy cow ... if the FBI missed this, what else was missed? Remind me to tell you to flag for Andy [redacted] emails we (actually ICIG) found that have portion marks (C) on a couple of paras. DoJ was Very Concerned about this."

me title=

Internal Pushback

In November of 2017, IG McCullough - an Obama appointee - revealed to Fox News that he received pushback when he tried to tell former DNI James Clapper about the foreign entity which had Clinton's emails and other anomalies.

Instead of being embraced for trying to expose an illegal act, seven senators including Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) wrote a letter acusing him of politicizing the issue.

me title=

"It's absolutely irrelevant whether something is marked classified, it is the character of the information," he said.

McCullough said that from that point forward, he received only criticism and an "adversarial posture" from Congress when he tried to rectify the situation.

"I expected to be embraced and protected," he said, adding that a Hill staffer "chided" him for failing to consider the "political consequences" of the information he was blowing the whistle on. - Fox News

That other Clinton whistleblower...

Meanwhile, a mostly overlooked facet of the Clinton email investigation was unearthed from the official " FBI Vault " by Twitter researcher Katica ( @GOPPollAnalyst ) in November and updated on July 10 which somehow never made it into the Inspector General's report on the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation.

In January, 2016 a former State department official walked into the FBI with what they felt was smoking gun evidence in the Clinton email investigation which was so sensitive he wouldn't talk about it unless it was in a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility).

me title=

Accompanying the evidence, the whistleblower wrote a letter to former FBI Director James Comey describing Hillary Clinton's mishandling of clearly marked classified material. Comey ignored it - which led the whistleblower to file a complaint that Peter Strzok and FBI agent Jonathan Moffa were CC'd on .

me title=

Some highlights from his letter to Comey:

" The evidence I am providing, along with what you have already acquired, should lead to convictions for the many people involved ."

"America needs its Attorney General to show us that no employee of the United States Government is above its system of law and justice."

"Since I am avoiding any classified information in this statement, I will not expand on this issue further in this letter. I am prepared to discuss this issue in much greater depth in a properly secured location and with those agents having certain TS/SCI clearances and an FBI letter showing need to know."

The whistleblower describes how there's no way Clinton couldn't have known certain emails were marked "classified."

"During the time that Hillary Rodham Clinton served as Secretary of State, the Department of State (DOS) produced a daily document classified at the Secret level...

...Each of these daily classified documents began each paragraph with the actual classification of the information contained in the paragraph...

...An investigation that compares the emails found on the private server or emails used by the Secretary will show the actual classification any text which appears to be both in the Hillary emails and in the daily classified document produced by her official office...

"Upon learning of this situation and listening to her saying that the information in these emails were not classified at the time they were written, I make reference to the above paragraph about the daily classified document summarizing issues presented to her on a daily basis."

The Whistleblower also goes on to explain that he couldn't find a sensitive communiqué between Clinton and the American Ambassador in Honduras on the internal State Department archive, and suspected that it was due to being sent over her private email server.

me title=

To review;

Strzok knew that most of Hillary Clinton's emails were in the hands of a foreign entity

He also knew that a whistleblower from the State Department tried delivering significant evidence in the Clinton email investigation which went nowhere

The FBI, and Comey in particular, ignored this whistleblower's evidence

So given that we now have at least two major bombshells that the FBI sat on, we revisit the case of CIA whistleblower Dennis Montgomery - who similarly walked into the Washington D.C. FBI field office in 2015 with 47 hard drives and 600 million pages of information he says proves that President Trump and others were victims of mass surveillance, according to NewsMax .

Under grants of immunity, which I obtained through Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis, Montgomery produced the hard drives and later was interviewed under oath in a secure room at the FBI Field Office in the District of Columbia . There he laid out how persons like then-businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by Clapper, Brennan, and the spy agencies of the Obama administration .

Montgomery left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information , much of which is classified, and sought to come forward legally as a whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court , other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and even yours truly. Working side by side with Obama's former Director of National Intelligence (DIA), James Clapper, and Obama's former Director of the CIA, John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed "up close and personal" this "Orwellian Big Brother" intrusion on privacy , likely for potential coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.

He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008 presidential election , which illegal tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White House. - NewsMax

In March of 2017, Montgomery and his attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch traveled to D.C. to meet with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Devin Nunes in the hopes that he would ask Comey about the evidence - only to be "blown off" by the Chairman.

It seems like we have some serious issues to revisit as a country.

Four chan -> Jim in MN Sat, 07/14/2018 - 13:15 Permalink

FBI: "OPERATION FREE PASS"

El Oregonian -> Four chan Sat, 07/14/2018 - 13:24 Permalink

Majority Of Clinton Emails Funneled To "Foreign Entity"

Now would that "Foreign Entity" happen to be George Soros by any chance???

Free This -> El Oregonian Sat, 07/14/2018 - 13:27 Permalink

I want to see that hags emails dammnit! As we dig deeper every day, the foul stench of this woman keeps popping up. I know we have not connected Ofaggot to it YET, but we WILL!!!! There are so many complicit pieces of shit that I don't there is enough hemp in the world to do the job!!

Frog march, trial, death!

Hang them by the neck until dead for HIGH TREASON!!!! tap, tap, tap

Dickweed Wang -> beemasters Sat, 07/14/2018 - 19:22 Permalink

In March of 2017, Montgomery and his attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch traveled to D.C. to meet with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Devin Nunes in the hopes that he would ask Comey about the evidence - only to be "blown off" by the Chairman.

It seems like we have some serious issues to revisit as a country.

Armed revolts have happened for less than this kind of bullshit. It's time that the people of the USA start taking matters of government into their own hands because the longer this kind of shit happens the more it looks like every one of those motherfuckers in Dee See is dirty to some extent.

Oh yeah, how about we also make the use of "national security" secrecy claims that are made under false pretenses, or are made to hide the illegal/unconstitutional actions of a person or group in government, punishable by death by firing squad??

powow -> Keyser Sat, 07/14/2018 - 22:51 Permalink

Strzok = SMALL Fish = Distraction

We Want BIG Fish = DEEP STATE

MoreFreedom -> janus Sat, 07/14/2018 - 21:34 Permalink

Given they found that these emails were being sent to a server in a foreign country, I'd expect the hackers would know that this could be found out. Thus, the hackers would have then had the emails forwarded to their server in their country. I wouldn't be surprised that the owner of the server to which they were sent, never knew of it. My guess, considering all the circumstantial evidence, is that it was Putin's hackers.

I've long suspected that Putin got all the emails off her server (including Bill's, Chelsea's, and possibly Clinton Foundation officials), along with the 20 emails exchanged with Obama suspiciously using an alias, and about which he lied claiming he learned of her server in news reports. That would be plenty for Putin to blackmail them into appeasement and flexibility. Which was exactly what Obama and Hillary gave Putin and his allies Syria and Iran. Along with the US uranium. They had to cover it up, so Obama could get re-elected (remember he promised Russian President Medvedev he'd "have more flexibility after the [2012] elections" on a hot mic) and both could stay in power.

This would explain why the FBI and Strzok did nothing about the hacking of her server (it was too late to do anything about it, other than arrest Clinton and Obama resign). And any investigation would document evidence Clinton committed a crime and potentially leak to the press with the implication Clinton and Obama were now Putin puppets. The Democrats have an MO of claiming their political opponents are doing exactly what the Democrats are doing.

11b40 -> El Oregonian Sat, 07/14/2018 - 16:37 Permalink

Or, maybe the Awan & Wasserman freak show that neither Party wants to touch.

I Am Jack's Ma -> El Oregonian Sun, 07/15/2018 - 05:01 Permalink

no one wanted to touch it.

The foreign entity is most likely Israel.

http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com/2018/07/was-imran-awan-spying-for-israel.html?m=1

RumpleShitzkin -> Jim in MN Sat, 07/14/2018 - 21:29 Permalink

The Hebs fucked us on Stuxnet, too.

They weren't supposed to deploy it...NSA wanted to save that puppy for a rainy day, but the beaks just couldn't help themselves. It was too hot to use, because if you didn't make it count then the target now has the virus and can share it, tweak it and send it back our way.

This will come out soon. Strzok was up to his ass in Stuxnet. General Cartwright was too. All this will come out. It will also come out that this was another instance where action was taken completely without Obama's authorization or knowledge.

The phony OBL hit was another example. Obama didn't have the stones...and just told Panetta and Hillary to do whatever, he didn't want to know or be involved. He was golfing. They snatched him off the green for that war room photo op.

That's not a call that can be delegated.

That is usurping power and treason.

[Jul 15, 2018] Peter Strzok Ignored Evidence Of Clinton Server Breach

Highly recommended!

Notable quotes:

"... In December, a letter from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to James Comey's original statement. ..."

"... The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass. ..."

"... In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute. ..."

"... Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook. ..."

Mar 06, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
216 SHARES
FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok reportedly ignored "an irregularity in the metadata" indicating that Hillary Clinton's server may had been breached, while FBI top brass made significant edits to former Director James Comey's statement specifically minimizing how likely it was that hostile actors had gained access.

Sources told Fox News that Strzok, who sent anti-Trump text messages that got him removed from the ongoing Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe, was told about the metadata anomaly in 2016, but Strzok did not support a formal damage assessment. One source said: " Nothing happened. "

In December, a letter from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to James Comey's original statement.

The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass.

It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department for sending anti-Trump text messages to his mistress - downgraded the language describing Clinton's conduct from the criminal charge of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless."

Notably, "Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary, it is defined as " A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty, other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term of art.

18 U.S. Code § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary had broken the law.

In order to justify downgrading Clinton's behavior to "extremely careless," however, FBI officials also needed to minimize the impact of her crimes. As revealed in the letter from Rep. Johnson, the FBI downgraded the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors from " reasonably likely " to " possible ."

"Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account," Comey said in his statement.

By doing so, the FBI downgraded Clinton's negligence - thus supporting the "extremely careless" language.

The FBI also edited Clinton's exoneration letter to remove a reference to the "sheer volume" of classified material on the private server, which - according to the original draft "supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information." Furthermore, all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in investigating Clinton's private email server were removed as well.

Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the Intelligence Community to assess potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server. The original statement read:

W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation.

In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute.

Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook.

And Strzok still collects a taxpayer-funded paycheck.

[Jul 15, 2018] It's fascinating, in a creepy way, that the email address to which Hillary emails were forwarded is known to the investigators but remains undisclosed.

Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hoarsewhisperer , Jul 15, 2018 9:00:36 AM | 158

I find this interesting (from a link in ZH article)
...
Posted by: Pft | Jul 14, 2018 4:56:10 PM | 102
(Strzok's forgetfulness about a briefing he attended on the subject of the destination address omitted from the distribution list)

You're not the only one. And it's fascinating, in a creepy way, that the address is known to the investigators but remains undisclosed.

"Decameron" over at SST has indulged in some speculation on the possibilities...
...
Gohmert nailed Strozk at the open Congressional hearing on Friday the 13th in Washington, but Strzok claimed no recollection. Gohmert accused him of lying. Maybe Strzok's amnesia about the briefing on Hillary Clinton's email server is nothing but standard FBI training: i.e., when in doubt, don't recall. It's far more likely that there is a campaign of deliberate obstructing justice, selective prosecution, and political targeting by top officials embedded in the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department, FBI, and broader IC. Strzok is not alone.

And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British Intelligence and those in Israel who want to manipulate the US presidency – whatever party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington that it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump advisers. Time to follow that thread.
...

Almost as interesting as the story itself is the fact that the thread at SST is struggling to attract comments.

[Jul 15, 2018] 'Foreign actors' accessed Hillary Clinton emails, documents show Fox News

Jun 14, 2018 | www.foxnews.com

"Foreign actors" obtained access to some of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails -- including at least one email classified as "secret" -- according to a new memo from two GOP-led House committees and an internal FBI email.

Fox News obtained the memo prepared by the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, which lays out key interim findings ahead of next week's hearing with Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The IG, separately, is expected to release his highly anticipated report on the Clinton email case later Thursday.

The House committees, which conducted a joint probe into decisions made by the DOJ in 2016 and 2017, addressed a range of issues in their memo including Clinton's email security.

"Documents provided to the Committees show foreign actors obtained access to some of Mrs. Clinton's emails -- including at least one email classified 'Secret,'" the memo says, adding that foreign actors also accessed the private accounts of some Clinton staffers.

The memo does not say who the foreign actors are, or what material was obtained, but it notes that secret information is defined as information that, if disclosed, could "reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security."

The committees say that no one appears to have been held accountable either criminally or administratively.

Relatedly, Fox News has obtained a May 2016 email from FBI investigator Peter Strzok -- who also is criticized in the House memo for his anti-Trump texts with colleague Lisa Page. The email says that "we know foreign actors obtained access" to some Clinton emails, including at least one "secret" message "via compromises of the private email accounts" of Clinton staffers.

[Jul 15, 2018] I would think a presidential campaign cc-ing all of its emails to a foreign country, not Russia , needs its own investigation

Notable quotes:

"... Mr. Rucker reported to those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through her private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source. Do you recall that? ..."

"... you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you've said here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary Clinton. So the forensic examination was done by the ICIG -- and I can document that -- but you were given that information and you did nothing with it." ..."

Jul 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , Next New Comment July 15, 2018 at 2:25 am GMT

Regardless of any findings re Russia- Trump -- -I would think a presidential campaign cc-ing all of its emails to a foreign country, not Russia , needs its own investigation. As Putin said not long ago 'maybe it was the Jews.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/

HILLARY CLINTON'S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA

(excerpts)

"Hillary Clinton's emails, "every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list," Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert said on Friday. And they went to "an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia." The information came from Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough, who sent his investigator Frank Rucker, along with an ICIG attorney Janette McMillan, to brief Strzok

And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British Intelligence and those in Israel who want to manipulate the US presidency – whatever party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington that it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump advisers. Time to follow that thread

The Gohmert/Strzok exchange:

Gohmert: You said earlier in this hearing you were concerned about a hostile foreign power affecting the election. Do you recall the former Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough having an investigation into an anomaly found on Hillary Clinton's emails?

Strzok: I do not.

Gohmert: Let me refresh your memory. The Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Rucker along with an IGIC attorney Janette McMillan to brief you and Dean Chapelle and two other FBI personnel who I won't name at this time, about an anomaly they had found on Hillary Clinton's emails that were going to and from the private unauthorized server that you were supposed to be investigating?

Strzok : I remember meeting Mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions. I do not recall the specific content or discussions.

Gohmert: Well then, I'll help you with that too then. Mr. Rucker reported to those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through her private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source. Do you recall that?

Strozk: Sir, I don't.

Gohmert: He went on the explain it. And you didn't say anything.

Strzok: No.

Gohmert: you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you've said here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary Clinton. So the forensic examination was done by the ICIG -- and I can document that -- but you were given that information and you did nothing with it."

[Jul 15, 2018] Every Hillary email except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list

Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Pft , Jul 14, 2018 4:56:10 PM | 102

I find this interesting (from a link in ZH article)

"The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an "anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok.

"It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia," he added."

I guess we can count on "Cover it Up" Mueller to look into this and sit on it.

[Jun 24, 2018] Meet Mystery FBI Agent 5 Who Sent Anti-Trump Texts While On Clinton Taint Team Zero Hedge

Jun 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Meet Mystery FBI "Agent 5" Who Sent Anti-Trump Texts While On Clinton Taint Team

by Tyler Durden Fri, 06/22/2018 - 21:25 32.9K SHARES

A recently unmasked FBI agent who worked on the Clinton email investigation and exchanged anti-Trump text messages with her FBI lover and other colleagues has been pictured for the first time by the Daily Mail .

Sally Moyer, 44, who texted 'f**k Trump,' called President Trump's voters 'retarded' and vowed to quit 'on the spot' if he won the election , was seen leaving her home early Friday morning wearing a floral top and dark pants.

She shook her head and declined to discuss the controversy with a DailyMail.com reporter, and ducked quickly into her nearby car in the rain without an umbrella before driving off. - Daily Mail

Moyer - an attorney and registered Democrat identified in the Inspector General's report as "Agent 5" is a veritable goldmine of hate, who had been working for the FBI since at least September of 2006.

When Moyer sent the texts, she was on the "filter team" for the Clinton email investigation - a group of FBI officials tasked with determining whether information obtained by the FBI is considered "privileged" or if it can be used in the investigation - also known as a taint team .

Moyer exchanged most of the messages with another FBI agent who worked on the Clinton investigation, identified as 'Agent 1' in the report.

Moyer and Agent 1 were in a romantic relationship at the time, and the two have since married , according the report. Agent 1's name is being withheld. - Daily Mail

Some of Moyer's greatest hits:

"fuck Trump"

"screw you trump"

"She [Hillary] better win... otherwise i'm gonna be walking around with both of my guns. "

Moyer also called Ohio Trump supporters "retarded"

"Agent 1" who is now married to Moyer, referred to Hillary Clinton as "the President" after interviewing the Democratic candidate as part of the email investigation.

Another FBI official, Kevin Clinesmith, 36, sent similar text messages. A graduate of Georgetown Law, Clinesmith - referred to in the Inspector General's report as "Attorney 2," - texted several colleagues lamenting the "destruction of the Republic" after former FBI Director James Comey reopened the Clinton email investigation.

In response to a colleague asking he had changed his views on Trump, Clinesmith responded " Hell no. Viva le resistance ," a reference to the Trump opposition movement that clamed to be coordinating with officials inside the Trump administration.

Two high-ranking FBI officials - Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page, were discovered by the Inspector General to have sent over 50,000 text messages to each other - many of which showed the two harbored extreme bias aginst Trump and for Hillary Clinton. Like Moyer and "Agent 1," Strzok and Page worked on the Clinton email investigation.

Adolfsteinbergovitch -> ThaBigPerm Sat, 06/23/2018 - 01:20 Permalink

Alphabet soup agencies have been over since the mid 80s.

This is where sloppy professionalism and bad training lead to.

Females are there to date, men to fuck around. Nothing to see move away.

And you haven't yet seen the CIA...

JRobby -> Adolfsteinbergovitch Sat, 06/23/2018 - 07:41 Permalink

Again I question the FBI recruiting policies. Another nut job, not at all impartial or of an investigative mind set in a position of power.

Hmmmmmmm

mannfm11 -> CarthaginemDel Sat, 06/23/2018 - 12:52 Permalink

Note, female plumbing and a law degree have been the only real qualifications Hillary Clinton had. Anyone who backed such an obvious criminal and worked within the FBI has questionable assets to be in the FBI.

They pushed Clinton on us because she was a woman and because there are hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands of high powered hands that have been greased by her and Billy. The server wasn't about national security.

It was about hiding dirty deals and treason. Did Hillary have a plan other than to continue to turn the USA over to the UN and other international neofascist, socialist organizations? We were always referred to her website for her plans. The Democratic Party no longer cares for the Constitution. Which means they have no charter with which to order us around.

Joe Davola -> Adolfsteinbergovitch Sat, 06/23/2018 - 18:32 Permalink

Really need to get Mueller in front of a TV camera to explain why Strzok/Page were removed from his investigation, but deemed not biased in the IG report. Like to see how he threads that needle.

I'm beginning to think the IG report is intended to provide a firewall between all the eager-to-please go-getters who stepped over the line and the upper levels of the DoJ and the Obama White House. The theme that was leaked ahead of time was that Comey was insubordinate and did what he wanted (looks to be partially true), gives a great background where the higher ups can shake their heads and say 'we only wanted impartial investigations'. The problem being Lowretta's tarmac meeting with Bill. She had to get something out of that meeting - and nailing down what she got would really shake the house of cards. Wonder if she suddenly had the cash for a beach front home.

jcaz -> Joe Davola Sat, 06/23/2018 - 18:59 Permalink

Perhaps not. Loretta owes her existence to Bill, she's smart/dumb enough not to leverage against anything he demands of her- she's seen up-close how it goes when you say "no" to the Clintons.

The entire Clinton administration is loyal to Bill- that's his one power. I went to school with a guy who worked in Bill's inner circle in the White House- a guy who I thought was capable of critical thinking.... He told me Bill's charm with people was unreal- if he told you to kill your mother to make him happy, you'd find a way to do it;

To this day, my friend still doesn't understand how, but he knows he was under that Clinton spell. And no, his mother isn't around anymore....

edotabin -> p4424119 Sat, 06/23/2018 - 11:39 Permalink

Oh yeah? Big deal! Look who the FBI is paying!! And Lord only knows how much.

MK ULTRA Alpha -> Shillinlikeavillan Fri, 06/22/2018 - 23:44 Permalink

After 9/11 Mueller decided to change the make up of the FBI, he wanted nerds. This was written in many articles of how Mueller was staffing the FBI with a new FBI. Considering Mueller's actions at the FBI, I would say he shouldn't be in charge of anything....

Old lost stories from the past are never correlated to the future events it causes. The media refuses to tell the truth on anything. The media workers who lie are the same as the FBI agents and the entire government that lies, it is accepted by the Deep State to lie because they are the rulers, not congress and a president, that's for show.

Here's a good one, when Obama went to Harvard, it was a major program to bring people from other countries and pay their way, it became Harvard's new method of operation to deflect and to escape critical comments about Legacy, which means if a parent went to Harvard, then one can get into Harvard ahead of everyone else. So the reason Obama will not release any data on Harvard is because he said he was from Kenya to get in and to have his way paid because he was considered a foreigner.

... ... ...

Lore -> MK ULTRA Alpha Sat, 06/23/2018 - 01:14 Permalink

Very interesting and perceptive. I listen to talk show hosts in the independent media who bemoan lack of accountability: "Why is nobody indicted? Why isn't [a particular sociopath] in jail?" The answer is simple, and you just provided it.

Yes, this government is corrupt in its entirety, bloated and twisted beyond recognition. Once an organization is hijacked by sociopaths, complete destruction is just a matter of time, but the trouble is, unless their power is taken away, the sociopaths get to do much more damage, as they take down everyone else with them. i know; I've witnessed in microcosm (a medium-sized business). Small wonder that they want to disenfranchise and disempower the electorate. Sociopaths fear a reckoning.

Will there BE a reckoning? Just look at what some of the worst scum are getting away with over the last few decades. Does anybody seriously believe the time will come again when crowds gather around lampstands?

USA used to be the most respectable and respected nation in the world. Talk to people around the world now, and you find it's just an object of pity and scorn.

Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes (Amazon)

If the many managerial positions are assumed by individuals deprived of sufficient abilities to feel and understand the majority of other people, and who also exhibit deficiencies in technical imagination and practical skills - (faculties indispensable for governing economic and political matters) - this then results in an exceptionally serious crisis in all areas, both within the country in question and with regard to international relations. Within, the situation becomes unbearable even for those citizens who were able to feather their nest into a relatively comfortable modus vivendi. Outside, other societies start to feel the pathological quality of the phenomenon quite distinctly. Such a state of affairs cannot last long. One must then be prepared for ever more rapid changes, and also behave with great circumspection. (2nd. ed., p. 140)

It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law . Ps 119:126, KJV

PrivetHedge -> Lore Sat, 06/23/2018 - 04:26 Permalink

"USA used to be the most respectable and respected nation in the world. Talk to people around the world now, and you find it's just an object of pity and scorn."

The world was taught that JFK was an anomaly cancelled out by Apollo and that Korea and Vietnam were anomalies too.

Since then we have had the obvious false flag of 9/11 and the world learned the hard way that Korea and Vietnam were the normal and peace was the anomaly, and that Apollo was also a pack of lies, the world has also seen the US break every agreement it ever made including big ones like the ABM. In breaking the Iran agreement and staying in Syria the world has learned that the US supports ISIS and cannot be trusted at any level or at any time.

Parallel to the externally visible decline of the US the infrastructure was abandoned at the same time as it's principals and morals: Bush junior, to have had 260,000 people ar Oroville put into danger as a dam nearly collapsed due to lack of a basic and well known low cost venturi fix to eliminate cavitation on the spillway from eating the containment.

Added to this the US is still making bad decision after bad decision (hosting the World cup next is the latest - that will backfire badly) as all its decision making is overtly now taken by Israel - it's not going to end well.

CzarVladimirI -> PrivetHedge Sat, 06/23/2018 - 07:50 Permalink

Explain how Apollo was a pack of lies?

Chupacabra-322 -> Lore Sat, 06/23/2018 - 10:27 Permalink

We've been Tyrannically Lawless for so long that when even the most logical laws are broken, enforcing them becomes impossible with the constant barrage of Deep State PsyOp carried out by their Presstitute appendages.

The Criminal actions of spying, Political Persecution & Espionage carried out by highly Compartmentalized Levels of the CIA, FBI & DOJ on a Presidential Candidate should be indicative of the absolute, complete, open, in your Faces Tyrannical Lawlessness the Republic and The American People find themselves in today.

The National Security Elimination Act of 2018

The United States survived quite nicely for 130+ years with neither a Criminal FBI, CIA, IRS nor the Federal Reserve. Let's return to those better days ASAP.

Would precisely achieve that objective & more by recentrailizing the "Intelligence" Agencies. By Elimination of rouge Criminal Agencies such as the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at & in the CIA.

So what Criminals at large Obama, Clapper & Lynch have done 17 days prior to former CEO Criminal Obama leaving office was to Decentralize & weaken the NSA. As a result, Raw Intel gathering was then regulated to the other 16 Intel Agencies.

Thus, taking Centuries Old Intelligence based on a vey stringent Centralized British Model, De Centralized it, filling the remaining 16 Intel Agenices with potential Spies and a Shadow Deep State Mirror Government.

And, If Obama, Lynch & Clapper all agreed 17 days out to change the surveillance structure of the NSA. What date exectly did the changes occur in relation to the first FISA request for the Trump Wire Taps? (We now know that the Criminal FISA requests occurred in October 2016.)

Elimination of the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths in the Deep State & CIA.

As easily as The National Security Act was signed in 1947 it can & must be Eliminated.

platyops -> MK ULTRA Alpha Sat, 06/23/2018 - 02:08 Permalink

A great post. The best tonight, Thank You!

Ace006 -> MK ULTRA Alpha Sat, 06/23/2018 - 04:07 Permalink

Another outstanding comment on top of your earlier excellent analysis of CIA support for Syrian jihadi scum.

mannfm11 -> MK ULTRA Alpha Sat, 06/23/2018 - 13:19 Permalink

Former Secret Serviceman, Gary Byrne, who filed rico against Clinton, Soros, Brock and others a few days ago, said it best. The secret service doesn't work to protect the President. It works to protect the Secret Service. So does the FBI, DOJ, HUD and all the other Federal bureaucracies. They don't work for us, they work for them. They are aiding and abetting the theft of trillions from us, people who work for a living. No one else pays taxes, as the rich, many who work for a living very hard (witness our President, who at age 72 can work rings around about every bureaucrat in DC), get their money from those who work for a living, directly or indirectly.

This begs the question, why so much resistance in Trump fixing trade and immigration? We must ask also, why is the Constitution not being taught in schools? Not just the first amendment, but the limitations of Washington DC, which seems to get its power from the preamble, throwing all other limitations of the DC government contained in the body of Article 1, 2 and 3 out the window. Who gets the bill for trade imbalances? Who gets the money? The entire economy is a balance sheet. Is there so much debt around the world that it requires the mortgaging of every piece of real estate and improvements to support it? What about gold and silver coin, which kept debt in check along with trade? Bank runs were really only bad for bankers. Massive supplies of unskilled labor merely keeps those jobs cheap and the unskilled, who develop skills never get paid. The education system is a costly farce and over 1/2 of Americans have no business in college, or for that matter, high school after about the 8th grade. Why is the United States being drained of its capital?

Blankone -> Shillinlikeavillan Sat, 06/23/2018 - 00:36 Permalink

Do you think it has stopped. The career management is still in place and will not rooted out.

The FBI, and others IRS for example), have evolved into a political strong arm agency, with an agenda. They will shield illegal activity they fell supports their agenda. They will use selective enforcement to stomp down their political opponents. They will use false persecution to destroy their political opponents, including the use of false evidence, false "professional interpretation" of data/info while on the witness stand, entrapment, special deals for those who provide the needed testimony and so on.

How can you trust any of them?

gregga777 -> IridiumRebel Fri, 06/22/2018 - 23:01 Permalink

As far as I'm concerned the entirety of the 17 three-letter Gestapo* (Geheime Staatspolizei) agencies are fucking domestic enemies. It's getting close to the point where we all just say fuck it, kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out, if that is it's his day to give a fuck, which I hope it isn't.

*The Gestapo was modeled on the FBI, not the other way around folks.

WorkingClassMan -> gregga777 Fri, 06/22/2018 - 23:30 Permalink

And the FBI modeled on the CheKa.

gregga777 -> WorkingClassMan Sat, 06/23/2018 - 06:08 Permalink

And the FBI modeled on the CheKa.

Good point. I'd forgotten about their good buddies in the Cheka and successors, OGPU, NKVD People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs (Narodnyi Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del) and KGB (Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti).

UmbilicalMosqu -> gregga777 Sat, 06/23/2018 - 07:41 Permalink

THE CHEKIST...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_RSDqBn0bA

[Jun 16, 2018] FBI shelved probe into Clinton emails on Weiner laptop for Russiagate - DOJ report

Notable quotes:

"... "take immediate action on the Weiner laptop" ..."

"... "willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate's electoral prospects." ..."

"... "Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the [Hillary Clinton]-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," ..."

"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."

Jun 16, 2018 | www.rt.com

The FBI's inquiry into hundreds of thousands of emails found on a laptop belonging to former Congressman Anthony Weiner may have been improperly shelved to focus on the agency's Russia investigation, a DOJ report states. A review of the FBI's investigations into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server by the DOJ inspector general concluded that federal investigators failed to "take immediate action on the Weiner laptop" due in part to a decision to "prioritize" the investigation into claims that Donald Trump " colluded" with Russia.

The FBI leadership waited nearly a month after receiving initial information about the laptop to reopen the investigation and notifying Congress about it, the IG report shows.
Read more
FBI agent's text to lover: 'We'll stop' Trump from becoming president

Citing text messages written by FBI agent Peter Strzok, who said in one message that he would "stop" then-candidate Trump from being elected, the report notes that federal investigators may have been "willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate's electoral prospects."

"Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the [Hillary Clinton]-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," the report concludes on page 329.

The contents of Weiner's laptop became the subject of widespread speculation during the FBI's 2016 probe into Clinton's private email server and alleged mishandling of classified data. Weiner, the now ex-husband of top Clinton aide and adviser Huma Abedin, became a person of interest for federal investigators after it was discovered that he had sent sexually explicit messages to a 15-year-old girl in 2016.

Weiner had resigned from Congress in 2011 after it was revealed he sent lewd photographs and messages to women.

In September 2016, as part of the investigation into his communication with the underage teen, an FBI agent in New York found hundreds of thousands of emails on Weiner's laptop that were possibly relevant to the Clinton investigation.

In December 2017, it was revealed that at least five of the emails stored on Weiner's laptop were marked "confidential" and involved delicate talks with Middle Eastern leaders and Abedin.

Weiner is currently serving a 21-month sentence in federal prison for sending obscene material to a minor.

The DOJ IG report also noted that then-FBI Director James Comey violated procedure in announcing to Congress that the bureau was reopening an investigation into Clinton's emails just days before the 2016 presidential election.

Clinton has repeatedly claimed that the announcement contributed to her loss to Trump.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

[Jun 15, 2018] IG Report Confirms Obama Lied About Hillary Email Server

Images removed...

Jun 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Thursday's DOJ Inspector General report covering the Obama DOJ/FBI conduct during the Hillary Clinton email investigation confirms a bombshell that had previously been hinted at through WikiLeaks disclosures:

Obama lied when he said in 2015 that he learned of Hillary Clinton's private email server through a New York Times report.

Specifically, Obama told CBS News the following a March 7, 2015 report:

President Obama only learned of Hillary Clinton's private email address use for official State Department business after a New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview

CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama.

' The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,' the president told Plante. - CBS

The OIG report reveals this was a lie . A footnote on page 89 reads " President Barack Obama was one of the 13 individuals with whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account "

What's more, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok told the Inspector General that the top brass of the agency wrestled over whether or not to include Obama's involvement in Clinton's exoneration statement - and that former FBI Director James Comey knew Obama had lied :

"A paragraph [in Comey's "exoneration" statement] summarizing the factors that led the FBI to assess that it was possible that hostile actors accessed Clinton's server was added, and at one point referenced Clinton's use of her private email for an exchange with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary, " the IG report reads. " This reference later was changed to 'another senior government official,' and ultimately was omitted ."

My recollection is that the early Comey speech drafts included references to emails that Secretary Clinton had with President Obama and I think there was some conversation about, well do we want to be that specific? -Peter Strzok

We already knew all of this though...

In October of 2016, a round of emails released by WikiLeaks featured an email from top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills reacting Obama's statement that he didn't know about Obama's server - writing to John Podesta "we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov"

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest later claimed that Obama was simply "not aware of the details of how that email address and that server had been set up," and that "The President, as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office exchange emails with his Secretary of State."

The Washington Examiner , meanwhile, reported in October 2016 that FBI agents "revealed in notes from their closed investigative file that Obama communicated with Clinton on her private server using a pseudonym . "

Chupacabra-322 -> JimmyJones Fri, 06/15/2018 - 20:24 Permalink

@ Jimmy,

The ramifications of what the World is witnessing are Gargantuan to say the least.

"Clinton, Obama might have be labeled Democrat but their Foreign Policy was 100% percent neocon"

Suffice it to, say, you can add Bush Senior, Jr to you list & the last 30 years of a Globalist Foreign Policy.

We're at a National Emergency & Constitutional Crises.

"This entire case is built on a fake piece of information in the Dossier. Or multiple pieces of information in a Fake Dossier, I should say to be more precise. Breaking yesterday, Brennan has insisted that to multiple people by the way, that he didn't know much about the Dossier. Wait till we play this audio. Get the Chuck Todd one ready Joe."

"This is Devastating audio. But hold on a minute. Why is Brennan doing this? Because Brennan knows that the Dossier was his case. And, the minute he admits on the record. That as a Senior Level, powerful member of the Intelligence Community. That John Brennan started a Political Investigation based on Fake Information he may very well of known was not verified. John Brennan is going to be in a World of trouble. So he has to run from this thing."

"Now I'll get to this Sberry piece in a second. And, why it's important. But just to show you that Brennan has run from this Dossier. Despite the fact, we know he knew about it. And, he Lied about it. Here's him basically telling Chuck Todd....listen to how he emphasizes on the Dossier played no role, no, no, no role, no, no, no, no, no to the Dossier. Listen to him with Chuck Todd:"

Audio Played.

https://www.bongino.com/may-16-2018-ep-721-police-state-liberals-are-us

Chuck Todd Interview 3:30 Mark. Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath John Brennan admits the Fake Dossier Played:

"and it did not play any role whatsoever in the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done. That was presented to then...President Obama & President Elect Trump."

-Former CIA Director John Brennan.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=45IEzp2uTCo

Absolute, Complete, Open, in your Faces Tyrannical Lawlessness.

MK ULTRA Alpha -> Chupacabra-322 Fri, 06/15/2018 - 22:06 Permalink

It was Brennan, Obama and Clapper. I can remember when Obama said we were going after the Russians for election interference. It became so big, the Homeland Security director said he would have to federalize elections, then the push back-out cry from states shut that down.

Brennan has always worked with Obama in political dirty tricks operations, Brennan worked for the Obama election campaign, providing political intelligence.

Clapper created his own intelligence network. He conducted political dirty tricks to damage Trump before and after. The secret wars conducted by the CIA, involved Clinton, Brennan, Clapper and Obama, I remember when Obama was asked when he was on his way to the UN to be crowned president of the world, he said the secret wars was "smart war". Nobel Prize winning Obama, conducted genocide smart war on the Christians of Syria, killing over 500K using Brennan CIA funded by Saudi and Qatar money. Look at what they have done, and how the MSM spewed lies to hide and are still hiding the crimes. Ukraine, Libya, Egypt? Why?

Clinton, Brennan, Obama, Clapper is the center of the Russian collusion narrative, it's a coordinated plan to prevent Trump from being president, and when it was known Trump would be president, to sabotage Trump by destroying the last vestige of relations with Russia and to accuse Trump of campaign collusion with the Russians, knowingly using false information paid for by Clinton, coordinated with operatives of MI6. Who made the contacts with MI6, and the UK GHQ, the NSA of the UK? Clapper. Also remember McCain hand carrying the false data, the Steele Dossier to the FBI? How sick was that? McCain is lower than dog shit and can't vote on his death bed, thus why won't he resign for health reasons to allow his vote to be used to help rebuild the nation? It's because he's mentally ill and wants to do as much damage, working with the communist, to this nation as possible, ask anyone who is for this nation.

The extent of the criminal activity is so great, it can't see the light of day, it would cause a civil war to take down the last administration. The precedence for Obama crimes were Bush II crimes, it was a continuation. The Bush II imperial presidency, created the foundation, the huge intelligence apparatus created by Bush II, the Homeland Security police state, all built by Bush II, was expanded and used against the American people. Not the terrorist the extreme corrupt media brainwashed into everyone to submit to the state and to give up our rights.

The reason Clapper and Brennan are giving the most delusional analysis to confuse the truth is they know they are guilty so they must take Trump down to survive. Obama is quite because he knows he is guilty, and more questions of real crimes are coming out. Clinton, she's taunting everyone and believes she will be able to have revenge on the American people through a long term plan to use the Clinton Foundation billions to build her revenge socialist communist homosexual reform of the American people. They plan on buying the government through more manipulation of the vote and political campaigns, money rules and the Clinton's have the money to rule America.

That's where we are, the Clinton Foundation is a racketeering operation, most all of the money was acquired illegally. If it wasn't for loans provided by the Clinton Foundation, the DNC wouldn't have been able to run the election campaign.

francis_the_wo -> JimmyJones Fri, 06/15/2018 - 22:09 Permalink

"The redacted material was just removed"

And guess who did that redacting?

Oh, that would be one Rod Rosenstein.

The same Rod Rosenstein who is very much implicated of wrongdoing regarding his (illegal and unnecessary) appointment of a Special Counsel.

In other words, Rod's got a conflict of interest in redacting a document that implicates him in conflicts of interest.

You can't make this stuff up.....

Expendable Container -> Keyser Fri, 06/15/2018 - 21:11 Permalink

Have a listen to this Greg Hunter/USA Watchdog interview with Dr David Janda. He's a courageous individual and he addresses Zero Hedge commenters specifically in parts. Here's what he says about all this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rri-Ngj8QoE

francis_the_wo -> Keyser Fri, 06/15/2018 - 21:48 Permalink

"but his name was removed from the IG report and replaced with "government agent"..."

Correction: I believe you mean Comey's exoneration speech. The IG report (which is referenced above in the article we are commenting on) did just the opposite and clearly stated that Obama emailed the wicked wench.

"The IG report was a whitewash, nothing about clinton herself".

I'm surprised to read that here on ZH. I've not been spending much time in the comments section here lately, but hadn't realized that things had gotten this bad. ZHers used to be more aware.

The IG was not a whitewash. It is loaded with absolute bombshells. We're talking game-changing-save-the-republic bombshells. There are tons of findings that will likely end up in criminal charges.

But, see, that's the point. IG's do not make criminal charges. They investigate internal processes. They can share their findings or coordinate with actual US Attorney Generals, WHOSE JOB IT IS TO MAKE CRIMINAL DETERMINATIONS!

What's nice is, is that this is exactly what is happening. Horowitz has been working side by side with Huber, who is actually an AUSAG, and who has already convened at least one grand jury (meaning criminal charges are likely).

"no one implicated other than underlings and it's obvious that Horowitz is on the deep state team"

The key to getting kingpins is to get his underlings first and have them turn on the kingpins to save their own skin.

I disagree with your conclusions on Horowitz. I think he is exactly what his reputation says he is: a rigidly straight arrow who is narrowly focused on his holy mission to preserve the proper procedures in his blessed Bureau of Matters. This makes him a White Hat in this whole saga.

Sorry if I picked on you with my reply, but I just think this story is so important to get right, particularly in light of how blatantly untruthful CNN and the MSM are being (even more blatant than normal).

When the real bombshell hits, a lot of our fellow Americans are going to be very confused as their entire worldview is shaken. It is our job to make that as painless as possible, and setting expectations based on what is actually happening/going to happen is a huge step towards that worthy goal.

[May 18, 2018] IG Horowitz Finds FBI, DOJ Broke Law In Clinton Probe, Refers To Prosecutor For Criminal Charges

Notable quotes:

"... On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." ..."

"... On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview. ..."

"... And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel. ..."

"... Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years. ..."

May 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

As we reported on Thursday , a long-awaited report by the Department of Justice's internal watchdog into the Hillary Clinton email investigation has moved into its final phase, as the DOJ notified multiple subjects mentioned in the document that they can privately review it by week's end, and will have a "few days" to craft any response to criticism contained within the report, according to the Wall Street Journal .

Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it , people familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks . - WSJ

Now, journalist Paul Sperry reports that " IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution ."

Who is Huber?

As we reported in March , Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber - Utah's top federal prosecutor, to be paired with IG Horowitz to investigate the multitude of accusations of FBI misconduct surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The announcement came one day after Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed that he will also be investigating allegations of FBI FISA abuse .

While Huber's appointment fell short of the second special counsel demanded by Congressional investigators and concerned citizens alike, his appointment and subsequent pairing with Horowitz is notable - as many have pointed out that the Inspector General is significantly limited in his abilities to investigate. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) noted in March " the IG's office does not have authority to compel witness interviews, including from past employees, so its investigation will be limited in scope in comparison to a Special Counsel investigation ,"

Sessions' pairing of Horowitz with Huber keeps the investigation under the DOJ's roof and out of the hands of an independent investigator .

***

Who is Horowitz?

In January, we profiled Michael Horowitz based on thorough research assembled by independent investigators. For those who think the upcoming OIG report is just going to be "all part of the show" - take pause; there's a good chance this is an actual happening, so you may want to read up on the man whose year-long investigation may lead to criminal charges against those involved.

In short - Horowitz went to war with the Obama Administration to restore the OIG's powers - and didn't get them back until Trump took office.

Horowitz was appointed head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in April, 2012 - after the Obama administration hobbled the OIG's investigative powers in 2011 during the "Fast and Furious" scandal. The changes forced the various Inspectors General for all government agencies to request information while conducting investigations, as opposed to the authority to demand it. This allowed Holder (and other agency heads) to bog down OIG requests in bureaucratic red tape, and in some cases, deny them outright.

What did Horowitz do? As one twitter commentators puts it, he went to war ...

In March of 2015, Horowitz's office prepared a report for Congress titled Open and Unimplemented IG Recommendations . It laid the Obama Admin bare before Congress - illustrating among other things how the administration was wasting tens-of-billions of dollars by ignoring the recommendations made by the OIG.

After several attempts by congress to restore the OIG's investigative powers, Rep. Jason Chaffetz successfully introduced H.R.6450 - the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 - signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into law on December 16th, 2016 , cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress .

1) Due to the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, the OIG has access to all of the information that the target agency possesses. This not only includes their internal documentation and data, but also that which the agency externally collected and documented.
TrumpSoldier (@DaveNYviii) January 3, 2018

See here for a complete overview of the OIG's new and restored powers. And while the public won't get to see classified details of the OIG report, Mr. Horowitz is also big on public disclosure:

Horowitz's efforts to roll back Eric Holder's restrictions on the OIG sealed the working relationship between Congress and the Inspector General's ofice, and they most certainly appear to be on the same page. Moreover, FBI Director Christopher Wray seems to be on the same page

Here's a preview:

https://twitter.com/DaveNYviii/status/939074607352614912

Which brings us back to the OIG report expected by Congress a week from Monday.

On January 12 of last year, Inspector Horowitz announced an OIG investigation based on " requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations (such as Judicial Watch?), and members of the public ."

The initial focus ranged from the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, to whether or not Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe should have been recused from the investigation (ostensibly over $700,000 his wife's campaign took from Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe around the time of the email investigation), to potential collusion with the Clinton campaign and the timing of various FOIA releases. Which brings us back to the OIG report expected by Congress a week from Monday.

On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."

The questions range from Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation, Secretary Clinton's mishandling of classified information and the (mis)handling of her email investigation by the FBI, the DOJ's failure to empanel a grand jury to investigate Clinton, and questions about the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and whether the FBI relied on the "Trump-Russia" dossier created by Fusion GPS.

On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview.

And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel.

As illustrated below by TrumpSoldier , the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both investigative committees of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and is expected within weeks .

Once congress has reviewed the OIG report, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will use it to supplement their investigations , which will result in hearings with the end goal of requesting or demanding a Special Counsel investigation. The DOJ can appoint a Special Counsel at any point, or wait for Congress to demand one. If a request for a Special Counsel is ignored, Congress can pass legislation to force an the appointment.

And while the DOJ could act on the OIG report and investigate / prosecute themselves without a Special Counsel, it is highly unlikely that Congress would stand for that given the subjects of the investigation.

After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis, the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "

Meanwhile, recent events appear to correspond with bullet points in both the original OIG investigation letter and the 7/27/2017 letter forwarded to the Inspector General:

... ... ...

With the wheels set in motion last week seemingly align with Congressional requests and the OIG mandate, and the upcoming OIG report likely to serve as a foundational opinion, the DOJ will finally be empowered to move forward with an impartially appointed Special Counsel.

IntercoursetheEU -> Shitonya Serfs Thu, 05/17/2018 - 14:41 Permalink

"To save his presidency, Trump must expose a host of criminally cunning Deep State political operatives as enemies to the Constitution, including John Brennan, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and Robert Mueller - as well as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."

Killing the Deep State , Dr Jerome Corsi, PhD., p xi

nmewn -> putaipan Thu, 05/17/2018 - 19:21 Permalink

I've been more than upfront about my philosophy. I have said on more than one occasion that progs will rue the day they drove a New Yorker like Trump even further to the right.

Now you see it in his actions from the judiciary to bureaucracy destruction to (pick any) and...as I often cite... some old dead white guy once said ..."First they came for the ___ and I did not speak out. Then they came for..."

Now I advocate for progs to swim in their own deadly juices, without a moment's hesitation on my part, without any furtive look back, without remorse or any compassion whatsover.

Forward! ...I think is what they said, welcome to the Death Star ;-)

nmewn -> IridiumRebel Fri, 05/18/2018 - 06:19 Permalink

Absolutely.

There have been (and are) plenty on "our side"...Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Romney and the thinly disguised "social democrat" Bill Kristol just to name several off the top of my head but the thing is, they always have to hide what they really are from us until rooted out.

That's what I try to point out to "our friends" on the left all the time, for example, there was never any doubt that Chris Dodd, Bwaney Fwank and Chuck Schumer were (and are) in Wall Streets back pocket. But for any prog to openly admit that is to sign some sort of personal death warrant, to be ostracized, blacklisted and harassed out of "the liberal community" so, they bite their tongue & say nothing...knowing what the truth really is.

Hell, they even named a "financial reform bill" after Dodd & Frank...LMAO!!!

It's just the dripping hypocrisy that gets me.

For another example, they knew what was going on with Weinstein, Lauer, Spacey, Rose etal but as long as the cash flowed and they towed-the-prog-BS-line outwardly, they gladly looked the other way and in the end...The Oprah...gives a speech in front of them (as they bark & clap like trained seals) about...Jim Crow?

Jim Crow?!...lol...one has nothing to do with the other Oprah! The perps & enablers are sitting right there in front of you!

It's just friggin surreal sometimes.

G-R-U-N-T -> Newspeaktogo Thu, 05/17/2018 - 21:06 Permalink

"After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis, the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "

Rescind Immunity, absolutely damn right, put them ALL under oath and on the stand! This is huge! Indeed this goes all the way to the top, would like to see Obama and the 'career criminal' testify under oath explaining how their tribe conspired to frame Trump and the American people.

Hell, put them on trial in a military court for Treason, what's the punishment for Treason these days???

Also would like to see Kerry get fried under the 'Logan Act'!

Gardentoolnumber5 -> BigSwingingJohnson Thu, 05/17/2018 - 18:50 Permalink

As are half of their fellow travelers in the GOP. Neocon liars. Talk small constitutional govt then vote for war. Those two are direct opposites, war and small govt. The liars must be exposed and removed. The Never Trumpers have outed themselves but many are hiding in plain sight proclaiming they support the President. It appears they have manipulated Trump into an aggressive stance against Russia with their anti Russia hysteria. Time will tell. The bank and armament industries must be removed from any kind of influence within our govt. Most of these are run by big govt collectivists aka communists/globalists.

jin187 -> IridiumRebel Fri, 05/18/2018 - 05:33 Permalink

NO ONE IS GOING TO JAIL OVER THIS.

Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years.

[Apr 24, 2018] Very Pissed Off Obama DOJ Made Dramatic Call To McCabe To Quash Clinton Probe

Apr 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

As the FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation pressed on during the 2016 election, a senior official with the Obama justice department, identified as Matthew Axelrod, called former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe - who thought the DOJ was pressuring him to shut down the investigation, according to the recently released inspector general's (OIG) report.

The official was "very pissed off" at the FBI , the report says, and demanded to know why the FBI was still pursuing the Clinton Foundation when the Justice Department considered the case dormant. - Washington Times

The OIG issued a criminal referral for McCabe based on findings that the former Deputy Director "made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor - including under oath - on multiple occasions."

McCabe authorized a self-serving leak to the New York Times claiming that the FBI had not put the brakes on the Clinton Foundation investigation, during a period in which he was coming under fire over a $467,500 campaign donation his wife Jill took from Clinton pal Terry McAuliffe.

" It is bizarre -- and that word can't be used enough -- to have the Justice Department call the FBI's deputy director and try to influence the outcome of an active corruption investigation ," said James Wedick - a former FBI official who conducted corruption investigations at the bureau. " They can have some input, but they shouldn't be operationally in control like it appears they were from this call ."

Wedick said he's never fielded a call from the Justice Department about any of his cases during his 35 years there - which suggests an attempt at interference by the Obama administration .

As the Washington Times Jeff Mordock points out, Although the inspector general's report did not identify the caller, former FBI and Justice Department officials said it was Matthew Axelrod , who was the principal associate deputy attorney general -- the title the IG report did use.

Mr. McCabe thought the call was out of bounds.

He told the inspector general that during the Aug. 12, 2016, call the principal associate deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign. - Washington Times

"According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking ' are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation? '" the report reads. " McCabe told us that the conversation was 'very dramatic' and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a high-level department official in his entire FBI career ."

The Inspector General said in a footnote that the Justice official (identified separately as Matthew Alexrod) agreed to the description of the call, but objected to seeing that "the Bureau was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was totally unfair."

Axelrod quit the Justice Department on January 30, 2017, the same day his boss, Deputy AG Sally Q. Yates was fired by President Trump for failing to defend his travel ban executive order. He is now an attorney in the D.C. office of British law firm Linklaters LLP.

Axelrod told the New York Times he left the department earlier than planned.

" It was always anticipated that we would stay on for only a short period ," said Alexrod of himself and Yates. "For the first week we managed, but the ban was a surprise. As soon as the travel ban was announced there were people being detained and the department was asked to defend the ban."

The Washington Times notes that those familiar with DOJ procedures say it is unlikely Axelrod would have made the call to McCabe without Yates' direct approval.

"In my experience these calls are rarely made in a vacuum," said Bradley Schlozman, who worked as counsel to the PADAG during the Bush administration. " The notion that the principle deputy would have made such a decision and issued a directive without the knowledge and consent of the deputy attorney general is highly unlikely ."

Given that Andrew McCabe may now be in a legal battle with the Trump DOJ, the Obama DOJ and former FBI Director James Comey - who says McCabe never told him about the leaks which resulted in the former Deputy Director's firing, it looks like he's really going to need that new legal defense fund

[Apr 24, 2018] Comey Claims Nobody Asked About Clinton Obstruction Before Today by snoopydawg

Notable quotes:

"... you can't make this shit up ..."

"... "Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation clearly be obstruction of justice ..."

"... Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or not Clinton and her team obstructed justice. ..."

"... "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice." ..."

"... Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?" ..."

"... corrupt intent. ..."

"... grossly negligent ..."

"... extremely careless ..."

Apr 22, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

Comey Claims Nobody Asked About Clinton Obstruction Before Today on Sun, 04/22/2018 - 9:27pm

From the ' you can't make this shit up ' files. Hillary had been involved in government long enough to know and understand the rules of what she needed to do with her emails after her tenure was over. As well as the rules for handling classified information with an email account. But I guess she thought that rules only applied to everyone else but her. And why wouldn't she think that she could do whatever she wanted to? Because she and Bill had been getting away with doing whatever they wanted their entire political careers with no repercussions.

Using a private email server that would be a way around the freedom of information act would have also allowed her to put her foundation's business on it so that Chelsea and others could have access to it even though it was tied into her state department business and the people who did didn't have the proper security clearances to read the emails. (Sydney Bluementhal) Tut, tut ..

Comey Claims Nobody Asked About Clinton Obstruction Before Today

When WTOP's Joan Jones asked former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday if the "smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails" during the investigation into Hillary Clinton was "obstruction of justice," Comey said that he had never been asked that question before.

"You have raised the specter of obstruction of justice charges with the president of the United States," Jones said to Comey concerning his new book, "A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership." The book was released earlier this week.

"Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation clearly be obstruction of justice ?'" Jones asked Comey.

Comey replied, "Now that's a great question. That's the first time I've been asked that."

Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or not Clinton and her team obstructed justice.

There's that word intent again.

"And the answer is, it would depend upon what the intent of the people doing it was," Comey said. "It's the reason I can't say when people ask me, 'Did Donald Trump committee obstruction of justice?' My answer is, 'I don't know. It could be. It would depend upon, is there evidence to establish that he took actions with corrupt intent ?'"

"So if you smash a cellphone, lots of people smash their cellphones so they're not resold on the secondary market and your personal stuff ends up in somebody else's hands," Comey continued. "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice."

What about deleting ones emails after being told to turn them over to congress after they found out that you didn't do it when your job was done. Is this considered obstruction of justice, James? I think that answer is yes. How about backing up your emails on someone else's computer when some of them were found to be classified?

Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?"

"Yes. It requires not just intent , but the prosecutors demonstrate corrupt intent , which is a special kind of intent that you were taking actions with the intention of defeating and obstructing an investigation you knew was going on," Comey replied.

Did he just change the rules there? Now it's not just intent, but corrupt intent. This is exactly what Hillary did, James! She deliberately destroyed her emails after she was told to turn them over to congress, so if you didn't have the chance to see them l, then how do you know that the ones that she destroyed weren't classified? I would say that qualifies as intent. But we know that you had a job to protect her from being prosecuted. This is why when the wording was changed from " grossly negligent " to "extremely careless". you went with the new ones!

BTW, James. Why wasn't Hillary under oath when she was questioned by the other FBI agents? Why didn't you question her or look at her other computers and cell phones she had at her home? I'd think that they might have shown you something that she didn't want you to see? One more question, James. Did you ask the NSA to find the deleted emails that she destroyed because she said that they were just personal ones about Chelsea's wedding? Do you really think that it took 30,000 emails to plan a wedding? Okay, one more. Did you even think that those emails might have had something to do with her foundation that might have had some incriminating evidence of either classified information on them or even possible proof of her "pay to play" shenanigans that she was told not to do during her tenure as SOS? This thought never crossed your mind?

Last question I promise. Did you really do due diligence on investigating her use of her private email server or were you still covering for her like you have been since she started getting investigated?

This amazing comment came from a person on Common Dreams. It shows the history of

Comey, Mueller and Rosenstein for over two decades and their role in protecting the Clintons

Dismissed FBI agent changed Comey's language on Clinton emails to 'extremely careless'

One source told the news outlet that electronic records reveal that Strzok changed the language from " grossly negligent " to " extremely careless ," scrubbing a key word that could have had legal ramifications for Clinton. An individual who mishandled classified material could be prosecuted under federal law for "gross negligence."

What would have happened if Comey had found Hillary guilty of mishandling classified information on her private email server? She couldn't have become president of course because her security clearances would have been revoked. This makes it kinda hard to be one if she couldn't have access to top secret information, now wouldn't it?

Have you seen this statement by people who don't think that what Hillary did when she used her private email server was wrong and that's why some people didn't vote for her and Trump became president because of it?

[Apr 17, 2018] Did Comey throw Loretta Lynch under the bus?

Apr 17, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Jack • 15 hours ago

Did Comey throw Loretta Lynch under the bus?
"Here was material that I knew someday, when it's declassified, and I thought that would be decades in the future, would cause historians to wonder, "Hmm, was there some strange business going on there? Was Loretta Lynch somehow ... carrying water for the campaign and controlling what the FBI did?"' Comey said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...

Karel Whitman -> Jack • 12 hours ago
No, doesn't feel like that to me, Jack.
I read his narrative as presented by the Daily Mail differently. He seems to try to explain his much criticized going public on the Clinton mail issue -- pretty unique for the FBI to do so, no? -- was the decision based on other matters going on at the same time. ....

As I read it, he seems to claim he didn't want the FBI to be connected to the Obama-Bill Clinton & Lynch on the tarmac conspiracy theme in the public eye. ....

It was a bizarre moment in US history anyway, from Benghazi to the Clinton mails right into the middle of an election campaign. With one of the candidates still under investigation.

Comey said Obama's meddling surprised him. 'He's a very smart man and a lawyer ... He shouldn't have done it. It was inappropriate,' Comey said.

I agree.

'What I can say is the material is legitimate,' he said. 'It is real. The content is real. Now, whether the content is true is a different question. And again, to my mind, I believed it was not true. '

What he vaguely refers to can be related to one three categories. Matters that Juridical Watch's FOIA efforts around the Bill Clinton - Lynch tarmac meeting hasn't brought to the surface yet:

https://www.justice.gov/oip...

https://www.judicialwatch.o...

*******

that said, how comes I doubt my ability in English grammar while reading the Daily Mail article vs the linked Washington Post one. Have to take a closer look at one passage were the use of tense puzzled me.

Fred -> Karel Whitman , an hour ago
LeaNder,
Let me help you with this. Democratic party advisor and former communications director for the white house under President Clinton interviewed a man complicit in stifling the Clinton - Hilary- email scandal by spending an hour deflecting attention from Comey' s conduct.

That truth about George's past neither lied about, they just refused to mention the blatant conflict of interest the interviewer had hoping nobody in America would remember.

Of course it is Trump's fault for coining the phrase "fake news" and sticking that truth on Stephanopoulos and the rest. Now they are just proving how right Trump is regarding the American press core.

[Apr 15, 2018] Obama And Lynch Jeopardized Clinton Email Investigation Comey

Apr 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

With the country's attention focused on James Comey's ~~book publicity gala~~ interview with ABC at 10pm ET, the former FBI Director has thrown former President Obama and his Attorney General Loretta Lynch under the bus, claiming they "jeopardized" the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Comey called out Obama and Lynch in his new book, A Higher Loyalty , set to come out on Tuesday. In it, he defends the FBI's top brass and counterintelligence investigators charged with probing Clinton's use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information, reports the Washington Examiner , which received an advanced copy.

" I never heard anyone on our team -- not one -- take a position that seemed driven by their personal political motivations . And more than that: I never heard an argument or observation I thought came from a political bias. Never ... Instead we debated, argued, listened, reflected, agonized, played devil's advocate, and even found opportunities to laugh as we hashed out major decisions .

("Guys, LMAO, we totally just exonerated Hillary! My sides! Hey Andy, how's Jill's Senate race going?")

Comey says that multiple public statements made by Obama about the investigation "jeopardized" the credibility of the FBI investigation - seemingly absolving Clinton of any crime before FBI investigators were able to complete their work .

" Contributing to this problem, regrettably, was President Obama . He had jeopardized the Department of Justice's credibility in the investigation by saying in a 60 Minutes interview on Oct. 11, 2015, that Clinton's email use was "a mistake" that had not endangered national security," Comey writes. "Then on Fox News on April 10, 2016, he said that Clinton may have been careless but did not do anything to intentionally harm national security, suggesting that the case involved overclassification of material in the government."

" President Obama is a very smart man who understands the law very well . To this day, I don't know why he spoke about the case publicly and seemed to absolve her before a final determination was made. If the president had already decided the matter, an outside observer could reasonably wonder, how on earth could his Department of Justice do anything other than follow his lead." - Washington Examiner

Of course, Comey had already begun drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been "forgotten" in his book.

" The truth was that the president -- as far as I knew, anyway -- he had only as much information as anyone following it in the media . He had not been briefed on our work at all. And if he was following the media, he knew nothing, because there had been no leaks at all up until that point. But, his comments still set all of us up for corrosive attacks if the case were completed with no charges brought."

"Matter" not "Investigation"

Comey also describes a September 2015 meeting with AG Lynch in which she asked him to describe the Clinton email investigation as a "matter" instead of an investigation.

"It occurred to me in the moment that this issue of semantics was strikingly similar to the fight the Clinton campaign had waged against The New York Times in July. Ever since then, the Clinton team had been employing a variety of euphemisms to avoid using the word 'investigation,'" Comey writes.

" The attorney general seemed to be directing me to align with the Clinton campaign strategy . Her "just do it" response to my question indicated that she had no legal or procedural justification for her request, at least not one grounded in our practices or traditions. Otherwise, I assume, she would have said so.

Comey said others present in the meeting with Lynch thought her request was odd and political as well - including one of the DOJ's senior leaders.

" I know the FBI attendees at our meeting saw her request as overtly political when we talked about it afterward . So did at least one of Lynch's senior leaders. George Toscas, then the number-three person in the department's National Security Division and someone I liked, smiled at the FBI team as we filed out, saying sarcastically, ' Well you are the Federal Bureau of Matters ,'" Comey recalled.

That said, Comey "didn't see any instance when Attorney General Lynch interfered with the conduct of the investigation," writing "Though I had been concerned about her direction to me at that point, I saw no indication afterward that she had any contact with the investigators or prosecutors on the case."

In response, Loretta Lynch promptly issued a statement in which she said that if James Comey " had any concerns regarding the email investigation, classified or not, he had ample opportunities to raise them with me both privately and in meetings. He never did."

[Mar 22, 2018] Some of the crimes were that Comey drafted an exoneration letter of Hillary Clinton months before she was ever interviewed

Notable quotes:

"... Mild -- Hillary was warned not to use her own personal servers by her staff. She ignored them. Because of this, her emails were susceptible to hacking and, surprise, surprise, several foreign governments did hack into her data. She had classified information on those servers. That's a no-no. I think it's called "felonious dissemination of classified material". No intent is required for there to be a crime. ..."

"... Some of the crimes were that Comey drafted an exoneration letter of Hillary Clinton months before she was ever interviewed. She was also under subpoena to hand over "all" emails, but she took it upon herself to delete over 30,000 of them. These were "subpoenaed" emails. Who just takes it upon themselves to destroy subpoenaed documents? She had her hard drives destroyed. She handed over her cell phones without the SIM cards in them. ..."

"... The FBI never even forensically examined her hard drives; they left that up to Crowdstrike. Yeah, like the FBI would ever do that! ..."

Mar 22, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

backwardsevolution , March 20, 2018 at 12:36 am

Mild -- Hillary was warned not to use her own personal servers by her staff. She ignored them. Because of this, her emails were susceptible to hacking and, surprise, surprise, several foreign governments did hack into her data. She had classified information on those servers. That's a no-no. I think it's called "felonious dissemination of classified material". No intent is required for there to be a crime.

Some of the crimes were that Comey drafted an exoneration letter of Hillary Clinton months before she was ever interviewed. She was also under subpoena to hand over "all" emails, but she took it upon herself to delete over 30,000 of them. These were "subpoenaed" emails. Who just takes it upon themselves to destroy subpoenaed documents? She had her hard drives destroyed. She handed over her cell phones without the SIM cards in them.

The FBI never even forensically examined her hard drives; they left that up to Crowdstrike. Yeah, like the FBI would ever do that!

Her husband, Bill Clinton, coincidentally (yeah, right!) meets Loretta Lynch on an Arizona tarmac for 45 minutes. The Attorney-General of the United States, who has the wife of this man under investigation, stops to talk with him? What? Who does that? A first year law student wouldn't have done this. Loretta Lynch should have been fired on the spot. Instead, she leaves the decision up to Comey. That's not Comey's job. His job is to pass on the evidence he collects to the Attorney-General. She, or someone in her department, makes the decision, not Comey.

I know all about addiction. It isn't pretty. A destroyer of lives. Trump's brother was an alcoholic, I believe, who died early. He warned Trump never to smoke or drink, and Trump took his advice. He does neither. He saw what it did to his loved one.

I'm also a great admirer of Charles Dickens, one of the greatest writers ever to live! But even his characters are rife with repeating the same behaviors over and over again, even destructive ones. You can't help an addict that isn't ready for your help, unless you want to bash your head into a brick wall repeatedly. I know. I've been there and done that.

The opioid epidemic didn't just start on Trump's watch. It really got kicked into high gear after the 2008 financial crisis. Doctors were prescribing opioids to whole towns, thinking it was better for them to get disability than be out on the streets. Wrong move. People are getting their hands on these pills, and then reselling them, making small fortunes. And a lot of these opioids are being laced with Fentanyl (coming in from China). Deadly stuff!

The country has completely lost its moral center, its communities, its sense of decency. This has been happening for decades now. It's a great shame what has happened to a once-great country.

[Mar 22, 2018] The law requires "gross negligence" for prosecution, and Peter Strzok had it changed in the report to "extreme carelessness". If that isn't an interference in the judicial process, I don't know what is.

Mar 21, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Skip Scott , March 20, 2018 at 8:58 am

Hi B.E.-

The whole story of Hillary's using a personal server for all communications, including classified material, is something I found incredibly stupid. I am a retired Radio Operator, and worked for an MSC contracted ship for my last six years, and had "secret" clearance. Our computer had a separate hard drive for all classified communications, that was removed after each download/upload and stored in a safe. If I had mishandled any classified info, I have no doubt I'd be in prison.

Hillary is even quoted as saying she thought the (c) in communications didn't refer to "classified", but was an enumeration, although she never bothered to ask where the (a) and (b) were.

The law requires "gross negligence" for prosecution, and Peter Strzok had it changed in the report to "extreme carelessness". If that isn't an interference in the judicial process, I don't know what is.

backwardsevolution , March 20, 2018 at 9:25 pm

Hi, Skip. I'm glad you followed orders and didn't end up in the brig. Hillary, on the other hand, seems to like to ignore rules. When asked if she wiped her servers clean, she had the gall to say, "Do you mean with a cloth?" Talk about feigning ignorance. Her life was the government, and to think that she didn't know what "classified" meant is too much of a stretch for anyone.

She knew exactly what she was doing. She just never dreamed that she'd get caught. She didn't want to use the government servers because they have a back-up system, and when you're trying to elicit money from foreign governments in exchange for favors, you don't want to be on a system with a back-up. You want to be able to control that system yourself, as in deleting everything. She was trying to get around future Freedom of Information requests by having her own servers.

And that Peter Strzok, who the heck is this guy and who gave him permission to change the wording? And he's the same guy who interviewed General Flynn. The whole thing stinks. There is no way that Strzok would have done what he did without someone higher up telling him to. Hillary's helpers were all given immunity before they even started talking, and apparently they weren't interviewed separately, but all together in one room. What?

Skip, you have a nice day and don't let this stuff get you down.

[Mar 13, 2018] Andrew McCabe Under Active DOJ Investigation For Sitting On Weiner Laptop Emails

Jan 31, 2018 | www.capitolhilloutsider.com

Zero Hedge

The Justice Department's internal watchdog has been investigating former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for apparently sitting on emails obtained from Anthony Weiner's laptop, the Washington Post 's Devlin Barrett and Karoun Demirjian reported Tuesday (of note, Barrett was recently outed as a potential source of FBI leaks , according to text messages between FBI employees accused of political bias)

... ... ...

The inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, has been asking witnesses why FBI leadership seemed unwilling to move forward on the examination of emails found on the laptop of former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) until late October about three weeks after first being alerted to the issue, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

... ... ...

Or, as Sarah Westwood summarizes, this report suggests:

McCabe tried to stall probe of Weiner laptop emails til after the election

McCabe's colleagues got suspicious about the delay

Comey sent 11th-hour letter that reopened the probe in order to correct for McCabe's perceived bias

Further pointing towards evidence of political bias is an October, 2016 Wall St. Journal article which reported that McCabe's wife received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from close Clinton ally, then-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe for her failed run at VA state legislature.

[Feb 08, 2018] All of the contacts and addresses of Anthony Weiner's seized laptop just got leaked:

Feb 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

tac , February 7, 2018 at 5:30 pm GMT

Slightly off topic, but all of the contacts and addresses of Anthony Weiner's seized laptop just got leaked:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3629923/posts?page=29

http://www.savemysweden.com/just-leaked-every-phone-number-address-anth

[Feb 08, 2018] This was all in the news well before the election, and Clinton s team slow-walked and stone-walled the entire time

Notable quotes:

"... The FBI was investigating Secretary Clinton personally for specific statutory crimes regarding the mishandling of highly classified national security information. ..."

"... As early as 2009, the National Archives contacted the State Department regarding Clinton's violation of record-keeping procedures. This was not disclosed to the public. ..."

"... It was discovered in early 2015 that Clinton had used this private server exclusively for State Department business. Further revelations reported in the press indicated it was an insecure server prone to hacks, and the State Department IG concluded that Clinton would never have been approved for such a setup had she requested it, and failed to follow all established security and record-keeping rules. ..."

"... I agree that the FBI was "investigating" Hillary Clinton in connection with her email (in continuation of an investigation that existed before she threw her hat into the ring). I haven't heard any evidence that they were wiretapping her campaign operatives or conducting surveillance on her campaign. ..."

"... It just doesn't work, even if we assume there was no actual evidence that she did naughty things with email, which we all know she did. ..."

Feb 08, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

MM February 6, 2018 at 5:38 pm

"It was the Clinton investigation that was made public to the electorate right before the election, right?"
Wrong on this point. The FBI was investigating Secretary Clinton personally for specific statutory crimes regarding the mishandling of highly classified national security information.

As early as 2009, the National Archives contacted the State Department regarding Clinton's violation of record-keeping procedures. This was not disclosed to the public.

At the end of her tenure in 2012, a FOIA request was filed seeking access to Clinton's government email correspondence. In 2013, it was reported that no records pertaining to the request could be found.

In 2014, State Department lawyers first noticed emails from Clinton's private account, while reviewing documents for the Benghazi investigation. By the end of the year, Clinton's lawyers had negotiated handing over about half of her total email correspondence stored on her private server.

It was discovered in early 2015 that Clinton had used this private server exclusively for State Department business. Further revelations reported in the press indicated it was an insecure server prone to hacks, and the State Department IG concluded that Clinton would never have been approved for such a setup had she requested it, and failed to follow all established security and record-keeping rules.

This was all in the news well before the election, and Clinton's team slow-walked and stone-walled the entire time. To say they were asking for a criminal investigation is an understatement.

She really only had herself to blame for all this, you know?

KD , says: February 6, 2018 at 9:07 pm
The Other Sands:
I appreciate your comment. I agree that the FBI was "investigating" Hillary Clinton in connection with her email (in continuation of an investigation that existed before she threw her hat into the ring). I haven't heard any evidence that they were wiretapping her campaign operatives or conducting surveillance on her campaign.

It just doesn't work, even if we assume there was no actual evidence that she did naughty things with email, which we all know she did.

The point is, if you're commitment to partisan baloney allows you to squint at the Democratic Party's Putinization of the FBI, enjoy your police state. I'm sure you'll make the enemies list sooner or later.

[I recognize people really hate Trump, and there are many legitimate reasons why he is really hateful. But are you going to embrace police state tactics just to bring down Trump?
I think people who do are damn fools.]

[Feb 07, 2018] FBI lovers texts show Obama wanted info on Clinton probe

A comment to the article "

"

Feb 07, 2018 | dailymail.co.uk

Lisa Page wrote her lover Peter Strzok about the Clinton probe: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'

Obama had said he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere and there would be 'no political influence' in the FBI investigation

The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair

Page was an FBI lawyer, and Strzok was a leading investigator on both the Clinton probe and the more recent Trump-Russia investigation

Strzok, though expected to be nonpartisan, also called Trump 'a f***ing idiot' and texted Page about a cryptic 'insurance policy' against a Trump presidency

'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!' President Trump tweeted on Wednesday

An FBI lawyer wrote in a text to her lover in late 2016 that then-president Barack Obama wanted updates on the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Two months before the presidential election, Lisa Page wrote to fellow FBI official Peter Strzok that she was working on a memo for then-FBI director James Comey because Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing.'

Obama had said five months earlier during a Fox News Channel interview that he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere with that investigation.

'I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line,' he said on April 10, 2016.

'I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Full stop. Period,' he said.' --> --> -->

The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair.

Fox News was first to report on the latest batch, which is to be released by Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

The committee members will soon publish a report titled 'The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of it.'

President Donald Trump tweeted on Wednesday: 'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!'

Comey testified to Congress in June 2017: 'As FBI director I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years, and didn't document it.'

He didn't address possible memos or other written reports he may have sent to the Obama White House.

But Comey did document his 2017 meetings with President Donald Trump, he said, because he feared Trump would interfere with the Russia probe.

Strzok was the lead investigator on the probe examining Clinton's illicit use of a private email server to handle her official State Department messages while she was America's top diplomat.

He was later a member of special counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating alleged links betwen Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia.

Comey was to give Obama an update on the Clinton email investigation before the 2016 election, according to Page; he testified before Congress in 2017 that he only spoke to Obama twice as FBI director – but didn't mention whether he had sent him written reports

Comey announced in July 2016 that he had cleared Clinton of criminal wrongdoing in the email probe, saying that 'we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.'

On October 28, 2016, Comey said in a letter to Congress that the FBI was reviewing new emails related to Clinton's tenure as secretary of State.

That revelation threw the presidential election into chaos.

On November 6, 2016, Comey told lawmakers that a review of those newly discovered emails had not altered the agency's view that Clinton should not face criminal charges.

The text messages between Page and Strzok that emerged earlier showed their hatred for Donald Trump.

In August 2016 Strzok wrote to her that he wanted to believe 'that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.' --> --> -->

It's unclear what that 'insurance policy' was, but the Justice Department was at the time debating an approach to a federal court for a surveillance warrant against Trump adviser Carter Page.

Strzok was elevated to overseeing the Trump Russia probe a month earlier.

In a text sent on October 20, 2016, Strzok called the Republican presidential nominee a 'f***ing idiot.'

On Election Day, Page wrote to him: 'OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING.'

Strzok replied, 'Omg, I am so depressed.'

Five days later, Page texted him again: 'I bought all the president's men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate.'

[Feb 07, 2018] FBI Lovers New Texts Expose Obama Complicity He Wants To Know Everything We re Doing

Why Comey was only informed by his investigative team on Oct 27, 2016 if the Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop were discovered by Sept 28, 2016

Feb 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

New text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page have now been made public, and, as The Duran's Alex Christoforou notes , the big reveal is that then-POTUS Barack Obama appears to be in the loop, on the whole 'destroy Trump' insurance plan hatched by upper management at the FBI.

Fox News reports:

Page wrote to Strzok on Sept. 2, 2016 about prepping Comey because "potus wants to know everything we're doing." Senate investigators told Fox News this text raises questions about Obama's personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.

...Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., along with majority staff from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is releasing the texts, along with a report titled, "The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of it."

The newly uncovered texts reveal a bit more about the timing of the discovery of "hundreds of thousands" of emails on former congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop, ultimately leading to Comey's infamous letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential election.

On Sept. 28, 2016 Strzok wrote to Page, "Got called up to Andy's [McCabe] earlier.. hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner's atty to sdny [Southern District of New York], includes a ton of material from spouse [Huma Abedin]. Sending team up tomorrow to review this will never end." Senate investigators told Fox News this text message raises questions about when FBI officials learned of emails relevant to the Hillary Clinton email investigation on the laptop belonging to Weiner, the husband to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

It was a full month later, on Oct. 28, 2016 when Comey informed Congress that, "Due to recent developments," the FBI was reopening its Clinton email investigation.

"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday " Comey said at the time.

The question becomes why Comey was only informed by his investigative team on Oct. 27, if the Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop were discovered by Sept. 28, at the latest.

two hoots -> shankster Feb 7, 2018 9:30 AM Permalink

And their still drawing a paycheck? How long must we tolerate this "in your face" crap?

and there is this:

Report: Bill Clinton Offered Lynch Scalia's Seat During Tarmac Meeting (Jun 27, 2016)– QAnon

https://www.infowars.com/report-bill-clinton-offered-lynch-scalias-seat

and a few days later from Washington Post:

This may not be the best time for Clinton allies to float Loretta Lynch as her attorney general (July 5, 2016)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/05/this-may-not-

" even becoming the favorite of some to be Obama's nominee to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. (She later withdrew from consideration.)"

Were they all in cahoots?

JSBach1 -> HockeyFool Feb 7, 2018 12:09 PM Permalink

Every phone number and address on Weiner's confiscated laptop just got leaked:

http://www.savemysweden.com/just-leaked-every-phone-number-address-anth

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3629923/posts?page=29

https://twitter.com/bbusa617/status/961186942791626752

https://twitter.com/USSANews/status/961283401276841984

[EDIT]: @ treefeller

The point of this is IF phone numbers and addresses got leaked, can other contents, like some of the compromising emails not find their way to the surface as well, or any other sensitive material stored there...? Was this leak a warning or a prelude to something bigger coming...?

just a thought...(read between the lines)

imagine if that where to happen!...

https://www.circa.com/story/2018/01/04/politics/whats-in-the-huma-abedi

CuttingEdge -> BlueGreen Feb 7, 2018 10:58 AM Permalink

Especially since his "Obama For America" PAC gave Perkins $1m at the same time HRC gave them ten.

At the point the great turd is flushed, the MSM will cry out in united vehement scorn at his detractors...Maddow might even have a brain anurism.

NumberNone -> shivura Feb 7, 2018 11:33 AM Permalink

Hey stupid fuck...this is no longer about who did or did not win the election.

This is about the FBI knowingly using false evidence to try and take down a legally elected president...and now we are learning that it was endorsed not just by the Hillary campaign but now Obama apparently wanted to be kept in the know.

If this does not literally make you shake with anger or fear that our democracy has been 100% compromised simply because its the 'red team' being targeted, then please just hop a fucking boat now to some shithole country that the liberals love so much and get that much needed dose of reality about what this means.

Captain Nemo d -> shivura Feb 7, 2018 1:22 PM Permalink

Actually shivura has a point. I have always wondered why did Comey make reopening HRC's investigation public even as they made sure the investigations did not go anywhere. It is not as if they were driven to uphold propriety in all of their other actions. Why break so many rules in trying to save her and get her elected, and then inform everyone just before the elections that Weiner's laptop had HRC emails. It adds sleaze to the mix, and to HRC by association. You can argue that HRC needs no help in that department, but I am sure some people had a visceral reaction of revulsion on hearing HRC emails were on the laptop with other stuff.

freedommusic -> shivura Feb 7, 2018 2:09 PM Permalink

Clinton spent about 1.1 BILLION dollars, had FISA Title 1 surveillance on Trump, full deep sate, globalist, swamp, backing, was given debate questions in advance, full support of entire main stream media, election rigging in her favor and she STILL LOST?

MrBoompi -> NoDebt Feb 7, 2018 11:12 AM Permalink

The first time I knew Obama was directly involved was when it was discovered, thanks to wikileaks, Obama was sending emails through Clinton's home server USING AN ALIAS. They all knew she was breaking the law, yet they protected her from prosecution and then colluded to get her elected, using scores of illegal activities to do it. This is so bad they might not be able to do anything about it, as it encompasses so many deep state agencies and actors. There may not be enough loyal Americans in DC to uphold the law.

gaoptimize -> Moving and Grooving Feb 7, 2018 10:56 AM Permalink

They apparently don't. Hearing from William Binney about how the technical means works means it is a system nearly impossible to prevent abuses. Mr. Trump: Tear down the Utah data center.

Kayman -> macholatte Feb 7, 2018 10:53 AM Permalink

"How much evidence against the Clinton-Obama Crime Syndicate has been destroyed?"

The FBI destroying Clinton laptops. Immunity given, for what? - to everyone in the Clinton circle.

So, if the FBI can be found a part of the Clinton/Lynch fraud on the American public, are those immunity deals still deals?

And where is this vaunted multi-billion dollar NSA, do they really have the Clinton dirt?

Inquiring Hillbillies want to know.

e_goldstein -> macholatte Feb 7, 2018 11:28 AM Permalink

Technically, none of it. It's all backed up at the NSA.

Richard Whitney -> two hoots Feb 7, 2018 11:01 AM Permalink

I had suspected that the tarmac meeting was Lynch unmasking Seth Rich to the Clinton's. This revelation about a SC nomination doesn't preclude that she fingered Rich. Somebody did, and he was 'made an example of'.

Baron von Bud -> shankster Feb 7, 2018 9:37 AM Permalink

Looks like the trap has snapped shut and many conspirators are caught including Obama. Is there now any doubt that the elimination of 4th amendment protections after 9/11 has been a disaster?

Winston Churchill -> Baron von Bud Feb 7, 2018 9:42 AM Permalink

9/11 just legalized what they've been doing for decades before.Put in on roids.

Believe what you want though,but I absolutely know that to be true as far back as the mid 70's.

Chupacabra-322 -> DuneCreature Feb 7, 2018 10:57 AM Permalink

@ Dune,

"It was set up by the FBI and when they realized how totally illegal it was they just handed it over to Clapper and Brennan. .. Barry Oked The scam transfer, I suspect so that he could use it too.

It was/is used for one thing. .. To build blackmail 'Control Files' on thousands if not millions of Americans. ... An Extortion Tool. .. NOTHING legal about it."

You've just explained in two sentences the entire Criminal, Treasonous, Seditious Intelligence Operation of our lifetime. Same spying tactics used decades by MI6 / British Intelligence. Only difference being, it's the first of its kind "Information Highway" Spy Ring utilizing an expanded Surveillance Infrastructure.

This entire Criminal Deep State Intelligence Operation was data mining formuling the first of its kind Parallel Construction Case consisting of a Criminal Deep State CIA, FBI, DOJ Scripted False Narrative / PsyOp With the objective ousting a sitting President via a soft coup.

Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Psychopath at Large George Bush Jr. instituted the Criminal Surveillance infrastructure.

Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath at Large Barack Obama expanded it exponentially.

However, Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths Obama, Clinton, their minions Brennan & Clapper along with GCHQ used the intelligence apparatus to go after their political enemies.

Noktirnal -> Lorca's Novena Feb 7, 2018 11:42 AM Permalink

Ruby Ridge

Waco

OKC

WTC

9/11

Torture

"Extrajudicial Killing"

Abu Ghraib

Extraordinary Rendition

Patriot Act

Guantanamo Bay

Civil Asset Forfeiture

DHS/TSA

5eyes/PRISM/NSA warrantless searches/seizures

FISA/FISC secret warrants/courts

...Very bad, indeed!

Dr. Acula -> Noktirnal Feb 7, 2018 1:19 PM Permalink

Trump hasn't slowed down the bad stuff one whit:

>Ruby Ridge

>Waco

>OKC

>WTC

>9/11

Vegas covered up under Trump.

>Guantanamo Bay

Still open under Trump.

>Civil Asset Forfeiture

On steroids under Trump.

>FISA/FISC secret warrants/courts

Powers granted anew; signed into law by Trump

Don't forget that Trump is murdering civilians at a much faster pace than Obama did.

Give Me Some Truth -> Killtruck Feb 7, 2018 12:10 PM Permalink

Well, we're getting some transparency with the release of the new batch of texts. We weren't supposed to, but we have. "Transparency" advocates will take our small victories when/where we get them.

Key point to me: Some people at least are circling around the bigger bombshell story - the effort to protect Hillary from the "email server story." The story (for me) is NOT that the Russian government somehow "colluded" with the Trump campaign to get Trump elected. It is instead that members of the "Deep State" colluded with one another to make sure Hillary got elected.

I think the MSM has been pushing the "Russiagate" angle to keep attention off the real story. That is, the press "colluded" with those who worked so hard to get Hillary elected.

Now, we'll the press belatedly do its job and give the "Watergate treatment" to this real story? Eight ball says, "No way, Jose."

[Feb 07, 2018] why Justice Department officials entered into a pair of "side agreement" with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson

Feb 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

hooligan2009 Feb 7, 2018 10:03 AM Permalink

lest we forget:

http://therightscoop.com/fbi-agreed-to-destroy-laptops-used-to-delete-h

" House Republicans are demanding to know why Justice Department officials entered into a pair of "side agreement" with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson -- two of Hillary Clinton's top former aides who went on to become her personal attorneys during the FBI's email investigation -- that allowed law enforcement agents to destroy their laptops after searching their hard drives for evidence. "

hooligan2009 Feb 7, 2018 10:04 AM Permalink

In a letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Monday, Goodlatte questioned why the destruction of the laptops used to sort Clinton's emails was included in immunity deals that already protected Mills and Samuelson from prosecution based on the records recovered from their computers.

it shoudl be apparent that female libtard socialist demoNrat lawyers think that they can gain immunity from any FBI probe - dildo shaped or otherwise.

To Hell In A H Feb 7, 2018 10:06 AM Permalink

Jesus Christ. You Trumptard circus clowns just won't give up.

Go on, indulge me. Tell who and when these plotters are going to prison?

The comedy value listening to you retards giving so many wrong predictions is worth reading ZH, just by itself.

Obummer, Killary et al are never going to see judgment. Never. Stop the fucking delusions and projection. It's gone past being funny, worthy of ridicule. It's becoming obsessive to the point of sounding foolish.

arby63 -> To Hell In A H Feb 7, 2018 10:16 AM Permalink

The big players won't go down. I do suspect that Strzok just may be indicted for conspiracy. Could even rise a little higher. There's almost no doubt that the Obama "legacy" will definitely get a good shellacking.

To Hell In A H -> zimboe Feb 7, 2018 10:48 AM Permalink

I agree we are at war with a 5th column. This much as been clear since 1913 and I would argue going back before the Napoleonic wars.

The problem as is usually in these dire times is the chronic inability for so many people to identify the real enemy.

Cunt's like Obummer are merely conduits and facilitators for the 5th column to work through.

My anger is way past Obummer and Trump. These cunts have senior managers they report to. It is the rooting out of that upper management and above that needs to take place.

[Feb 07, 2018] This was all in the news well before the election, and Clinton's team slow-walked and stone-walled the entire time. To say they were asking for a criminal investigation is an understatement.

Feb 07, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

MM February 6, 2018 at 5:38 pm

"It was the Clinton investigation that was made public to the electorate right before the election, right?"
Wrong on this point. The FBI was investigating Secretary Clinton personally for specific statutory crimes regarding the mishandling of highly classified national security information.

As early as 2009, the National Archives contacted the State Department regarding Clinton's violation of record-keeping procedures. This was not disclosed to the public.

At the end of her tenure in 2012, a FOIA request was filed seeking access to Clinton's government email correspondence. In 2013, it was reported that no records pertaining to the request could be found.

In 2014, State Department lawyers first noticed emails from Clinton's private account, while reviewing documents for the Benghazi investigation. By the end of the year, Clinton's lawyers had negotiated handing over about half of her total email correspondence stored on her private server.

It was discovered in early 2015 that Clinton had used this private server exclusively for State Department business. Further revelations reported in the press indicated it was an insecure server prone to hacks, and the State Department IG concluded that Clinton would never have been approved for such a setup had she requested it, and failed to follow all established security and record-keeping rules.

This was all in the news well before the election, and Clinton's team slow-walked and stone-walled the entire time. To say they were asking for a criminal investigation is an understatement.

She really only had herself to blame for all this, you know?

[Feb 07, 2018] Some people at least are circling around the bigger bombshell story - the effort to protect Hillary from the email server story. The story (for me) is NOT that the Russian government somehow colluded with the Trump campaign to get Trump elected. It is instead that members of the Deep State colluded with one another to make sure Hillary got elected.

Notable quotes:

"... I think the MSM has been pushing the "Russiagate" angle to keep attention off the real story. That is, the press "colluded" with those who worked so hard to get Hillary elected. ..."

"... Yes, makes sense. When pressed against the wall the best tactic is to create chaos. Create friction between two polarized sides and keep driving that wedge into the middle to drive them further apart. ..."

"... Chaos is the ultimate distraction. War is the ultimate chaos. We are at war. However they want you to believe that the enemy is a left or right ideology. It is not. The enemy is lawlessness, and those who seem to be above the law. The Deep State is the enemy. ..."

Feb 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Give Me Some Truth -> Killtruck Feb 7, 2018 12:10 PM Permalink

Well, we're getting some transparency with the release of the new batch of texts. We weren't supposed to, but we have. "Transparency" advocates will take our small victories when/where we get them.

Key point to me: Some people at least are circling around the bigger bombshell story - the effort to protect Hillary from the "email server story." The story (for me) is NOT that the Russian government somehow "colluded" with the Trump campaign to get Trump elected. It is instead that members of the "Deep State" colluded with one another to make sure Hillary got elected.

I think the MSM has been pushing the "Russiagate" angle to keep attention off the real story. That is, the press "colluded" with those who worked so hard to get Hillary elected.

Now, we'll the press belatedly do its job and give the "Watergate treatment" to this real story? Eight ball says, "No way, Jose."

Thought Processor -> LoneStarHog Feb 7, 2018 9:12 AM Permalink

Yes, makes sense. When pressed against the wall the best tactic is to create chaos. Create friction between two polarized sides and keep driving that wedge into the middle to drive them further apart.

Chaos is the ultimate distraction. War is the ultimate chaos. We are at war. However they want you to believe that the enemy is a left or right ideology. It is not. The enemy is lawlessness, and those who seem to be above the law. The Deep State is the enemy.

Don't fall for the left or right fight. We all have much more in common than that which might set us apart.

It is chaos they want. In order to reset things under a new order.

Thought Processor -> Cloud9.5 Feb 7, 2018 11:43 AM Permalink

Centralization is the real issue and problem. Centralized organizations are fragile and easy to co-opt. Distributed systems are very difficult to take over. The U.S. constitution was originally set up as a distributed system of systems with each contributing to the larger system as a whole. The system as a whole was only supposed to serve those that were part of the system, not directing them. However it no longer functions in this manner as the Federal system has long since been co-oped and has taken over via. a command control / director function of the whole. Originally it was set up to be only a check in the balance of the whole feedback loop system, and a small but important one at that. The Federal entity was originally set up only to ensure that each state followed the U.S. constitution that they agreed upon. Each state in the U.S. still has it's own constitution. Each state can still choose at any point to secede from the U.S. if the people within that state choose to do so.

If you want to take something over, the most efficient way is to centralize the power structure then co-opt the exec. functions. The CIA has long since perfected the subversion tactics to do just this.

The real question is: who controls the CIA?
Cloud9.5 -> Thought Processor Feb 7, 2018 12:39 PM Permalink

It is not uncommon for secret societies to have higher orders within those societies. The masonic order has served as a template for many other secret societies to include most college fraternities. Every mason is a member of the blue lodge, but every mason is not a York Rite or Scottish Rite Shriner.
Within the CIA there may very well be another organization that none of us have ever heard of that runs the show. Like any other organization, it must have a mechanism for pulling in new members to replace the elders when they die off.

[Feb 07, 2018] Are we going to get from Nunes a smoking memo on the FBI's investigation of Hillary's email?

Notable quotes:

"... Much of what followed may be doubling down on and covering up earlier crimes. ..."

Feb 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

densa , February 7, 2018 at 12:55 am GMT

Are we going to get a smoking memo on the FBI's investigation of Hillary's email?
Remember, none of this would be happening without her private server and mishandled classified info. Her candidacy should have been ended early on. The FBI's investigation seemed nonstandard to say the least.

Much of what followed may be doubling down on and covering up earlier crimes.

[Jan 28, 2018] John Ratcliffe Shuts Up Lying Loretta Lynch Over Hillary Clinton's Emails

Jan 28, 2018 | www.youtube.com

p-brane 1 year ago It sounds like they are conversing with a computer generated voice program like Satnav. I keep expecting her to say "OVERLOAD.... OVERLOAD... NEED TO REBOOT... MAKE A LEFT AT THE NEXT STREET... MAKE A RIGHT AT THE NEXT CORNER... and then a bunch of smoke comes out of her ears and she shuts down... 51 Woyam Chny 1 year ago Loretta Lynch dwells in the deepest part of the swamp where the water is most stagnant and foul! 149 Mylan Miller 1 year ago This woman just makes her self look stupid, she cant even answer the simplest question. She is making her self look real guilty or dumb! She didn't get the job for her intelligence she is there because she is a willing sheep.

[Jan 27, 2018] Obstruction of Justice -- Special Agent Strzok Text Message Highlights FBI Investigative Intent

Notable quotes:

"... what was withheld ..."

"... The New York Times ..."

"... This is HUGE. And it shows that the FBI and DOJ cannot be trusted to return documents. They cannot be trusted to redact properly. In fact, I hate to say this, but they simply cannot be trusted. The top ends – anybody involved with this stuff – needs to be replaced with people who actually follow rules. And that doesn't even get to "spirit of the law", which has to be a really difficult concept for these people. ..."

"... The more i see these texts, the more I think the "insurance policy" is a cya program designed to protect Strozk from being the fall guy in the e-mail investigation. ..."

"... Peter Strozk is President of AFGRO, a CIA front National Security non profit Agency To Facilitate The Growth Of Rural Organizations, Afgro 410 Sugar Pine Drive, Pinehurst, NC 28374 NC 1986-06 $0 http://www.nonprofitfacts.com/VA/Agency-To-Facilitate-The-Growth-Of-Rural-Organizations.html#similarList_a ..."

"... How do the bad guys react to that? Panic, increase texts, comms with each other. Do you think they are being surveilled at this point? The memo serves the purpose of beating the bushes to move the prey into the open. We will get there. ..."

"... I'm sure Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike all appreciate you mentioning them in this text, and how they are conspiring to hide themselves and their evil deeds from the light. Thanks, Peter! ..."

"... "The 302's are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given as well as who was present during the interview." ..."

Jan 27, 2018 | theconservativetreehouse.com

What FBI Agent Peter Strzok is admitting in the September 10th text message, is that there are details within the interview of Hillary Clinton that he (and others) intentionally withheld from the September 2nd, 2016, release.

Specifically, evidence withheld in the 302's would be some of the FBI questions and some of the Hillary Clinton answers to those questions. In essence, the FBI held back actually releasing the full account of the interview.

According to the Strzok text message, the reason for withholding some of the details of the Hillary Clinton interview is because there are "very INFLAMMATORY things" within it; and once congress finds out what was withheld the details will "absolutely inflame" them.

Peter Strzok then goes on to say when/if the full FOIA is released, presumably post-election, Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike are going to have to figure out how to deal with the discrepancy:

"I'm sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that will play out as they talk among themselves."

"Jim" is likely James Baker , the Chief Legal Counsel for FBI Director James Comey .

"Trish" is likely Trisha Beth Anderson , Office of Legal Counsel for the FBI. [Anderson was hired for the DOJ, by AG Eric Holder, from Eric Holder's law firm.]

"Dave" and "Mike" currently remain unknown.

So it would appear, James Baker and Trisha Anderson, the legal advisers at the top of the FBI leadership apparatus, were both aware the September 2nd, 2016, FOIA release was manipulated to conceal part of Hillary Clinton's questions and answers.

Perhaps now we can better understand the importance of this specific text message as it was released by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.

This message by Strzok shows a team of FBI officials intentionally conspiring to withhold "inflammatory" Clinton investigation evidence, from congress. And the decision-making goes directly to the very top leadership within the FBI.

... ... ...
Peter Strzok justifies his knowledge of the intentionally withheld 302 interview material by claiming: "because they weren't relevant to understanding the focus of the investigation". However, to evaluate the filter this investigative team are applying we only need to look at the wording of their public release which accompanied the material:

Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. ( link )

They felt obligated only to release information about "classified" or "improperly stored or transmitted" information. That's a rather disingenuous investigation.

There's no mention of any FBI intent to investigate action or conduct undertaken by Hillary Clinton or her team to hide the use of classified or improperly stored information; or any intent to look at a cover-up, scrubbing, or conduct that happened AFTER it was discovered that she unlawfully used a personal e-mail server during her tenure.

We can see from the wording of the FBI public release, and the overlay of the text message from interviewer Peter Strzok, a deliberate effort to inquire into only the surface issues of classified information transmission and storage. There was no investigative intent to go beyond that, and no information released, intentionally, that might disclose any larger issues.

If the FBI was legitimately conducting an investigation, and providing the subsequent evidence from within that investigation, the FOIA would include all material relevant to the investigation, which would include all 302 (essentially Q&A) pages. However, the set of questions and answers the FBI released on Sept. 2nd 2016 was not the full set of Questions and Answers. They withheld something, likely "inflammatory", per FBI Agent Strzok. FBI Agent Peter Strzok is outlining in this text message a deliberate intent to shape the Clinton interview, and then a deliberative process of filtering out only those aspects of the interview that would support their pre-determined outcome, delivered only days later.

Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson, Lisa Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold information -derived from this interview- from congress and the American people.

... ... ...

Below is the list of things Hillary Clinton could not recall in the FBI interview, as compiled by Lifezette in 2016 :

When she received security clearance

Being briefed on how to handle classified material

How many times she used her authority to designate items classified

Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret "Special Access Program" material

How to select a target for a drone strike

How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices

The number of times her staff was given a secure phone

Why she didn't get a secure Blackberry

Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system

Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account

Getting guidance from state on email policy

Who had access to her Blackberry account

The process for deleting her emails

Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full

Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server

Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked

Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts

Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server

Using an iPad mini

An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal

Jacob Sullivan using personal email

State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports

Every briefing she received after suffering concussions

Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012

Being read out of her clearance

Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRC office.com account.

Secretary Clinton could not recall when she received her security clearance or whether it was carried over from her time in the Senate. She also could not recall any briefing or training by the State Department "related to the retention of federal records or the handling of classified information."

Secretary Clinton said she was briefed on Special Access Programs -- the top-level classification of U.S. intelligence -- but could not recall the specific training or briefings on how to handle that information. Additional discoveries from September 2016:

DISCOVERY ONE : Clinton Deleted Her Private Email Archive "A Few Weeks After The New York Times Disclosed" The Private Server. Viser Tweet: "A few weeks after the NYT disclosed that Hillary Clinton had a private email account, her archive inbox was deleted." ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY TWO : Clinton Did Not Know The (C) Mark Meant Classified And Did Not "Pay Attention To Diff Classification Levels." Seitz-Wald Tweet: "Clinton said she didn't know what (c) mark meant, didn't pay attn to diff classification levels, treated all srsly." ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY THREE : "There Were 17,448 Work-Related Emails That Clinton Didn't Turn Over To The State Inspector General." ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY FOUR : As Secretary Of State Clinton "Had 13 Mobile Devices And 5 iPads" With Her Private Email. Viser Tweet: "Hillary Clinton, who said she had her private email for convenience, had 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads, according to FBI." ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY FIVE : Clinton's Lawyers Could Not Locate The Mobile Devices With Her Email Address.. Viser Tweet: 'FBI found 13 total mobile devices associated with Clinton's 2 phone numbers. Her lawyers couldn't locate the devices" ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY SIX : "The FBI Determined That Clinton Brought Her Blackberry Into A Secure Area At State, Which Is Prohibited." ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY SEVEN : Clinton's Email Archive Was Transferred Onto A Personal Gmail Address To Help Archive The Records. Zapotosky Tweet: "In 2014, in an effort to transfer an archive of Clinton emails from a laptop onto a server, someone used a personal Gmail address to help" ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY EIGHT : Clinton Deleted Her Emails Because She Thought "She Didn't Need Them Anymore." Cilizza Tweet: 'Clinton told the FBI she deleted her emails because she didn't need them anymore not to avoid FOIA"( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY NINE : Someone Tried To Hack Into Clinton's iCloud Account. Viser Tweet: "The FBI found that someone was trying to hack into Hillary Clinton's iCloud account. They were unsuccessful." ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY TEN : "Hillary Clinton Sent Out An Email To All State Employees Warning Them Against Using Personal Email Addresses." ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)

BONUS DISCOVERY : "The Phrase 'Could Not Recall' Or 'Did Not Recall' Appears 27 Times In Hillary Clinton FBI Interview Transcript." ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
wolfmoon1776 , January 27, 2018 at 1:11 pm
Sundance broke the case. This is it. They FORMED the response to hide ALL THAT WAS NEEDED TO BE HIDDEN. And they didn't just wheedle around the edge of responsiveness (which is utterly repellent but "legal") – they actually over-specified their response (a form of weaponized bullsh*tting) to NOT RETURN RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS.
This is HUGE. And it shows that the FBI and DOJ cannot be trusted to return documents. They cannot be trusted to redact properly. In fact, I hate to say this, but they simply cannot be trusted. The top ends – anybody involved with this stuff – needs to be replaced with people who actually follow rules. And that doesn't even get to "spirit of the law", which has to be a really difficult concept for these people.

The Clintons. They corrupt EVERYTHING they touch.

fleporeblog says: January 27, 2018 at 4:00 pm
The Clinton email investigation in my mind is far more important than even the Foundation because it ties it right back to BHO and the 20 emails he has held onto because he claimed Executive Privilege. The fact that his POS Library will not have any paper archives tells me they cannot ever have them seen by the public. The problem for both POS is that the case has been reopened with a review occurring by the current head of the DOJ and FBI and if any charges are brought forward, Barry's Executive Privilege goes out the window. Love the fact Don Jr. is pushing it!
scott467 says: January 27, 2018 at 5:08 pm
"Wow. This is all so evil and corrupt. I am afraid that normal people who have not been following this closely as we all have will just not believe it because it is so so bad."
__________________

They won't have a choice, it will be a paradigm-shifting event (like DJT winning the election was).

They will not be able to 'avoid' the 'reality' because that reality will impact and influence everything going forward. The only way to remain in denial will be to hide on an island, like a Japanese soldier from WWII apparently did for quite a while after the war ended.

Very, very few people will be able to take that route

For those who desperately don't want to believe the plain truth about these horrifically evil people they have looked up to for so long, it may seem like the therapy treatment in A Clockwork Orange (sans Ludwig Von Bethoven's Ninth symphony), but believe it they will!

https://www.youtube.com/embed/E51-2B8gHtk?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

aqua says: January 27, 2018 at 2:54 pm

This is exactly right. And this is just the FBI. We also know the State Department was corrupt and intertwined in protecting Clinton and the assets of the Clinton Foundation. These employees are repugnant, and so are the media who covered for all of this mess.
Maybe, though, this is now breaking through -- between the online diligence of Sundance, WikiLeaks, the never-give-up heroes at Judicial Watch, President Trump and his Cabinet, and every patriotic commenter/blogger/reporter, certain folks in Congress now seem to be getting this message.

Finally. May God bless America and keep her safe.

jstefano1 says: January 27, 2018 at 3:05 pm
HRC is clearly not as ignorant as her I-don't-remember responses indicate. She knew nearly everything that needed to be destroyed, and she was clearly able to remember a comprehensive attorney provided list of items not to remember during her interview.
wolfmoon1776 says: January 27, 2018 at 3:55 pm
YES.
I just realized something today. We see the bizarre hypocrisy in the CIC Forum meltdown that Hillary had, where Matt Lauer says "So judgment is key." and Hillary responds "Temperament and judgment." – POINTEDLY – but THEN she goes into a jaw-dropping rant about Lauer behind the scenes, even calling Donna Brazile a "buffalo". The absolute opposite of a "good" temperament.

However, that hypocrisy is FULLY intended. She is FIXING stuff with lies. It's what she does. Do what she wants, toward a hidden goal, and fix it with lies.

She is NOT ignorant – EVEN of her own faults, flaws, and dangers. She KNOWS she is everything she accuses Trump of falsely.

Think how evil that is. It is EYES WIDE OPEN evil. Not delusional. She knows exactly what she's doing.

Craft Eccentric says: January 27, 2018 at 1:12 pm
Cookstoves again, but this revelation is interesting. Cookstoves initiative wasn't even launched yet! So, what was she up to in Jakarta? "One former Diplomatic Security agent, for example, told FBI investigators that Clinton "blatantly" disregarded State Department security protocols while she was secretary of state. The former agent alleged that Clinton would ride to foreign diplomatic functions with top aide Huma Abedin, instead of the local ambassador, which the agent said violated normal procedure and embarrassed and insulted the ambassadors.
The former agent also said that on an early 2009 trip to Jakarta, Indonesia, Clinton insisted on visiting a troubled area to promote a clean-cookstoves initiative, despite a request from Diplomatic Security that the visit be scrapped for safety concerns. The agent said Diplomatic Security officials thought the trip placed staff, security and even reporters in danger, all for a photo opportunity "for her election campaign."
https://www.pressherald.com/2016/10/17/fbi-pressured-to-change-classification-of-about-email/

Firefly says: January 27, 2018 at 4:23 pm
But a case case can even be made for intent- strong enough it should have been brought before a grand jury. Hillary was told she shouldn't have a classified blackberry like Obama, emails about just remove the headers, destroying emails, not following state dept policy and procedures, having the maid go in the scif all sorts of evidence of intent.
The FBI narrowed the investigation such that the handling classified material was never investigated. That's a favorite trick of investigators – narrow what is being investigated to particular issues.

InquisitorLost says: January 27, 2018 at 4:30 pm

And remembering was not relevant according to HRC's signed Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement.
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRC_NDAS/1/DOC_0C05833708/C05833708.pdf

wolfmoon1776 says: January 27, 2018 at 2:46 pm

Katica's stuff was the beginning of sunlight on what the FBI was intentionally missing, with "Stonetear". This showed that the Clinton people were engaged in altering evidence, which is SUPPOSED to be a big deal. Then add ALL the likely culprits getting immunity, but NOTHING that would be worth immunity coming out. The whole thing is a beautiful logic exercise in letting her off. It's designed opaqueness. If they basically make it impossible for any straight line to make it through all their small wickets of "allowed" evidence, in the end NOTHING GETS THROUGH.
The rules about "no public charges near an election" is clearly a weaponized fallacy. THAT must end. It's very, very obvious how the subverting forces used that one. Again – they fight the sunlight. Darkness is their primary weapon.

Brant says: January 27, 2018 at 1:18 pm

Latest over on Yo Who is that state dept (and perhaps other) employees are in "career purgatory" in positions they aren't suited for. I commented that is definitely an interesting way of putting it. Like Bruce, Nellie, Peter (how's that HR working for you?).
no one says: January 27, 2018 at 1:26 pm
Sundance,
I think you raised the idea in an earlier post that maybe these two were not having an affair. Maybe, maybe not. But, thinking about these I suspect some of these on Strozk. He knew this was an FBI phone and these would be archived. These messages were part of his insurance policy. I suspect he planted information in various spots implicating higher ups. Why else would he send a text like this. If he was having an affair, why wouldn't he just tell Lisa Page this when they get together. Digging in to this text alone develops a trail to very specific information and actions. He is saying they intentionally withheld information, establishing intent for the parties involved.

The more i see these texts, the more I think the "insurance policy" is a cya program designed to protect Strozk from being the fall guy in the e-mail investigation. If trump wins, he knows that all the info about how they manipulated the e-mail investigation is going to come out. I dont know if this insurance policy was just a set of passive crumbs, or involved the active use of the dossier. The dossier could just be the leverage used against trump to get him to overlook all the illegal surveillance and drop everything.
wolfmoon1776 says: January 27, 2018 at 1:35 pm
Interesting. Even if he just did it subconsciously, I think you're right. If Hillary wins, the "inflammatory" text doesn't matter. If Trump wins, it shows "redeeming consciousness of guilt", where he is essentially proving it wasn't his idea.
wolfmoon1776 says: January 27, 2018 at 1:35 pm
This makes theories that he and/or Page flipped highly likely, IMO.
Niagara Frontier says: January 27, 2018 at 1:48 pm
That's why I keep going back to this being the possible reason they are still on the payroll. The government white hats have much more leverage over current employees than they do over former employees.
positron1352 says: January 27, 2018 at 3:49 pm
Niagra Frontier: But Page and Strzok (why couldn't his name be Smith so I don't have to keep looking it up) .would know that it is easier to control them if they stay employed and would want out unless they were given something, immunity, perhaps. Right? As far as covering your a.. in the emails, absolutely. Most white collar career people know how to cover themselves in emails and especially lawyers-those in the public arena and in politics. It's a given.

trialbytruth says: January 27, 2018 at 3:26 pm

Last Night if I read you right you were picking up on something I think you described it as the Texts almost having a Psy-Ops feel to it (please correct me if i misinterpret). Perhaps No Ones premise is what you were picking up on the bread crumb feel of it.
One other possibility that plays in to that theory is Strzok reassuring Page that no one can get the text messages, thereby giving the breadcrumbs more value.

Another possibility since I believe we have only seen her listed as outbox is that he took defensive measures and she did not or screwed it up

Man Pretzel Logic is tough

wolfmoon1776 says: January 27, 2018 at 3:46 pm
Tough, but I see what you're saying and agree!
Like Like Reply

GenEarly says: January 27, 2018 at 1:57 pm
I hope for once the Clinton "patsies" 1. remain alive and 2. roll over on the Queen.
Seth Richards deserved better, but should have also known better than to work for the Clinton Cartel.
Fishelsea says: January 27, 2018 at 2:34 pm
AG sessions stated that their personal texts were held back.
Like Like Reply

Agnes Goh says: January 27, 2018 at 2:55 pm
Thank you. I'm glad I saw your comment. I thought the style and wording of Strozk's text is unnatural, as if he's deliberately leaving clues/evidence or, as you said, cya.
Rodney Plonker says: January 27, 2018 at 3:29 pm
I' m wondering why only the texts between Deep Strozk and Page are being released. What triggered that investigation into them in the first place? You don't blindly look at FBI agents phones.
sedge2z says: January 27, 2018 at 4:11 pm
The more Strozk & Page texts we read, it seems obvious their correspondent to each other is not affection, but instead documenting inside information.

obamaclaus says: January 27, 2018 at 1:27 pm

Maybe this post should be titled "ObSTRZOKtion of Justice"? *cue the sad trombone sound*

Streak 264 says: January 27, 2018 at 1:34 pm

I hope DOJ has got a FISA to tap all involved phones/etc.. You know these criminals are on the phone trying to get their story straight.
mimbler says: January 27, 2018 at 1:37 pm
All they need are good old fashioned warrants to tap the phones,
RedBallExpress says: January 27, 2018 at 2:05 pm
Every phone conversation & email in the U.S. is recorded. Permanently.

wolfmoon1776 says: January 27, 2018 at 1:37 pm

They will be communicating through Obama's newly retained law firm, IMO, as well as Holder's old one. Again, Trisha B., be the key.

GenEarly says: January 27, 2018 at 2:07 pm

"FISA" is a JOKE employed to pacify the sheeples. All that is needed is access to a NSA "inquiry" terminal. Contractors, like Snowden, and Feral Gov. employees can then retrieve any digital data ever transmitted by whatever mean on anyone, no warrant, no Fisa, no nothing. Over 100,000 people have this access. Welcome to the USSA, Comrades. ( No disrespect to Russia intended)
Truthfilter says: January 27, 2018 at 1:45 pm
Here's a snippet from the text messages that I haven't seen addressed anywhere. Strzok was instructed by Bill to send 2 of his best agents to work on the Hillary/email investigation. Strozk is worried that the DOJ will have more power and that no one will be there to guide the investigation in a desired direction. He doesn't like the idea of Laufman (DOJ) "inserting himself" into the investigation. He tells Page that "..he [BillPreistap?] didn't mean "best" in terms of agents "but what the best outcome" will be.
To me, Strozk is saying here that Bill Priestap wanted Strzok to work toward the exoneration of HRC. To do this, Strzok thinks he needs to be there, too, either as one of the two agents or alongside the 2 agents representing the FBI. But that would mean 3 agents, instead of the usual 2. Page says that they shouldn't go full bore and tells Strzok to insist on having only 2 agents.

She then reminds him that a future President HRC won't remember or care which side was more heavily stacked. In other words, all that mattered to any of these people-including HRC -- was bringing a desired outcome.

From reading these texts several times, it is obvious to me that Peter Strzok had been tasked with making sure that HRC skated. I think someone offered him some kind of future reward -- probably a career promotion on top of the promotion/position his wife received at SEC.

He expressed a desire to Page to receive credit and recognition for various things. While discussing the option of joining Mueller's team, he expressed dismay that he wouldn't be receiving any promotions from "Dad" -- whoever that is/was.

In other words, there was nothing in it for HIM and besides, there was "no there, there." In 2016, he knew his superiors (Priestap, McCabe, and probably Comey) also wanted to exonerate Clinton.

He was frustrated because they weren't letting him in on their decisions and yet they expected him to do the dirty work behind the scenes. He knew as early as February 2016 that he was the one who stood to lose the most if their shenanigans didn't work out-if HRC wasn't exonerated. But it didn't stop with her exoneration because in order to claim his (or their) promised reward and keep their corruption hidden, they then had to make sure she won the election.

They had to destroy Donald Trump. When that didn't work, they used their insurance policy (the dossier). The Russia investigation and Sessions' recusal has provided cover and bought them time to destroy evidence, etc. I am encouraged by the fact that neither of them were enthusiastic about working for Mueller. It implies that Mueller might not be a black hat. So far, nothing in the texts tells me that Strzok and Page considered Mueller to be a member of "their team."

The fate and direction of our whole country was subjected to the selfish goals of a few unelected, ambitious bureaucrats. That's just scary. It was God's hand that brought the election of POTUS Trump in spite of all of their tricks.

I hope Peter Strzok is indicted and that he squeals to high heaven. He can be depended on to serve his own best interests -- in all situations. That's why they chose him. They saw he was willing to do anything for power and prestige. And he would have gotten it, too, if it hadn't been for those damn Trump supporters.

rf121 says: January 27, 2018 at 1:55 pm
Peter Strzok is a pimple on a elephants butt in this whole deal. But squeal he will.

Strike1 says: January 27, 2018 at 3:16 pm

I think he is much more than a pimple!
He's more like a key anchor point to a very large evil web. He was a precisely placed anchor long ago!!
He has always manipulated every situation or events, to what he wanted. He became a true narcissist that thought he was untouchable. Texting openly for years with no issues.

His arrogance will be his demise!

coeurdaleneman says: January 27, 2018 at 2:30 pm

Truthfilter said. "From reading these texts several times, it is obvious to me that Peter Strzok had been tasked with making sure that HRC skated. "
IMO, the plan from the beginning was to keep this firewalled within the FBI, giving distance from DOJ (Lynch), and thus Obama.

Strzok's angst about DOJ interlopers is probably due to his fears about them being straight shooters, and not part of the Hillary exonerators.

From the start, I've opined that Strzok was Hillary's embed who had great intimidating influence over Priestap and Comey, both of which seem to be regular career climbers rather than hot-to-trot pusshats or lackeys of the Clintons. I think that some posters are reading the texts, but misreading Strzok's actual mentality.

wolfmoon1776 says: January 27, 2018 at 3:23 pm
I'm not convinced that Strzok is a driver, but it's an interesting angle, and I'll take that under consideration. I see him more from my old role – a tool to be used. A tool with a will of its own, and a bit too much awareness, and thus a bit of a danger.
I agree that they're trying to make it LOOK like DOJ isn't fixing it, but they are – we know.

I've seen how this works in my own end of the swamp – FAKE INDEPENDENCE. Basically create a group tasked with a choice where the outcome is pre-determined, then pass off the result as even-handed, fair, open-minded, independent, etc. In those scenarios the pattern of individuals and layers is the same – signal cooperation up and in to the core, but signal fairness, party line, and fake independence downward and outward. Then rig the process in every way you can, using individuals who have LEARNED and been TRAINED to play the game.

I agree that Strzok is probably a Canklebot, but the place is so highly politicized, that real and fake political leanings are hard to tell apart. He will also signal differently to different people – maze of mirrors.

I think the bottom line is that they all have their agendas, they all "feel" their independence, but it is the masterful rigging of social processes which insures the outcome. They are FISH IN A NET. They see bits and pieces of the net and other disturbances of their world, and act in predictable manners to insure an outcome.

One HAS to look BIG to see the operation. Small details matter to SPOT the bigger unseen things.

DOJ will look innocent outward, but there will be games to insure the outcome. SOME people will sense those games, some will not, and the latter are fairly useless, to they tend to be task-fulfillers and not deciders. Some will signal the games openly, but they're risky and better those who will "read between the lines" upward and take part in the games without the need to speak of them, or who can speak in deflections which are mutually intelligible. CODE. There will be lots of autonomously arranged code, just like AI creates (since there is no AI, basically – just "I").

This is why they have Trisha B. in the mix. She will be a sharpie who plays the games without a word and without even breaking her smile, and will not get caught. You can bet that she is keeping DOJ in the loop on how this is going, and they are making sure that the net leads to the desired catch.

Somebody has to be keeping Hillary aware, however – I think you're absolutely right about that. And I am betting on a woman. At the bottom of Obama scandals is always racial loyalty and trust. At the bottom of Hillary scandals is sex loyalty and trust. Just the way it is. Hillary pays men with money, women with power.

ForGodandCountry says: January 27, 2018 at 3:30 pm
Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch
These two are my absolutely, positively "MUST HAVES" in terms of perp walks/prison sentences. #1 and #2, respectively, on my list of people I want to see publicly humiliated and wearing orange jumpsuits.

wolfmoon1776 says: January 27, 2018 at 3:40 pm
You KNOW they're controlling this. Holder was very, very artful in having TWO "can we talk?" minions running this show. And the media KNEW how critical it was to get Crooked Loretta in power. The bigs at Chicago Tribune were the ones sitting on the Loretta story and broke it to scoop Taitz (under surveillance, surely) when she found it. Then later they hid the Chicago connections by saying it was USA Today that broke it. ALL those little lies point right back to the truth. Rigging the AG has been the most masterful yet ESSENTIAL things the other side has done – the greatest flaw in our governmental system, and the one the bads go for EVERY TIME. But they also know how to weaponize it against the goods, as they did with Nixon. Br'er Sessions was BRILLIANT to recuse. He spotted the GREATER outside game they were playing. Not recusing would lead to a Watergate. Now THEY'RE holding the Watergate.

Watcher says: January 27, 2018 at 3:25 pm

"Strzok's angst about DOJ interlopers is probably due to his fears about them being straight shooters, and not part of the Hillary exonerators. "
This article on hildabeast in Sept /16 indicates the opposite, the DOJ set the tone of the investigation. The FBI followed them off the cliff .. Zero is the maestro.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439676/clintons-fbi-interview-what-was-cheryl-mills-doing-there

coeurdaleneman says: January 27, 2018 at 4:03 pm
What I meant was that the top dogs in the DOJ were corrupt, but that Strzok was not confident about the cooperation of the layers below them.
Read my post again. My assumption is that the Lynch was evil, but that the FBI had to guarantee that Lynch was walled off from any further investigation. Thus, Comey's explanation about having the buck stop in his shop.

Strzok changed the language that Comey originally had, however. That reflects on the relative mindsets and influence they had in this mind-blowing scandal.

freddy says: January 27, 2018 at 2:02 pm

FOX is beginning to sound like they doing some protection work and yeah that text didn't really mean that kinda stuff. We are watching the Gowdy principle beginning at the only media that has covered any of this. Then again Lachlan Murdoch takes over ..
wolfmoon1776 says: January 27, 2018 at 2:20 pm
The implications here are staggering. It means these people completely misled Congress, quite possibly for YEARS. There was no oversight. And it got so bad, they actually neutered the OIG. So THAT means all the documents – all the redactions – all the stuff Congress got – it can't be trusted. Anything turned over by either the Clinton or Obama administrations is potentially BOGUS and/or INCOMPLETE.
It is ONLY because we have gotten the "Stupid Party" FULLY in control of both the White House (with competent anti-Establishment leadership) and Congress, that we can now see how much bamboozling went on.

hopeleicester says: January 27, 2018 at 4:43 pm
Now you know why the smirking Sally Yates spewed out 58 PAGES on why her division had NO oversight from anyone. An entity unto themselves -- I want to see her and Farkas in dirty orange jumpsuits and shower sandals -- -
nobaddog says: January 27, 2018 at 2:31 pm
All of the criminals are still in positions to remove evidence. I would like to think Wray and Sessions have a handle on everything but i will believe it when i see it. Strzok would have been fired on the spot at any job. Surely government employees can be fired for less than making a non politically correct comment.
Even with Sessions and Wray in charge Congress is still having a hard time getting documents from the them. Why is that? Im frustrated about it and im watching cable news. Makes it worse.
GetReal says: January 27, 2018 at 2:43 pm
Wray and Sessions (swamp dwellers for most of their careers) are in complete denial about the rampant corruption in their organizations. This denial is paralyzing them. Sessions yesterday said he'd do everything possible to eliminate the bias in DOJ. Bias Jeff, seriously? How about the criminality? He just doesn't get it.

mimbler says: January 27, 2018 at 2:45 pm

Yes. I read this morning that the FBI still has Obama's guy in charge of handling FOIA's. No wonder the FBI is still stonewalling.
I've been on the fence about Wray, but that news pops the black hat on him for me. Maybe future events will have me swapping it out for a white hat, but I can only judge the evidence I can see.

WSB says: January 27, 2018 at 4:03 pm
Do you know where you found that? We were researching a PDF folder the other night that was found in an FBI site. It was a search for Trump. They were mostly compiled within the time frame that Rogers had announced the shenanigans to the FISC and when Nellie Ohr got her HAM radio.
I still wonder if these played cover for legal FOIA's but illegal searches?

https://vault.fbi.gov/foia-request-containing-the-word-trump/foia-requests-containing-the-word-trump/view

thinkthinkthink says: January 27, 2018 at 3:31 pm
I believe you are wrong. All critical evidence was already obtained by the OIG investigations. That's why the "missing" texts were "found" so quickly. They live in a padded room now.
Sunshine says: January 27, 2018 at 2:38 pm
""Dave" and "Mike" currently remain unknown. Could "Dave" be DAVID KENDALL, Hillary's attorney? It wouldn't surprise me.
PJ Ranger says: January 27, 2018 at 3:39 pm
What about David Laufman?
Sunshine says: January 27, 2018 at 3:48 pm
You are correct. He interviewed Hillary: https://www.trunews.com/article/doj-clinton-investigation-revealed-as-less-than-apolitical
Watcher says: January 27, 2018 at 4:06 pm
David Laufman, Chief of Counterintelligence DOJ. DOJ official who investigated Hillary Clinton. Obama holdover. Yea that's Dave.
karmytrumpateer says: January 27, 2018 at 3:45 pm
David Laufman is listed in the second document. Who is he?
karmytrumpateer says: January 27, 2018 at 3:48 pm
David Laufman Chief of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, National Security Division U.S. Department of Justice
https://cybersummitusa.com/2016/10/david-laufman/

Sunshine says: January 27, 2018 at 3:56 pm
He is also a lawyer who once had his own law firm working with defendants.
"Just prior to re-joining the Justice Department, Laufman operated his own white collar defense law firm and was a partner at the New York City-based law firm, Kelley Drye."

PureInHeart says: January 27, 2018 at 2:53 pm

Why would Strzok outline his and others criminal activity in texts to Lisa Page? Why would he write into a permanent record such self-incriminating evidence? Is he stupid? This makes no sense to me.
Bill says: January 27, 2018 at 3:06 pm
Agreed, this is all to convenient. It feels like some cover story. But, covering what? Peter Strozk is President of AFGRO, a CIA front National Security non profit Agency To Facilitate The Growth Of Rural Organizations, Afgro 410 Sugar Pine Drive, Pinehurst, NC 28374 NC 1986-06 $0 http://www.nonprofitfacts.com/VA/Agency-To-Facilitate-The-Growth-Of-Rural-Organizations.html#similarList_a
rf121 says: January 27, 2018 at 4:43 pm
You need to read Sundance more. This is a staged roll out of information leading up to the IG report. With each leak, bad guys respond and move revealing even more. We need to be patient which is hard to say as I am one of CTH's resident pessimists. We will get there.
Plus we don't want to step all over PT's big speech.

aProvider says: January 27, 2018 at 2:57 pm
I am not trying to keep up anymore. The U.S.Gov't is corrupt from top to bottom. Line the 100,000 or so Obama appointees and shoot them all yesterday. This proves that elections do not matter. If any one here thinks that Sundance will change the way the criminals do business then you are sadly mistaken. There will never be a trial for anyone above PFC or Cpl.

NC Nana says: January 27, 2018 at 3:01 pm

Peter Strzok is probably being paid at least $164,200.00 + while assigned to HR. What is he doing to earn this? Reporting to the office daily? Sweeping the floor? What could he be trusted to do? The list must be really short.
Why aren't people going to jail?

#ReleaseTheMemo

http://www.federaljobs.net/locality_pay_tables_4.htm#Washington-Baltimore-Arlington,_DZC-MD-VA-WV-PA

https://www.fbiagentedu.org/salaries/

Bill says: January 27, 2018 at 3:09 pm
Yes, an seems this dad is the CEO: Dads a Spook!!! Peter Strzok Sr is president of AFGRO a CIA front non-profit for "National Security "!!! http://rebrn.com/re/strzoks-dads-a-spook-peter-strzok-sr-is-president-of-afgro-a-cia-3851291/
I dug into what I could find out about Peter Strzok, the disgraced FBI agent in the middle of a shit storm. Turns out he owns an LLC with no online presence that deals in international trade. Hmmm . http://rebrn.com/re/i-dug-into-what-i-could-find-out-about-peter-strzok-the-disgrace-3784731/

Risa says: January 27, 2018 at 3:28 pm
None of these people seem capable or inclined to earn an "honest" living.

WSB says: January 27, 2018 at 3:32 pm

Apologies if any of this has been posted: More information on Trisha B. Anderson. She was an attorney-advisor for Mukasey. https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/477051/download
And this is a 2010 piece just as Anderson was selected to clerk for Kagan: https://abovethelaw.com/2010/08/supreme-court-clerk-hiring-watch-justice-kagans-clerkslady-kaga-hires-a-seasoned-crew/

Covington and Burling info: http://www.spoke.com/people/trisha-anderson-3e1429c09e597c1003c3da8f

Government income status: https://www.federalpay.org/employees/departmental-offices/anderson-trisha-beth

Found her wedding announcement in an Australian search engine: https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/157493233?versionId=171675549

Article from Above the Law in 2012: Note, no available photo of the couple, https://abovethelaw.com/2012/01/legal-eagle-wedding-watch-the-voice/

Home is in her name: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/5451-22nd-St-N_Arlington_VA_22205_M67046-29569

Legal Helpmate: http://m.legalhelpmate.com/lawyers/dc-lawyer-trisha-anderson-1186872.html

Article about being a Bush hire in 2010: https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/bush-official-defends-lawyers-under-attack-for-detainee-work/

This photo is marked 'Anderson'. Is is possible that this is she? This needs to be confirmed.

[ https://www.justice.gov/usao/mow/news2010/anderson.jpg ]

Dave

missilemom says: January 27, 2018 at 3:50 pm
The use of a 302 memo without an underlying taped interrogation is a means to an end. Manipulating the facts.
rf121 says: January 27, 2018 at 4:45 pm
Manipulation of information to appear as facts.
Donna in Oregon says: January 27, 2018 at 3:51 pm
Classified documents apparently can be declassified by Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden .. Or subcontractors with names like Rainbow Sparkles, Sunshine Crackers.
DNC emails can be hacked by ???? and published by Julian Assange. The public reads them only if they are stolen by unknown(s) and released on the Internet. All murky and elusive without details again. But hey, at least we got to read them!

The classified documents by Obama on his PDB that were sent to 30 people and then shared with the press. We can't see them ..Because, muh CLASSIFIED, unless they are stolen by ?????(someone or something) and distributed by whatever means happen to be available

Yet, WE, the American people have to beg to see a memorandum written by a Congressman ..because of the sensitivity of the matter ..classified ..mumble, mumble, mumble.

The American people (the ones that pick up the tab) must go thru several processes (because CLASSIFIED) and years of waiting, just to be allowed to see the sh*t these morons have pulled.

Due to "the sensitivity of the matter" appears to be subjective, eh?

rf121 says: January 27, 2018 at 4:50 pm
The memo will eventually come out. It served a purpose to say we have this memo that reveals all. You know how bad the info is because only a handful of dems actually went to read it. They need deniability.
How do the bad guys react to that? Panic, increase texts, comms with each other. Do you think they are being surveilled at this point? The memo serves the purpose of beating the bushes to move the prey into the open. We will get there.

tonyE says: January 27, 2018 at 3:59 pm
Nixon resigned because of an attempt to cover up something he didn't command or know about. Hillary has been corrupt since '70. She's been doing and covering up since '70. The term "arkancide" was coined to describe what happens to people who cross the Clintons.
In a fair world, Nixon would have not resigned and Hillary would have fried in an electric chair for the death of Vince Foster.

scott467 says: January 27, 2018 at 4:02 pm
Strzok: "I'm sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that play out as they talk amongst themselves."
________________

I'm sure Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike all appreciate you mentioning them in this text, and how they are conspiring to hide themselves and their evil deeds from the light. Thanks, Peter!

Mark L. says: January 27, 2018 at 4:07 pm
Is Peter purposefully fingering all around him that have involvement, leading up to Barry? This is a strange example of an office relationship. More like business passion, planned.
scott467 says: January 27, 2018 at 4:15 pm
"The 302's are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given as well as who was present during the interview."
___________________

We have had tape recorders for what, nearly a hundred years now?

And we have had commercial videotape recorders for nearly 60 years (since 1959).

So what is the point of a "302", except for the FIB to misrepresent, to their own benefit, what transpired in an interview with a suspect?

Sarah Palin says: January 27, 2018 at 4:19 pm
Important to forward Sundance's work product within your own circle of influence, along with all other forums in which you're tuned in. Grow new branches and spread the fruit of CTH labors.
– Sarah Palin

https://www.facebook.com

coeurdaleneman says: January 27, 2018 at 4:26 pm

How I feel about the various players
DETESTATION: Obama, Jarrett, Brennan -- pure evil and the masterminds of spying on their opponents. From the outside, Hillary had a parallel operation going in concert. All of them satanic without a shred of morals whatsoever.

HATRED: Lynch for being a willing tool and knowledgable about most of it. McCabe, a lowlife bribe taker. Strzok, one that didn't need bribes to fix every Hillary problem that arose; was quite willing to let a private outfit call the shots on the hacks, and had his finger in everything else. Page was his eager co-conspirator and also a pusshat cultist who couldn't wait for the glass-ceiling to break. Fie on all of them.

DISGUST: Comey and Priestap. Ultimate civil service careerists, wormy or weaselly enough to drift with whichever the political winds blew. Deferred to the blacker of the black hats, even though their instincts about Hillary's criminality had a solid legal basis. In the end, they caved and groveled for the benefit of their own bureaucratic futures. Not that bright, either.

scott467 says: January 27, 2018 at 4:30 pm
"Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson, Lisa Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold information -derived from this interview- from congress and the American people."
_____________________

I'm beginning to suspect that maybe these people aren't exactly on the up-and-up

recoverydotgod says: January 27, 2018 at 4:45 pm
"Since Thursday night we've been combing the FBI files to figure out exactly what FBI Agent Peter Strzok was referencing in one of the most recently released text messages."
IMO the inflammatory thing that they weren't releasing on September 2, 2016 I think comes down to what was released in the 9/23/2016 release (the Huma Abedin interview the Obama pseudonym) where Abedin was shown the June 28, 2012 email from the pseudonymous sender. Hilary Clinton arrived in St. Petersburg on June 28, 2012.

How secure was that email chain? Were the blackberries left on the plane? That kind of thing. Even though it seems Abedin couldn't figure out the pseudonymous sender was based on the content, I'm sure those with intelligence backgrounds could based on content of the "Re: Congratulations" if the devices weren't secure.

And beyond that what was in that email chain?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fbi-docs-obama-used-a-pseudonym-in-emails-to-clinton/article/2602762

[Jan 24, 2018] Comey is lying to Congress about Clinton Emailgate

Now we know why. Actually amazing exchange.

Sep 28, 2016 | www.youtube.com

FBI Comey testifies again as a result of the recent document releases from the FBI. He appears much more defensive than I have ever seen him before. Ratcliffe is brutal. Issa catches Comey in a lie about the immunity agreements.

Jordan, Chaffetz, and Gowdy once again just can't believe how an indictment wasn't warranted.

[Jan 22, 2018] Was Lynch coordinating with Comey in the Clinton investigation TheHill

Jan 22, 2018 | thehill.com

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew well in advance of FBI Director James Comey's 2016 press conference that he would recommend against charging Hillary Clinton, according to information turned over to the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Friday.

The revelation was included in 384 pages of text messages exchanged between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and it significantly diminishes the credibility of Lynch's earlier commitment to accept Comey's recommendation -- a commitment she made under the pretense that the two were not coordinating with each other.

And it gets worse. Comey and Lynch reportedly knew that Clinton would never face charges even before the FBI conducted its three-hour interview with Clinton, which was supposedly meant to gather more information into her mishandling of classified information.

[Jan 22, 2018] Kane Gamble posed as head of CIA to get secret files

So much for the director of CIA personal email security ;-)

Notable quotes:

"... A schoolboy hacker impersonated a CIA director to gain access to top secret military reports, a court heard yesterday. Kane Gamble was just 15 when he posed as CIA chief John Brennan from his Leicestershire home, even taking control of his wife's iPad. The teenager gained access to passwords, personal information, security details, contacts lists and sensitive documents about operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."

"... Mr Lloyd-Jones said: 'He told a journalist, "It all started by me getting more and more annoyed at how corrupt and cold-blooded the US government are. So I decided to do something about it".' ..."

Jan 22, 2018 | dailymail.co.uk

A schoolboy hacker impersonated a CIA director to gain access to top secret military reports, a court heard yesterday. Kane Gamble was just 15 when he posed as CIA chief John Brennan from his Leicestershire home, even taking control of his wife's iPad. The teenager gained access to passwords, personal information, security details, contacts lists and sensitive documents about operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Gamble, who founded the pro-Palestinian group 'Crackas With Attitude', taunted the security service on Twitter about his successes.

During the attacks, which spanned from June 2015 to February 2016, he made hoax calls to Mr Brennan's family home and took control of his wife's iPad.

His other targets included former deputy director of the FBI Mark Giuliano, secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence under Obama.

He used the phone numbers he obtained to call and taunt his victims and their families, and take control of their devices.

Gamble, who is autistic, boasted about targeting Mr Clapper's email account and said: 'That's where the juicy s*** is'.

He also pretended to be Mr Clapper to phone communications company Verizon and set up call-forwarding to divert calls to the Free Palestine movement.

Gamble used Clapper's email to message other officials.

While speaking to an accomplice, he said: 'This email of Clapper's is very useful to fool these r****d into thinking I'm him. I can't wait lmao [sic].'

He also boasted about carrying out 'the best breach ever' after accessing an FBI database to get the names of 1,000 staff, including the officer responsible for the controversial shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

The information Gamble collected was later used to carry out a 'swatting' attack on John Holdren, a science and technology adviser to President Barack Obama.

Gamble made a hoax call to Massachusetts police, resulting in armed officers being sent to the aide's family home.

The information Gamble collected was later used to carry out a 'swatting' attack on John Holdren, a science and technology adviser to President Barack Obama

+3

The information Gamble collected was later used to carry out a 'swatting' attack on John Holdren, a science and technology adviser to President Barack Obama

In the days before his arrest Gamble accessed the Department of Justice network using compromised details he gained from a former employee.

He gathered documents and information relating to offshore drilling rig Deepwater Horizon and details of more than 9,000 DHA officers and 20,000 FBI members of staff.

These details were posted online with the messages 'This is Free Palestine' and 'Long live Palestine.'

The Department of Homeland Security spent 40,000 dollars to resolve the problem and suffered 'substantial reputational damage', the court heard.

Gamble was arrested in February 2016 at his council home in Coalville, near Leicester, at the request of the FBI after he hacked into the Department of Justice network.

Last October, Gamble, of Linford Crescent, Coalville, pleaded guilty at Leicester Crown Court to eight charges of performing a function with intent to secure unauthorised access to computers and two charges of unauthorised modification of computer material.

Prosecutor John Lloyd-Jones QC told a sentencing hearing at the Old Bailey: 'Kane Gamble gained access to the communications accounts of some very high-ranking US intelligence officials and government employees.

'The group incorrectly have been referred to as hackers. The group in fact used something known as social engineering, which involves socially manipulating people - call centres or help desks - into performing acts or divulging confidential information.'

'The group frequently bragged on social media and subjected the victims to online harassment and abuse.'

The court heard Gamble 'felt particularly strongly' about US backed Israeli violence on Palestinians, the shooting of black people by US police, racist violence by the KKK and the bombing of civilians in Iraq and Syria.

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave described Gamble's activity as 'torture in the general sense - he got these people in control and played with them to make their lives difficult'.

Gamble was allowed to sit next to his mother behind his barrister rather than the dock when he appeared at the Old Bailey dressed in a dark blue coat.

Gamble also used an anonymous Twitter profile to talk to journalists.

Mr Lloyd-Jones said: 'He told a journalist, "It all started by me getting more and more annoyed at how corrupt and cold-blooded the US government are. So I decided to do something about it".'

He is due to be sentenced at the Old Bailey at a later date.

Pargolfer, Billericay, United Kingdom, 2 days ago

Does this not show, that the higher up you are the more you think you are too important to be hacked? If a 15 year old could do this, how safe is American security? I think you had better hire him.

oscartheone, London, United Kingdom, 2 days ago

In fact what he actually did was to gain access to the CIA directors hotmail account and ex po se d the fact the director of the CIA was using hotmail to email top secret documents. The travesty being it should be the director of the CIA on trial, not Gamble

steviewunda, Warrington, United Kingdom, 2 days ago

Some state he should be given a job, but then others would do outrageous things to put on their CV for a job in intelligence. We can't be seen to encourage this despicable behaviour, for any reason.

Villain1874, Villain Park, United Kingdom, 2 days ago

This will either ruin him or make him, if hes smart (which looks that way) he will use his talents for the better if hes arrogant and tries this again U.S and U.K authorities will destroy him before he knows whats hit him...

stc6, Stratford upon Avon, United Kingdom, 2 days ago

A talented kid! We should put him to good use but keep him on a tight leash!

CallMeDave, Bury, United Kingdom, 2 days ago

And right this minute the CIA are trying to link him to Russia.

Del, AEglesburgh, United Kingdom, 2 days ago

A lot of suggestions here to employ him. Yes appears to be a clever chap and probably could do a good job, but he has acted in a criminal manner with intent to cause harm. He's done this from his house, what damage could he do if employed by a Gov't agency? Temptation would be too great.

erict, ipswich, United Kingdom, 2 days ago

Well this goes to show intelligent the US homeland security the NSA and the FBI are I'am surprised the haven't put sanction's on Liestershire Iexpect those who work at HCHQ are laughing their head's off,

[Jan 05, 2018] Big trouble for Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, and convicted pedophile Anthony Weiner

Jan 05, 2018 | theduran.com

Bad new for "Crooked" Hillary and her sidekick Huma Abedin, as it appears that the Department of Justice has reopened the investigation into Clinton's use of a private server.

This follows the release of new evidence showing that Abedin mishandled classified information.

Fox News' Tucker Carlson details how Abedin could be in legal trouble as Judicial Watch reveals at least 18 classified emails in the 798 documents recently produced by the State Department in the Hillary Clinton email probe were found on estranged pedophile husband Anthony Weiner's laptop.

[Jan 05, 2018] Huma Abedin Used Yahoo, That Was Hacked The Daily Caller

Jan 05, 2018 | dailycaller.com

Huma Abedin forwarded sensitive State Department emails, including passwords to government systems, to her personal Yahoo email account before every single Yahoo account was hacked, a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of emails released as part of a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch shows.

Abedin, the top aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, used her insecure personal email provider to conduct sensitive work. This guarantees that an account with high-level correspondence in Clinton's State Department was impacted by one or more of a series of breaches -- at least one of which was perpetrated by a "state-sponsored actor."

... ... ...
A separate hack in 2013 compromised three billion accounts across multiple Yahoo properties, and the culprit is still unclear. "All Yahoo user accounts were affected by the August 2013 theft," the company said in a statement.
Abedin, Clinton's deputy chief of staff, regularly forwarded work emails to her personal [email protected] address. "She would use these accounts if her (State) account was down or if she needed to print an email or document. Abedin further explained that it was difficult to print from the DoS system so she routinely forwarded emails to her non-DoS accounts so she could more easily print," an FBI report says.

Abedin sent passwords for her government laptop to her Yahoo account on Aug. 24, 2009, an email released by the State Department in September 2017 shows.
Long-time Clinton confidante Sid Blumenthal sent Clinton an email in July 2009 with the subject line: "Important. Not for circulation. You only . Sid." The message began "CONFIDENTIAL Re: Moscow Summit." Abedin forwarded the email to her Yahoo address, potentially making it visible to hackers.
The email was deemed too sensitive to release to the public and was redacted before being published pursuant to the Judicial Watch lawsuit. The released copy says "Classified by DAS/ A/GIS, DoS on 10/30/2015 Class: Confidential." The unredacted portion reads: "I have heard authoritatively from Bill Drozdiak, who is in Berlin . We should expect that the Germans and Russians will now cut their own separate deals on energy, regional security, etc."

The three email accounts Abedin used were [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]. Though the emails released by the State Department partially redact personal email addresses, the Yahoo emails are displayed as humamabedin[redacted].
Clinton forwarded Abedin an email titled "Ambassadors" in March 2009 from Denis McDonough, who served as foreign policy adviser to former President Barack Obama's campaign and later as White House chief of staff. The email was heavily redacted before being released to the public.
Stuart Delery, chief of staff to the deputy attorney general, sent a draft memo titled "PA/PLO Memo" in May 2009, seemingly referring to two Palestinian groups. The content was withheld from the public with large letters spelling "Page Denied." Abedin forwarded it to her Yahoo account.

Abedin routed sensitive information through Yahoo multiple times, such as notes on a call with the U.N. secretary-general, according to messages released under the lawsuit. Contemporaneous news reports documented the security weaknesses of Yahoo while Abedin continued to use it. Credentials to 450,000 Yahoo accounts had been posted online, a July 2012 CNN article reported. Five days later , Abedin forwarded sensitive information to her personal Yahoo email.

Abedin received an email "with the subject 'Re: your yahoo acct.' Abedin did not recall the email and provided that despite the content of the email she was not sure that her email account had ever been compromised," on Aug. 16, 2010, an FBI report says.

The FBI also asked her about sending other sensitive information to Yahoo. "Abedin was shown an email dated October 4, 2009 with the subject 'Fwd: US interest in Pak Paper 10-04' which Abedin received from [redacted] and then forwarded to her Yahoo email account . At the time of the email, [redacted] worked for Richard Holbrooke who was the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan (SRAP). Abedin was unaware of the classification of the document and stated that she did not make judgments on the classification of materials that she received," the report said.

[Jan 03, 2018] Chaffetz on the Deep State 'Having Lived Through It, It Is Very Real'

Jan 03, 2018 | www.breitbart.com

Wednesday on Fox News‏ Channel's "Fox & Friends" former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said the deep state was "very real."

Co-host Steve Doocy said, "Today is going to be a big day because Devin Nunes has subpoenaed a bunch of records from the Department of Justice, We will find out exactly how many of them show up and how many of them are blacked out. John Solomon has some good reporting over at The Hill where they revealed yesterday that there is written evidence that apparently the FBI believed that laws were broken regarding the Hillary Clinton email scandal. And it looks like that the IT guy covered things up when he -- even though they were subpoenaing the email records -- he went and BleachBit it or whatever he did to it to destroy the hard drive."

Chaffetz said, "There was hammers, there was BleachBit. When you listen to James Comey back in July of 2016, you really thought that she was actually to get indicted. But this is a closed case. So there no reason why the Department of Justice should hold back any documents from the Congress."

Doocy asked, "Well, then why are they?"

Chaffetz answered, "Well, the key you that you need to listen for today is, I guarantee you, the Department of Justice will tout how many documents they are turning over. The question that Trey Gowdy always asked, which is the right one, is what percentage of the documents? Because, if you want 100 percent of the truth on a closed case, then turn over all the documents. But I don't think they're going to do it. They've been asking for these documents under subpoena since August, and they still haven't gotten them."

Doocy asked, "Is it the deep state?"

Chaffetz said, "It is the deep state. I was a little skeptical of what does that mean, but I'm telling you, having lived through it, it is very real."

(h/t The Hill )

[Jan 03, 2018] Probe Uncovers Laws Broken, False Statements In FBI Handling of Clinton Emails

Looks like this became high stake game bewrrn various faction in Intelligence agencies and the Department of Defense again... It is unclear why NSA hiding this emails -- they definitely intercepted them all.

Notable quotes:

"... Notably, lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee who attended a Dec. 21 closed-door briefing by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe say the bureau official confirmed that the investigation and charging decisions were controlled by a small group in Washington headquarters rather the normal process of allowing field offices to investigate possible criminality in their localities. ..."

"... A House GOP lawmaker told The Hill his staff also has identified at least a dozen interviews that were conducted after the drafting effort began , including of some figures who would have key information about intent or possible destruction of evidence. ..."

"... Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa) staff has a higher number: 17 witnesses including Clinton were interviewed after the decision was already made. ..."

"... "Making a conclusion before you interview key fact witnesses and the subject herself violates the very premise of good investigation. You don't lock into a theory until you have the facts. Here the evidence that isn't public yet shows they locked into the theory and then edited out the facts that contradicted it," the GOP lawmaker said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the documents are not yet authorized for release. ..."

"... The deletion occurred on the same day Clinton's former chief of staff and her lawyer had a call with the computer firm that handled the erasure using an anti-recovery software called BleachBit, Grassley said. ..."

Jan 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

In what could be a major black eye for the deep state and yet another nail in the Clinton legacy coffin, The Hill's John Solomon reports that Republicans on key congressional committees say they have uncovered new irregularities and contradictions inside the FBI's probe of Hillary Clinton's email server.

"This was an effort to pre-bake the cake, pre-bake the outcome," said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a House Judiciary Committee member who attended the McCabe briefing before the holidays.

"Hillary Clinton obviously benefited from people taking actions to ensure she wasn't held accountable."

In what appears to be clear evidence confirming previous fears of favoritism and prejudice within the FBI, lawmakers and investigators told Solomon at The Hill that, for the first time, investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence that some laws were broken when the former secretary of State and her top aides transmitted classified information through her insecure private email server.

That evidence includes passages in FBI documents stating the "sheer volume" of classified information that flowed through Clinton's insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as an admission of false statements by one key witness in the case , the investigators said.

The name of the witness is redacted from the FBI documents but lawmakers said he was an employee of a computer firm that helped maintain her personal server after she left office as America's top diplomat and who belatedly admitted he had permanently erased an archive of her messages in 2015 after they had been subpoenaed by Congress.

The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses.

Those witnesses included Clinton and the computer firm employee who permanently erased her email archives just days after the emails were subpoenaed by Congress, the investigators said.

Notably, lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee who attended a Dec. 21 closed-door briefing by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe say the bureau official confirmed that the investigation and charging decisions were controlled by a small group in Washington headquarters rather the normal process of allowing field offices to investigate possible criminality in their localities.

The top Democrat on the panel even acknowledged the FBI's handling of the case was unique, but, of course, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y) argued Republicans are politicizing their own panel's work.

Rep. Gaetz said he has growing questions about the role the Obama Justice Department played in the case.

"I think we have more questions than answers based on what we've learned," Gaetz said.

A House GOP lawmaker told The Hill his staff also has identified at least a dozen interviews that were conducted after the drafting effort began , including of some figures who would have key information about intent or possible destruction of evidence.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa) staff has a higher number: 17 witnesses including Clinton were interviewed after the decision was already made.

"Making a conclusion before you interview key fact witnesses and the subject herself violates the very premise of good investigation. You don't lock into a theory until you have the facts. Here the evidence that isn't public yet shows they locked into the theory and then edited out the facts that contradicted it," the GOP lawmaker said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the documents are not yet authorized for release.

The longtime Senate chairman went to the Senate floor before the holidays to raise another concern: the FBI did not pursue criminal charges when Clinton's email archives were permanently deleted from her private server days after a subpoena for them was issued by a congressional committee investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

The deletion occurred on the same day Clinton's former chief of staff and her lawyer had a call with the computer firm that handled the erasure using an anti-recovery software called BleachBit, Grassley said.

"You have a conference call with Secretary Clinton's attorneys on March 31, 2015, and on that very same day her emails are deleted by someone who was on that conference call using special BleachBit software," Grassley said. "The emails were State Department records under subpoena by Congress.

"What did the FBI do to investigate this apparent obstruction?" Grassley asked. "According to affidavits filed in federal court -- absolutely nothing. The FBI focused only on the handling of classified information."

As The Hill notes, both parties are likely to learn more in the first quarter of 2018 when the Justice Department inspector general is expected to release initial findings in what has become a wide-ranging probe into the FBI's handling of the Clinton email case as well as whether agents and supervisors had political connections, ethical conflicts or biases that affected their work.

While the resistance tries to switch the narrative to Papadopoulos, and away from Page and the Trump Dossier, it is becoming clearer and clearer where the real corruption was all the time.

IntercoursetheEU -> macholatte Jan 2, 2018 11:34 PM

Doesn't the NSA have all this stuff stored in Utah somewhere?

Chupacabra-322 -> macholatte Jan 2, 2018 10:00 PM

@ macholatte,

It's absolute, complete, open in your Faces

Tyrannical Lawlessness.

The minimum requirement to be found guilty of mishandling of States Secrets is Gross Negligence. It's why Criminals at Large Comey, Muellar &

Strzok changed the language in their report.

An earlier draft included tougher language describing Clinton as "grossly negligent." Comey then used a softer tone, saying Clinton was "extremely careless" in her use of private emails. According to federal law, "gross negligence" in handling the nation's intelligence is a felony.

"If the government puts into your hand for safe keeping [the] state's secrets and you failed to keep them safe by intentionally exposing them or grossly negligently exposing them, you can be prosecuted," Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said during an interview with FOX Business' Stuart Varney.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/11/07/clinton-can-be-prosecuted...

greenskeeper carl -> DeadFred Jan 2, 2018 8:58 PM

According to kimdotcom, and i think Snowden, all they have to do is open up a program called xkeyscore and type in her email address. They will all be there.

herbivore -> greenskeeper carl Jan 2, 2018 9:16 PM

By now, someone high up at the NSA has applied bleach bit to their Hillary email storage file.

nunyabidnez -> greenskeeper carl Jan 2, 2018 9:56 PM

Everyone of them including the media makes more money slow walking it, regardless of how many die in the process.

Mini-Me -> DeadFred Jan 2, 2018 9:36 PM

Set aside for a moment that most/all of the suspect emails are on Weiner's infamous laptop.

When Killary wrote those emails, she didn't write them to herself. She was writing them to members of her staff and to others within the administration. The fact that she had her private server wiped (with a cloth) doesn't mean they have been eliminated.

There's no need to ping the NSA. All of those emails are available on servers of her email recipients, most of whom are government employees. Simply subpoena this evidence on State Dept. servers, all of which are backed up. It's not that hard.

Slammofandango -> Mini-Me Jan 2, 2018 10:45 PM

Weiner's laptop seems to be the only possible wildcard, or so it was thought. Otherwise, we know HRC's people took steps to physically destroy all devices that may have possibly recorded email traffic. I don't think we can expect any of the rest of HRC's people are as reckless as Weiner. And none of those people would dare blackmail her or intentionally expose her because they all know good and well that the Clintons kill their enemies.

tmosley -> greenskeeper carl Jan 2, 2018 8:58 PM

I told you guys that federal investigations take time, and that you won't see any apparent movement until they are ready to make arrests.

Happened to a friend of a friend. Ran a meat market that was fraudulently trading food stamps for cash. One day they showed up to find the door had been kicked down and the place had been raided. They got arrested. Turned out he had been under investigation for THREE FUCKING YEARS. Had him so dead to rights he didn't bother with an attorney. Plead guilty and they went easy on him.

takeaction -> Stu Elsample Jan 2, 2018 9:09 PM

SETH RICH knew all of this shit....

so did John Ashe...

can we bring them in to talk.....Oh wait...

Wage Slave 927 -> Stu Elsample Jan 2, 2018 10:33 PM

"The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses."

Lock her up, fire Jeff Sessions, let justice be done tho' the heavens fall.

DrData02 Jan 2, 2018 8:40 PM

They are running out of time.

LetThemEatRand Jan 2, 2018 8:41 PM

Hillary broke the law. Comey even knew it and said so until his "gross negligence" (criminal charges warranted) was changed to "extremely careless" (no criminal charges warranted) by Clinton supporter Strzok. So do something about it Red Team that controls both Houses, the Presidency, and the DOJ.

nmewn Jan 2, 2018 8:42 PM

Gross negligence Mr.Strzok, Mr.McCabe, Mr.Rybicki, Mr.Baker and Mr.Comey.

Not "extremely careless".

To Hell In A H Jan 2, 2018 8:46 PM

One big fucking yawn. Yet another ZH story regarding Killary and FBI impropriety.

Killary is immune. Given the treasonous cunts residing on Capitol Hill and the institutions tasked with bringing her to just being exposed as thoroughly corrupted.

I'd say drop the whining and make peace with this fact. Those at the top of the FBI are also immune. The whole system is rotten.

enough of this Jan 2, 2018 8:48 PM

Extremely Careless or Grossly Negligent

http://investmentwatchblog.com/extremely-careless-or-grossly-negligent-

Lord Raglan -> buzzsaw99 Jan 2, 2018 9:11 PM

Hillary's Praetorian Guard.

hooligan2009 Jan 2, 2018 8:50 PM

those deleted emails (scrubbed, like, with a cloth) no doubt contaned details of pornography/pedophilia, the wishes of the muslim brotherhood to pilfer tax payer money and lump sum contributions to the CF/CGI in exchange for multiple repayments of US tax payer funds via "executive orders" from Obama or DoS favors for a bunch of things.

dot.........dot.........dot

the clintons were running a racket at federal level - siphoning money to and from moslems for arms/influence, coordinated by the activities of abedin and the awan brothers, protected by obama's "equal opportunity" witches cabal of pink hat wearers, peple of color with lower iq'spromoted way above their ability, capped off by concealing the activities of child sex perverts on epsteins islands and weiners computers and the murders of people like Seth Rich.

tick tock tock tock

wisehiney Jan 2, 2018 9:01 PM

Most grow impatient with you sir. They do not consider that the entire Justice Dept and FBI are stacked with what are called "our greatest legal minds" and "most highly experienced investigators". Some of us understand that it takes a little time to build your case and overcome such a deck stacked against you.

Like Daniel of the Bible.

Keep stalking them wily fox.

I believe in you.

He was born in Selma, Alabama , on December 24, 1946, ^[7] the son of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, Jr., and the former Abbie Powe. ^[8] He was named after his father, who was named after his grandfather, who was named after Jefferson Davis , the president of the Confederate States of America , ^[9] and P. G. T. Beauregard , the Confederate general who oversaw the bombardment of Fort Sumter , starting the American Civil War . ^[10] His father owned a general store in Hybart, Alabama , and then a farm equipment dealership. Both of Sessions's parents were of primarily English ancestry, with some Scots-Irish . ^{[11] [12]} In 1964, Sessions became an Eagle Scout , and later, he earned the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award for his many years of service. ^[13]

After attending Wilcox County High School in nearby Camden , Sessions studied at Huntingdon College in Montgomery, graduating with a B.A. degree in 1969. He was active in the Young Republicans and was student body president. ^[14] Sessions attended the University of Alabama School of Law and graduated with a J.D. degree in 1973. ^[15]

Sessions entered private practice in Russellville and later in Mobile . ^{[16] [17]} He also served in the Army Reserve in the 1970s with the rank of captain. ^[

currency Jan 2, 2018 9:55 PM

LOCK COMEY and McCabe and Peter STOKE?? What ever his name and OHR and Lisa Page and CLINTON AND HUMA UP - along with Podesta brothers. Then add Frank Guistra and Ian Telfer - the Canadian money men. ALL CORRUPT

Then go after Loretta Lynch and Susan Rice and LOCK them UP

Golden Showers Jan 2, 2018 10:26 PM

Wow. FBI does a reverse autopsy, determining the cause of death prior to an investigation of evidence. There ought to be one count of obstruction of justice for every missing email. Gross negligence, dereliction of duty, espionage, treason, throw the book at it.

Oh, and whatever happened to that one guy who was given immunity over the email server? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email

This just couldn't be the same person. That would be, like, a koinkidink.

And the fact that the FBI obstructs justice levels deep needs a look-see. Whatever cancer that is obviously there needs cut out and cauterized.

Now if only I could fit the "butt chugging" into this puzzle I'd have solved everything. All Norman Rockwell like.

Rainmaker Jan 2, 2018 10:35 PM

More and more evidence piles up. More and more statements from Republicans. Will there be any charges? Will anything at all happen? No. And that, my friends, is what is actually baked into the cake.

gwar5 Jan 2, 2018 11:25 PM

This article merely confirms what everybody already knew. Ok, so now it's time to turn the tables and investigate all these bitchezz with interrogations under hot lights.

MuffDiver69 Jan 3, 2018 12:07 AM

I'm positive Most realize the important thing is the continued delegitimization of the FBI and Justice Department at the top and the obvious fact these are the exact people who started the Russia collusion garbage. I don't care if Crooked,Huma,Comey.Lynch or the rest go to jail, I do care that showing this blatant abuse of power is something many of us have wanted to expose irrefutably once and for all. It goes on every day and every damn Way..Senator Stevens of Alaska or Bundy ...every damn day

Mzhen Jan 3, 2018 12:27 AM

Benjamin Wittes, Comey's worshipful sycophant, wrote this back in May 2016 about candidate Trump. The operation was already underway.

"The soft spot, the least tyrant-proof part of the government, is the U.S. Department of Justice and the larger law enforcement and regulatory apparatus of the United States government. The first reason you should fear a Donald Trump presidency is what he would do to the ordinary enforcement functions of the federal government , not the most extraordinary ones. . . .

"A prosecutor -- and by extension, a tyrant president who directs that prosecutor -- can harass or target almost anyone, and he can often do so without violating any law. He doesn't actually need to indict the person, though that can be fun. He needs only open an investigation; that alone can be ruinous. The standards for doing so, criminal predication, are not high. And the fabric of American federal law -- criminal and civil law alike -- is so vast that a huge number of people and institutions of consequence are ripe for some sort of meddling from authorities."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-trumps-war-deep-state-failing%E2%80%94s

[Jan 02, 2018] What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears

Highly recommended!

It you need to read a singe article analyzing current anti-Russian hysteria in the USA this in the one you should read. This is an excellent article Simply great !!! And as of December 2017 it represents the perfect summary of Russiagate, Hillary defeat and, Neo-McCarthyism campaign launched as a method of hiding the crisis of neoliberalism revealed by Presidential elections. It also suggest that growing jingoism of both Parties (return to Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation' bulling. Both Trump and Albright assume that the United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena) and loss of the confidence and paranoia of the US neoliberal elite.

It contain many important observation which in my view perfectly catch the complexity of the current Us political landscape.

Bravo to Jackson Lears !!!

Notable quotes:

"... Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means of fighting evil in order to secure global progress ..."

"... Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed. ..."

"... A story that had circulated during the campaign without much effect resurfaced: it involved the charge that Russian operatives had hacked into the servers of the Democratic National Committee, revealing embarrassing emails that damaged Clinton's chances. With stunning speed, a new centrist-liberal orthodoxy came into being, enveloping the major media and the bipartisan Washington establishment. This secular religion has attracted hordes of converts in the first year of the Trump presidency. In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s. ..."

"... The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. ..."

"... Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment' produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. ..."

"... It is not the first time the intelligence agencies have played this role. When I hear the Intelligence Community Assessment cited as a reliable source, I always recall the part played by the New York Times in legitimating CIA reports of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's putative weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the long history of disinformation (a.k.a. 'fake news') as a tactic for advancing one administration or another's political agenda. Once again, the established press is legitimating pronouncements made by the Church Fathers of the national security state. Clapper is among the most vigorous of these. He perjured himself before Congress in 2013, when he denied that the NSA had 'wittingly' spied on Americans – a lie for which he has never been held to account. ..."

"... In May 2017, he told NBC's Chuck Todd that the Russians were highly likely to have colluded with Trump's campaign because they are 'almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique'. The current orthodoxy exempts the Church Fathers from standards imposed on ordinary people, and condemns Russians – above all Putin – as uniquely, 'almost genetically' diabolical. ..."

"... It's hard for me to understand how the Democratic Party, which once felt scepticism towards the intelligence agencies, can now embrace the CIA and the FBI as sources of incontrovertible truth. One possible explanation is that Trump's election has created a permanent emergency in the liberal imagination, based on the belief that the threat he poses is unique and unprecedented. It's true that Trump's menace is viscerally real. But the menace posed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was equally real. ..."

"... Trump is committed to continuing his predecessors' lavish funding of the already bloated Defence Department, and his Fortress America is a blustering, undisciplined version of Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation'. Both Trump and Albright assume that the United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena: Trump because it's the greatest country in the world, Albright because it's an exceptional force for global good. ..."

"... Besides Trump's supposed uniqueness, there are two other assumptions behind the furore in Washington: the first is that the Russian hack unquestionably occurred, and the second is that the Russians are our implacable enemies. ..."

"... So far, after months of 'bombshells' that turn out to be duds, there is still no actual evidence for the claim that the Kremlin ordered interference in the American election. Meanwhile serious doubts have surfaced about the technical basis for the hacking claims. Independent observers have argued it is more likely that the emails were leaked from inside, not hacked from outside. On this front, the most persuasive case was made by a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, former employees of the US intelligence agencies who distinguished themselves in 2003 by debunking Colin Powell's claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, hours after Powell had presented his pseudo-evidence at the UN. ..."

"... The crucial issue here and elsewhere is the exclusion from public discussion of any critical perspectives on the orthodox narrative, even the perspectives of people with professional credentials and a solid track record. ..."

"... Sceptical voices, such as those of the VIPS, have been drowned out by a din of disinformation. Flagrantly false stories, like the Washington Post report that the Russians had hacked into the Vermont electrical grid, are published, then retracted 24 hours later. Sometimes – like the stories about Russian interference in the French and German elections – they are not retracted even after they have been discredited. These stories have been thoroughly debunked by French and German intelligence services but continue to hover, poisoning the atmosphere, confusing debate. ..."

"... The consequence is a spreading confusion that envelops everything. Epistemological nihilism looms, but some people and institutions have more power than others to define what constitutes an agreed-on reality. ..."

"... More genuine insurgencies are in the making, which confront corporate power and connect domestic with foreign policy, but they face an uphill battle against the entrenched money and power of the Democratic leadership – the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and the DNC. Russiagate offers Democratic elites a way to promote party unity against Trump-Putin, while the DNC purges Sanders's supporters. ..."

"... Fusion GPS eventually produced the trash, a lurid account written by the former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele, based on hearsay purchased from anonymous Russian sources. Amid prostitutes and golden showers, a story emerged: the Russian government had been blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump for years, on the assumption that he would become president some day and serve the Kremlin's interests. In this fantastic tale, Putin becomes a preternaturally prescient schemer. Like other accusations of collusion, this one has become vaguer over time, adding to the murky atmosphere without ever providing any evidence. ..."

"... Yet the FBI apparently took the Steele dossier seriously enough to include a summary of it in a secret appendix to the Intelligence Community Assessment. Two weeks before the inauguration, James Comey, the director of the FBI, described the dossier to Trump. After Comey's briefing was leaked to the press, the website Buzzfeed published the dossier in full, producing hilarity and hysteria in the Washington establishment. ..."

"... The Steele dossier inhabits a shadowy realm where ideology and intelligence, disinformation and revelation overlap. It is the antechamber to the wider system of epistemological nihilism created by various rival factions in the intelligence community: the 'tree of smoke' that, for the novelist Denis Johnson, symbolised CIA operations in Vietnam. ..."

"... Yet the Democratic Party has now embarked on a full-scale rehabilitation of the intelligence community – or at least the part of it that supports the notion of Russian hacking. (We can be sure there is disagreement behind the scenes.) And it is not only the Democratic establishment that is embracing the deep state. Some of the party's base, believing Trump and Putin to be joined at the hip, has taken to ranting about 'treason' like a reconstituted John Birch Society. ..."

"... The Democratic Party has now developed a new outlook on the world, a more ambitious partnership between liberal humanitarian interventionists and neoconservative militarists than existed under the cautious Obama. This may be the most disastrous consequence for the Democratic Party of the new anti-Russian orthodoxy: the loss of the opportunity to formulate a more humane and coherent foreign policy. The obsession with Putin has erased any possibility of complexity from the Democratic world picture, creating a void quickly filled by the monochrome fantasies of Hillary Clinton and her exceptionalist allies. ..."

"... For people like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, war is a desirable state of affairs, especially when viewed from the comfort of their keyboards, and the rest of the world – apart from a few bad guys – is filled with populations who want to build societies just like ours: pluralistic, democratic and open for business. This view is difficult to challenge when it cloaks itself in humanitarian sentiment. There is horrific suffering in the world; the US has abundant resources to help relieve it; the moral imperative is clear. There are endless forms of international engagement that do not involve military intervention. But it is the path taken by US policy often enough that one may suspect humanitarian rhetoric is nothing more than window-dressing for a more mundane geopolitics – one that defines the national interest as global and virtually limitless. ..."

"... The prospect of impeaching Trump and removing him from office by convicting him of collusion with Russia has created an atmosphere of almost giddy anticipation among leading Democrats, allowing them to forget that the rest of the Republican Party is composed of many politicians far more skilful in Washington's ways than their president will ever be. ..."

"... They are posing an overdue challenge to the long con of neoliberalism, and the technocratic arrogance that led to Clinton's defeat in Rust Belt states. Recognising that the current leadership will not bring about significant change, they are seeking funding from outside the DNC. ..."

"... Democrat leaders have persuaded themselves (and much of their base) that all the republic needs is a restoration of the status quo ante Trump. They remain oblivious to popular impatience with familiar formulas. ..."

"... Democratic insurgents are also developing a populist critique of the imperial hubris that has sponsored multiple failed crusades, extorted disproportionate sacrifice from the working class and provoked support for Trump, who presented himself (however misleadingly) as an opponent of open-ended interventionism. On foreign policy, the insurgents face an even more entrenched opposition than on domestic policy: a bipartisan consensus aflame with outrage at the threat to democracy supposedly posed by Russian hacking. Still, they may have found a tactical way forward, by focusing on the unequal burden borne by the poor and working class in the promotion and maintenance of American empire. ..."

"... This approach animates Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis, a 33-page document whose authors include Norman Solomon, founder of the web-based insurgent lobby RootsAction.org. 'The Democratic Party's claims of fighting for "working families" have been undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling Trump to masquerade as a champion of the people,' Autopsy announces. ..."

"... Clinton's record of uncritical commitment to military intervention allowed Trump to have it both ways, playing to jingoist resentment while posing as an opponent of protracted and pointless war. ..."

"... If the insurgent movements within the Democratic Party begin to formulate an intelligent foreign policy critique, a re-examination may finally occur. And the world may come into sharper focus as a place where American power, like American virtue, is limited. For this Democrat, that is an outcome devoutly to be wished. It's a long shot, but there is something happening out there. ..."

Jan 04, 2018 | lrb.co.uk

American politics have rarely presented a more disheartening spectacle. The repellent and dangerous antics of Donald Trump are troubling enough, but so is the Democratic Party leadership's failure to take in the significance of the 2016 election campaign. Bernie Sanders's challenge to Hillary Clinton, combined with Trump's triumph, revealed the breadth of popular anger at politics as usual – the blend of neoliberal domestic policy and interventionist foreign policy that constitutes consensus in Washington. Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means of fighting evil in order to secure global progress . Both agendas have proved calamitous for most Americans. Many registered their disaffection in 2016. Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed.
... ... ...

[Jan 01, 2018] Classified documents among newly released Huma emails found on Weiner's laptop

Notable quotes:

"... Most of the emails were heavily redacted because they contained classified material -- but one that was sent on Nov. 25 2010 was addressed to "Anthony Campaign," an apparent address belonging to Weiner. ..."

"... The message contained a list of talking points for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was prepping to make a call to Prince Saud of Saudi Arabia to warn him about sensitive documents that had been given to WikiLeaks by then-Army intelligence officer Bradley Manning. ..."

Dec 29, 2017 | www.legitgov.org

Originally from: Classified documents among newly released Huma emails found on Weiner's laptop

The State Department Friday released a trove of emails from Huma Abedin that the feds discovered on her husband Anthony Weiner's laptop -- including at least five that were marked as "classified."

Most of the emails were heavily redacted because they contained classified material -- but one that was sent on Nov. 25 2010 was addressed to "Anthony Campaign," an apparent address belonging to Weiner.

The message contained a list of talking points for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was prepping to make a call to Prince Saud of Saudi Arabia to warn him about sensitive documents that had been given to WikiLeaks by then-Army intelligence officer Bradley Manning.

[Jan 01, 2018] Weiner Laptop Doc: Assange Warrant Issued 2 Weeks After Swedish Election Leaks Warning

Dec 31, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

A confidential document found on Anthony Weiner's laptop reveals that the United States Embassy in Stockholm, Sweden expressed concerns in 2010 that WikiLeaks would release classified US documents related to Sweden ahead of the September 19 Swedish election, tipping the vote towards the Pirate Party. The subject of the cable reads " Wikileaks: The Pirate Party's White Horse Into Sweden's Parliament? "

On June 29, 2010 a US diplomat met with three members of the Pirate Party - which is described in the cable as a "mixture between communism and libertarianism," yet whose members are "well-salaried professionals, independent from the party for income." Two of the "pirates," according to the report, were active in the "youth branch of the conservative party currently leading government ."

The Embassy cable notes the " grim electoral outlook for Pirates " - as confirmed by a Pirate party member interviewed by the US diplomat, "Unless WikiLeaks Saves the Day."

Two weeks after the cable was sent, an arrest warrant was issued for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on sexual assault allegations - which was dropped, then re-issued, then revoked again by Swedish authorities in August 2015 when they dropped their case against him.

Cable found on Anthony Weiner's Laptop, obtained via Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit

The emergence of this confidential document ( found on Anthony Weiner's laptop and sent while his wife, Huma Abedin, was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff ), is disturbing - as it potentially implicates the Obama administration in a conspiracy to silence Julian Assange while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State - not to mention that it could be the smoking gun in yet another clear case of mishandled information found on imprisoned sexual deviant Anthony Weiner's laptop the FBI's Peter Strzok and crew must have somehow overlooked.

A brief timeline of events:

On August 20, 2010, the Swedish Prosecutor's Office issued an arrest warrant for Julian Assange over a rape allegation - two weeks after the US Embassy met with the Pirate party and had concerns over Assange leaking US secrets. The net day, Swedish cancelled the warrant. "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," says one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors, Eva Finne. Swedish prosecutors did however continue to investigate a separate allegation of molestation, though they felt it was not a serious enough crime for an arrest warrant.

On September 1, 2010, Swedish Director of Prosecution, Marianne Ny, reopened the rape investigation against Assange.

On November 18, 2010, Stockholm District Court approved a detention request for Mr. Assange, who had traveled to London. Two days later, Swedish police issued an international arrest warrant. On December 8, 2010, Assange is taken into British custody and taken to an extradition hearing . Eight days later, Assange posts bail and walks free in London until May 30, 2012 when the UK Supreme Court rules that he should be extradited to Sweden.

August 16, 2012, Assange begins his asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London - where he has remained for over five years.

In February, 2016, a UN panel found Assange to be detained unlawfully in the Ecuadorian embassy.

In May, 2017, Swedish authorities once again dropped their case against Julian Assange, with his Swedish lawyer Per Samuelsson told Swedish media "It is a total victory for Julian Assange," adding "He is free to leave the embassy whenever he wants."

Unfortunately, that's not going to be quite so easy for the time being - as Assange faces immediate arrest by the UK for skipping bail in his extradition hearing. Moreover, in April of this year, CNN and the Washington Post simultaneously reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions' DOJ has prepared criminal charges against Assange over 2010 leaks of diplomatic cables and military documents.

While the DOJ seems intent on locking Assange up, the WikiLeaks founder has also received tremendous support from certain members of congress.

As we reported last week , Congressman Dana Rohrabacher travelled to London in August with journalist Charles Johnson for a meeting with Assange, where Rohrabacher said the WikiLeaks founder offered "firsthand" information proving that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia, and which would refute the Russian hacking theory .

Rohrabacher brought that message back to Trump's Chief of Staff, John Kelly, to propose a deal. In exchange for a presidential pardon, Assange would share evidence that would refute the Russian hacking theory by proving they weren't the source of the emails, according to the WSJ .

However - when Trump was asked in late September about the Assange proposal, he responded that he'd "never heard" of it , causing Rohrabacher to unleash on John Kelly, who he blamed for blocking the proposal from reaching the President. Rohrabacher told the Daily Caller :

"I think the president's answer indicates that there is a wall around him that is being created by people who do not want to expose this fraud that there was collusion between our intelligence community and the leaders of the Democratic Party," Rohrabacher told The Daily Caller Tuesday in a phone interview.

" This would have to be a cooperative effort between his own staff and the leadership in the intelligence communities to try to prevent the president from making the decision as to whether or not he wants to take the steps necessary to expose this horrendous lie that was shoved down the American people's throats so incredibly earlier this year," Rohrabacher said.

Contributing to the notion of deep-state interference, CIA director Mike Pompeo referred to WikiLeaks as a " hostile intelligence service " in April, calling Julian Assange "a fraud, a coward hiding behind a screen" for exposing information about democratic governments rather than authoritarian regimes. This quite the ironic statement, considering Pompeo used leaked emails from WikiLeaks as proof "the fix was in" against President Trump.

So - while the Swedish authorities have dropped their case against Assange, and the UN says he's been unlawfully detailed - the UK insists on arresting Assange the moment he steps outside the Ecuadorian embassy for jumping bail on the dropped charges, and the US Department of Justice is reportedly prepared to slap criminal charges on Assange.

Perhaps the establishment is still a bit miffed that the "white wizard" showed the world what's really underneath the pantsuit, which despite the constant rhetoric of the past year is what ultimately cost Hillary - and so many of her charitable friends - the election.

[Dec 30, 2017] Classified Huma Abedin Emails Found On Anthony Weiner s Laptop Discussing Hamas, Israel And Palestinian Authority

How Strzok could miss those? They were available to him since 2016.

Notable quotes:

"... As you may recall, the discovery of these emails on Weiner's computer is what prompted Comey to re-open the Hillary Clinton email investigation roughly 1 week prior to the election, a decision which the Hillary camp insists is the reason why they lost the White House. ..."

"... Large portions of the 2,800 page release were redacted prior to release by the State Department. ..."

"... In at least two instances, Abedin directly forwarded Anthony Weiner official conversations - one of which included Hillary Clinton and senior advisor Jake Sullivan with subject "Lavrov" - referring to Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov. The email discusses an official response by a "quartet" of envoys (The US, EU, UN, and Russia) over Israel's announced changes to its Gaza policy, ending a contentious blockade. ..."

"... In a statement issued Friday, Judicial watch called the release a "major victory," adding "After years of hard work in federal court, Judicial Watch has forced the State Department to finally allow Americans to see these public documents. It will be in keeping with our past experience that Abedin's emails on Weiner's laptop will include classified and other sensitive materials. That these government docs were on Anthony Weiner's laptop dramatically illustrates the need for the Justice Department to finally do a serious investigation of Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's obvious violations of law." ..."

"... Really, is anyone surprised that there were classified emails on Huma Abedin or Anthony Weiner's laptop? ..."

"... The surprise is that it was confiscated back in October 2016 and it took 14 months to reveal that at least 5 emails were classified as confidential. Apparently there were 2800 such emails, an average of 7 per day every day, or 10 per day using 5 day workweeks. Although these 2800 were released, this evidently is a subset of "tens of thousands" of email reported last year to be on that laptop. ..."

"... "Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.' " And so far, neither has Jeff Sessions. Get after him, Donald!!!! ..."

"... The lunacy of all of this is that it is taking private groups and citizen journalists to pull out the information that one would think the DOJ would have been interested in months ago. And it means that organizations like Judicial Watch and citizen journalists like George Webb and others are limited to using civil courts because they are not federal prosecutors. ..."

"... Hillary, Huma, et al exchanging classified emails on unsecured servers and computers was a big nothing burger according to Andy and friends at the FBI. ..."

Dec 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

As you may recall, the discovery of these emails on Weiner's computer is what prompted Comey to re-open the Hillary Clinton email investigation roughly 1 week prior to the election, a decision which the Hillary camp insists is the reason why they lost the White House.

Of course, while the Hillary campaign attempted to dismiss the emails as just another 'nothing burger', the Daily Mail reports that an initial review of the 2,800 documents dumped by the State Department reveal at least 5 emails classified at the 'confidential level,' the third most sensitive level the U.S. government uses.

The classified emails date from 2010-2012, and concern discussions with Middle East leaders, including those from the United Arab Emirates, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas - which was declared a terrorist organization by the European Court of Justice in July. Large portions of the 2,800 page release were redacted prior to release by the State Department.

According to the Daily Mail , three of the emails were sent either to or from an address called "BBB Backup," which one email identifies as a backup of a Blackberry Bold 9700 - presumably belonging to Abedin.

As a civilian, Weiner - though once a congressman, was unlikely to have possessed the proper clearance to view or store the classified documents on his laptop .

A sample of the documents can be seen below, first, a "Call Sheet" prepared for Hillary's discussion with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

And another update regarding "Hamas-PLO Talks":

In at least two instances, Abedin directly forwarded Anthony Weiner official conversations - one of which included Hillary Clinton and senior advisor Jake Sullivan with subject "Lavrov" - referring to Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov. The email discusses an official response by a "quartet" of envoys (The US, EU, UN, and Russia) over Israel's announced changes to its Gaza policy, ending a contentious blockade.

One wonders why Anthony Weiner would need to know about this?

Abedin also forwarded Weiner an email discussion from July 22, 2012 which had previously been released by WikiLeaks - which included the Ambassador to Senegal, Mushingi Tulinabo. While the contents of the email are redacted, Senegal had elected a new President earlier that month . Of note, the Clinton Foundation has supported or been involved in several projects in the country.

In a statement issued Friday, Judicial watch called the release a "major victory," adding "After years of hard work in federal court, Judicial Watch has forced the State Department to finally allow Americans to see these public documents. It will be in keeping with our past experience that Abedin's emails on Weiner's laptop will include classified and other sensitive materials. That these government docs were on Anthony Weiner's laptop dramatically illustrates the need for the Justice Department to finally do a serious investigation of Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's obvious violations of law."

Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.'

Not surprisingly, Abedin was spotted heading into the Hillary Clinton offices in midtown Manhattan earlier today just a few hours before the release of the 2,800 emails. Seems you're never too old to be called into the Principal's office...

We're confident this will all be promptly dismissed by Hillary as just another effort to "criminalize behavior that is normal "because what government employee hasn't shared classified materials with their convicted pedophile husband? Certainly, just another boring day in Washington... Tags Politics

69452

167

up! 1 Vote down! 0
Mark777 Dec 29, 2017 9:10 PM

Really, is anyone surprised that there were classified emails on Huma Abedin or Anthony Weiner's laptop?

The surprise is that it was confiscated back in October 2016 and it took 14 months to reveal that at least 5 emails were classified as confidential. Apparently there were 2800 such emails, an average of 7 per day every day, or 10 per day using 5 day workweeks. Although these 2800 were released, this evidently is a subset of "tens of thousands" of email reported last year to be on that laptop.

topspinslicer Dec 29, 2017 4:47 PM

It's a small club of idiots and I ain't in it

shitshitshit -> topspinslicer Dec 29, 2017 4:52 PM

this shows how Hilary is being more and more isolated and rejected because she can no longer silence the truth.

Go to jail bitch. Now.

chubbar -> shitshitshit Dec 29, 2017 6:35 PM

It's been reported on an other site that the Awan trial, which had been postponed until Jan 8th, is now erased from all federal court dockets. No one knows the significance of this, whether it means the "fix" is in or they are turning state's evidence on Hillary, etc? I hope it's the latter but knowing Sessions and the rest of the fucking corrupt pieces of shit in the DOJ and FBI, I fear these assholes are being let off the hook.

greenskeeper carl -> chubbar Dec 29, 2017 8:25 PM

This fix is in. Nothing is going to happen to any of them. Bet on it.

IH8OBAMA -> IH8OBAMA Dec 29, 2017 4:59 PM

"Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.' " And so far, neither has Jeff Sessions. Get after him, Donald!!!!

FoggyWorld -> IH8OBAMA Dec 29, 2017 6:31 PM

The lunacy of all of this is that it is taking private groups and citizen journalists to pull out the information that one would think the DOJ would have been interested in months ago. And it means that organizations like Judicial Watch and citizen journalists like George Webb and others are limited to using civil courts because they are not federal prosecutors. The question is why are those who are being paid with our tax dollars to enforce the law in criminal courts expending so much effort to avoid doing that job.

Ultimately, President Trump has to answer that question because this is now coming out on his watch.

greenskeeper carl -> FoggyWorld Dec 29, 2017 8:27 PM

Ya, its pretty infuriating. Trumps been in office for a year. Sessions, at least on paper, is in charge of the DOJ. The FBI works for him too. Why isn't anything being done about this?

techpriest -> IH8OBAMA Dec 29, 2017 5:25 PM

I wonder, will Abedin be the fall girl for the Clintons? "It was all her fault! She took the emails without me knowing it!" Her being "called into the principal's office" is also telling. Instructions on what to say.

francis_the_wo -> Consuelo Dec 29, 2017 5:04 PM

I am curious as to what assurances we have that there weren't actually another 100 emails that didn't just magically disappear? We've given these alphabet agencies years to "redact" sensitive material, how do we know that the "smoking gun" emails weren't redacted entirely?

insanelysane Dec 29, 2017 7:55 PM

DNC doing actual opposition research by paying actual Russians for information is perfectly acceptable. Trump team allegedly doing opposition research by speaking with Russians is a criminal offence. That seems reasonable.

Hillary, Huma, et al exchanging classified emails on unsecured servers and computers was a big nothing burger according to Andy and friends at the FBI.

thebigunit Dec 29, 2017 8:04 PM

Huma Abedin

Associate Editor, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs

1996-2008

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

Hmmmmmm.

hanekhw Dec 29, 2017 5:13 PM

I was searching for a word to describe our media and Federal law enforcement who are both impervious to truth and justice. It led me to wondering if the Devil permits truth to penetrate in Hell and decided that the condemned there hear more of it that Americans do today. You'd have to go back to NAZI Germany or Stalinist Russia for a comparison of how little we're told was true.

Don't believe me? We're mushrooms, kept in a dark cave and fed a steady diet of bullshit. We're GOOD mushrooms. A bumper crop this year.

Miss Expectations Dec 29, 2017 5:23 PM

The emails were discovered on Anthony's laptop by NYPD when they were investigating the pervert's connection to the child in North Carolina. The laptop was turned over to the FBI. If you want to say the FBI discovered the emails, that takes the credit away from the NYPD. Comey reopened the Hillary investigation because NYPD kept copies.

MusicIsYou Dec 29, 2017 6:49 PM

Most shit classified "classified" shouldn't be anyway.

Koba the Dread Dec 29, 2017 6:50 PM

" [A]n initial review of the 2,800 documents dumped by the State Department reveal at least 5 emails classified at the 'confidential level,' the third most sensitive level the U.S. government uses. "

While I'm for anything and everything that harms the Clinton family and its cohort, let me point out that the 'confidential level' security classification, in addition to being the third most sensitive level of security classification is also also the very lowest level of security classification.

One would hope (in vain I've recently concluded) that ZH would make some small attempt to not slant its 'news' coverage with such erroneous and inflammatory 'reporting'. I thought we had decided to leave fear mongering and lying to the mainstream media. I suppose I was wrong.

Fidelios Automata Dec 29, 2017 7:47 PM

The classified emails were a smokescreen to distract investigators from the porn.

[Dec 25, 2017] Was The Steele Dossier The FBI's Insurance Policy

Notable quotes:

"... Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S. officials." According to the Post: ..."

"... Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said. ..."

"... I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application included information from the Steele dossier. ..."

"... Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had not been publicly disclosed. ..."

"... given that Page has not been accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation. ..."

"... In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's the word? -- resist. ..."

"... The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period. ..."

"... Clinton was supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all this crap because shit is about to hit the fan. ..."

"... Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge. ..."

"... These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to overthrow the elected government. ..."

"... They really can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt. Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal. ..."

Dec 24, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

According to the now-infamous text message sent by FBI agent Peter Strzok to his paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, it was in McCabe's office that top FBI counterintelligence officials discussed what they saw as the frightening possibility of a Trump presidency.

That was during the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, no more than a couple of weeks after they started receiving the Steele dossier -- the Clinton campaign's opposition-research reports, written by former British spy Christopher Steele, about Trump's purportedly conspiratorial relationship with Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia.

Was it the Steele dossier that so frightened the FBI? I think so.

There is a great deal of information to follow. But let's cut to the chase: The Obama-era FBI and Justice Department had great faith in Steele because he had previously collaborated with the bureau on a big case. Plus, Steele was working on the Trump-Russia project with the wife of a top Obama Justice Department official, who was personally briefed by Steele. The upper ranks of the FBI and DOJ strongly preferred Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, to the point of overlooking significant evidence of her felony misconduct, even as they turned up the heat on Trump. In sum, the FBI and DOJ were predisposed to believe the allegations in Steele's dossier. Because of their confidence in Steele, because they were predisposed to believe his scandalous claims about Donald Trump, they made grossly inadequate efforts to verify his claims. Contrary to what I hoped would be the case, I've come to believe Steele's claims were used to obtain FISA surveillance authority for an investigation of Trump.

There were layers of insulation between the Clinton campaign and Steele -- the campaign and the Democratic party retained a law firm, which contracted with Fusion GPS, which in turn hired the former spy. At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the dossier was actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one, after all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps. Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance would remain hidden.

The best laid schemes . . . gang aft agley.
Why It Matters
Strzok's text about the meeting in McCabe's office is dated August 16, 2016. As we'll see, the date is important. According to Agent Strzok, with Election Day less than three months away, Page, the bureau lawyer, weighed in on Trump's bid: "There's no way he gets elected." Strzok, however, believed that even if a Trump victory was the longest of long shots, the FBI "can't take that risk." He insisted that the bureau had no choice but to proceed with a plan to undermine Trump's candidacy: "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."

The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that, "according to people familiar with his account," Strzok meant that it was imperative that the FBI "aggressively investigate allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia." In laughable strawman fashion, the "people familiar with his account" assure the Journal that Strzok "didn't intend to suggest a secret plan to harm the candidate." Of course, no sensible person suspects that the FBI was plotting Trump's assassination; the suspicion is that, motivated by partisanship and spurred by shoddy information that it failed to verify, the FBI exploited its counterintelligence powers in hopes of derailing Trump's presidential run.

But what were these "allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia" that the FBI decided to "aggressively investigate"? The Journal doesn't say. Were they the allegations in the Steele dossier? That is a question I asked in last weekend's column. It is a question that was pressed by Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) and Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee at Tuesday's sealed hearing. As I explained in the column, the question is critical for three reasons:

(1) The Steele dossier was a Clinton campaign product. If it was used by the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to obtain a FISA warrant, that would mean law-enforcement agencies controlled by a Democratic president fed the FISA court political campaign material produced by the Democratic candidate whom the president had endorsed to succeed him. Partisan claims of egregious scheming with an adversarial foreign power would have been presented to the court with the FBI's imprimatur, as if they were drawn from refined U.S. intelligence reporting. The objective would have been to spy on the opposition Republican campaign.

(2) In June of this year, former FBI director James Comey testified that the dossier was "salacious and unverified." While still director, Comey had described the dossier the same way when he briefed President-elect Trump on it in January 2017. If the dossier was still unverified as late as mid 2017, its allegations could not possibly have been verified months earlier, in the late summer or early autumn of 2016, when it appears that the FBI and DOJ used them in an application to the FISA court.

(3) The dossier appears to contain misinformation. Knowing he was a spy-for-hire trusted by Americans, Steele's Russian-regime sources had reason to believe that misinformation could be passed into the stream of U.S. intelligence and that it would be acted on -- and leaked -- as if it were true, to America's detriment. This would sow discord in our political system. If the FBI and DOJ relied on the dossier, it likely means they were played by the Putin regime.

How Could Something Like This Happen?
We do not have public confirmation that the dossier was, in fact, used by the bureau and the Justice Department to obtain the FISA warrant. Publicly, FBI and DOJ officials have thwarted the Congress with twaddle about protecting both intelligence sources and an internal inspector-general probe. Of course, Congress, which established and funds the DOJ and FBI, has the necessary security clearances to review classified information, has jurisdiction over the secret FISA court, and has independent constitutional authority to examine the activities of legislatively created executive agencies.

In any event, important reporting by Fox News' James Rosen regarding Tuesday's hearing indicates that the FBI did, in fact, credit the contents of the dossier. It appears, however, that the bureau corroborated few of Steele's claims, and at an absurdly high level of generality -- along the lines of: You tell me person A went to place X and committed a crime; I corroborate only that A went to X and blithely assume that because you were right about the travel, you must be right about the crime.

Here, the FBI was able to verify Steele's claim that Carter Page, a very loosely connected Trump-campaign adviser, had gone to Russia. This was not exactly meticulous gumshoe corroboration: Page told many people he was going to Russia, saw many people while there, and gave a speech at a prominent Moscow venue. Having verified only the travel information, the FBI appears to have credited the claims of Steele's anonymous Russian sources that Page carried out nigh-treasonous activities while in Russia.

How could something like this happen? Well, the FBI and DOJ liked and trusted Steele, for what seem to be good reasons. As the Washington Post has reported, the former MI-6 agent's private intelligence firm, Orbis, was retained by England's main soccer federation to investigate corruption at FIFA, the international soccer organization that had snubbed British bids to host the World Cup. In 2010, Steele delivered key information to the FBI's organized-crime liaison in Europe. This helped the bureau build the Obama Justice Department's most celebrated racketeering prosecution: the indictment of numerous FIFA officials and other corporate executives. Announcing the first wave of charges in May 2015, Attorney General Loretta Lynch made a point of thanking the investigators' "international partners" for their "outstanding assistance."

At the time, Bruce Ohr was the Obama Justice Department's point man for "Transnational Organized Crime and International Affairs," having been DOJ's long-serving chief of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. He also wore a second, top-echelon DOJ hat: associate deputy attorney general. That made him a key adviser to the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates (who later, as acting attorney general, was fired for insubordinately refusing to enforce President Trump's so-called travel ban). In the chain of command, the FBI reports to the DAG's office.

To do the Trump-Russia research, Steele had been retained by the research firm Fusion GPS (which, to repeat, had been hired by lawyers for the Clinton campaign and the DNC). Fusion GPS was run by its founder, former Wall Street Journal investigative journalist Glenn Simpson. Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, a Russia scholar, worked for Simpson at Fusion. The Ohrs and Simpson appear to be longtime acquaintances, dating back to when Simpson was a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center. In 2010, all three participated in a two-day conference on international organized crime, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (see conference schedule and participant list, pp. 27 -- 30). In connection with the Clinton campaign's Trump-Russia project, Fusion's Nellie Ohr collaborated with Steele and Simpson, and DOJ's Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele and Simpson.

Manifestly, the DOJ and FBI were favorably disposed toward Steele and Fusion GPS. I suspect that these good, productive prior relationships with the dossier's source led the investigators to be less exacting about corroborating the dossier's claims.

But that is just the beginning of the bias story.

At a high level, the DOJ and FBI were in the tank for Hillary Clinton. In July 2016, shortly before Steele's reports started floating in, the FBI and DOJ announced that no charges would be brought against Mrs. Clinton despite damning evidence that she mishandled classified information, destroyed government files, obstructed congressional investigations, and lied to investigators. The irregularities in the Clinton-emails investigation are legion: President Obama making it clear in public statements that he did not want Clinton charged; the FBI, shortly afterwards, drafting an exoneration of Clinton months before the investigation ended and central witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed; investigators failing to use the grand jury to compel the production of key evidence; the DOJ restricting FBI agents in their lines of inquiry and examination of evidence; the granting of immunity to suspects who in any other case would be pressured to plead guilty and cooperate against more-culpable suspects; the distorting of criminal statutes to avoid applying them to Clinton; the sulfurous tarmac meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton shortly before Mrs. Clinton was given a peremptory interview -- right before then -- FBI director Comey announced that she would not be charged.

The blatant preference for Clinton over Trump smacked of politics and self-interest. Deputy FBI director McCabe's wife had run for the Virginia state legislature as a Democrat, and her (unsuccessful) campaign was lavishly funded by groups tied to Clinton insider Terry McAuliffe. Agent Strzok told FBI lawyer Page that Trump was an "idiot" and that "Hillary should win 100 million to 0." Page agreed that Trump was "a loathsome human." A Clinton win would likely mean Lynch -- originally raised to prominence when President Bill Clinton appointed her to a coveted U.S. attorney slot -- would remain attorney general. Yates would be waiting in the wings.

The prior relationships of trust with the source; the investment in Clinton; the certitude that Clinton would win and deserved to win, signified by the mulish determination that she not be charged in the emails investigation; the sheer contempt for Trump. This concatenation led the FBI and DOJ to believe Steele -- to want to believe his melodramatic account of Trump-Russia corruption. For the faithful, it was a story too good to check.

The DOJ and FBI, having dropped a criminal investigation that undeniably established Hillary Clinton's national-security recklessness, managed simultaneously to convince themselves that Donald Trump was too much of a national-security risk to be president.
The Timeline
As I noted in last weekend's column, reports are that the FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA warrant targeting Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page). For a time, Page was tangentially tied to the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser -- he barely knew Trump. The warrant was reportedly obtained after the Trump campaign and Page had largely severed ties in early August 2016. We do not know exactly when the FISA warrant was granted, but the New York Times and the Washington Post have reported, citing U.S. government sources, that this occurred in September 2016 (see here, here, and here). Further, the DOJ and FBI reportedly persuaded the FISA court to extend the surveillance after the first warrant's 90-day period lapsed -- meaning the spying continued into Trump's presidency.

The FBI and DOJ would have submitted the FISA application to the court shortly before the warrant was issued. In the days-to-weeks prior to petitioning the court, the FISA application would have been subjected to internal review at the FBI -- raising the possibility that FBI lawyer Page was in the loop reviewing the investigative work of Agent Strzok, with whom she was having an extramarital affair. There would also have been review at the Justice Department -- federal law requires that the attorney general approve every application to the FISA court.

Presumably, these internal reviews would have occurred in mid-to-late August -- around the time of the meeting in McCabe's office referred to in Strzok's text. Thus, we need to understand the relevant events before and after mid-to-late August. Here is a timeline.

June 2016

In June 2016, Steele began to generate the reports that collectively are known as the "dossier."

In the initial report, dated June 20, 2016, Steele alleged that Putin's regime had been "cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years." (Steele's reports conform to the FBI and intelligence-agency reporting practice of rendering names of interest in capital letters.) The Kremlin was said to have significant blackmail material that could be used against Trump.

In mid-to-late June 2016, according to Politico, Carter Page asked J. D. Gordon, his supervisor on the Trump campaign's National Security Advisory Committee, for permission to go on a trip to Russia in early July. Gordon advised against it. Page then sent an email to Corey Lewandowski, who was Trump's campaign manager until June 20, and Hope Hicks, the Trump campaign spokeswoman, seeking permission to go on the trip. Word came back to Page by email that he could go, but only in his private capacity, not as a representative of the Trump campaign. Lewandowski says he has never met Carter Page.

July 2016

Page, a top-of-the-class graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with various other academic distinctions, traveled to Moscow for a three-day trip, the centerpiece of which was a July 7 commencement address at the New Economic School (the same institution at which President Obama gave a commencement address on July 7, 2009). The New York Times has reported, based on leaks from "current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials," that Page's July trip to Moscow "was a catalyst for the F.B.I. investigation into connections between Russia and President Trump's campaign." The Times does not say what information the FBI had received that made the Moscow trip such a "catalyst."
Was it the Steele dossier?
Well, on July 19, Steele reported that, while in Moscow, Page had held secret meetings with two top Putin confederates, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin. Steele claimed to have been informed by "a Russian source close to" Sechin, the president of Russia's energy conglomerate Rosneft, that Sechin had floated to Page the possibility of "US-Russia energy co-operation" in exchange for the "lifting of western sanctions against Russia over Ukraine." Page was said to have reacted "positively" but in a manner that was "non-committal."

Another source, apparently Russian, told Steele that "an official close to" Putin chief of staff Sergei Ivanov had confided to "a compatriot" that Igor Diveykin (of the "Internal Political Department" of Putin's Presidential Administration) had also met with Page in Moscow. (Note the dizzying multiple-hearsay basis of this information.) Diveykin is said to have told Page that the regime had "a dossier of 'kompromat'" -- compromising information -- on Hillary Clinton that it would consider releasing to Trump's "campaign team." Diveykin further "hinted (or indicated more strongly) that the Russian leadership also had 'kompromat' on TRUMP which the latter should bear in mind in his dealings with them."

The hacked DNC emails were first released on July 22, shortly before the Democratic National Convention, which ran from July 25 through 28.

In "late July 2016," Steele claimed to have been told by an "ethnic Russian close associate of . . . TRUMP" that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation" between "them" (apparently meaning Trump's inner circle) and "the Russian leadership." The conspiracy was said to be "managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy adviser, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries."

The same source claimed that the Russian regime had been behind the leak of DNC emails "to the WikiLeaks platform," an operation the source maintained "had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team." As a quid pro quo, "the TRUMP team" was said to have agreed (a) "to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue," and (b) to raise the failure of NATO nations to meet their defense commitments as a distraction from Russian aggression in Ukraine, "a priority for PUTIN who needed to cauterise the subject."

Late July to Early August 2016

The Washington Post has reported that Steele's reports were first transmitted "by an intermediary" to the FBI and other U.S. intelligence officials after the Democratic National Convention (which, to repeat, ended on July 28). The intermediary is not identified. We do not know if it was Fusion, though that seems likely given that Fusion shared its work with government and non-government entities. Steele himself is also said to have contacted "a friend in the FBI" about his research after the Democratic convention. As we've seen, Steele made bureau friends during the FIFA investigation.

August 2016

On August 11, as recounted in the aforementioned Wall Street Journal report, FBI agent Strzok texted the following message to FBI lawyer Page: "OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS." The Journal does not elaborate on what "allegations" Strzok was referring to, or the source of those allegations.

On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office at which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency and needed something akin to an "insurance policy" even though Trump's election was thought highly unlikely.

September 2016

Reporting indicates that sometime in September 2016, the DOJ and FBI applied to the FISA court for a warrant to surveil Carter Page, and that the warrant was granted.

Interestingly, on September 23, 2016, Yahoo's Michael Isikoff reported on leaks he had received that the U.S. government was conducting an intelligence investigation to determine whether Carter Page, as a Trump adviser, had opened up a private communications channel with such "senior Russian officials" as Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin to discuss lifting economic sanctions if Trump became president.

It is now known that Isikoff's main source for the story was Fusion's Glenn Simpson. Isikoff's report is rife with allegations found in the dossier, although the dossier is not referred to as such; it is described as "intelligence reports" that "U.S. officials" were actively investigating -- i.e., Steele's reports were described in a way that would lead readers to assume they were official U.S. intelligence reports. But there clearly was official American government involvement: Isikoff's story asserts that U.S. officials were briefing members of Congress about these allegations that Page was meeting with Kremlin officials on Trump's behalf. The story elaborated that "questions about Page come amid mounting concerns within the U.S. intelligence community about Russian cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee." Those would be the cyberattacks alleged -- in the dossier on which Congress was being briefed -- to be the result of a Trump-Russia conspiracy in which Page was complicit.

Isikoff obviously checked with his government sources to verify what Simpson had told him about the ongoing investigation that was based on these "intelligence reports." His story recounts that "a senior U.S. law enforcement official" confirmed that Page's alleged contacts with Russian officials were "on our radar screen. . . . It's being looked at."

Final Points to Consider
After his naval career, Page worked in investing, including several years at Merrill Lynch in Moscow. As my column last weekend detailed, he has been an apologist for the Russian regime, championing appeasement for the sake of better U.S. -- Russia relations. Page has acknowledged that, during his brief trip to Moscow in July 2016, he ran into some Russian government officials, among many old Russian friends and acquaintances. Yet he vehemently denies meeting with Sechin and Diveykin. (While Sechin's name is well known to investors in the Russian energy sector, Page says that he has never met him and that he had never even heard Diveykin's name until the Steele dossier was publicized in early 2017.)

Furthermore, Page denies even knowing Paul Manafort, much less being used by Manafort as an intermediary between the Trump campaign and Russia. Page has filed a federal defamation lawsuit against the press outlets that published the dossier, has denied the dossier allegations in FBI interviews, and has reportedly testified before the grand jury in Robert Mueller's special-counsel investigation.

Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S. officials." According to the Post:

The government's application for the surveillance order targeting Page included a lengthy declaration that laid out investigators' basis for believing that Page was an agent of the Russian government and knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of Moscow, officials said.

Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said.

I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application included information from the Steele dossier. That is, when the Post speaks of Page's purported "other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed," this is very likely a reference to the meetings with Sechin and Diveykin that Page denies having had -- the meetings described in the dossier. Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had not been publicly disclosed.
Two final points.

First : The FISA application's reliance on 2013 events as a basis for suspicion in 2016 that Page was a foreign agent of Russia is curious. The 2013 investigation involved Russian intelligence operatives who were trying to recruit business people, such as Page, as sources -- i.e., Page was being approached by Russia, not acting on Russia's behalf. In the 2013 investigation, Page met with a Russian agent, whom he apparently did not realize was an agent. They met at an energy symposium in New York and Page did networking-type things: exchanging contact information and providing his jejune assessment of the energy sector's prospects. The Russian agent described Page as an "idiot" in a recorded conversation. According to Page, he cooperated with the FBI and helped prosecutors in the case against one of the suspects -- claims that the government could easily disprove if he is lying.

Second : In reporting on the FISA warrant that targeted Page, the Washington Post asserted that "an application for electronic surveillance under [FISA] need not show evidence of a crime." That is not accurate.

Under federal surveillance law (sec. 1801 of Title 50, U.S. Code), the probable-cause showing the government must make to prove that a person is an agent of a foreign power is different for Americans than for aliens. If the alleged agent is an alien, section 1801(b)(1) applies, and this means that no crime need be established; the government need only show that the target is acting on behalf of a foreign power in the sense of abetting its clandestine anti-American activities.

By contrast, if the alleged agent is an American citizen, such as Page, section 1801(b)(2) applies: The government must show not only that the person is engaged in clandestine activities on behalf of a foreign power but also that these activities

(1) "involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States";

(2) involve the preparation for or commission of sabotage or international terrorism;

(3) involve using a false identity to enter or operate in the United States on behalf of a foreign power; or (4) involve conspiring with or aiding and abetting another person in the commission of these criminal activities.

All of these involve evidence of a crime.

The only known suspicions about Page that have potential criminal implications are the allegations in the dossier, which potentially include hacking, bribery, fraud, and racketeering -- if Russia were formally considered an enemy of the United States, they would include treason. The FBI always has information we do not know about. But given that Page has not been accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation.

In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's the word? -- resist.

NoDebt -> xrxs , Dec 24, 2017 11:40 PM

No way the "insurance policy" was this .... dossier. It had made the rounds for almost a year by then. It was a TOOL for then present-day activities (campaign propaganda and obtaining FISA warrants). Everyone knew it was floating around by then.

An insurance policy is something that activates based on a completely unexpected contingency- premature death. Does it seem to you that a bogus report that had been rattling around doing it's intended work for almost six months is that thing? Sure as shit doesn't sound like that to me.

The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period.

two hoots -> TeamDepends , Dec 24, 2017 11:06 PM

Could the FBI be that broke, that persuasive, that wreckless? I suspect it is mainly at the top politically appointed positions that take us down that road? Trouble is they take the full agency along with them. Congress has implicit responsibility here also.

This will take some serious unwinding to officially expose the truth that many know exist. Attaching names to these truths is the hard part. As painful as it may be a Watergate style investigation is in order. Justice must be served to demonstrate unacceptable, illegal, nation harming activity is not tolerated at any level. Without it we have reached moral nihilism.

Other

They must have thought Trump had a chance or why would they bother? Maybe not so sure of Hillary after all? Something don't add up with the surity of a Clinton presidency?

"On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office at which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency ......."

At look at the late July/Aug polls: https://www.statista.com/chart/5502/trump-vs-clinton_-a-year-at-the-polls/

DeaconPews , Dec 24, 2017 10:02 PM

"At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the dossier was actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one, after all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps. Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance would remain hidden."

This is the entirety of the scandal. I've been saying it all along. ...Clinton was supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all this crap because shit is about to hit the fan.

FoggyWorld -> DeaconPews , Dec 24, 2017 10:24 PM

Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge.

We do have things to be grateful for this evening though and just ZH itself has provided us with a space to vent, to cry, to laugh and now maybe to hope.

Merry Christmas to each and every one here - unseen but cared for friends.

otschelnik -> DeaconPews , Dec 24, 2017 11:22 PM

But here's the good news: Rosenstein, Wray and reportedly McCabe have all declined to answer if the golden shower dossier was used in the FISA warrant for surveillance of Carter Page, and/or Manafort. If the dossier WAS the reason and is now discredited oppo-research, then in all likelihood we're looking at huge FBI violation of due process, and a 'fruit of the poisoned tree' instance. That means that any evidence which could be used against Trump which originated from this surveillance would be thrown out of court. The FBI must know this.

Old556 , Dec 24, 2017 10:05 PM

There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.

– Charles Louis de Secondat 1748

navy62802 -> Old556 , Dec 24, 2017 10:07 PM

These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to overthrow the elected government.

MuffDiver69 , Dec 24, 2017 10:42 PM

Reasoned article and McCarthy is a former Federal Prosecutor using what is recognized as standard operating procedures in these cases to figure this out. I've come to the same conclusion months back. He obviously has a reputation and can't just sling it... They really can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt. Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal.

enough of this , Dec 24, 2017 10:44 PM

The Federal Bureau of Indiscretion

http://investmentwatchblog.com/peter-strzok-the-fbis-forrest-gump/

[Dec 25, 2017] The Federal Bureau of Indiscretion

The question is when does Opposition Research cross the line and become criminal conduct.

Notable quotes:

"... By now, most Americans paying attention have heard about Peter Strzok, one of the FBI's lead investigators on the Hillary Clinton email case and the Trump – Russia collusion probe. Strzok was second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI. He, single-handedly, put a dark cloud over the integrity of the two investigations when it was recently disclosed that he had exchanged thousands of politically-charged text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, a senior FBI attorney. The couple used FBI-supplied cell phones to transmit and receive the text messages ..."

Dec 25, 2017 | investmentwatchblog.com

By now, most Americans paying attention have heard about Peter Strzok, one of the FBI's lead investigators on the Hillary Clinton email case and the Trump – Russia collusion probe. Strzok was second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI. He, single-handedly, put a dark cloud over the integrity of the two investigations when it was recently disclosed that he had exchanged thousands of politically-charged text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, a senior FBI attorney. The couple used FBI-supplied cell phones to transmit and receive the text messages . The House Judiciary Committee requested copies of all the text messages from the Department of Justice but only received a small fraction of them.

Numerous text messages show, in explicit detail, that Strzok and Page were big fans of Hillary Clinton during the time she was being investigated for violations of the Espionage Act and while she was campaigning to be president of the U.S. The messages also show the utter contempt they had for Clinton's opponent, Donald Trump.

When Robert Mueller, special prosecutor in the Trump – Russia collusion investigation, learned about the existence of these text messages last July, he removed Peter Strzok from his team of investigators. Strzok was re-assigned to the FBI's human resources department and is still on the payroll.

After the name of FBI agent Peter Strzok catapulted above the fold, we learned more about his wide-ranging assignments at the FBI.

Two months prior to then FBI Director, James Comey's formal exoneration of Hillary Clinton, Strzok edited Comey's draft exoneration letter and suggested key changes that watered down the allegations against her.

Strzok was present at the FBI's interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016. Clinton wasn't put under oath prior to her questioning nor was the proceeding recorded, making the softball interrogation a farce.

Strzok also interviewed Clinton associates, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Miller, the previous month. These interrogations have been roundly criticized by legal authorities as nothing more than a charade because it is unheard of to have two potential witnesses present at the same interview.

Strzok was selected to be a key investigator on Mueller's team looking into potential collusion between President Trump and Russia. He participated in the interview of Michael Flynn, President Trump's short-lived National Security Advisor, who has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is now cooperating with the Mueller probe.

Strzok is suspected of being responsible for using an unverified dossier to obtain a FISA warrant in order to spy on President Trump's campaign.
In one particularly disturbing text message Strzok refers to an insurance policy of some kind if Trump should be elected, which could be the genesis of the current Trump – Russia collusion probe, which is yet to yield any hard evidence of collusion.

Apparently, super-agent Peter Strzok was a very busy man at the Bureau and the go-to guy on high-profile cases involving political figures.

A senior investigator, who expresses extreme opinions about politicians while he is investigating them, degrades his ability to be objective. One would have to be in deep denial to believe that Strzok's political sentiments didn't influence his handling of the Clinton case. Strzok's kid glove treatment of Clinton and her aides during their interviews and his edits of Comey's draft exoneration document are completely consistent with his favorable political view of Clinton.

It boggles the mind to think that senior FBI officials, like Strzok and Page, would be foolish enough to leave an electronic trail of their political proclivities. It is a gross understatement to say that they should have known better. Apparently, they and others in the Department of Justice never thought such conflicts of interest would ever be exposed because they were thoroughly convinced Hillary Clinton would be the next president and their next boss. They committed the mortal sin of presumption and are suffering the consequences. Presumption coupled with a monumental lack of discretion increases the chances that a scandal will ensue and that's exactly what happened in this case.

Although Peter Strzok was highly regarded within the Bureau, no one ever heard of him until he became an overnight media sensation along with his paramour, Lisa Page. As damning as the flurry of text messages is to the probity of high-profile criminal investigations, it may only be the beginning salvo in a barrage of shattering revelations because there are thousands of his text messages that haven't been released yet. The small fraction that have been submitted to congress were partially redacted. Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, is also seeking Strzok's text messages under the Freedom of Information Act. And the House Judiciary Committee intends to subpoena Strzok to testify under oath.

The DOJ and the FBI have studiously resisted requests for information by claiming the matter is still under investigation or would compromise intelligence methods and sources, if the records were released. They say Justice Department Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, is reviewing the FBI's handling of investigations relating to the presidential election. Therefore, DOJ officials say congress will have to wait until the IG's review is finished, giving the IG precedence over congressional oversight. The extreme reluctance of the DOJ and the FBI to be forthcoming seems to be motivated by a sense of self-preservation more than anything else given the can of worms Strzok's text messages has opened. This thing could easily metastasize into a mega-scandal that undermines our justice system at its core.

At the center of this escalating controversy is Mr. Strzok, who is a veritable one-man band. As the FBI's lead investigator, the guy was all over the place. When James Comey sought input on the draft Clinton exoneration letter, he solicited and accepted Strzok's recommendations. Strzok responded with a now-infamous turn-of-phrase. He suggested that Comey change "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" when describing Clinton's handling of classified information. Strzok also watered down Comey's statement that it's "reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email account." Strzok thought it would be less harmful to say "possible" than "reasonably likely" when characterizing our enemies' potential access to hacked classified information.

See http://investmentwatchblog.com/extremely-careless-or-grossly-negligent-an-fbi-conspiracy-to-obstruct-justice/

Despite being indiscrete with his political views, Peter Strzok appears to be a very bright individual whose counsel was avidly sought and valued by the top echelon of the FBI. In this respect, he was a lot like Mark Fuhrman, who was the most alert detective on the OJ Simpson case, seemingly everywhere at the crime scenes. Ultimately, Fuhrman was accused of being prejudiced against blacks and decided to take the Fifth during the Simpson trial. Strzok may face a similar fate, except his biases run toward politics.

Like Forrest Gump, the slow-witted protagonist in the eponymous Academy Award winning film, Strzok was everywhere at defining points in the high-profile FBI investigations of a sitting president and a would-be president. Unlike Forrest Gump, however, Strzok is anything but slow-witted. Unfortunately, he let his political predilections affect his law enforcement duties, which is anathema to the bedrock principle of equal justice under the law.

If the bulk of Strzok's text messages, when released, show that the FBI associates with whom he communicated had a similar rabid disdain or excessive adoration for those they were investigating, then the cases they were involved with would be tainted and compromised. And the premier investigatory body in the world will be derided as the Federal Bureau of Indiscretion.

Honest rank-and-file FBI agents deserve better. They shouldn't have to report to corrupt leaders who play politics and sully the Bureau's reputation. If FBI agents see something, they should say something. The evidence and only the evidence should dictate how the law is applied. To do otherwise is a travesty of justice.

[Nov 28, 2017] The Cover-Up Begins To End Judicial Watch Hints At Explosive New Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Docs

Notable quotes:

"... "The FBI is out of control. It is stunning that the FBI 'found' these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught the agency hiding them in another lawsuit," stated Judicial Watch Tom Fitton. "Judicial Watch will continue to press for answers about the FBI's document games in court. In the meantime, the FBI should stop the stonewall and release these new records immediately." ..."

"... This case has also forced the FBI to release to the public the FBI's Clinton investigative file, although more than half of the records remain withheld. The FBI has also told Judicial Watch that it anticipates completing the processing of these materials by July 2018. ..."

"... There is significant controversy about whether the FBI and Obama Justice Department investigation gave Clinton and other witnesses and potential targets preferential treatment. ..."

"... So what say you? Will Judicial Watch finally manage to release documents that expose collusion between a former U.S. President, the FBI and the sitting Attorney General to cover-up a massive Clinton scandal or will they simply release more heavily redacted documents that tell us precisely nothing. We'll let you know on Thursday ..."

"... Get rid of all alphabet agencies. Judicial watch can replace the eff bee eye ..."

"... They certainly don't give off the dashing, danger seeking, savior-faire, panache vibe that the Alinsky press so luuuv's to talk about, like with "former British spies" delivering the fake goods but ...when it comes right down to it... ..."

"... I highly recommend making charitable contributions to Judicial Watch. Freedom isn't free, and JW is helping, a whole lot more than the MSM which isn't doing its job very well. But Kudos to the reporter who spotted Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix! ..."

"... I think it's foolish for JW to claim victory before seeing the documents. How would it have hurt to just wait a couple of days before coming out with this story? If this turns out to be a nothing burger it just strengthens Clinton and makes JW look stupid. ..."

Nov 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

After originally being told by the FBI there were no documents to produce in response to their July 2016 FOIA request, Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton was subsequently told in October 2017 that the FBI had simply overlooked 30 pages worth of relevant docs... 30 pages which Fitton now says will mark the "beginning of the end" of the DOJ's "cover-up" when they're released this Thursday.

FBI Hid Clinton/Lynch Tarmac Meeting Records. But the cover-up begins to end -- thanks to @JudicialWatch -- the day after tomorrow. @RealDonaldTrump needs to clean house at FBI/DOJ.

FBI Hid Clinton/Lynch Tarmac Meeting Records. But the cover-up begins to end -- thanks to @JudicialWatch -- the day after tomorrow. @RealDonaldTrump needs to clean house at FBI/DOJ. https://t.co/tytBp28sYL

-- Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) November 28, 2017

Of course, Fitton expressed his frustration with the botched FOIA response back in October after describing the FBI as "out of control" and saying it's " stunning that the FBI 'found' these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught the agency hiding them in another lawsuit." Per Judicial Watch :

"The FBI is out of control. It is stunning that the FBI 'found' these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught the agency hiding them in another lawsuit," stated Judicial Watch Tom Fitton. "Judicial Watch will continue to press for answers about the FBI's document games in court. In the meantime, the FBI should stop the stonewall and release these new records immediately."

This case has also forced the FBI to release to the public the FBI's Clinton investigative file, although more than half of the records remain withheld. The FBI has also told Judicial Watch that it anticipates completing the processing of these materials by July 2018.

There is significant controversy about whether the FBI and Obama Justice Department investigation gave Clinton and other witnesses and potential targets preferential treatment.

So what say you? Will Judicial Watch finally manage to release documents that expose collusion between a former U.S. President, the FBI and the sitting Attorney General to cover-up a massive Clinton scandal or will they simply release more heavily redacted documents that tell us precisely nothing. We'll let you know on Thursday.
Bigly -> True Blue , Nov 28, 2017 7:21 PM

Get rid of all alphabet agencies. Judicial watch can replace the eff bee eye

bigkahuna -> True Blue , Nov 28, 2017 7:22 PM

yeah......and, ok - yeah

nmewn -> chunga , Nov 28, 2017 6:59 PM

Indeed.

They certainly don't give off the dashing, danger seeking, savior-faire, panache vibe that the Alinsky press so luuuv's to talk about, like with "former British spies" delivering the fake goods but ...when it comes right down to it...

"Do you want 10yrs of ass pounding prison with a guy named Daisy we know or do you want to give up the goods we can prove you have?"

...even Grand Inquisitor Mueller will buckle and sob like a pussyhat wearing feminist on inauguration day 2017.

Loyalty only goes as far as the last check with them and the money's running out ;-)

MoreFreedom -> chunga , Nov 28, 2017 7:21 PM

I highly recommend making charitable contributions to Judicial Watch. Freedom isn't free, and JW is helping, a whole lot more than the MSM which isn't doing its job very well. But Kudos to the reporter who spotted Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix!

One wonders how the Clinton's found out about Lynch being there, as it certainly wasn't a coincidence.

Kayman , Nov 28, 2017 6:34 PM

Washington is the Mob. Expecting Truth and Justice from these Criminals? Only a rope will solve the problem.

buzzsaw99 , Nov 28, 2017 6:35 PM

loretta is a skanky ho imo.

chubbar -> Tebow , Nov 28, 2017 6:49 PM

I think it's foolish for JW to claim victory before seeing the documents. How would it have hurt to just wait a couple of days before coming out with this story? If this turns out to be a nothing burger it just strengthens Clinton and makes JW look stupid.

[Nov 05, 2017] FBI Turns Over Hundreds Of Pages Of New Clinton Probe Documents Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:

"... The pressure this time emanated from a federal lawsuit that brought the documents to light. Specifically, the lawsuit was filed by Judicial Watch to determine exactly when FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe recused himself from the Clinton email investigation, which was codenamed "Mid Year." McCabe was forced to step aside due to questions about a possible conflict of interest involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of money that flowed to his wife's political campaign from a Clinton ally. ..."

"... The newly disclosed documents, presented in their entirety below, reveal that McCabe did not recuse himself from the long-running investigation until Nov. 1, 2016, just six days before the probe was officially ended and eight days before Trump defeated Clinton in one of the greatest upset victories in modern presidential politics. ..."

"... After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. The Senate Judiciary Committee had announced its own investigation weeks earlier. ..."

"... The bureau's decision to release the documents is a sign that new FBI Director Chris Wray, is attempting to build his own relationship with Congress amid multiple oversight investigations. ..."

Nov 05, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

In September, Comey, - much like Hillary's former IT consultant Paul Combetta who admitted to deleting Hillary's emails despite the existence of a Congressional subpoena - had his very own "oh shit" moment when a witness confirmed during Congressional testimony that Comey started drafting his letter excusing Clinton months before the investigation was finished. Since then, the bureau has decided to begin turning over all documents requested by Congress, including memos pertaining to the infamous 'Trump dossier' after initially resisting a subpoena from the House Intel committee.

... ... ...
The pressure this time emanated from a federal lawsuit that brought the documents to light. Specifically, the lawsuit was filed by Judicial Watch to determine exactly when FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe recused himself from the Clinton email investigation, which was codenamed "Mid Year." McCabe was forced to step aside due to questions about a possible conflict of interest involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of money that flowed to his wife's political campaign from a Clinton ally.
On Friday, Bloomberg reported that in their quest to discover the the FBI Deputy Director may know, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee threatened to subpoena McCabe next week unless he agrees to appear before their panel.

They intend on pressing McCabe on topics including his role in the FBI's investigation into former White House National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, said the official, who asked not to be identified discussing the members' plans. Interest in McCabe goes beyond Flynn, however, the official said.
McCabe's role in the Clinton probe is especially conflicted: last October, the WSJ reported that the political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of McCabe's wife, shortly before he helped oversee the FBI "investigation" into Clinton's email use.
Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe's political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.

The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support to Dr. McCabe's campaign in the form of mailers, according to the records. That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe's control or strongly influenced by him. The figure represents more than a third of all the campaign funds Dr. McCabe raised in the effort.

The newly disclosed documents, presented in their entirety below, reveal that McCabe did not recuse himself from the long-running investigation until Nov. 1, 2016, just six days before the probe was officially ended and eight days before Trump defeated Clinton in one of the greatest upset victories in modern presidential politics.

After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. The Senate Judiciary Committee had announced its own investigation weeks earlier.

The bureau's decision to release the documents is a sign that new FBI Director Chris Wray, is attempting to build his own relationship with Congress amid multiple oversight investigations.

svayambhu108 -> KimAsa , Nov 4, 2017 1:54 PM

Clinton is untouchable all those elite POSs are untouchable, eat you heart out sheeple

toady -> svayambhu108 , Nov 4, 2017 1:58 PM

I like how it's a "Clinton Probe" and a "Trump INVESTIGATION"

bamawatson -> toady , Nov 4, 2017 1:59 PM

disgusting

strannick -> bamawatson , Nov 4, 2017 2:02 PM

FBI limited hangout

macholatte -> IH8OBAMA , Nov 4, 2017 2:33 PM

SESSIONS MUST GO. There is no choice.

Hoping to clarify Sessions' vague response, Hewitt asked whether the attorney general was recused from any investigations into the Clinton Foundation.

"Um yes," Sessions replied.

https://thinkprogress.org/sessions-recuse-uranium-one-b4d1208b5e2e/

CheapBastard -> macholatte , Nov 4, 2017 2:40 PM

Send both Comey and Sessons to Gitmo for "enhanced interrogation."

CuttingEdge -> CheapBastard , Nov 4, 2017 4:58 PM

Let's see...

If Sessions appoints a special prosecutor for Uranium-1, on the basis that all that lovely yellow cake has left the country for parts unknown, contravening guarantees made to Congress (the FBI informant hopefully this week is key), obviously there is no link to Hillary that could affect Sessions recusal - because the MSM have been telling us ad infinitum there is nothing to see there...

Sessions and his recusal are then out of the frame, and the SP can go down every fucking rabbit hole he chooses (same as Mueller is doing). If, perchance, they lead him to the doors of the Clinton Foundation, or God forbid, the scroat herself, that is fuck all to do with the AG.

In order to have zero influence in the control of the evidence from hereon in, McCabe and Rosenstein (and likely many of their Obama placeholder deputies in the FBI and DoJ) need to be removed immediately.

beemasters -> CuttingEdge , Nov 4, 2017 5:31 PM

"Clinton Probe"

Huma has all the evidence. Probe her too.

BidnessMan -> beemasters , Nov 4, 2017 5:55 PM

The evidence is all on the Weiner laptop, and on all the Awan laptops and desktops. But they do have to actually look at them.... Looks like Sessions is being skunked and humiliated by the DoJ permanent staff who always adored Hillary and Obama, and still do.

The DoJ Swamp is winning.

LedMizer -> CheapBastard , Nov 4, 2017 5:23 PM

Every time I read Hillary and probe in the same sentence I throw up a little in my mouth.

El Oregonian -> CheapBastard , Nov 4, 2017 9:34 PM

FBI officials declined to comment. "We don't have any information for you," spokeswoman Carol Cratty told The Hill.

That is not acceptable spokeswoman Carol Cratty. You are a servant to the people and answer to us! Now get your ass in gear and bring out the information or you will also be charged with obstruction of justice.

Citxmech -> macholatte , Nov 4, 2017 2:41 PM

HRC could admit to bathing in babys' blood and eating kittens and the MSM would be silent.

valjoux7750 -> macholatte , Nov 4, 2017 3:06 PM

Sessions is a spinless douche bag. He recused himself from Clinton fountion because he said something negative about the candidate and it might hurt his objectivity? What a coward this guy is, he wants nothing to do with prosecuting Clinton. Fire this pussy already Trump!!

chunga -> strannick , Nov 4, 2017 2:28 PM

My guess is TPTB are seeing their stories are becoming so fantastic and hard to believe they're straining their last tiny threads of credulity so they're trying to placate with these batches of files.. The lovely and charming mrs. chunga likes to watch the weather report in the morning. She normally has the discipline to not get too fired up about fake news because she's convinced it's all fake but this AM she was livid.

The little fake news pinhead said Trump was fleeing the country because he was in grave danger of Mueller and the Russian collusion business was closing in on him. He said the Uranium One thing had been "thouroughly debunked". No mention of Brazile. No mention of Warren.

Then some tribe guy legal expert came on and said Sessions was again in Trump's dog house and any attempt to push him around was a desperate diversion tactic and the "Murikan people want Mueller to continue without interference. LoL!

My theory is Comey re-opened the investigation when the Weiner laptop popped up. Then it was closed 8 days later after it had positively been secured and everyone who'd seen it was sufficiently threatened and/or killed by federal black hats.

Dilly Dilly!

GUS100CORRINA -> chunga , Nov 4, 2017 2:38 PM

FBI Turns Over Hundreds Of Pages Of New Clinton Probe Documents

My response: IT IS ABOUT TIME!!!! What an absolute screwed up mess this whole CLINTON episode has become.

IF YOU WANT IT REALLY SCREWED UP, JUST LET THE MARXIST PROGRESS LIBERAL LAWYERS AND JUDGES GET INVOLVED.

AG Jeff Sessions really needs to step up to the bar here or GET THE HELL OUT!!!!

By the way, AG Sessions better make RICE, LOIS LERNER (IRS), HOLDER, LYNCH and OBAMA a key focus in the weeks ahead. These people are corrupt to the core.

SWRichmond -> Chupacabra-322 , Nov 4, 2017 4:42 PM

McCabe for prison.

Yes I mean both of them. McAuliffe too. McAuliffe is the one who stood down the Virginia police and is responsible for all the mayhem in Charlottesville.

Go to jail Terry you corrupt son of a b****. Terry was on the board of the Clinton Foundation.

And while we're at it there's Tim Kaine former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, which apparently was bankrupt enough for Hillary Clinton to take over with some of her ill-gotten gains to guarantee herself the Democratic nomination and steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders. And we can see how corrupt the DNC is can't we?

So we can dump Kaine because he had to know about uranium one. He had to know about the Perkins Coie pissgate "dossier". He is thick in this too.

gdiamond22 -> KimAsa , Nov 4, 2017 7:21 PM

Smashed hard drives, deleted emails, pleading the 5th, immunity deals. This is politics at the highest level. No one goes to jail that is or was in a position of power and spotlight. It's a failure of government and a failure of justice. All it does is what the left wants - divide and conquer.

Lady Liberty weaps.....

Yes We Can. But... , Nov 4, 2017 2:00 PM

She hid her emails for a reason ((pay-to-play, foundation, laundering)).

She destroyed them for a reason ((avoid prosecution, Comey plays dumb)).

She needs to pay ((equal application rule of law)).

Chupacabra-322 -> Yes We Can. But Lets Not. , Nov 4, 2017 2:15 PM

As a reminder, all the data to date suggests that Hillary broke the following 11 US CODES. I provided the links for your convenience. HRC needs to immediately be apprehended, Arrested, Indicted, Enprisoned, Tried, Convicted & Executed.

CEO aka "President" TRUMP was indeed correct when he said: "FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds!"

18 U.S. Code § 1905 - Disclosure of confidential information generally https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1905

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

26 U.S. Code § 7201 - Attempt to evade or defeat tax https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7201

26 U.S. Code § 7212 - Attempts to interfere with administration of internal revenue laws https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7212

18 U.S. Code § 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343

18 U.S. Code § 1349 – Attempt and Conspiracy https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1349

18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of Proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

18 U.S. Code § 1621 - Perjury generally (including documents signed under penalty of perjury) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621

18 USC Sec. 2384?TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?PART I - CRIMES?CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC02384.html

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

The Preponderance of Evidence suggests that she broke these Laws, Knowingly, Willfully and Repeatedly. This pattern indicates a habitual/career Criminal, who belongs in Federal Prison awaiting Trail for Treason, Sedition, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes Against The American People.

**Side Note**

Mueller, Comey, Obama, Lynch, Jarrett, Clapper, Brennan, Wasserman-Shultz are not immune from the above charges.

[Oct 27, 2017] Deep State Gone Wild Comey Asserts Unprecedented FBI Supremacy

Comey is actually a politician. And he definitely wanted to keep Russiagate hot, and probably was instrumental in creating it ... As this situation suits him political desire for higher autonomy from Justice Department

Notable quotes:

"... James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials. ..."

"... The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior. ..."

"... Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to Rosenstein. ..."

"... "The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department . ..."

"... Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence, according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official. ..."

"... "Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the Wall Street Journal wrote . ..."

"... A 2005 report from the FBI's Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated, "Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. " ..."

Jun 08, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials.

The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior.

The group decided that it could override standard FBI protocol and possibly legal obligations to report the incident because of its expectations that Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia matter, although that recusal would not come until weeks later. The Comey cabinet also decided that it wasn't obligated to approach the acting Deputy Attorney General because he would likely be replaced soon.

"We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks later.) The Deputy Attorney General's role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States Attorney, who would also not be long in the role," Comey said. "After discussing the matter, we decided to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation progressed."

According to three different former federal law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, there is no precedent for the director of the FBI to refuse to inform a Deputy Attorney General of a matter because of his or her "acting" status nor to use the expectation of a recusal as a basis for withholding information.

"This is an extraordinary usurpation of power. Not something you'd expect from the supposedly by-the-books guys at the top of the FBI," one of those officials told Breitbart News.

The closest precedent to the Comey cabinet's decision to conceal information from Justice Department superiors is likely Comey's widely criticized earlier decision to go public about the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails. That decision received a sharp rebuke in the May 9 memo by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that formed the basis for Comey's firing by Trump.

Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to Rosenstein.

"The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department . There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders."

Comey's testimony on Thursday seemed to double-down on this defense, which amounts to a claim that the FBI's top agents can act outside of the ordinary processes intended to establish oversight and accountability at the nation's top law enforcement agency.

The FBI's adherence to Department of Justice guidelines and instructions from Attorneys General has been a centerpiece of its ongoing independence, often cited by officials as a reason why the FBI does not need a general legislative charter that would restrict or control by statute its authority. Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence, according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official.

"He's not only put the credibility of the bureau in doubt, he's now putting the entire basis for our independence in jeopardy," the official said.

The official pointed to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal as explaining the dangers of an FBI that decides not to inform the Department of Justice of its activities.

"Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the Wall Street Journal wrote .

A 2005 report from the FBI's Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated, "Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. "

[Oct 24, 2017] Republican-led House committees to investigate Clintons emails again by Associated Press

Why they decided to resume investigation now ? What new facts were uncovered? What hidden storm hit "deep state" so the for stability they need to sacrifice Hillary Clinton

How this correlates with the discovery that DNC paid for Steele dossier? Judging from John Sipher a is a former member of the CIA's Senior Intelligence Service attempt to defend Steele dossier in his Slate article (Sept, 2017), just a month before current revelations. As retied CIA agents usually avoid public spotlight it might well be that he was "adviced" to write his evaluation and, if this is the case, then CIA and may be personally Brennan were also involved in "Steele dossier" fiasco.

Notable quotes:

"... The ousted FBI director James Comey and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general. ..."

"... Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS, the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia. A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without any legitimate purposes ..."

Oct 24, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

The Republican leaders of the House judiciary and oversight panels said in a statement they were opening investigations into the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation and the decision not to prosecute her – the subject of hours-long congressional hearings last year.

The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, Devin Nunes, also announced a separate investigation into a uranium deal brokered during Barack Obama's tenure as president.

The House judiciary committee chairman, Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, and the oversight committee chairman, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, said the inquiry would be aimed at the FBI and its decisions in the Clinton investigation . The ousted FBI director James Comey and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general.

The two panels have declined to investigate Russia's interference in the 2016 elections, leaving those inquiries to Senate committees and the House intelligence committee.

Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS, the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia. A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without any legitimate purposes.

[Oct 17, 2017] Google launches advanced Gmail security features for high-risk users

Notable quotes:

"... The program would include additional reviews and requests in the account recovery process to prevent fraudulent access by hackers who try to gain access by pretending they have been locked out. ..."

Oct 17, 2017 | www.msn.com

Alphabet's Google Inc said on Tuesday that it would roll out an advanced protection program in order to provide stronger security for some users such as government officials and journalists who are at a higher risk of being targeted by hackers.

The internet giant said that users of the program would have their account security continuously updated to deal with emerging threats.

The company said it would initially provide three defenses against security threats, which include blocking fraudulent account access and protection against phishing.

The program would include additional reviews and requests in the account recovery process to prevent fraudulent access by hackers who try to gain access by pretending they have been locked out.

... ... ...

[Sep 24, 2017] Weiner faces sentencing in latest chapter of sexting drama

Sep 24, 2017 | www.msn.com

NEW YORK ! It seemed as if Anthony Weiner had hit rock bottom when he resigned from Congress in 2011.

"Bye-bye, pervert!" one heckler shouted as the Democrat quit amid revelations that he had sent graphic pictures of himself to women on social media. Time has shown his self-destructive drama had only just begun.

Weiner, 53, is set to be sentenced Monday for sending obscene material to a 15-year-old girl in a case that may have also have played a role in costing Hillary Clinton ! former boss of Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin ! the presidential election.

Federal prosecutors have asked for a sentence of slightly more than two years behind bars because of the seriousness of the crime, in which Weiner sent adult porn to the girl and got her to take her clothes off for him on Skype.

"The defendant did far more than exchange typed words on a lifeless cellphone screen with a faceless stranger," prosecutors wrote to the judge. "Transmitting obscenity to a minor to induce her to engage in sexually explicit conduct by video chat and photo ! is far from mere 'sexting.'"

[Sep 21, 2017] Emails Hillary Clinton Sought Russian Officials For Pay-To-Play Scheme

Sep 21, 2017 | www.mintpressnews.com

Although Hillary Clinton has blamed numerous factors and people for her loss to Donald Trump in last year's election, no one has received as much blame as the Russian government. In an effort to avoid blaming the candidate herself by turning the election results into a national scandal, accusations of Kremlin-directed meddling soon surfaced. While such accusations have largely been discredited by both computer analysts and award-winning journalists like Seymour Hersh, they continue to be repeated as the investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Russian government picks up steam.

However, newly released Clinton emails suggest that that the former secretary of state's disdain for the Russian government is a relatively new development. The emails, obtained by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, show that the Russian government was included in invitations to exclusive Clinton Foundation galas that began less than two months after Clinton became the top official at the U.S. State Department.

In March of 2009, Amitabh Desai, then-Clinton Foundation director of foreign policy, sent invitations to numerous world leaders, which included Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, and former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. Desai's emails were cc'd to Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro and later forwarded to top Clinton aide Jake Sullivan.

The Clinton Foundation's activities during Hillary's tenure as secretary of state have been central to the accusations that the Clinton family used their "charitable" foundation as a means of enriching themselves via a massive "Pay to Play" scheme. Emails leaked by Wikileaks, particularly the Podesta emails , offered ample evidence connecting foreign donations to the Clintons and their foundation with preferential treatment by the U.S. State Department.

[Sep 17, 2017] The Only Safe Email is Text Only Email

Notable quotes:

"... The real issue is that today's web-based email systems are electronic minefields filled with demands and enticements to click and engage in an increasingly responsive and interactive online experience. It's not just Gmail, Yahoo mail and similar services: Desktop-computer-based email programs like Outlook display messages in the same unsafe way. ..."

"... Simply put, safe email is plain-text email -- showing only the plain words of the message exactly as they arrived, without embedded links or images ..."

"... Even the federal government's top cybersecurity experts have come to the startling, but important, conclusion that any person, organization or government serious about web security should return to plain-text email (PDF). ..."

Sep 12, 2017 | yro.slashdot.org

(theconversation.com)

Posted by msmash on Tuesday September 12, 2017

Sergey Bratus, Research Associate Professor of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, and Anna Shubina, Post-doctoral Associate in Computer Science, Dartmouth College write: The real issue is that today's web-based email systems are electronic minefields filled with demands and enticements to click and engage in an increasingly responsive and interactive online experience. It's not just Gmail, Yahoo mail and similar services: Desktop-computer-based email programs like Outlook display messages in the same unsafe way.

Simply put, safe email is plain-text email -- showing only the plain words of the message exactly as they arrived, without embedded links or images. Webmail is convenient for advertisers (and lets you write good-looking emails with images and nice fonts), but carries with it unnecessary -- and serious -- danger, because a webpage (or an email) can easily show one thing but do another. Returning email to its origins in plain text may seem radical, but it provides radically better security .

Even the federal government's top cybersecurity experts have come to the startling, but important, conclusion that any person, organization or government serious about web security should return to plain-text email (PDF).

fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) , Tuesday September 12, 2017 @02:03PM ( #55182113 )

Thunderbird, viewing in Plain Text ... Score: , Insightful)
I use Thunderbird and POP3, view my messages in Plain Text, have Javascript and all plugins disabled -- for those cases where I have to view the message body as HTML because (for some reason) nothing (or not everything) displays in Plain Text mode (which annoys me to no end, anyone have a workaround?).

I'm confident that I'm not missing out on anything by viewing in Plain Text, 'cause it's freaking email, not art

[Aug 11, 2017] John R. Schindler

Notable quotes:

"... However, one senior NSA official, now retired, recalled the kerfuffle with Team Clinton in early 2009 about Blackberrys. "It was the usual Clinton prima donna stuff," he explained, "the whole 'rules are for other people' act that I remembered from the '90s." Why Ms. Clinton would not simply check her personal email on an office computer, like every other government employee less senior than the president, seems a germane question, given what a major scandal email-gate turned out to be. "What did she not want put on a government system, where security people might see it?" the former NSA official asked, adding, "I wonder now, and I sure wish I'd asked about it back in 2009." ..."

"... one of the most controversial of Ms. Clinton's emails released by the State Department under judicial order was one sent on June 8, 2011, to the Secretary of State by Sidney Blumenthal, Ms. Clinton's unsavory friend and confidant who was running a private intelligence service for Ms. Clinton. This email contains an amazingly detailed assessment of events in Sudan, specifically a coup being plotted by top generals in that war-torn country. Mr. Blumenthal's information came from a top-ranking source with direct access to Sudan's top military and intelligence officials, and recounted a high-level meeting that had taken place only 24 hours before. ..."

"... Mr. Blumenthal, a private citizen who had enjoyed no access to U.S. intelligence for over a decade when he sent that email, somehow got hold of SIGINT about the Sudanese leadership and managed to send it, via open, unclassified email, to his friend Ms. Clinton only one day later. ..."

"... Specifically, this information was illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all of them classified "Top Secret / Special Intelligence." Worse, at least one of those reports was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access Program, or SAP, several of which from the CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in another series of her "unclassified" emails. ..."

"... Suspicion naturally falls on Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA senior official who was Mr. Blumenthal's intelligence fixer, his supplier of juicy spy gossip, who conveniently died last August before email-gate became front-page news. However, he, too, had left federal service years before and should not have had any access to current NSA reports. ..."

"... How did nobody on Secretary Clinton's staff notice that this highly detailed reporting looked exactly like SIGINT from the NSA? Last, why did the State Department see fit to release this email, unredacted, to the public? ..."

Mar 18, 2016

The documents , though redacted, detail a bureaucratic showdown between Ms. Clinton and NSA at the outset of her tenure at Foggy Bottom. The new secretary of state, who had gotten "hooked" on her Blackberry during her failed 2008 presidential bid, according to a top State Department security official, wanted to use that Blackberry anywhere she went.

That, however, was impossible, since Secretary Clinton's main office space at Foggy Bottom was actually a Secure Compartment Information Facility, called a SCIF (pronounced "skiff") by insiders. A SCIF is required for handling any Top Secret-plus information. In most Washington, D.C., offices with a SCIF, which has to be certified as fully secure from human or technical penetration, that's where you check Top-Secret email, read intelligence reports and conduct classified meetings that must be held inside such protected spaces.

But personal electronic devices!your cellphone, your Blackberry!can never be brought into a SCIF. They represent a serious technical threat that is actually employed by many intelligence agencies worldwide. Though few Americans realize it, taking remote control over a handheld device, then using it to record conversations, is surprisingly easy for any competent spy service. Your smartphone is a sophisticated surveillance device!on you, the user!that also happens to provide phone service and Internet access.

As a result, your phone and your Blackberry always need to be locked up before you enter any SCIF. Taking such items into one represents a serious security violation. And Ms. Clinton and her staff really hated that. Not even one month into the new administration in early 2009, Ms. Clinton and her inner circle were chafing under these rules. They were accustomed to having their personal Blackberrys with them at all times, checking and sending emails nonstop, and that was simply impossible in a SCIF like their new office.

This resulted in a February 2009 request by Secretary Clinton to the NSA, whose Information Assurance Directorate (IAD for short: see here for an explanation of Agency organization) secures the sensitive communications of many U.S. government entities, from Top-Secret computer networks, to White House communications, to the classified codes that control our nuclear weapons.

The contents of Sid Blumenthal's June 8, 2011, email to Hillary Clinton!to her personal, unclassified account!were based on highly sensitive NSA information.

IAD had recently created a special, custom-made secure Blackberry for Barack Obama, another technology addict. Now Ms. Clinton wanted one for herself. However, making the new president's personal Blackberry had been a time-consuming and expensive exercise. The NSA was not inclined to provide Secretary Clinton with one of her own simply for her convenience: there had to be clearly demonstrated need.

And that seemed dubious to IAD since there was no problem with Ms. Clinton checking her personal email inside her office SCIF. Hers, like most, had open (i.e. unclassified) computer terminals connected to the Internet, and the secretary of state could log into her own email anytime she wanted to right from her desk.

But she did not want to. Ms. Clinton only checked her personal email on her Blackberry: she did not want to sit down at a computer terminal. As a result, the NSA informed Secretary Clinton in early 2009 that they could not help her. When Team Clinton kept pressing the point, "We were politely told to shut up and color" by IAD, explained the state security official.

The State Department has not released the full document trail here, so the complete story remains unknown to the public. However, one senior NSA official, now retired, recalled the kerfuffle with Team Clinton in early 2009 about Blackberrys. "It was the usual Clinton prima donna stuff," he explained, "the whole 'rules are for other people' act that I remembered from the '90s." Why Ms. Clinton would not simply check her personal email on an office computer, like every other government employee less senior than the president, seems a germane question, given what a major scandal email-gate turned out to be. "What did she not want put on a government system, where security people might see it?" the former NSA official asked, adding, "I wonder now, and I sure wish I'd asked about it back in 2009."

He's not the only NSA affiliate with pointed questions about what Hillary Clinton and her staff at Foggy Bottom were really up to!and why they went to such trouble to circumvent federal laws about the use of IT systems and the handling of classified information. This has come to a head thanks to Team Clinton's gross mishandling of highly classified NSA intelligence.

As I explained in this column in January, one of the most controversial of Ms. Clinton's emails released by the State Department under judicial order was one sent on June 8, 2011, to the Secretary of State by Sidney Blumenthal, Ms. Clinton's unsavory friend and confidant who was running a private intelligence service for Ms. Clinton. This email contains an amazingly detailed assessment of events in Sudan, specifically a coup being plotted by top generals in that war-torn country. Mr. Blumenthal's information came from a top-ranking source with direct access to Sudan's top military and intelligence officials, and recounted a high-level meeting that had taken place only 24 hours before.

To anybody familiar with intelligence reporting, this unmistakably signals intelligence, termed SIGINT in the trade. In other words, Mr. Blumenthal, a private citizen who had enjoyed no access to U.S. intelligence for over a decade when he sent that email, somehow got hold of SIGINT about the Sudanese leadership and managed to send it, via open, unclassified email, to his friend Ms. Clinton only one day later.

NSA officials were appalled by the State Department's release of this email, since it bore all the hallmarks of Agency reporting. Back in early January when I reported this , I was confident that Mr. Blumenthal's information came from highly classified NSA sources, based on my years of reading and writing such reports myself, and one veteran agency official told me it was NSA information with "at least 90 percent confidence."

Now, over two months later, I can confirm that the contents of Sid Blumenthal's June 8, 2011, email to Hillary Clinton, sent to her personal, unclassified account, were indeed based on highly sensitive NSA information. The agency investigated this compromise and determined that Mr. Blumenthal's highly detailed account of Sudanese goings-on, including the retelling of high-level conversations in that country, was indeed derived from NSA intelligence.

Specifically, this information was illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all of them classified "Top Secret / Special Intelligence." Worse, at least one of those reports was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access Program, or SAP, several of which from the CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in another series of her "unclassified" emails.

Currently serving NSA officials have told me they have no doubt that Mr. Blumenthal's information came from their reports. "It's word-for-word, verbatim copying," one of them explained. "In one case, an entire paragraph was lifted from an NSA report" that was classified Top Secret / Special Intelligence.

How Mr. Blumenthal got his hands on this information is the key question, and there's no firm answer yet. The fact that he was able to take four separate highly classified NSA reports!none of which he was supposed to have any access to!and pass the details of them to Hillary Clinton via email only hours after NSA released them in Top Secret / Special Intelligence channels indicates something highly unusual, as well as illegal, was going on.

Suspicion naturally falls on Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA senior official who was Mr. Blumenthal's intelligence fixer, his supplier of juicy spy gossip, who conveniently died last August before email-gate became front-page news. However, he, too, had left federal service years before and should not have had any access to current NSA reports.

There are many questions here about what Hillary Clinton and her staff at Foggy Bottom were up to, including Sidney Blumenthal, an integral member of the Clinton organization, despite his lack of any government position. How Mr. Blumenthal got hold of this Top Secret-plus reporting is only the first question. Why he chose to email it to Ms. Clinton in open channels is another question. So is: How did nobody on Secretary Clinton's staff notice that this highly detailed reporting looked exactly like SIGINT from the NSA? Last, why did the State Department see fit to release this email, unredacted, to the public?

These are the questions being asked by officials at the NSA and the FBI right now. All of them merit serious examination. Their answers may determine the political fate of Hillary Clinton!and who gets elected our next president in November.

[Jul 17, 2017] CIA sought to hack Apple iPhones from earliest days

Notable quotes:

"... Efforts to break into Apple products by government security researchers started as early as 2006, a year before Apple introduced its first iPhone and continued through the launch of the iPad in 2010 and beyond, The Intercept said. ..."

Mar 10, 2015 | The Intercept/Reuters

CIA researchers have worked for nearly a decade to break the security protecting Apple (AAPL.O) phones and tablets, investigative news site The Intercept reported on Tuesday, citing documents obtained from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The report cites top-secret U.S. documents that suggest U.S. government researchers had created a version of XCode, Apple's software application development tool, to create surveillance backdoors into programs distributed on Apple's App Store.

The Intercept has in the past published a number of reports from documents released by whistleblower Snowden. The site's editors include Glenn Greenwald, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his work in reporting on Snowden's revelations, and by Oscar-winning documentary maker Laura Poitras.

It said the latest documents, which covered a period from 2006 to 2013, stop short of proving whether U.S. intelligence researchers had succeeded in breaking Apple's encryption coding, which secures user data and communications.

Efforts to break into Apple products by government security researchers started as early as 2006, a year before Apple introduced its first iPhone and continued through the launch of the iPad in 2010 and beyond, The Intercept said.

Breeching Apple security was part of a top-secret program by the U.S. government, aided by British intelligence researchers, to hack "secure communications products, both foreign and domestic" including Google Android phones, it said.

Silicon Valley technology companies have in recent months sought to restore trust among consumers around the world that their products have not become tools for widespread government surveillance of citizens.

Last September, Apple strengthened encryption methods for data stored on iPhones, saying the changes meant the company no longer had any way to extract customer data on the devices, even if a government ordered it to with a search warrant. Silicon Valley rival Google Inc (GOOGL.O) said shortly afterward that it also planned to increase the use of stronger encryption tools.

Both companies said the moves were aimed at protecting the privacy of users of their products and that this was partly a response to wide scale U.S. government spying on Internet users revealed by Snowden in 2013.

An Apple spokesman pointed to public statements by Chief Executive Tim Cook on privacy, but declined to comment further.

"I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services," Cook wrote in a statement on privacy and security published last year. "We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will."

Leaders including U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron have expressed concern that turning such privacy-enhancing tools into mass market features could prevent governments from tracking militants planning attacks. The CIA did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

[Jul 14, 2017] Peter W. Smith, GOP operative who sought Clinton's emails from Russian hackers, committed suicide, records show by Katherine Skiba, David Heinzmann, Todd Lighty

Notable quotes:

"... Days earlier, the financier from suburban Lake Forest gave an interview to the Journal about his quest, and it published stories about his efforts beginning in late June. The Journal also reported it had seen emails written by Smith showing his team considered retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, then a top adviser to Republican Donald Trump's campaign, as an ally. Flynn briefly was President Trump's national security adviser and resigned after it was determined he had failed to disclose contacts with Russia. ..."

"... The Journal stories said it was on Labor Day weekend in 2016 that Smith had assembled a team to acquire emails the team theorized might have been stolen from the private server Clinton had used while secretary of state. Smith's focus was the more than 30,000 emails Clinton said she deleted because they related to personal matters. A huge cache of other Clinton emails were made public. ..."

"... Smith told the Journal he believed the missing emails might have had been obtained by Russian hackers. He also said he thought the correspondence related to Clinton's official duties. He told the Journal he worked independently and was not part of the Trump campaign. He also told the Journal he and his team found five groups of hackers - two of them Russian groups - who claimed to have Clinton's missing emails. ..."

"... Investigations into any possible links between the Russian government and people associated with Trump's presidential campaign now are underway in Congress and by former FBI chief Robert Mueller. He is acting as a special counsel for the Department of Justice. Mueller spokesman Peter Carr declined to comment on the Journal's stories on Smith or his death. Washington attorney Robert Kelner, who represents Flynn, had no comment on Thursday. ..."

"... Smith's death occurred at the Aspen Suites in Rochester, records show. They list the cause of death as "asphyxiation due to displacement of oxygen in confined space with helium." ..."

"... The employee, who spoke on the condition he not be identified because of the sensitive nature of Smith's death, described the tank as being similar in size to a propane tank on a gas grill. He did not recall seeing a bag that Smith would have placed over his head. He said the coroner and police were there and that he "didn't do a lot of looking around." ..."

"... Peter Smith wrote two blog posts dated the day before he was found dead. One challenged U.S. intelligence agency findings that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. Another post predicted: "As attention turns to international affairs, as it will shortly, the Russian interference story will die of its own weight." ..."

Jul 13, 2017 | www.msn.com
A Republican donor and operative from Chicago's North Shore who said he had tried to obtain Hillary Clinton's missing emails from Russian hackers killed himself in a Minnesota hotel room days after talking to The Wall Street Journal about his efforts, public records show.
In a room at a Rochester hotel used almost exclusively by Mayo Clinic patients and relatives, Peter W. Smith, 81, left a carefully prepared file of documents, which includes a statement police called a suicide note in which he said he was in ill health and a life insurance policy was expiring.

Days earlier, the financier from suburban Lake Forest gave an interview to the Journal about his quest, and it published stories about his efforts beginning in late June. The Journal also reported it had seen emails written by Smith showing his team considered retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, then a top adviser to Republican Donald Trump's campaign, as an ally. Flynn briefly was President Trump's national security adviser and resigned after it was determined he had failed to disclose contacts with Russia.

At the time, the newspaper reported Smith's May 14 death came about 10 days after he granted the interview. Mystery shrouded how and where he had died, but the lead reporter on the stories said on a podcast he had no reason to believe the death was the result of foul play and that Smith likely had died of natural causes.

However, the Chicago Tribune obtained a Minnesota state death record filed in Olmsted County that says Smith committed suicide in a hotel near the Mayo Clinic at 1:17 p.m. on Sunday, May 14. He was found with a bag over his head with a source of helium attached. A medical examiner's report gives the same account, without specifying the time, and a report from Rochester police further details his suicide.

In the note recovered by police, Smith apologized to authorities and said that "NO FOUL PLAY WHATSOEVER" was involved in his death. He wrote that he was taking his own life because of a "RECENT BAD TURN IN HEALTH SINCE JANUARY, 2017" and timing related "TO LIFE INSURANCE OF $5 MILLION EXPIRING."

One of Smith's former employees told the Tribune he thought the elderly man had gone to the famed clinic to be treated for a heart condition. Mayo spokeswoman Ginger Plumbo said Thursday she could not confirm Smith had been a patient, citing medical privacy laws.

The Journal stories said it was on Labor Day weekend in 2016 that Smith had assembled a team to acquire emails the team theorized might have been stolen from the private server Clinton had used while secretary of state. Smith's focus was the more than 30,000 emails Clinton said she deleted because they related to personal matters. A huge cache of other Clinton emails were made public.

Smith told the Journal he believed the missing emails might have had been obtained by Russian hackers. He also said he thought the correspondence related to Clinton's official duties. He told the Journal he worked independently and was not part of the Trump campaign. He also told the Journal he and his team found five groups of hackers - two of them Russian groups - who claimed to have Clinton's missing emails.

Smith had a history of doing opposition research, the formal term for unflattering information that political operatives dig up about rival candidates.

For years, Democratic President Bill Clinton was Smith's target. The wealthy businessman had a hand in exposing the "Troopergate" allegations about Bill Clinton's sex life. And he discussed financing a probe of a 1969 trip Bill Clinton had taken while in college to the Soviet Union, according to Salon magazine.

Investigations into any possible links between the Russian government and people associated with Trump's presidential campaign now are underway in Congress and by former FBI chief Robert Mueller. He is acting as a special counsel for the Department of Justice. Mueller spokesman Peter Carr declined to comment on the Journal's stories on Smith or his death. Washington attorney Robert Kelner, who represents Flynn, had no comment on Thursday.

Smith's death occurred at the Aspen Suites in Rochester, records show. They list the cause of death as "asphyxiation due to displacement of oxygen in confined space with helium."

Rochester Police Chief Roger Peterson on Wednesday called his manner of death "unusual," but a funeral home worker said he'd seen it before.

An employee with Rochester Cremation Services, the funeral home that responded to the hotel, said he helped remove Smith's body from his room and recalled seeing a tank.

The employee, who spoke on the condition he not be identified because of the sensitive nature of Smith's death, described the tank as being similar in size to a propane tank on a gas grill. He did not recall seeing a bag that Smith would have placed over his head. He said the coroner and police were there and that he "didn't do a lot of looking around."

"When I got there and saw the tank, I thought, 'I've seen this before,' and was able to put two and two together," the employee said.

An autopsy was conducted, according to the death record. The Southern Minnesota Regional Medical Examiner's Office declined a Tribune request for the autopsy report and released limited information about Smith's death.

The Final Exit Network, a Florida-based nonprofit, provides information and support to people who suffer from a terminal illness and want to kill themselves.

Fran Schindler, a volunteer with the group, noted that the best-selling book Final Exit, written by Derek Humphry in 1991 and revised several times since, explains in detail the helium gas method.

"Many people obtain that information from his book," Schindler said. "It's a method that has been around for many years and is well known."

Smith's remains were cremated in Minnesota, the records said. He was married to Janet L. Smith and had three children and three grandchildren, according to his obituary. Tribune calls to family members were not returned.

His obituary said Smith was involved in public affairs for more than 60 years and it heralded him as a "quietly generous champion of efforts to ensure a more economically and politically secure world." Smith led private equity firms in corporate acquisitions and venture investments for more than 40 years. Earlier, he worked with DigaComm, LLC, from 1997 to 2014 and as the president of Peter W. Smith & Company, Inc. from 1975 to 1997. Prior to that, he was a senior officer of Field Enterprises, Inc., a firm that owned the Chicago Sun-Times then and was held by the Marshall Field family, his obituary said.

A private family memorial was planned, the obituary said. Friends posted online tributes to Smith after his death. One was from his former employee, Jonathan Safron, 26, who lives in Chicago's Loop and worked for Smith for about two years.

Safron, in an interview, said he was working for a tutoring firm when Smith became his client. His job entailed teaching Smith how to use a MacBook, Safron said. At the time Smith was living in a condominium atop the Four Seasons Hotel Chicago. Safron said Smith later employed him at Corporate Venture Alliances, a private investment firm that Smith ran, first out of the same condo and later from an office in the Hancock Building.

Safron, who said he had a low-level job with the Illinois Republican Party in 2014, said he had no knowledge of Smith's bid to find hackers who could locate emails missing from Clinton's service as secretary of state. In his online tribute to his former employer, he called Smith the "best boss I could ever ask for ... a mentor, friend and model human being."

Safron said he worked part-time for Smith, putting in about 15 hours a week. But the two grew close, often having lunch together at a favorite Smith spot: the Oak Tree Restaurant & Bakery Chicago on North Michigan Ave. He called Smith a serious man who was "upbeat," "cosmopolitan" and "larger than life." He was aware Smith was in declining health, saying the older man sometimes had difficulty breathing and told work colleagues he had heart problems. Weeks before he took his life, he had become fatigued walking down about four or five flights of stairs during a Hancock Building fire drill and later emailed Safron saying he was "dizzy," he said.

Smith's last will and testament, signed last Feb. 21, is seven pages long and on file in Probate Court in Lake County. The will gives his wife his interest in their residential property and his tangible personal property and says remaining assets should be placed into two trusts.

He was born Feb. 23, 1936, in Portland, Maine, according to the death record.

His late father, Waldo Sterling Smith, was a manufacturer's representative for women's apparel firms, representing them in department stores in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, according to the father's 2002 obituary. The elder Smith died at age 92 in St. Augustine, Fla., and his obit noted that he had been active in St. Johns County, Fla. Republican affairs and with a local Methodist church

Peter Smith wrote two blog posts dated the day before he was found dead. One challenged U.S. intelligence agency findings that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. Another post predicted: "As attention turns to international affairs, as it will shortly, the Russian interference story will die of its own weight."

Skiba reported from Washington, Heinzmann reported from Rochester and Lighty from Chicago. Lauren Rosenblatt of the Tribune Washington Bureau and Dan Moran of the Lake County News-Sun contributed to this story.

[Jun 27, 2017] Loretta Lynch, the ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign.

Notable quotes:

"... The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs, Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron, though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from Merkel. ..."

www.unz.com

exiled off mainstreet | Jun 27, 2017 10:33:18 AM | 25

I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend against the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for succumbing despite the evidence to media propaganda.
I think that the problem is that Trump is less than fully in control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced by the failure to inform the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may not have been fully vetted. I wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary is limited.

The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs, Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron, though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from Merkel.

It is seriously disconcerting that the neocons still seem to be able to rule the roost. If any "chemical" attack occurs within a few days or longer away, it will be extremely suspect. Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the early stages of blowing up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda, and Loretta Lynch, the ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign.

In light of these facts, I think the whole thing more likely shows weakness and disarray, not a serious conspiratorial threat of armageddon, though it could end up blowing up in that direction.

[Jun 15, 2017] Was Comeys second thought announcement after Hillary email investigation a naked political gambit?

Notable quotes:

"... And what about his very strange announcement about Wiener computer containing Hillary classified emails? ..."

Jun 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

Libezkova, June 11, 2017 at 06:07 PM

"When you have a former head of the FBI, a deeply respected person"
That's funny. Can you spell 9/11. He served as President George W. Bush's deputy attorney general (D.A.G.), in the aftermath of 9/11. So he is the the one who got Saudi officials off the hook.

Former Democratic Sen. Bob Graham, who in 2002 chaired the congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11, maintains the FBI is covering up a Saudi support cell in Sarasota for the hijackers. He says the al-Hijjis' "urgent" pre-9/11 exit suggests "someone may have tipped them off" about the coming attacks.

Graham has been working with a 14-member group in Congress to urge President Obama to declassify 28 pages of the final report of his inquiry which were originally redacted, wholesale, by President George W. Bush.

"The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier," he said, adding, "I am speaking of the kingdom," or government, of Saudi Arabia, not just wealthy individual Saudi donors.

Sources who have read the censored Saudi section say it cites CIA and FBI case files that directly implicate officials of the Saudi Embassy in Washington and its consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks - which, if true, would make 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war by a foreign government.

– From the New York Post article: How the FBI is Whitewashing the Saudi Connection to 9/11

Was Comey's "second thought" announcement after Hillary email investigation a naked political gambit?

And what about his very strange announcement about Wiener computer containing Hillary classified emails?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/politics/james-comey-hearing-huma-abedin-forwarding-classified-information/index.html

[Jun 09, 2017] Emailgate had shown staggering incompetence and arrogance of Hillary and her close circle

Notable quotes:

"... It had shown staggering incompetence and arrogance of Hillary and her close circle. You can argue about the level of criminality, but it is impossible to argue about staggering level of incompetence and arrogance. "Bathroom server" was essentially "shadow IT" installed by Hillary for her nefarious purpose to hide transactions benefitting Clinton foundation and generally to remain out of control, while in government. ..."

"... All-in-all vividly demonstrated that Obama administration as whole was a dysfunctional mess with corruption and clique infighting inside major departments (Meeting of Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch; Comey granting immunity to everybody, suppressing the investigation and then having the second thoughts; Obama greed after he left the office). ..."

Jun 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
libezkova, June 09, 2017 at 11:20 AM

"The email scandal was a big nothing."

I disagree. It had shown staggering incompetence and arrogance of Hillary and her close circle. You can argue about the level of criminality, but it is impossible to argue about staggering level of incompetence and arrogance. "Bathroom server" was essentially "shadow IT" installed by Hillary for her nefarious purpose to hide transactions benefitting Clinton foundation and generally to remain out of control, while in government.

Attempts to suppress investigation now also can be proved. Much better then Trump collision with Russians.

All-in-all vividly demonstrated that Obama administration as whole was a dysfunctional mess with corruption and clique infighting inside major departments (Meeting of Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch; Comey granting immunity to everybody, suppressing the investigation and then having the second thoughts; Obama greed after he left the office).

If this was a big nothing, then dementia is not a problem :-)
mulp, June 09, 2017 at 11:39 AM
"I disagree. It had shown staggering incompetence and arrogance of Hillary and her close circle. yo can argue about the level of criminality, but it is impossible to argue about staggering level of incompetence and arrogance."
OK, Clinton was not 1000% perfect.

So, that justifies giving the job to Trump because 5% competency from a man is better than a 98% competent woman?

Only men are allowed to be both arrogant and incompetent!

[Jun 09, 2017] Whether the Russians did it or not, the USA has the dismal failure by the leading political party to secure their digital communications

The USA opened this can of works with Flame and Stixnet. Now it needs to face consequences of its reckless actions.

Both Hillary staff and DNC staff behaves like complete idiots, taking into account the level of mayhem the USA caused in other countries, including Russia. Blowback eventually came and bite their ass. In addition Hillary "private" staff was definitely incompetent.

Notable quotes:

"... The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96: ..."

Apr 28, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

This is all really becoming exasperating!

Incessantly reporting 24/7 on whether the Russians did it or not doesn't take into account the critical failure by a leading political party of the "free world" – a nation supposedly at the forefront of technology – to appropriately secure their digital communications along with those of a potential POTUS.

This is a question of how US government, or a potential one, works, and how it should work in the future.

The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96:

http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html )

[Jun 08, 2017] The Six Most Important Revelations from the Comey Hearing

Notable quotes:

"... Comey admitted to orchestrating leaks from the investigation to the media using a network of friends. Reponse was swift on social media: ..."

"... Senator Risch questioned Comey about the Times, asking "So the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true, is that a fair statement?" "It was not true," Comey said. "Again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don't. The challenge - I'm not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information [the challenge is] that people talking about it often don't really now what's going on and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it." ..."

"... Comey discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation of Hillary Clinton. He stated that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should be described. "At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which concerned and confused me," Comey said. ..."

Jun 08, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
One thing is for sure, Comey's testimony was anything but boring. 1) Trump was not under investigation by the FBI
When questioned by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Comey answered that President Donald Trump was not under investigation by the FBI. It was also revealed that congressional leaders had previously been briefed on this fact.

This morning Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton joined Breitbart News Daily and predicted this fact. Fitton called allegations against Trump "gossip" and "a nothing burger."
2) James Comey leaked documents to the media
Comey admitted to orchestrating leaks from the investigation to the media using a network of friends. Reponse was swift on social media:

Senators should ask Comey the name of the Columbia professor and then subpoena the memos from him.

- Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) June 8, 2017

So the collusion involves former FBI director, mainstream media, and the left-wing academy to bring down the elected president #ComeyHearing https://t.co/sVWKpajWw9 June 8, 2017

Columbia Law Prof Daniel Richman confirms to @ZCohenCNN that he is the friend that provided excerpts of the Comey memo to reporters.

- Ryan Nobles (@ryanobles) June 8, 2017

Senator Rubio pointed out the interesting fact that one of the few things not to leak out was the fact that Trump was not under investigation himself.

Because if it was leaked that @realDonaldTrump was personally not under investigation- it would have crushed the entire narrative. pic.twitter.com/drFcCxin5M

- Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) June 8, 2017

President Trump's personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, issued a blistering statement after the hearing on the subject of Comey's leaks.
3) The obstruction of justice case against Trump just went up in smoke
Senator James Risch (R-ID) questioned Comey early in the hearing about the possibility of obstruction of justice regarding the investigation of General Michael Flynn. Risch repeatedly questioned Comey about the exact wording used by President Trump to him in private, which Comey recorded in his much-discussed memo .

The exchange leaves Democrat's hopes of impeachment for obstruction of justice considerably dimmed:

Comey : I mean, it's the President of the United States with me alone, saying, "I hope this." I took it as this is what he wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it.

Risch : You may have taken it as a direction, but that's not what he said.

Risch : He said, "I hope."

Comey : Those are exact words, correct.

Risch : You don't know of anyone that's been charged for hoping something?

Comey : I don't, as I sit here.

Risch : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

4) Comey says the New York Times published fake news
James Comey had a few things to say about the reporting of the New York Times which reported on collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Senator Risch questioned Comey about the Times, asking "So the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true, is that a fair statement?" "It was not true," Comey said. "Again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don't. The challenge - I'm not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information [the challenge is] that people talking about it often don't really now what's going on and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it."
5) Loretta Lynch meddled in the Clinton investigation
Comey discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation of Hillary Clinton. He stated that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should be described. "At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which concerned and confused me," Comey said.

Comey added that Lynch's infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton during the campaign was the reason he decided to make a statement when the decision was made not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.

"In a ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department," Comey said.
6) James Comey sounds like every disgruntled former employee ever
Comey had quite a bit to say about his firing, which leaves him looking like a disgruntled former employee . Comey accused President Trump and his administration of lying about him, and "defaming him and more importantly the FBI."

Comey also explained that his discomfort with the President and the belief that Trump would lie about him led to the creation of his memo on the meeting. "I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, so I thought it really important to document," Comey said. "I knew there might come a day when I might need a record of what happened not only to defend myself but to protect the FBI."

... ... ...

Colin Madine is a contributor and editor at Breitbart News and can be reached at [email protected]

[Jun 08, 2017] Comey apparently admit leaking stuff to New York Times

Notable quotes:

"... Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has leaked information designed to harm President Trump. ..."

"... Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about today. ..."

Jun 08, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

UPDATE 12:50 P.M. As the public part of the hearing adjourned, and Comey has completely vindicated Trump ahead of a later closed session hearing where he and senators are likely to discuss classified information he could not bring up during the televised hearing, the whole thing turned out exactly like Breitbart News Network told you it would: A giant nothing-burger.

Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has leaked information designed to harm President Trump.

Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about today.
UPDATE 12:37 P.M. Their hopes and dreams dashed by Comey completely vindicating Trump in this open hearing, and instead implicating ex-Obama administration officials like Loretta Lynch–and implicating himself as an anti-Trump leaker with a network through which he has leaked damaging information against the president–the left and media are pinning everything on a last ditch line of questioning from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).

This line of questioning from @SenKamalaHarris regarding the Attorney General is extraordinarily important – not to be overlooked

- Matt House (@mattwhouse) June 8, 2017

Here's video of her comparing Trump to an armed robber though, so take whatever she says with a grain of salt:

Sen. Kamala Harris seems to compare Trump to an armed robber saying "I hope you will give me your wallet" #ComeyTestimony pic.twitter.com/2yjfV3UyIM

- Mike Ciandella ن (@MikeCiandella) June 8, 2017

Meanwhile, anti-Trump Never Trumper Max Boot is in an alternate reality, saying Comey was fantastic as a witness.

Bottom line for #ComeyDay : Comey a highly credible witness. Trump isn't. Comey makes damning accusations. Trump denials unconvincing.

- Max Boot (@MaxBoot) June 8, 2017

Flashback, though, to when Comey was fired and Boot with some bold predictions back on May 9:

Congress needs to ask Comey to testify & he needs to tell all he knows about Kremlingate. If he does Trump may regret firing him.

- Max Boot (@MaxBoot) May 10, 2017

Don't tell Max Boot about the black helicopters coming for him. Seriously. "KREMLINGATE"? What is wrong with these people? Anyway, another wonderfully fantastic flashback of this Never Trumper from when Comey was fired in May:

Prediction: If Democrats take control of Congress in 2018, the firing of Comey will form one of the articles of impeachment.

- Max Boot (@MaxBoot)

Senators should ask Comey the name of the Columbia professor and then subpoena the memos from him.

- Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 12:21 P.M. Loretta Lynch is in serious trouble right now. Looks like the Democrats' efforts may have backfired.

Loretta Lynch is having a surprisingly bad day in the Comey testimony

- Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) June 8, 2017

If it wasn't for Trump becoming president, the corruption with Obama's Department of Justice would be a major story.

- Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) June 8, 2017

Comey also just testified that he did not believe that Lynch could "credibly deny" the Hillary Clinton email scandal investigation, and that she had a serious conflict of interest. He also testified in exchange with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate Majority Whip, that it is possible a special prosecutor was needed for the email scandal. He said he considered calling for appointing a special counsel in the scandal, but decided against it.

UPDATE 12:08 P.M. Oh my. Now confirmed leaker James Comey's leak network has been outed, or at least part of it has:

Only in Washington: Someone nursing a pint of beer shouts out to a crowded bar: "Daniel Richman of Columbia" https://t.co/hNXVbfBe8r

- Alexander Panetta (@Alex_Panetta) June 8, 2017

So the collusion involves former FBI director, mainstream media, and the left-wing academy to bring down the elected president #ComeyHearing https://t.co/sVWKpajWw9

- Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) June 8, 2017

And now Comey's anti-Trump leak network is confirming to the media that Comey is a leaker:

Columbia Law Prof Daniel Richman confirms to @ZCohenCNN that he is the friend that provided excerpts of the Comey memo to reporters.

- Ryan Nobles (@ryanobles) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 12:05 P.M. There are now serious questions being raised as to whether Loretta Lynch, the former Attorney General from the Obama administration, will be subpoenaed to testify after this hearing where Comey has implicated her.

Legit question: is Loretta Lynch going to be subpoenaed as a result of this testimony?

- Mike Shields (@mshields007) June 8, 2017

Meanwhile, Comey's admission he is a leaker serious hurts him. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School makes the case Comey may be in serious trouble:

Comey admits that he leaked the internal memo through a Columbia law professor in order to force Special Counsel. Yet, that raises questions

- Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 8, 2017

Comey is doing well but leaking info runs against Comey's image, particularly in light of the leak controversy hoiunding the Administration

- Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 8, 2017

The memos could be viewed as gov't material and potential evidence . Leaking to a friend for disclosure can raise serious questions.

- Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 12:02 P.M. Donald Trump, Jr., highlights an excellent question from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) to Comey. Comey did not have a great answer.

Sen Blunt: If you told Sessions you didn't want to be alone with Trump again, why did you continue to take his calls?

- Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 12:01 P.M. From our RNC friends, here's video of Sen. Rubio crushing another leftist media narrative during his questioning of Comey.

Basically, Comey was so concerned about President Trump's conversations with him that he alerted exactly nobody who could do anything about it. In other words, this whole thing is a giant nothing-burger. Except for Comey implicating himself as a leaker.

UPDATE 11:58 A.M. Comey is in big trouble after this hearing. He admitted he's a leaker, and has an actual network through which he leaks information to the press. In addition, he withheld from leaking information that would have vindicated President Trump weeks ago. White House social media director Dan Scavino captures it clearly and concisely on Twitter:

Because if it was leaked that @realDonaldTrump was personally not under investigation- it would have crushed the entire narrative. pic.twitter.com/drFcCxin5M

- Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) June 8, 2017

President Trump still has yet to Tweet, so no free drinks yet here at Union Pub. Looks like the owners here made a smart decision since this place is standing room only right now.

UPDATE 11:54 A.M. Oh, man, this keeps getting better and better. Comey just shredded the Democrats AND now the fake news media.

Oh Boy. Comey says there have been many many stories based on classified information about Russia that are just "dead wrong"

- Maeve Reston (@MaeveReston) June 8, 2017

I wonder if any of the media outlets that have printed repeated stories on these matters will check their reporting again or correct it if they're wrong. Not holding my breath.

UPDATE 11:50 A.M. Comey has emerged throughout this hearing before the American people looking very much like a drama queen. One of the more memorable lines is when he says when Trump called him to ask him if he was free for dinner, he had to break a date with his wife.

Comey says Trump called him at his desk. "Free for dinner tonight?"
"I said yessir I had to call my wife and break a date with her."

- Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) June 8, 2017

That's not the only drama-filled Comey testimony:

COMEY JUST QUOTES HENRY 11 on what he thought Trump meant: 'Will no one rid me of this toublesome priest"

- Trip Gabriel (@tripgabriel) June 8, 2017

Meanwhile, even CNN's Jim Acosta–a vehemently anti-Trump media figure in the heart of the opposition party's mothership CNN–is joining in on the anti-Comey fun.

Giving info to media "like feeding seagulls at the beach?" Fact check: True.

- Jim Acosta (@Acosta) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 11:48 A.M. The leaky Capitol Hill GOP swamp aides are attacking Trump, despite the fact Comey has vindicated the president and implicated himself in potentially illegal leaks.

Senate R aide: Holding nose and defending Trump is taking a lot out of these GOP senators - and they will demand some kind of repayment

- Glenn Thrush (@GlennThrush) June 8, 2017

The fact that Swamp Creatures on the "Republican" side on Capitol Hill are throwing shade on their own president, and party, as the GOP and Trump likely emerge from today's masquerade mostly out of the woods is simply incredible but unsurprising. Swamp Things are going to Swamp.

UPDATE 11:45 A.M. Comey's open admission he orchestrated a potentially illegal leak puts him in serious potential trouble, the New York Times people note. That's the story folks. He vindicated Trump, and implicated himself. Wow, what a day.

Can't remember the last time someone in DC openly acknowledged orchestrating a leak - and without any senator having even asked.

- Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 11:39 A.M. CNN's Dan Merica says that President Trump's personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz will make a statement at the end of Comey's public testimony.

Marc Kasowitz, Trump's lawyer outside the White House, will make a statement at the end of James Comey's Senate testimony

- Dan Merica (@danmericaCNN) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 11:35 A.M. As Comey continues vindicating Trump and throwing Democrats like Lynch, Obama, and Clinton under the bus–presumably accidentally–the Washington, D.C., daydrinking party scene is in full swing:

Spotted at Duffy's Irish Pub in North DC:
"Comey is my homey." pic.twitter.com/kvGuaqEqsd

- Sharon Nunn (@sharonmnunn) June 8, 2017

Her "homey" James Comey, meanwhile, has actually admitted he is a leaker.

Flag: Comey says he had a friend of his leak the content of his memo to a reporter to hopefully prompt the appointment of a special counsel. pic.twitter.com/qICnQhI2te

- Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 8, 2017

Comey admits to @SenatorCollins that he asked a friend to leak the contents of his memo to NYT to prompt the appointment of Special Counsel.

- Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) June 8, 2017

Here's video of Comey admitting he has been leaking information to the media:

Here's how I leaked my Trump memo after Trump's "tapes" tweet

by: James Comey pic.twitter.com/9Z1QPPdcKD

- Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 11:32 A.M. While obstruction is now off the table for Trump, as Breitbart's Joel Pollak detailed, Breitbart's John Hayward notes that obstruction is back on the table for several leading officials from now former President Barack Obama's administration. Hayward says Congress needs to investigate Loretta Lynch, the former Attorney General, as well as Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton–the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee–for obstruction of justice.

Big takeaway from the Comey hearing: urgent need to investigate Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton for obstruction

- John Hayward (@Doc_0) June 8, 2017

UPDATE 11:29 A.M. Our very own Joel Pollak is out with another bombshell piece detailing how this hearing has shattered the media's and the Democrats' efforts to taint President Trump with "obstruction of justice."

"Democrats have hinged their hopes for impeachment - and reversing the 2016 elections - on the idea that Trump committed obstruction of justice. That case has now been smashed beyond repair," Pollak writes, pointing to a Comey exchange with Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID).

Read his whole story here .

[Jun 08, 2017] Loretta Lynch meddled in the Clinton investigation

Comey deflated under Loretta Lynch pressure and wrapped the investigation of favorable to Hillary terms. He assigned close to Hillary Person to lead the investigation, which suggest cover up from the very beginning of the investigation. Then he has the second thought and issued his famous statement, in which he usurped the role of justice Department official.

marknesop.wordpress.com

Comey discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation of Hillary Clinton. He stated that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should be described.

"At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which concerned and confused me," Comey said.

Comey added that Lynch's infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton during the campaign was the reason he decided to make a statement when the decision was made not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.

"In a ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department," Comey said.

[Jun 08, 2017] Pot. Kettle. Black. Hilarious.

Jun 08, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
et Al , June 8, 2017 at 4:10 am
So, "While Trump had done nothing illegal in requesting Comey to drop the investigation, there is still the question of 'political interference' and the optics.".
29 June 2016

CNN: Bill Clinton meeting causes headaches for Hillary
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/index.html

#####

Pot. Kettle. Black. Hilarious.

[Jun 07, 2017] Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a never-ending stram of bad news about her. In no way they were fake news

Notable quotes:

"... I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation). These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT. ..."

"... The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis. ..."

"... Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to what the media said about her. ..."

"... When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents. ..."

Jun 07, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Anonymous , June 5, 2017 at 9:30 pm

Lots of people, including myself, created FB accounts solely to post material related to the 2016 Democratic Primary and the election. I have just under 5,000 friends on FB, all of whom are "friends in Bernie."

I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation). These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT.

The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis.

kimsarah , June 5, 2017 at 11:18 pm

So please tell us your Russian connections.

Elizabeth Burton , June 6, 2017 at 3:24 pm

It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime).

Funny you should mention. I responded to yet another episode of Russian hysteria yesterday and was immediately attacked by a Clinton cultist. Understand, this woman had no idea who I am and clearly didn't bother to find out. I said something against St. Hillary, and was therefore the enemy. Of course, the basis of her attack was that my sources of information were all "fake news."

Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to what the media said about her.

When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents.

[May 23, 2017] Trumped-up claims against Trump by Ray McGovern

Highly recommended!

Notable quotes:

"... A few days before his firing, Mr. Comey reportedly had asked for still more resources to hunt the Russian bear. Pundit piranhas swarmed to charge Mr. Trump with trying to thwart the investigation into how the Russians supposedly "interfered" to help him win the election. ..."

"... Truth is, President Trump had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" -- like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to precipitate the demise of Trump aide Michael Flynn ..."

"... we suspect Mr. Comey already knows who was responsible.) ..."

"... In contrast, Mr. Comey evinced strong determination to chase after ties between Russia and the Trump campaign until the cows came home. In the meantime, the investigation (already underway for 10 months) would itself cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's presidency and put the kibosh on plans to forge a more workable relationship with Russia -- a win-win for the establishment and the FBI/CIA/NSA "Deep State"; a lose-lose for the president. ..."

"... So far, it has been all smoke and mirrors with no chargeable offenses and not a scintilla of convincing evidence of Russian "meddling" in the election. The oft-cited, but evidence-free, CIA/FBI/NSA report of Jan. 6, crafted by "hand-picked" analysts, according to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , is of a piece with the "high-confidence," but fraudulent, National Intelligence Estimate 15 years ago about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. ..."

"... On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, ..."

"... It is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Mr. Clapper - the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free memorandum of Jan. 6. ..."

"... Mr. Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the those done by DNC contractor Crowdstrike. Could this be explained by Mr. Comey's fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? Did this play a role in Mr. Trump's firing of Mr. Comey? ..."

"... President Trump has entered into a high-stakes gamble in confronting the Deep State and its media allies over the evidence-free accusations of his colluding with Russia. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, publicly warned him of the risk earlier this year. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," ..."

May 17, 2017 | www.baltimoresun.com
Donald Trump said he had fired FBI Director James Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The president labeled it a "made-up story" and, by all appearances, he is mostly correct.
A few days before his firing, Mr. Comey reportedly had asked for still more resources to hunt the Russian bear. Pundit piranhas swarmed to charge Mr. Trump with trying to thwart the investigation into how the Russians supposedly "interfered" to help him win the election.

But can that commentary bear close scrutiny, or is it the " phony narrative " Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn of Texas claims it to be? Mr. Cornyn has quipped that, if impeding the investigation was Mr. Trump's aim, "This strikes me as a lousy way to do it. All it does is heighten the attention given to the issue."

Truth is, President Trump had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" -- like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to precipitate the demise of Trump aide Michael Flynn . Mr. Flynn was caught "red-handed," so to speak, talking with Russia's ambassador last December. (In our experience, finding the culprit for that leak should not be very difficult; we suspect Mr. Comey already knows who was responsible.)

In contrast, Mr. Comey evinced strong determination to chase after ties between Russia and the Trump campaign until the cows came home. In the meantime, the investigation (already underway for 10 months) would itself cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's presidency and put the kibosh on plans to forge a more workable relationship with Russia -- a win-win for the establishment and the FBI/CIA/NSA "Deep State"; a lose-lose for the president.

So far, it has been all smoke and mirrors with no chargeable offenses and not a scintilla of convincing evidence of Russian "meddling" in the election. The oft-cited, but evidence-free, CIA/FBI/NSA report of Jan. 6, crafted by "hand-picked" analysts, according to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , is of a piece with the "high-confidence," but fraudulent, National Intelligence Estimate 15 years ago about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But what about "Russia hacking," the centerpiece of accusations of Kremlin "interference" to help Mr.Trump?

On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, for example. The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7" trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked.

It is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Mr. Clapper - the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free memorandum of Jan. 6.

Mr. Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the those done by DNC contractor Crowdstrike. Could this be explained by Mr. Comey's fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? Did this play a role in Mr. Trump's firing of Mr. Comey?

President Trump has entered into a high-stakes gamble in confronting the Deep State and its media allies over the evidence-free accusations of his colluding with Russia. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, publicly warned him of the risk earlier this year. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Mr. Schumer told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Jan. 3.

If Mr. Trump continues to "take on" the Deep State, he will be fighting uphill, whether he's in the right or not. It is far from certain he will prevail.

Ray McGovern ([email protected]) was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials from 1981-85. William Binney ([email protected]) worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
truth_will_set_you_free Newcomer 4day(s)ago
The public owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to both Mr. McGovern and Mr. Binney, who are substantial individuals with sterling reputations, for putting themselves forward and informing the public of the crimes that are taking place in DC behind closed doors.
The fact that paid shills and trolls would make the effort to post content free criticisms of this article only serves to underline the article's importance to a thoughtful reader. The people who sponsor these posters obviously have complete contempt for the public. However, each day, thanks to articles like this and the idiotic attempts to criticize them, more and more people are becoming aware of the fraud that is DC.

[May 23, 2017] Are they really out to get Trump by Philip Girald

Highly recommended!

Notable quotes:

"... Ray suggests that Brennan and also Comey may been at the center of a "Deep State" combined CIA-NSA-FBI cabal working to discredit the Trump candidacy and delegitimize his presidency. Brennan in particular was uniquely well placed to fabricate the Russian hacker narrative that has been fully embraced by Congress and the media even though no actual evidence supporting that claim has yet been produced. As WikiLeaks has now revealed that the CIA had the technical ability to hack into sites surreptitiously while leaving behind footprints that would attribute the hack to someone else, including the Russians, it does not take much imagination to consider that the alleged trail to Moscow might have been fabricated. If that is so, this false intelligence has in turn proven to be of immense value to those seeking to present "proof" that the Russian government handed the presidency to Donald Trump. ..."

"... Robert Parry asked in an article on May 10 th whether we are seeing is "Watergate redux or 'Deep State' coup?" and then followed up with a second Piece "The 'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate" on the 13 th . In other words, is this all a cover-up of wrongdoing by the White House akin to President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General or is it something quite different, an undermining of an elected president who has not actually committed any "high crimes and misdemeanors" to force his removal from office. ..."

"... Parry sees the three key players in the scheme as John Brennan of CIA, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and James Comey of the FBI. Comey's role in the "coup" was key as it consisted of using his office to undercut both Hillary Clinton and Trump, neither of whom was seen as a truly suitable candidate by the Deep State. He speculates that a broken election might well have resulted in a vote in the House of Representatives to elect the new president, a process that might have produced a Colin Powell presidency as Powell actually received three votes in the Electoral College and therefore was an acceptable candidate under the rules governing the electoral process. ..."

"... Yes, the scheme is bizarre, but Parry carefully documents how Russiagate has developed and how the national security and intelligence organs have been key players as it moved along, often working by leaking classified information. ..."

"... anyone even vaguely connected with Trump who also had contact with Russia or Russians has been regarded as a potential traitor. Carter Page, for example, who was investigated under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant, was under suspicion because he made a speech in Moscow which was mildly critical of the west's interaction with Russia after the fall of communism. ..."

"... Parry's point is that there is a growing Washington consensus that consists of traditional liberals and progressives as well as Democratic globalist interventionists and neoconservatives who believe that Donald Trump must be removed from office no matter what it takes. ..."

"... The interventionists and neocons in particular already control most of the foreign policy mechanisms but they continue to see Trump as a possible impediment to their plans for aggressive action against a host of enemies, most particularly Russia. ..."

"... Ray has been strongly critical of the current foreign policy, most particularly of the expansion of various wars, claims of Damascus's use of chemical weapons, and the cruise missile attack on Syria. Robert in his latest article describes Trump as narcissistic and politically incompetent. But their legitimate concerns are that we are moving in a direction that is far more dangerous than Trump. A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do. ..."

"... Brennan is a particularly unsavory character. There has been some baying-at-the-moon speculation that he is a Moslem convert! ..."

"... The coup, if successful, would probably mean the end of what would traditionally be considered to be a republican form of government in the US and its replacement by a deep state dictatorship. ..."

"... The USA is not different from other western countries, such as GB, France, Austria, Italy, Greece, Netherlands. In each of these countries the battle is going on between the establishment, and those who want to rid themselves of this establishment. ..."

"... The battle is between trying to dominate the world, neoliberalism, destruction of nation states, power of money, on the one hand, and nationalism, more or less certain jobs, rejection of wars, power of governments, on the other hand. ..."

"... What is amazing is that Mr Giraldi still believes the USA is a democracy. Maybe if one compares it with China. Anyway, "a soft coup" has already happened in you history -- Kennedy's assassination by the deep state- and life just went on in the "greatest democracy" in the earth. ..."

"... Perhaps this is the indication of where Trump and DOJ are going: Monday during the 10 p.m. ET news broadcast on Fox's Washington, D.C. affiliate WTTG, correspondent Marina Marraco said an investigation by former D.C. homicide detective Rod Wheeler found that the now-deceased Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich had been emailing with WikiLeaks. ..."

"... Despite the TV image, it is rare for a CEO to outright sack one of his top executives. The story of dinners where Comey made his pitch to stay rings true to what I have seen in real life. Trump probably asked Comey if he wouldn't be happier returning to private business where he made a boatload more money, and Comey, drunk on the power of high public office just wouldn't pull the trigger for him. ..."

"... Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we should all be asking ourselves "Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? " ..."

"... If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when our back room oligarchs decided to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination to Hillary ? ..."

"... Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of millions ? Was it not Bernie who was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on ? Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true for so many voters across the country ? ..."

"... The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary due diligence, that word had come down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially when we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't the DC police release Seth's laptop computer to his family ? ..."

"... I would be very interested in your take on the latest impeachable "scandal", that Trump revealed unrevealable top secrets to Lavrov and Kislyak during their recent White House meeting. Among other things, how would the Washington Post know the specifics of the Trump-Lavrov conversation? Is the White House bugged? And if an intelligence source was somehow really compromised, is advertising that fact in the Washington Post (presumably on the front page) really the wisest course? ..."

"... "A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do." Until further notice, that is absolutely correct. It needs to be recalled – ad nauseam – that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians. The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME. ..."

"... Trump was right in firing Comey. An open ended investigation that hasn't yielded a scintilla of evidence of collusion with Russia after one year is not acceptable. Such an investigation would not have been tolerated if the target was a Marxist mulatto by the name of Barack Hussein Obama. Blacks would have rioted in response while the media cheered them on. ..."

"... If there's a Constitutional crisis then it's that the deep state apparatus in the form of the various alphabet soup intelligence agencies have the power to plot a coup against a duly elected president. They need to be stripped of much of their power and reformed but it's probably already too late for that. ..."

"... I thought since Trump went from advocating a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy to loud and proud neo-conservative (in less than 100 days) that that would buy him protection from deep state machinations and endear him to the corrupt Washington, D.C. establishment. ..."

"... The only thing I can think of is that even though Trump's picking up where Dubya and Obama left off on foreign policy, the deep state knows that Trump can be totally unpredictable and change on a dime. So he could go off the establishment reservation at a moment's notice which makes them apoplectic. Hence, their attempts to get him out of the way and install someone more pliant and predictable like Tom Pence. ..."

"... Deepstate has been sustaining and expanding its conspiracies for 100 years. (There is always a 'deep state' of some kind, but the current well-organized structure was created by Wilson.) A conspiracy AGAINST Deepstate is hard to sustain because Deepstate owns and monitors all public communications. ..."

"... While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian thing" which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in a money-laundering operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades. ..."

"... The money-laundering angle is already all over the Web (ex. google: Bayrock Trump) and, one must assume, in the hands of various intelligence agencies. .This may be the basis for Trump's increasingly frantic attempts to shut down the "Russian thing" investigation.(Comey firing??) ..."

"... I don't think, however, the notion of the "establishment" is a problem in itself. Our country has always had powerful elites, so have many other countries. The problem which presents itself today is our elites seem determined to perpetuate endless wars that cost obscene amounts of money, and do not seem to produce positive results in any of the places the wars are being fought. ..."

"... The short answer is yes! March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate. Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump. ..."

"... The people pushing the big lie about Trump and Russia are legion. And they are not stupid. They are evil. They are the same people who are preparing a preemptive nuclear attack against Russia and China. They are the globalists who would institute a universal Feudalism from which there would be no escape. I have no further use for Trump. But his enemies remain enemies of the people. ..."

May 16, 2017 | www.unz.com
And what if there really is a conspiracy against Donald Trump being orchestrated within the various national security agencies that are part of the United States government? The president has been complaining for months about damaging leaks emanating from the intelligence community and the failure of Congress to pay any attention to the illegal dissemination of classified information. It is quite possible that Trump has become aware that there is actually something going on and that something just might be a conspiracy to delegitimize and somehow remove him from office.
President Trump has also been insisting that the "Russian thing" is a made-up story, a view that I happen to agree with. I recently produced my own analysis of the possibility that there is in progress a soft, or stealth or silent coup, call it what you will, underway directed against the president and that, if it exists, it is being directed by former senior officials from the Obama White House. Indeed, it is quite plausible to suggest that it was orchestrated within the Obama White House itself before the government changed hands at the inauguration on January 20 ^th. In line with that thinking, some observers are now suggesting that Comey might well have been party to the conspiracy and his dismissal would have been perfectly justified based on his demonstrated interference in both the electoral process and in his broadening of the acceptable role of his own Bureau, which Trump has described as "showboating."

Two well-informed observers of the situation have recently joined in the discussion, Robert Parry of Consortiumnews and former CIA senior analyst Ray McGovern of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. McGovern has noted, as have I, that there is one individual who has been curiously absent from the list of former officials who have been called in to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee. That is ex-CIA Director John Brennan, who many have long considered an extreme Obama/Hillary Clinton loyalist long rumored to be at the center of the information damaging to Team Trump sent to Washington by friendly intelligence services, including the British.

Ray suggests that Brennan and also Comey may been at the center of a "Deep State" combined CIA-NSA-FBI cabal working to discredit the Trump candidacy and delegitimize his presidency. Brennan in particular was uniquely well placed to fabricate the Russian hacker narrative that has been fully embraced by Congress and the media even though no actual evidence supporting that claim has yet been produced. As WikiLeaks has now revealed that the CIA had the technical ability to hack into sites surreptitiously while leaving behind footprints that would attribute the hack to someone else, including the Russians, it does not take much imagination to consider that the alleged trail to Moscow might have been fabricated. If that is so, this false intelligence has in turn proven to be of immense value to those seeking to present "proof" that the Russian government handed the presidency to Donald Trump.

Robert Parry asked in an article on May 10 ^thwhether we are seeing is "Watergate redux or 'Deep State' coup?" and then followed up with a second Piece "The 'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate" on the 13 ^th. In other words, is this all a cover-up of wrongdoing by the White House akin to President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General or is it something quite different, an undermining of an elected president who has not actually committed any "high crimes and misdemeanors" to force his removal from office.

Like Parry, I am reluctant to embrace conspiracy theories, in my case largely because I believe a conspiracy is awfully hard to sustain. The federal government leaks like a sieve and if more than two conspirators ever meet in the CIA basement it would seem to me their discussion would become public knowledge within forty-eight hours, but perhaps what we are seeing here is less a formal arrangement than a group of individuals who are loosely connected while driven by a common objective.

Parry sees the three key players in the scheme as John Brennan of CIA, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and James Comey of the FBI. Comey's role in the "coup" was key as it consisted of using his office to undercut both Hillary Clinton and Trump, neither of whom was seen as a truly suitable candidate by the Deep State. He speculates that a broken election might well have resulted in a vote in the House of Representatives to elect the new president, a process that might have produced a Colin Powell presidency as Powell actually received three votes in the Electoral College and therefore was an acceptable candidate under the rules governing the electoral process.

Yes, the scheme is bizarre, but Parry carefully documents how Russiagate has developed and how the national security and intelligence organs have been key players as it moved along, often working by leaking classified information. And President Barack Obama was likely the initiator, notably so when he de facto authorized the wide distribution of raw intelligence on Trump and the Russians through executive order. Parry notes, as would I, that to date no actual evidence has been presented to support allegations that Russia sought to influence the U.S. election and/or that Trump associates were somehow coopted by Moscow's intelligence services as part of the process. Nevertheless, anyone even vaguely connected with Trump who also had contact with Russia or Russians has been regarded as a potential traitor. Carter Page, for example, who was investigated under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant, was under suspicion because he made a speech in Moscow which was mildly critical of the west's interaction with Russia after the fall of communism.

Parry's point is that there is a growing Washington consensus that consists of traditional liberals and progressives as well as Democratic globalist interventionists and neoconservatives who believe that Donald Trump must be removed from office no matter what it takes.

The interventionists and neocons in particular already control most of the foreign policy mechanisms but they continue to see Trump as a possible impediment to their plans for aggressive action against a host of enemies, most particularly Russia. As they are desirous of bringing down Trump "legally" through either impeachment or Article 25 of the Constitution which permits removal for incapacity, it might be termed a constitutional coup, though the other labels cited above also fit.

The rationale Trump haters have fabricated is simple: the president and his team colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favor, which, if true, would provide grounds for impeachment. The driving force, in terms of the argument being made, is that removing Trump must be done "for the good of the country" and to "correct a mistake made by the American voters."
The mainstream media is completely on board of the process, including the outlets that flatter themselves by describing their national stature, most notably the New York Times and Washington Post.
So what is to be done? For starters, until Donald Trump has unambiguously broken a law the critics should take a valium and relax. He is an elected president and his predecessors George W. Bush and Barack Obama certainly did plenty of things that in retrospect do not bear much scrutiny. Folks like Ray McGovern and Robert Parry should be listened to even when they are being provocative in their views. They are not, to be sure, friends of the White House in any conventional way and are not apologists for those in power, quite the contrary. Ray has been strongly critical of the current foreign policy, most particularly of the expansion of various wars, claims of Damascus's use of chemical weapons, and the cruise missile attack on Syria. Robert in his latest article describes Trump as narcissistic and politically incompetent. But their legitimate concerns are that we are moving in a direction that is far more dangerous than Trump. A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do. Are They Really Out to Get Trump? Sometimes paranoia is justified

Philip Giraldi May 16, 2017 1,600 Words

Dan Hayes , May 16, 2017 at 4:18 am GMT

Brennan is a particularly unsavory character. There has been some baying-at-the-moon speculation that he is a Moslem convert!

exiled off mainstreet , May 16, 2017 at 5:26 am GMT

The coup, if successful, would probably mean the end of what would traditionally be considered to be a republican form of government in the US and its replacement by a deep state dictatorship.

In light of what is being used, a phony claim of Russian interference with the US political system, the danger that nuclear war might be the outcome of this coup is real.

utu , May 16, 2017 at 5:36 am GMT

I don't know who Robert Parry is but to me this Colin Powell stuff is pure nonsense. At the same time my answer to the question "Are They Really Out to Get Trump?" is affirmative. Republicans and Democrats want Trump out and Pence in. The operation with Flynn who allegedly deceived Pence was part of this plan. That Trump fired Flynn was his greatest mistake in this game. It was not fatal yet. This was Their plan since the election or even earlier since Republican convention: have Trump step down and have Pence take over. After April 4th it seemed that They got Trump where They wanted him to be. Trump even became presidential. The escalation of rhetoric against North Korea over following weekend and week reinforced this perception until it turned out that it was all fake. There was no fleet steaming to Korea. Media realized they were played by Trump. During this time Trump and Tillerson in particular got some breathing space. The pre-April 4 policy of agreeing with Russia on Syria continued. Apparently Russia understood that the missile attack on Syria was just part of the game. It was not personal. More recently the US agreed to safe zones plan by Russia, Syria, Iran and Turkey. One should expect a false flag of gas attack or accidental bombing by US air force of Syrian forces to happen soon – broadcasted all night before the start of the US media news cycle by BBC, so US media, all talking heads memorize all talking points.

While it is possible that Trump behaves erratically w/o well thought out plans we must give him a benefit of doubt and assume that there is a deep reason for firing Comey. Trump is fighting for his life. While he would prefer to be presidential and enjoy easy going times and provide peace and safety for his family by know he knows that nothing will satisfy Them. They want him out! Erratic Trump and confused and chaotic WH is a meme which They and Their media want to plant and reinforce. That's why we hear about it all the time. But how to explain the firing of Comey? I would look for the answer at DOJ. Initially their hands were tied up but slowly they showed that there is new leadership at DOJ that was working for Trump for a change. Their independence of the Deep State was demonstrated by forcing Israel police to arrest Mossad operative/patsy for the wave of world wide anti-semitic hoaxes that were meant to undermine and compromise Trump. This is the proof that DOJ and part of FBI finally is strong enough and working for Trump. What next do they want to do? If they want to squash this "collusion with Russia" false narrative that is paralyzing the administration and in fact all belt way they must hit at those who originated this narrative, meaning Hillary Clinton and Obama. To do it they need to have a full control of FBI. Comey is gone. McCabe must go next. Will DOJ and new FBI go after Susan Rice, Sally Yates and Loretta Lynch? If they do this will lead to Obama. Will they go after Hillary Clinton and her emails? Will they secure Anthony Weiner computer? Does it still exist? Who will be nominated to replace Comey? What Trump will have to promise GOP to have him approved?

The bottom line is that Trump is fighting for his life.

jilles dykstra , May 16, 2017 at 5:51 am GMT

Of course they are. The USA is not different from other western countries, such as GB, France, Austria, Italy, Greece, Netherlands. In each of these countries the battle is going on between the establishment, and those who want to rid themselves of this establishment.

GB is the first country where maybe this succeeded, but, as in the USA, the GB establishment and the EU establishment do anything to prevent that things really change.

The battle is between trying to dominate the world, neoliberalism, destruction of nation states, power of money, on the one hand, and nationalism, more or less certain jobs, rejection of wars, power of governments, on the other hand.

In France one sees that once again the establishment won, 60% of the French still support the establishment, 40% rejects it.

In other countries more or less the same.

The opposing views make governing increasingly difficult, two months after the Dutch elections the efforts to contrue a government are a failure. Belgium was more than a year without a government. In Spain one government after another. The establishment now fears that Austria will turn around. Until now Brussels, by threats and cajoling, prevented a rebellion against Brussels in Poland and Hungary. The Greek rebellion failed completely.

Anon , May 16, 2017 at 6:05 am GMT

White House Leaks and the "Muh Russia" Seesaw

utu , May 16, 2017 at 6:08 am GMT

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during last week's visit.

John Brown , May 16, 2017 at 6:09 am GMT

"A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do" concludes the writer.

What is amazing is that Mr Giraldi still believes the USA is a democracy. Maybe if one compares it with China. Anyway, "a soft coup" has already happened in you history -- Kennedy's assassination by the deep state- and life just went on in the "greatest democracy" in the earth.

A "soft coup" against Donald Trump will be in fact an improvement. The "narcissist" president won't be killed. It will be a soft clean coup. Progress.

utu , May 16, 2017 at 6:52 am GMT

Perhaps this is the indication of where Trump and DOJ are going: Monday during the 10 p.m. ET news broadcast on Fox's Washington, D.C. affiliate WTTG, correspondent Marina Marraco said an investigation by former D.C. homicide detective Rod Wheeler found that the now-deceased Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich had been emailing with WikiLeaks.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/05/15/report-investigator-says-evidence-showing-deceased-dnc-staffer-seth-rich-emailing-wikileaks/

But the Deep State respond with: Deep State Leaks Highly Classified Info to Washington Post to Smear President Trump

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/15/deep-state-leaks-highly-classified-info-to-washington-post-to-smear-president-trump/

The Alarmist , May 16, 2017 at 8:23 am GMT

Despite the TV image, it is rare for a CEO to outright sack one of his top executives. The story of dinners where Comey made his pitch to stay rings true to what I have seen in real life. Trump probably asked Comey if he wouldn't be happier returning to private business where he made a boatload more money, and Comey, drunk on the power of high public office just wouldn't pull the trigger for him.

Comey was a goner in November he just wouldn't go quietly and on his own accord, no doubt for the reasons suggested in this piece a so-called higher calling and his own inflated sense of service to his country.

alexander , May 16, 2017 at 8:52 am GMT

Dear Mr. Giraldi,

Thanks for another fine article.

Certainly writers like Robert Parry and Ray Mcgovern, as well as yourself, have earned the highest of marks from internet readers around the globe, anxious for some integrity of analysis , as they seek to understand our nation's policy decisions. As long as gentlemen like you, as well as others, keep writing , you will find your readership growing at an exponential rate.

Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we should all be asking ourselves "Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? "

If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when our back room oligarchs decided to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination to Hillary ?

Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of millions ? Was it not Bernie who was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on ? Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true for so many voters across the country ?

Was it not Bernie Sanders who may well have swept the DNC nomination, were it not for the "dirty pool" being played out in the back room ?.

According to the retired homicide detective, hired by the family of Seth Rich to investigate their son's bizarre murder, it was Seth Rich who WAS in contact with Wikileaks.

(For all those who don't know who Seth Rich was , he was the 27 year old "voter data director" at the DNC, shot to death on july 10, 2016, in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington D.C.)

In an interview three days after Seth Rich was found dead, Julian Assange intimated, too, that Seth Rich HAD contacted Wikileaks .NOT Russia.

The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary due diligence, that word had come down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially when we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't the DC police release Seth's laptop computer to his family ?

We are all aware there were "shenanigans" going on in the DNC that put the kibosh on the Bernie nomination.(we all know this)

This makes sense too, given the fact that the DNC party bosses and their oligarchs, wanted Bernie running in the general election against the Donald like they wanted a "hole in the head". What we "cannot" see ..is how decisive Bernie's margin of victory might have been, Nor can we see what "crimes" were committed to ensure Hillary's run at the W. H. It is not much of a stretch to assume Seth Rich had hard evidence, perhaps of multiple counts of treasonous fraud and other sorted felonies that would have brought down "the back room" of the DNC.

Not good for the party..not good for its oligarchs .and not good for their Hillary anointment.

"Russia-gate" may prove to be the most concerted effort, by the powers that be, to DEFLECT from an investigation into their OWN "real"criminality .

How savvy and how clever they are to manipulate the public's perceptions, through Big Media, by grafting the allegations of the very crimes they may well have committed .onto Russia, the Donald, and Vladimir Putin.

Clever, clever, clever.

Can any of us imagine, how cold a day in hell it will be before Rachel Maddow(or any MSM "journalist") asks some basic questions about the Seth Rich laptop .or what was on it ?

Sub zero.

for-the-record , May 16, 2017 at 8:53 am GMT

Mr. Giralidi,

I would be very interested in your take on the latest impeachable "scandal", that Trump revealed unrevealable top secrets to Lavrov and Kislyak during their recent White House meeting. Among other things, how would the Washington Post know the specifics of the Trump-Lavrov conversation? Is the White House bugged? And if an intelligence source was somehow really compromised, is advertising that fact in the Washington Post (presumably on the front page) really the wisest course?

mp , May 16, 2017 at 9:29 am GMT

Trump has turned out to be very weak. Maybe he just doesn't believe in anything, so it doesn't matter to him. Or maybe he has some ideas, but has no clue about implementation. He's going to see the Tribe next week. That will tell us a lot, I'm thinking. But it's a lot that we probably already know or at least can guess.

animalogic , May 16, 2017 at 10:10 am GMT

"A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do."
Until further notice, that is absolutely correct. It needs to be recalled – ad nauseam – that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians. The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME.

geokat62 , May 16, 2017 at 11:08 am GMT

A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do.

For more dangerous to American democracy has been the ZOG engineered by the "Friends of Zion," but, unfortunately, there is little chance there will ever be a Zion-gate investigation.

KenH , May 16, 2017 at 11:10 am GMT

Trump was right in firing Comey. An open ended investigation that hasn't yielded a scintilla of evidence of collusion with Russia after one year is not acceptable. Such an investigation would not have been tolerated if the target was a Marxist mulatto by the name of Barack Hussein Obama. Blacks would have rioted in response while the media cheered them on.

If there's a Constitutional crisis then it's that the deep state apparatus in the form of the various alphabet soup intelligence agencies have the power to plot a coup against a duly elected president. They need to be stripped of much of their power and reformed but it's probably already too late for that.

I thought since Trump went from advocating a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy to loud and proud neo-conservative (in less than 100 days) that that would buy him protection from deep state machinations and endear him to the corrupt Washington, D.C. establishment. For a time he was even making "never Trumper" little (((William Kristol))) coo with delight which is no small feat. Moreover, he's a lickspittle of Israel which seems a prerequisite for a presidential candidate.

The only thing I can think of is that even though Trump's picking up where Dubya and Obama left off on foreign policy, the deep state knows that Trump can be totally unpredictable and change on a dime. So he could go off the establishment reservation at a moment's notice which makes them apoplectic. Hence, their attempts to get him out of the way and install someone more pliant and predictable like Tom Pence.

jilles dykstra , May 16, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT

@animalogic "A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do."

Until further notice, that is absolutely correct.

It needs to be recalled - ad nauseam - that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians.

The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME.

polistra , May 16, 2017 at 11:56 am GMT

Conspiracies are NOT hard to sustain. That's an absurd statement. Deepstate has been sustaining and expanding its conspiracies for 100 years. (There is always a 'deep state' of some kind, but the current well-organized structure was created by Wilson.) A conspiracy AGAINST Deepstate is hard to sustain because Deepstate owns and monitors all public communications.

Hobo , May 16, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT

While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian thing" which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in a money-laundering operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades.

Some of the investigations have expanded their scope to include careful scrutiny of Trump's business dealings in relation to Russia. Recently FinCEN, which specializes in fighting money laundering, agreed to turn over records to the Senate Intelligence Committee in this regard. Even Sen. Linsey Graham recently stated he wanted to know more about Trump's business dealings with Russia. The possibility that this may result in a criminal investigation cannot be ruled out. The money-laundering angle is already all over the Web (ex. google: Bayrock Trump) and, one must assume, in the hands of various intelligence agencies. .This may be the basis for Trump's increasingly frantic attempts to shut down the "Russian thing" investigation.(Comey firing??)

Dutch Public Broadcasting has recently broadcast a two part series exploring some of the connections involving Trump's business dealings with Russia.

THE DUBIOUS FRIENDS OF DONALD TRUMP: THE RUSSIANS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKLWloj2ohM (part 1)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LxtQ0CMzQQ (part 2)

More detail and background is provided in this informative article by James S. Henry, a reputable investigative journalist:

The Curious World of Donald Trump's Private Russian Connections

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/12/19/the-curious-world-of-donald-trumps-private-russian-connections/

p.s.: Regarding the term Russo-jewish mafia, should you watch the videos and read the article you will find the players involved are almost exclusively of a certain 'tribal' persuasion. (A number have direct links to the infamous Mogilevich crime syndicate (top 10 FBI's most wanted list) and one of the principals of Bayrock was named as a major Israeli organized crime figure by the Turkish media following his arrest there.)

Chris Bridges , May 16, 2017 at 12:39 pm GMT

Phil,

As you know, Brennan is an extreme liberal Democrat, a creature of both Clinton and Obama. He is an utterly unprincipled old fool. He failed as a CIA operations officer and went back to Langley with his tail between his legs to become analyst. Nothing wrong with that but he nursed bitter resentment at the Clandestine Service during his whole career. He was finally allowed to go out as chief in, of all places, Riyadh. He promptly destroyed the station with his incompetence, though he earned the praise of the ambassador, as such toadies usually do. Brennan is perfectly capable of the things you describe. Washington is awash in these kinds of traitors. If Trump does not have a plan to arrest them all some dark night then he is a fool himself.

MEexpert , May 16, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT

And President Barack Obama was likely the initiator, notably so when he de facto authorized the wide distribution of raw intelligence on Trump and the Russians through executive order.

I repeat, why hasn't Trump issued an executive order cancelling Obama's executive order? He needs to stop this information sharing if he expects to remain President.

Phil, is there any one who has Trump's ear? The mainstream media are hell bent in destroying anyone close to Trump. First, Flynn, then Steve Bannon and now Kellyanne Conway. Trump must stop these leaks from the White House. He should fire all Obama holdovers.

utu , May 16, 2017 at 1:21 pm GMT

@Hobo While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian thing" which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in a money-laundering operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades.

... ... ... ...

p.s.: Regarding the term Russo-jewish mafia, should you watch the videos and read the article you will find the players involved are almost exclusively of a certain 'tribal' persuasion. (A number have direct links to the infamous Mogilevich crime syndicate (top 10 FBI's most wanted list) and one of the principals of Bayrock was named as a major Israeli organized crime figure by the Turkish media following his arrest there.)

Sam Shama , May 16, 2017 at 1:39 pm GMT

I recently produced my own analysis of the possibility that there is in progress a soft, or stealth or silent coup, call it what you will, underway directed against the president and that, if it exists, it is being directed by former senior officials from the Obama White House. Indeed, it is quite plausible to suggest that it was orchestrated within the Obama White House itself before the government changed hands at the inauguration on January 20th. In line with that thinking, some observers are now suggesting that Comey might well have been party to the conspiracy and his dismissal would have been perfectly justified based on his demonstrated interference in both the electoral process and in his broadening of the acceptable role of his own Bureau , which Trump has described as "showboating."

It's quite difficult to accept this line of thought when Comey practically scuppered Hillary's bid, something strongly endorsed by Obama. Going with this narrative requires Obama to have engineered Hillary's departure followed by a concerted plan to unseat Trump as well, both objectives utilizing Comey! To what end? Paint chaos on the American political canvas?

RadicalCenter , May 16, 2017 at 2:07 pm GMT

@Colleen Pater This " theory " isnt a theory its not debatable and its clear both parties and every power node in the world are signalling they will do whatever they can to help. Its really a good thing they are not fooling anyone but some maroon prog snowflakes. Trump was the howard beale last option before civil war candidate, he won fair and square , actually despite massive cheating by the other side and now they are overthrowing him in full view of the american people.Its good as long as idiots on the right still believed in democracy, that getting their candidate in would change war was averted. after thirty years of steady leftism no matter who was in power they voted trump now trumps being overthrown. They will see we dont live in a democracy we live in the matrix democracy is diversionary tactic to prevent us from killing them all. And kill them all is what we must do.

jilles dykstra , May 16, 2017 at 2:28 pm GMT

@alexander Some fine points here, Mr, Dykstra,
I don't think, however, the notion of the "establishment" is a problem in itself. Our country has always had powerful elites, so have many other countries. The problem which presents itself today is our elites seem determined to perpetuate endless wars that cost obscene amounts of money, and do not seem to produce positive results in any of the places the wars are being fought.
The "establishment" does not seem to care. It is now wholly unthinkable for our "establishment" to consider "making peace"and ending our wars. There is an addiction to "war spending" and "war profiteering" which has consumed the Deep State Apparatus, especially since 9-11, and operates almost completely independently of any administration in office.
Its an insatiable appetite...that grows larger every year. Any President, elected by the people today,to end our wars will simply not be tolerated by the establishment class and the deep state it lords over. The problem is not that we have an "establishment", the problem is our establishment is addicted to war.
Only "war" will do for them, full time, all the time..... end of story. Today, any President is given two choices once in office....make WAR..... or be impeached.
anonymous , May 16, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

@Anon Trump Heads to Saudi Arabia - Target Iran and Iraq?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIYy10NJcMI

Agent76 , May 16, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

The short answer is yes! March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate. Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-surveillance-state-behind-russia-gate/5582211

Mar 9, 2017 BADA BING! NSA Whistleblower Confirms Trump Was Tapped!

They're wire tapping President Trump, and Kim Kardashian, and Hulk Hogan, and you and EVERYBODY!

https://youtu.be/tWOCLMJRQ7I

John Jeremiah Smith , May 16, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

It is now wholly unthinkable for our "establishment" to consider "making peace"and ending our wars. There is an addiction to "war spending" and "war profiteering" which has consumed the Deep State Apparatus, especially since 9-11, and operates almost completely independently of any administration in office.

Precisely. Frankly, I suspect 90% of the daily brouhaha of conspiracies and collusion theories is a product solely of tawdry greed. The rich will do anything for money . anything.

John Jeremiah Smith , May 16, 2017 at 2:41 pm GMT

Reopening the investigation in a dramatic public manner (I guess we do tell who is under investigation) and then coming back to announce, "We were correct the first time; there is no case" might convince a few thousand staggling doubters. It was very close.

Quite so. Comey's election-eve announcement was a calculated risk, with the intention of making the "investigation" of Clinton look legitimate and professional, not just lip service to troublesome legalities. It was intended to produce a public reaction like "Oh, they double-checked like good investigators, and sure enough, Hillary's email operation was completely legit."

Done clumsily, and it backfired.

Aaron Burr , May 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT

At what point does political infighting cross the line into treason?

There's a line somewhere between the two, obviously. Perhaps its when you break the law? Perhaps its when you leak classified documents? Or details of a key diplomatic meeting?

John Jeremiah Smith , May 16, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT

@utu There will be no open coup. Trump will resign for health reason or in the worst case scenario will be declared unfit for health reasons. And Pence will give a speech how great Trump was and how great his ideas were and that now he as president will continue his vision. And many people will believe it.

Sam Shama , May 16, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT

@iffen It's quite difficult to accept this line of thought when Comey practically scuppered Hillary's bid

There is reason to believe that Clinton's email troubles were having a major impact. Many were unconvinced by Comey's first pronouncement that there was no case there. (I thought this was the prosecutor's job anyway. People would have been skeptical of a compromised Lynch saying that there was no case, but might be persuaded by Comey.)

Reopening the investigation in a dramatic public manner (I guess we do tell who is under investigation) and then coming back to announce, "We were correct the first time; there is no case" might convince a few thousand staggling doubters. It was very close.

Philip Giraldi , May 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm GMT

@Sam Shama I need to understand why Phil Giraldi thinks she was considered a flawed candidate from the Deep State's perspective .
In the minds of non-mainstream writers who constantly viewed her as the embodiment of the Establishment, one wouldn't have wagered "their" perfect candidate to be marked for removal.

Joe Hide , May 16, 2017 at 3:42 pm GMT

It looks to me as though the "deep state" is getting progressive dementia. While inhabited by many high I.Q. players, their moves are increasingly insane. They had assumed their "Surveillance State" would become all intrusive, giving them ever greater control over us peasants. The reverse has happened, where most of the 7 billion of us have cell phones that record and display all their nefarious deeds. We have a million times more high I.Q. people than them, that increasingly are waking up and exposing those psychopaths for the pieces of garbage that they are.

iffen , May 16, 2017 at 3:59 pm GMT

@Sam Shama I need to understand why Phil Giraldi thinks she was considered a flawed candidate from the Deep State's perspective .
In the minds of non-mainstream writers who constantly viewed her as the embodiment of the Establishment, one wouldn't have wagered "their" perfect candidate to be marked for removal.

John Jeremiah Smith , May 16, 2017 at 4:03 pm GMT

@utu

Comey's election-eve announcement was a calculated risk, with the intention of making the "investigation" of Clinton look legitimate and professional, not just lip service to troublesome legalities.
No. They knew then that election could not be stolen (for whatever reasons) for Clinton. The 28th October announcement by Comey was the signal to press to change the fake narrative of huge advantage in polls by Hillary and prepare the eventual excuse for Hillary why she lost.
Boris M Garsky , May 16, 2017 at 5:03 pm GMT

Comey was abruptly and unceremoniously fired after he stated that Clinton had forwarded thousands of e-mails containing classified information on an unsecured server to wiener and friends. Hardly covering Clintons back. The FBI investigates -- it does not prosecute -- that is the function of the attorney generals office. The AG solely has the power to convene a grand jury, not the FBI. The deputy attorney general Rosenstein writes a scathing report and recommendation to fire Comey. Trump, probably on Kushner's urging fires Comey. Comey redacts his prior statement.

My guess is that the FBI were very close to the neocons hidden secret -- Clinton and its foundation are foreign assets and not of Russia, hence, we have the Russia-gate diversion. Unfortunately, Comey;s replacement will be toothless, merely a shelf ornament. And what happened? We hear no more of Kushners? omitting his relationship to the Rothchilds enterprises. Flynn was fired for far less. Is/ are Kushner? and/ or Rosenstein the leak(s)?

WorkingClass , May 16, 2017 at 5:52 pm GMT

The people pushing the big lie about Trump and Russia are legion. And they are not stupid. They are evil. They are the same people who are preparing a preemptive nuclear attack against Russia and China. They are the globalists who would institute a universal Feudalism from which there would be no escape. I have no further use for Trump. But his enemies remain enemies of the people.

[May 19, 2017] Global Cyberattack Are Private Interests Using States: The global cyberattack, the NSA and Washingtons war propaganda against Russia by Bill Van Auken

Notable quotes:

"... Thus, amid the hysterical propaganda campaign over Russian hacking, Washington has been developing an array of cyber-weapons that have the capability of crippling entire countries. Through the carelessness of the NSA, some of these weapons have now been placed in the hands of criminals. US authorities did nothing to warn the public, much less prepare it to protect itself against the inevitable unleashing of the cyber weapons it itself had crafted. ..."

"... There was no question then of an investigation taking months to uncover the culprit, much less any mystery going unsolved. Putin and Russia were declared guilty based upon unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo. Ever since, the Times ..."

"... Since Trump's inauguration, the Democratic Party has only intensified the anti-Russian propaganda. It serves both as a means of pressuring the Trump administration to abandon any turn toward a less aggressive policy toward Moscow, and of smothering the popular opposition to the right-wing and anti-working class policies of the administration under a reactionary and neo-McCarthyite campaign painting Trump as an agent of the Kremlin. ..."

May 16, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press

The cyberattack that hit some 200,000 computers around the world last Friday, apparently using malicious software developed by the US National Security Agency, is only expected to escalate and spread with the start of the new workweek.

The cyber weapon employed in the attack, known as "WannaCrypt," has proven to be one of the most destructive and far-reaching ever. Among the targets whose computer systems were hijacked in the attack was Britain's National Health Service, which was unable to access patient records and forced to cancel appointments, treatments and surgeries.

Major corporations hit include the Spanish telecom Telefonica, the French automaker Renault, the US-based delivery service Fedex and Germany's federal railway system. Among the worst affected countries were reportedly Russia, Ukraine and Japan.

The weaponized software employed in the attacks locks up files in an infected computer by encrypting them, while demanding $300 in Bitcoin (digital currency) to decrypt them and restore access.

Clearly, this kind of attack has the potential for massive social disruption and, through its attack on institutions like Britain's NHS, exacting a toll in human life.

This event, among the worst global cyberattacks in history, also sheds considerable light on issues that have dominated the political life of the United States for the past 10 months, since WikiLeaks began its release of documents obtained from the hacked accounts of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

The content of these leaked documents exposed, on the one hand, the DNC's machinations to sabotage the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders, and, on the other, the subservience of his rival, Hillary Clinton, to Wall Street through her own previously secret and lavishly paid speeches to financial institutions like Goldman Sachs.
Read also: Obama Warned to Defuse Tensions with Russia
This information, which served to discredit Clinton, the favored candidate of the US military and intelligence apparatus, was drowned out by a massive campaign by the US government and the corporate media to blame Russia for the hacking and for direct interference in the US election, i.e., by allegedly making information available to the American people that was supposed to be kept secret from them.

Ever since then, US intelligence agencies, Democratic Party leaders and the corporate media, led by the New York Times , have endlessly repeated the charge of Russian hacking, involving the personal direction of Vladimir Putin. To this day, none of these agencies or media outlets have provided any probative evidence of Russian responsibility for "hacking the US election."

Among the claims made to support the allegations against Moscow was that the hacking of the Democrats was so sophisticated that it could have been carried out only by a state actor. In a campaign to demonize Russia, Moscow's alleged hacking was cast as a threat to the entire planet.

Western security agencies have acknowledged that the present global cyberattack-among the worst ever of its kind-is the work not of any state agency, but rather of a criminal organization. Moreover, the roots of the attack lie not in Moscow, but in Washington. The "WannaCrypt" malware employed in the attack is based on weaponized software developed by the NSA, code-named Eternal Blue, part of a bundle of documents and computer code stolen from the NSA's server and then leaked by a hacking group known as "Shadow Brokers."
Read also: The End of Freedom? Secret Services developing like a Cancer
Thus, amid the hysterical propaganda campaign over Russian hacking, Washington has been developing an array of cyber-weapons that have the capability of crippling entire countries. Through the carelessness of the NSA, some of these weapons have now been placed in the hands of criminals. US authorities did nothing to warn the public, much less prepare it to protect itself against the inevitable unleashing of the cyber weapons it itself had crafted.

In its report on the global cyberattacks on Saturday, the New York Times stated: "It could take months to find out who was behind the attacks-a mystery that may go unsolved."

The co-author of these lines was the New York Times chief Washington correspondent David E. Sanger, who, in addition to writing for the "newspaper of record," finds time to lecture at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, a state-connected finishing school for top political and military officials. He also holds membership in both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Strategy Group, think tanks that bring together capitalist politicians, military and intelligence officials and corporate heads to discuss US imperialist strategy.

All of this makes Sanger one of the favorite media conduits for "leaks" and propaganda that the CIA and the Pentagon want put into the public domain.

It is worth contrasting his treatment of the "WannaCrypt" ransomware attack with the way he and the Times dealt with the allegations of Russian hacking in the run-up to and aftermath of the 2016 US presidential election.

There was no question then of an investigation taking months to uncover the culprit, much less any mystery going unsolved. Putin and Russia were declared guilty based upon unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo. Ever since, the Times, serving as the propaganda outlet of the US intelligence services, has given the lead to the rest of the media by endlessly repeating the allegation of Russian state direction of the hacking of the Democratic Party, without bothering to provide any evidence to back up the charge.
Read also: Political Coverup of Iraq Atrocities
With the entire world now under attack from a weapon forged by Washington's cyberwarfare experts, the hysterical allegations of Russian hacking are placed in perspective.

From the beginning, they have been utilized as war propaganda, a means of attempting to promote popular support for US imperialism's steady escalation of military threats and aggression against Russia, the world's second-largest nuclear power.

Since Trump's inauguration, the Democratic Party has only intensified the anti-Russian propaganda. It serves both as a means of pressuring the Trump administration to abandon any turn toward a less aggressive policy toward Moscow, and of smothering the popular opposition to the right-wing and anti-working class policies of the administration under a reactionary and neo-McCarthyite campaign painting Trump as an agent of the Kremlin.

The US-Russian hackers story gets more complicated

Hacking Mysteries turned into spying ones

CIA working on 'clandestine' cyberattack against Russia

Russian comments on US elections

Top Democrats attack Trump

Cyberwars

SOURCE www.wsws.org

TAGS

CIA

Cyberwar

NSA

secret services

[May 16, 2017] The Real Meaning of Sensitive Intelligence by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:

"... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."

"... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."

"... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."

"... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."

"... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."

"... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."

"... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."

"... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."

"... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."

"... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."

"... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."

"... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."

"... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."

May 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.
For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal.

When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the 86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods" or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."

The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was actually revealed. The Post describes how

The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said. The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.

The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump, the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming that the Russians might have sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during the visit.

No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting, have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations."

So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.

The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called Special Access Program , or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.

There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place. Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.

Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.

The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret. It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.

And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

This article has been updated to reflect news developments.

Thymoleontas, says: May 16, 2017 at 12:33 pm

" The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East "

On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.

Dies Irae , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm
You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
MM , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:44 pm
Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/07/13/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/terms_of_reference_for_the_Joint_Implementation_Group.pdf?tid=a_inl

Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.

Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
Apr 21, 2017 Ike and McCarthy: Dwight Eisenhower's Secret Campaign against Joseph McCarthy
Author David A. Nichols reveals how President Dwight D. Eisenhower masterminded the downfall of the anti-Communist demagogue Senator Joseph McCarthy.

https://youtu.be/FAY_9aQMVbQ

EliteCommInc , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
Avoiding the minutia.
I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky waters is important to having an effective agency.

Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.

I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way. I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in an appropriate manner.

I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.

I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.

Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks.

Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy objective that remains a dead end.

__________

And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.

Cachip , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:12 pm
How do you know it wasn't intended as pure misdirection?
Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:20 pm
January 10, 2014 *500* Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent
No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/500-years-of-history-shows-that-mass-spying-is-always-aimed-at-crushing-dissent/5364462

Johann , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
EliteCommInc. , says: May 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm
Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.
What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline security.

But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .

Good greif . . .

Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.

Some relevant material on intel:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/327413-how-the-intel-community-was-turned-into-a-political

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/intelligence-failures-more-profound-than-president-admits/

But if I were Pres Trump, I might steer clear of Russia for a while to stop feeding the beast.

Kurt Gayle , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:28 pm
Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no success in infiltrating ISIS.
You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."

You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-isis-evades-the-cia/

Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia] would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."

Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular' information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences."

But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach." Indeed!

You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House" – even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."

That is, again, pure speculation on your part.

One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of information – and the sources of dis-information.

KennethF , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the Deep State is leaking the proof.
collin , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:12 pm
In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC!
charley , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:51 pm
I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything.
Brad Kain , says: May 16, 2017 at 5:03 pm
Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence. The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and our allies to trust the US less.

[May 16, 2017] Trump facing shark tank feeding frenzy from military industrial media

Notable quotes:

"... o start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. ..."

"... There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment, the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't want any kind of rapprochement with Russia. ..."

"... Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls the media because they own them. ..."

May 16, 2017 | www.rt.com
There are elements of the 'Deep State' here who are very opposed to the things Donald Trump said during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with Russia, Jim Jatras, former US diplomat, told RT.
Political analyst John Bosnitch joins the discussion. US President Trump said his White House meeting last week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ranged from airline safety to terrorism. A Washington Post story, however, has accused the American leader of revealing classified information to Russian officials.

RT: What's your take on it? Is the media on to something big here?

Jim Jatras: To start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. I would say that was the first thing.

'I was in the room. It didn't happen' - National Security Advisor H.R. #McMaster https://t.co/gVIHigqXaT
- RT America (@RT_America) 15 мая 2017 г.

Second, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Deputy of National Security Adviser Dina Powell, who were both in the meeting, have stated since the Washington Post article appeared – there was nothing discussed with Mr. [Sergey] Lavrov and Mr. [Sergey] Kislyak that compromised what they call "sources and methods" that would lead to any kind of intelligence vulnerability on the part of the US. But rather this was all part of a discussion of common action against ISIS. Those are the first things to be noted

Let's remember that there are elements of what we call the 'Deep State' here who are very opposed to the things Donald Trump said during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with the Russians; they don't want improved relations with Moscow. And let's be honest, they have a very strong investment in the various jihadist groups that we have supported for the past six years trying to overthrow the legitimate government in Damascus. I am sure there are people – maybe in the National Security Council, maybe in the Staff, maybe in the State Department – who are finding some way to try and discredit the Trump administration. The question is where is the investigation into these leaks? Who is going to hold these people accountable?

RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources.' Could it have a hidden agenda here?

JJ: Of course. In fact, I would even go further. I wouldn't be at all surprised if President Trump timed his firing with the FBI Director James Comey – what some people even pointed out – he himself in one of his tweets says "drain the swamp." One of the first elements was getting rid of the principals of the Deep State who have been trying to hijack his policy; that he did this precisely because he was meeting with Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Kislyak the next day. He's shoving it in their face, saying: "I am moving forward with my program." And I think that's the reason we're getting this hysteria building around the Russians, the Russians, the Russians when what we need is to move forward on an America First national security policy.

'US policy today: Aircraft, where co-pilots try to override pilots' (Op-Edge) https://t.co/x153yPtqVS
- RT (@RT_com) 16 мая 2017 г.

RT: Do you think mainstream media is a part of something big and controlled all over from the top?

JJ: Absolutely. There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment, the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't want any kind of rapprochement with Russia.

And unfortunately, there are Republicans who sympathize with this agenda, as well. I think we can say at this point that Mr. Trump is only partially in control of the apparatus of government. He does not yet have complete control and that there is a frantic effort by these elements to make sure he is not able to get control of the American government and carry out the policies he talked about.

#Trump says he had 'absolute right' to share data on flight safety & terrorism with Russia https://t.co/U6h9FW2ZKy pic.twitter.com/eFBIRhVaI3
- RT (@RT_com) 16 мая 2017 г.
The 'military industrial media'
The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media,' John Bosnitch , political analyst, told RT.

RT: The media has run with this. Are they on to something big here?

John Bosnitch: I wouldn't say so. I've worked in this field for three decades. I don't see a scrap of evidence here. But I do see like a shark tank of media feeding – no evidence.

RT: Trump attacked Hillary Clinton as being unreliable with state secrets. Can the same now be said of him?

JB: Trump is the chief executive officer of the United States of America. As the chief executive officer of the country, he has full legal and constitutional authority to use state secrets in the conduct of diplomacy. He's also the chief diplomat of the country. So there is a big difference between the chief executive officer deciding what information he can share in conducting of state policy, and Hillary Clinton deciding as a cabinet minister which laws she chooses to obey, and which ones she doesn't.

'You cannot reset:' No way for US & Russia to start over 'with clean slate' – #Tillerson https://t.co/vC71YbLpQL
- RT (@RT_com) 15 мая 2017 г.

RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources'... could it have a hidden agenda here?

JB: I don't see any other possibility, whatsoever. Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls the media because they own them.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

[May 16, 2017] The Real Meaning of Sensitive Intelligence by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:

"... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."

"... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."

"... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."

"... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."

"... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."

"... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."

"... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."

"... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."

"... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."

"... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."

"... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."

"... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."

"... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."

May 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.
For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal.

When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the 86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods" or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."

The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was actually revealed. The Post describes how

The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said. The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.

The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump, the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming that the Russians might have sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during the visit.

No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting, have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations."

So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.

The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called Special Access Program , or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.

There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place. Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.

Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.

The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret. It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.

And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

This article has been updated to reflect news developments.

Thymoleontas, says: May 16, 2017 at 12:33 pm

" The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East "

On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.

Dies Irae , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm
You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
MM , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:44 pm
Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/07/13/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/terms_of_reference_for_the_Joint_Implementation_Group.pdf?tid=a_inl

Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.

Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
Apr 21, 2017 Ike and McCarthy: Dwight Eisenhower's Secret Campaign against Joseph McCarthy
Author David A. Nichols reveals how President Dwight D. Eisenhower masterminded the downfall of the anti-Communist demagogue Senator Joseph McCarthy.

https://youtu.be/FAY_9aQMVbQ

EliteCommInc , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
Avoiding the minutia.
I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky waters is important to having an effective agency.

Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.

I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way. I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in an appropriate manner.

I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.

I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.

Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks.

Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy objective that remains a dead end.

__________

And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.

Cachip , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:12 pm
How do you know it wasn't intended as pure misdirection?
Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:20 pm
January 10, 2014 *500* Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent
No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/500-years-of-history-shows-that-mass-spying-is-always-aimed-at-crushing-dissent/5364462

Johann , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
EliteCommInc. , says: May 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm
Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.
What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline security.

But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .

Good greif . . .

Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.

Some relevant material on intel:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/327413-how-the-intel-community-was-turned-into-a-political

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/intelligence-failures-more-profound-than-president-admits/

But if I were Pres Trump, I might steer clear of Russia for a while to stop feeding the beast.

Kurt Gayle , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:28 pm
Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no success in infiltrating ISIS.
You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."

You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-isis-evades-the-cia/

Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia] would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."

Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular' information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences."

But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach." Indeed!

You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House" – even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."

That is, again, pure speculation on your part.

One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of information – and the sources of dis-information.

KennethF , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the Deep State is leaking the proof.
collin , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:12 pm
In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC!
charley , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:51 pm
I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything.
Brad Kain , says: May 16, 2017 at 5:03 pm
Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence. The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and our allies to trust the US less.

[May 16, 2017] Comey and Hypocrisy - Crooked Timber

Notable quotes:

"... I just visited the several newspapers and my own take away is that Democrats must be weeping with joy at their good fortune. The firing of Comey is being construed as the desperate act of a criminal about to be indicted. Which is remarkable given the fact that senior Democrats in the intelligence and judiciary committees confirmed they've yet to see any evidence connecting Russia and the GOP candidate as recently as last week. ..."

"... One problem with the claim that the president firing Comey is in any way a subversion of the rule of law, is that firing by the president of any official in the executive branch (with the exception of independent agency officials) is as legal as church on Sunday. That's a foolish feature of our system, but it is a feature of our system. The Senate failed by one vote to impeach Andrew Johnson for firing Stanton as Secy of War, and partly as a way to rationalize that failure, but mostly because the presidency was always going to evolve towards an elected monarchy, we later passed a law clarifying that the president has the power to fire cabinet members and their subordinates. ..."

"... But hypocrisy is a moral charge, and so this is not a politically important issue. It's good that Republican and Democratic hypocrisy might get Trump impeached, even if the state of the souls on both sides are extremely impure. ..."

"... There is not much use in being outraged by something one can in no way affect, such as the outcome of the struggle between rogue capitalist Trump, now thrashing about randomly, and the Deep State or Established Order or whatever you want to call it. However, as the struggle intensifies, and stuff begins to come loose and flap in the wind, we may be able to learn something about the current power structure of the U.S. ..."

"... "A few seconds googling reveals numerous explicit statements from prominent Democrats that Comey is incompetent and untrustworthy and should no longer be in the job. I'm afraid that's quite textbook hypocrisy." ..."

"... "It is not that the president does not, in the abstract, have the power to fire the FBI director–it's that it is inappropriate to do so when the FBI is investigating the president." This from rea is the perfect summary: And the fact that no-one in the White House who knew that, had enough power to do anything about it, is why this particular move worries me at least as much as anything else Trump has done thus far. ..."

"... Comey's public statement two weeks before the election that the Clinton email investigation had found new evidence which might yet (at long last) turn out to be incriminating was an outrageous act – particularly since a potentially more serious investigation of Trump was in progress and not similarly mentioned. ..."

"... Trump seems to have quite a few problems understanding appropriate timing. He held on to Flynn for 18 days after he was informed of Flynn's ties to the Russians and his lies about that. ..."

"... If Comey is unfit to hold the office, as many top Democrats have said outright or at least strongly implied, it is plainly ridiculous to trust him with an investigation which you consider so important. ..."

"... The honest response from Dems would then be, "it's great you fired Comey, now appoint a special prosecutor." ..."

"... "Are the State Dept's own computers underperforming, - or else compromised? Are gov't communications of all sorts OVER-classified?" – Lee Arnold @7 ..."

"... As someone familiar – far too familiar – with civil service bureaucracies (albeit not US ones) I would bet money that the answer to both questions is a resounding YES. ..."

"... bureaucrats consistently over classify because they like to believe they're insiders, privy to important and successful conspiracies. ..."

"... You can use these HTML tags and attributes: ..."

May 16, 2017 | crookedtimber.org

by John Holbo on May 10, 2017 It is not hypocritical in the least for Democrats to be outraged about Comey over the Clinton business and also to be outraged over Trump's firing of Comey, apparently to hinder FBI investigations of Trump and his associates. (One presumes Trump has a motive for the firing and the official reason is obviously not the real one.)
If Republicans try to troll Democrats – and I see that they already are – here's the short, sharp response: we all agree that someone may deserve to be punished, but also that proper procedures for punishing them need to be observed. This is not hypocrisy. It's the rule of law. If I say Smith should be arrested for capital crimes, and then I am outraged when Smith dies in custody in a suspicious manner, suggesting the police might be covering their own crimes, I am not a hypocrite. The firing is like that. If you care about the rule of law, you are outraged that Comey was fired today. If you care about the integrity of US elections, you are outraged he wasn't fired before. There is no tension in the view that the rule of law is good, yet the integrity of elections is also good. If Republicans want to make the case that one or both of these are bad, or that it's wrong to want both, let them make their case openly and honestly.

Raven 05.10.17 at 5:50 am ( 1 )

Of course Trump's firing of Comey had nothing at all to do with this other headline just out: " Grand jury subpoenas issued in FBI's Russia investigation - Federal prosecutors have issued grand jury subpoenas to associates of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn seeking business records ."
faustusnotes 05.10.17 at 6:13 am ( 2 )
This is surely going to encourage a whole new level of counter-Trump activity in the security state. Holder's tweet was basically telling FBI staff to have at it
nastywoman 05.10.17 at 6:59 am (
– but as the reasoning for firing the FBI-Dude is such awesome classical 'Comedy Gold' – we have to admire the lawyers -(and even the F faces humor)
And I just see them sitting somewhere and chuckling:
'Let's use the Clinton Inquiry'!
'Oh – that woulld be hilarious'
'Even the writers of SNL can't beat that'!
'Take that Colbert'!
'And it will show even Kimmel with his Baby- what 'real' comedy in our homeland is all about.
– and all what's left is roaring laughter.
And for everybody who reall wants to discuss seriously some 'laweful' aspect of 'Trumpland' we might have to wait until Von Clownstick has departed again?
bluicebank 05.10.17 at 8:16 am (
In a nutshell, Comey committed suicide-by-cop+mobsters. Rarely done if ever, even in film noir. First you piss off the cops. Then you piss off the mobsters. Then you get between them, hoping none of the bullets hit you and you come out a hero like in "L.A. Confidential." Yeah, never works that way.
kidneystones 05.10.17 at 10:43 am (
Hi John. I've no complaint with the OP.
I just visited the several newspapers and my own take away is that Democrats must be weeping with joy at their good fortune. The firing of Comey is being construed as the desperate act of a criminal about to be indicted. Which is remarkable given the fact that senior Democrats in the intelligence and judiciary committees confirmed they've yet to see any evidence connecting Russia and the GOP candidate as recently as last week.

So, if the new Nixon (who I thought was Obama – record secrecy, spying on journalists, and prosecuting whistle-blowers) isn't impeached, convicted, and pilloried it won't be because there's no evidence. Better still, Putin – Trump's Russian master – is now running America through his Manchurian candidate in the White House. Historians are going to have a field day with the denunciations. I can't wait.

Daragh 05.10.17 at 11:27 am (
I think this may be the GOP engaging in projection again. They divide the world into 'good' and 'bad' guys, the latter of whom are fair game. Proceduralism is just the formalities. Look at how massively they abused Congressional investigative powers to try and make Benghazi a scandal. That other people might have principles above 'crush mine enemies' isn't really a thought they've spent much time trying to grasp.
Lee A. Arnold 05.10.17 at 11:35 am ( 7 )
From Trump's letter of termination, it looks like Comey was fired because he refused to say in public, at the Senate hearing, whether Trump himself was under investigation about the Russians, thus leaving it appear that Trump could be under investigation, or that the investigation might lead to Trump.
Here is the beginning of Trump's second paragraph in the termination letter: "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau."

This seems to have little to do with Comey's performance in the Clinton email "scandals". It looks instead like the Russian story is getting too close, & Trump found a convenient premise to fire Comey, that premise being the need to correct Comey's public misunderstanding of the scope of Clinton's emails on Weiner's computer in Comey's statements, at the Senate hearing last week - a rather minor error, at that.

I imagine that Comey may have divided feelings right now: relieved to be off the hot seat, but alarmed that history may abuse him. Because last year Comey was sandbagged by the GOP, twice:

1. In the last hour of the July 7 hearing about the State Dept. emails, you can see Comey's visible discomfort and his growing frustration that he was being manipulated into saying something untrue about Hillary Clinton, in a witch hunt, under the repetitious badgering by Gowdy and Chaffetz who were trying different legalistic locutions. Their intended effect was to make much of the public believe that the FBI let Clinton off the hook.

As Comey had already explained in that same hearing, the facts are that dozens or hundreds of State employees, all the way back to Colin Powell's days, were using private servers without the "classified" status printed on the emails, and there was technically no law broken, therefore none prosecutable - though it was careless and sloppy, as Comey stated. So far as I know, the big questions have never been asked in the media: Why were they all doing this? Why didn't the State Dept. provide a secure server? Are the State Dept's own computers underperforming, - or else compromised? Are gov't communications of all sorts OVER-classified?

2. Various published reports could be construed to narrate a "dirty-tricks" story: that in October, an anti-Clinton faction in the FBI's NY office leaked the Abedin-Weiner non-story bullcrap to Rudy Giuliani, and possibly to Republicans in Congress. This threatened Comey to come out and say something about it IN PUBLIC, before it was blown up in headlines in another way - with the added bogus suggestion of the Bureaus' involvement in a new coverup to protect Hillary. So Comey found himself in another no-win situation.

Indeed Rudy just came up, again. From the hearing last week, May 3:

SENATOR LEAHY: Let me ask you this. During your investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, a number of surrogates like Rudy Giuliani claimed to have a pipeline to the FBI. He boasted that, and I quote, numerous agents talk to him all the time. (Inaudible) regarding the investigation. He even said that he had - insinuated he had advanced warning about the emails described in your October letter. Former FBI agent Jim Kallstrom made similar claims.
Now, either they're lying, or there's a serious problem within thebureau. Anybody in the FBI during this 2016 campaign have contact with Rudy Giuliani about - about the Clinton investigation?
COMEY: I don't know yet. But if I find out that people were leaking information about our investigations, whether it's to reporters or to private parties, there will be severe consequences.
LEAHY: Did you know of anything from Jim Kallstrom?
COMEY: Same answer. I don't know yet.
LEAHY: Do you know any about - from other former agents?
COMEY: I don't know yet. But it's a matter that I'm very, very interested in.
LEAHY: But you are looking into it?
COMEY: Correct.
LEAHY: And once you've found that answer, will you provide it to us?
COMEY: I'll provide it to the committee in some form. I don't whether I would say publicly, but I'd find some way to let you know.

Reading the full transcript of this hearing will show you just how serious the Russian connections are, to both sides of the aisle in the Senate.

On the Rudy story, see also Reuters, Nov. 3: "FBI fear of leaks drove decision on emails linked to Clinton: sources"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-fbi-leaks-idUSKBN12Y2QD

And a detailed overview as of Dec. 22: "Was Rudy Giuliani At The Center Of An FBI-Trump Campaign Conspiracy To Steal The Election?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/was-rudy-giuliani-at-the-center-of-an-fbi-trump-campaign_us_585ad14ce4b014e7c72ed993
Mario 05.10.17 at 11:42 am ( 8
Here is the letter where Comey gets fired (link goes to the New York Times).
In these weird times its the original sources which one should read, if possible.
nastywoman 05.10.17 at 11:47 am ( 9 )
– and @5 stop this nonsense about 'Trump's Russian master' – as by now everybody is aware that Von Clownstick only has ONE 'master' – the most nasty, dangerous and demented of them all: 'Himself'.
But – still – Historians are going to have the absolute and total 'field day' for how little dough one could in Trumps erection – buy a real 'campaign manager' – or for what an amazing tiny budget price you were able to get a real US national security advisor – and I really understand that lots and lots of US politicians are angry – how Manafort and Flynn went for such small change in order to help – of all Creeps one of the nastiest dudes of them all.

I mean I it would have been France -(or even better Italy) trying to buy themselves into the US government in order that Von Clownstick would do some promotion for them -(and Paris or Rome) – that would have been some kind of acceptable – and ME and my friends already thought: If a buy in – into the US government is 'that' cheap – why leave it to countries like Russian – why not getting it for ourselves? – and then when Ivanka comes by get some of her clothes a lot cheaper too?
Glen Tomkins 05.10.17 at 1:36 pm
One problem with the claim that the president firing Comey is in any way a subversion of the rule of law, is that firing by the president of any official in the executive branch (with the exception of independent agency officials) is as legal as church on Sunday. That's a foolish feature of our system, but it is a feature of our system. The Senate failed by one vote to impeach Andrew Johnson for firing Stanton as Secy of War, and partly as a way to rationalize that failure, but mostly because the presidency was always going to evolve towards an elected monarchy, we later passed a law clarifying that the president has the power to fire cabinet members and their subordinates.
So, sure, we had the president fire the head of the FBI because he was leading an investigation into the wrongdoings of the president and his associates. But however much that outrages common sense and common decency, it clearly is not an outrage to the law and what we have let our system become. That's our system. We've put the presidency above the law by letting the office control the prosecutors.

The legal recourse now, within our system, is to appoint an independent counsel, a prosecutor to lead the investigation into administration wrong-doing who cannot be fired by the president or his Atty-Genl. Trump, though, is no Clinton. There is zero prospect that he would let public pressure squeeze him into approving an independent counsel.

The prevention, and now cure, of the pathology Trump presents, is a political matter. The Republican party should never have let him have their nomination. That they failed to stop such an obvious threat to all of us, including themselves, is the final proof that there is no longer a party capable of acting even in self-preservation. Now that prevention failed, the only recourse is for Congress to investigate him by impeaching him, or to use the 25th to just get him out of office.

I suspect that we're about to have fairly definitive proof that the US no longer has a Congress capable of acting, even in self-preservation.
Yan 05.10.17 at 3:34 pm
Hypocrisy is not a charge about reasons but about motives.
The question is not: are there good reasons for Democrats to hold different positions about Comey in each case? (There are.) The question is: are they in fact motivated by those good reasons? (That seems less obvious.)

Imagine if Comey had been fired with equally improper procedure after the Clinton email scandal. Do you really think many Democrats would have been outraged?

This is particularly an ironic defense given that it applies equally well to Trump himself. Trump claims he's firing Comey for mishandling the Clinton email investigation. Of course, no one believes that's his real motive. But it is a sound reason, a reason that exists and is available to him, and by this logic, inures him from the charge of hypocrisy.

What's astonishing is that the OP even presents the case in a cynical way that almost short-circuits the post: "if Republicans try to troll Democrats here's the short, sharp response." In other words: hey, people on my team, in case anyone tries to impugn your motives and you need help coming up with a good motive, here's one.

But hypocrisy is a moral charge, and so this is not a politically important issue. It's good that Republican and Democratic hypocrisy might get Trump impeached, even if the state of the souls on both sides are extremely impure.
Manta 05.10.17 at 3:52 pm ( 12 )
I am not American, so I am not positive about how the proper procedure is.
However, I tend to agree with Tomksin @10.
If I understand correctly, John Holbo is complaining that the Democrat were asking to follow the "proper" legal procedure to fire the head of FBI, but Trump did not follow it.
So, what is this proper procedure? I was under the impression that the procedure was the president (maybe after consulting with the AG) writing a letter with "YOU ARE FIRED!" written on it. If I am right, and the rule of law was followed, the whole post is bullshit; if I am wrong, I would appreciate a clarification on what is the procedure: more precisely, what would be the legitimate way to follow the requests of the Democrats and fire Comey? (By the way, I think his firing was a tragic loss for US democracy: he proved to be a fiercely independent public official, willing to make powerful enemies from both sides of the aisle).
bianca steele 05.10.17 at 3:55 pm ( 13 )

If Republicans want to make the case that one or both of these are bad, or that it's wrong to want both, let them make their case openly and honestly.

They are never going to make their case openly and honestly. They will continue to equivocate and to give lip service to principles they don't even bother to cover up anymore. The only question is whether they rest complacent in their hypocrisy, or whether they begin to argue that "rule of law" mean something different from what it does (or more likely, to hypocritically insist that we use their use of the word in inappropriate ways is correct, while giving lip service to the idea of shared meanings, traditional definitions, and so on). Which of these would be preferable (not that we have a say in the matter) seems to be less clear than we might wish.
Anarcissie 05.10.17 at 4:18 pm ( 14
There is not much use in being outraged by something one can in no way affect, such as the outcome of the struggle between rogue capitalist Trump, now thrashing about randomly, and the Deep State or Established Order or whatever you want to call it. However, as the struggle intensifies, and stuff begins to come loose and flap in the wind, we may be able to learn something about the current power structure of the U.S.
The fact that the E.O. did not stop Trump long before he got anywhere near the presidency shows serious, Weimar-reminiscent incompetence, whose consequences will continue to develop. The E.O. also lacks foot soldiers among the proles, which Trump still seems to have. It may be we have entered Interesting Times.

Heliopause 05.10.17 at 4:30 pm (
A few seconds googling reveals numerous explicit statements from prominent Democrats that Comey is incompetent and untrustworthy and should no longer be in the job. I'm afraid that's quite textbook hypocrisy.
The alternative to that reading would be that it's not hypocritical because I want this incompetent individual to continue his incompetent work investigating my political rival. That would not be hypocritical but would be an inane position to take.

The public reasons Trump gave for the firing are broadly assumed to be correct assessments of Comey's performance. If you're worried that he had unstated ulterior motives you can relax, the "Saturday Night Massacre" didn't help Nixon and if there's anything to all this Russia Trutherism there are phalanxes of anti-Trump people in the government and elite media to bring it out.
rea 05.10.17 at 4:58 pm (
It is not that the president does not, in the abstract, have the power to fire the FBI director–it's that it is inappropriate to do so when the FBI is investigating the president.
Frank Wilhoit 05.10.17 at 5:46 pm ( 17 )
" let them make their case openly and honestly."
You are neglecting the fact that conservatives have a total emotional block against honesty (at least outside their own closed community). To tell someone a true thing grants the hearer equal status: this a conservative cannot do, not under any manner of duress.
Chris "merian" W. 05.10.17 at 5:50 pm ( 18
Yan, if you want to find a hypocritical Democrat, I'm sure you can find one. However, I think that your criterion, that a Democrat's reaction is only not hypocritical if they also would have been not hypocritial in the event of a similarly shoddy firing under Obama or Clinton, is not proper. I absolutely believe that the people around me who are shocked are genuinely shocked.
Also, given recent precedent, it is quite absurd to think it is likely that a Democratic administration would have proceeded in this way. Obama gave Democrats ample reason to expect that whatever would be done, it would be done in a way to protect institutional integrity. (Indeed, before the inauguration, internal affairs announced they'd start to look into Comey - an investigation the result of which was not yet available yesterday.) So for someone who does NOT have this internal insight into what the options and their trade-offs are to say "get rid of Comey!" is perfectly appropriate - that's why we have specialists who know how to implement a goal properly.
Scott P. 05.10.17 at 6:18 pm (
"A few seconds googling reveals numerous explicit statements from prominent Democrats that Comey is incompetent and untrustworthy and should no longer be in the job. I'm afraid that's quite textbook hypocrisy."
Not at all. You can think Comey should be replaced with someone more competent, and to also believe that Trump fired Comey not to replace him with someone more competent but to cover up an ongoing investigation.

Similarly, I think Trump is woefully incompetent and should be removed from office, but I would be violently opposed to the Chinese government assassinating him.
Sebastian H 05.10.17 at 6:55 pm ( 20 )
"It is not that the president does not, in the abstract, have the power to fire the FBI director–it's that it is inappropriate to do so when the FBI is investigating the president." This from rea is the perfect summary: And the fact that no-one in the White House who knew that, had enough power to do anything about it, is why this particular move worries me at least as much as anything else Trump has done thus far.
oldster 05.10.17 at 7:10 pm ( 21
I think John Cole explains the case rather well:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/05/10/the-part-of-james-comey-will-be-played-by-a-pizza-a-balloon-juice-explainer/
JimV 05.10.17 at 7:45 pm ( 22 )
My reading of the OP was that (filling in some background as I see it):
1. Comey's public statement two weeks before the election that the Clinton email investigation had found new evidence which might yet (at long last) turn out to be incriminating was an outrageous act – particularly since a potentially more serious investigation of Trump was in progress and not similarly mentioned.

2. Trump's firing of Comey, in order to put someone else in his place who would shut down the Trump investigation, was also an outrageous act – the act of a tyrant.

3. Both these acts are censurable, with or without hypocrisy; and one should not let 2) pass for fear of being called a hypocrite.

Assuming that is, in fact, the sense of the OP, the firing procedure was not being questioned but rather the motive behind it; and I agree with the OP (as I read it).
Mario 05.10.17 at 9:00 pm ( 24 )
And so it begins.
One thing I don't like about all of this is that the liberal / progressive voices are uniting behind the wrong flag. Folks, this is an enemy firing a broadside at another enemy. Instead of taking sides in this harrowing spectacle, let's make sure they take turns at that until little is left.

A more interesting question is: what can be done to take advantage of the situation? What can be done to advance the common good?
Sebastian H 05.10.17 at 11:04 pm (
"If this is an inappropriate procedure for firing the director of the FBI, what would be the appropriate procedure for firing the director of the FBI?"
Well step one might be to disclose the actual reasons for deciding to fire the director of the FBI in the middle of his term instead of transparently false ones.

If you, surprisingly, believe the disclosed reasons for deciding to fire the director of the FBI, step two would be to disclose the reason for firing him now, instead of in January, or February, or March, or April.

Trump seems to have quite a few problems understanding appropriate timing. He held on to Flynn for 18 days after he was informed of Flynn's ties to the Russians and his lies about that.
J-D 05.10.17 at 11:52 pm ( 27
Sebastian H

Well step one might be to disclose the actual reasons for deciding to fire the director of the FBI in the middle of his term instead of transparently false ones.

That's an issue of substance, not an issue of procedure.

If you, surprisingly, believe the disclosed reasons for deciding to fire the director of the FBI,

I'm not sure what you mean by 'believing the reasons'. The reasons given in the Deputy Attorney-General's memo appear, on the face of it, to constitute an adequate justification for the decision; but official justifications are only sometimes actual motives; sometimes they are not motives, but pretexts.

step two would be to disclose the reason for firing him now, instead of in January, or February, or March, or April.

The President's official notification, the memo from the Attorney-General, and the memo from the Deputy Attorney-General all bear the same date, so this question reduces to the question of why the Deputy Attorney-General compiled his memo when he did. Obviously he couldn't have submitted a memo as Deputy Attorney-General before he became Deputy Attorney-General, but aside from that, there's nothing in his memo to explain why he wrote it when he did, or indeed why he wrote it at all. It doesn't begin (as it could so easily have begun) 'You have asked me to report on ' or 'My attention has been drawn by ' or 'I have become concerned because ' or 'In the bath today, I suddenly began to wonder whether the Director of the FBI should be fired ' (okay, that last one he would never have actually written).

So if anybody's looking for a procedural flaw, I think that has to be it. There's no explanation, on the part of the Deputy Attorney-General, for why he has taken this action (written this memo). That's a reasonable procedural requirement, for a memo of this importance to include background information that explains how the preparation of the memo came to be initiated. Once the memo had been submitted, I can't figure how there's any procedural fault in the Attorney-General endorsing it or the President acting on it (I can figure how it could be argued that there are substantive faults, but not procedural ones).
Heliopause 05.11.17 at 12:43 am ( 29 )
@19
If Comey is unfit to hold the office, as many top Democrats have said outright or at least strongly implied, it is plainly ridiculous to trust him with an investigation which you consider so important.
Heliopause 05.11.17 at 1:11 am (
@25
1. Trump effected the result that Democrats said they wanted, i.e. Comey out of office.
2. Trump's publicly stated reasons were the same reasons as those of the Dems.
3. Dems have also said they'd like a special prosecutor.
The honest response from Dems would then be, "it's great you fired Comey, now appoint a special prosecutor."

Can I also point out while I'm here that a very prominent Democrat recently identified Comey as the main cause for Trump's being in office in the first place and that it is facially absurd for a Democrat to want such an individual to continue in office under any condition?
derrida derider 05.11.17 at 4:30 am (
"Are the State Dept's own computers underperforming, - or else compromised? Are gov't communications of all sorts OVER-classified?" – Lee Arnold @7
As someone familiar – far too familiar – with civil service bureaucracies (albeit not US ones) I would bet money that the answer to both questions is a resounding YES.

My experience is that successful conspiracies of any sort are almost impossible, not because there aren't plenty of would-be conspirators but because secrets are almost impossible to keep in the modern world; truth really will out. And bureaucrats consistently over classify because they like to believe they're insiders, privy to important and successful conspiracies.
John Holbo 05.11.17 at 9:42 am ( 36 )
Heliopause asks an apparently reasonable question to which there is a reasonable response: "If Comey is unfit to hold the office, as many top Democrats have said outright or at least strongly implied, it is plainly ridiculous to trust him with an investigation which you consider so important."
The trouble with trying to keep things short is it is not conducive to nuance. In Comey's case, there is a need for nuance because questions of motive and procedure get pretty fine. The following things seem to me likely true.

Comey, in a mistaken attempt to protect the reputation of the FBI by forestalling pro-Trump leaks concerning Hillary's case, did something that was in-itself inappropriate and thereby threw the election to Trump. That's pretty outrageous even though Comey almost certainly intended no such effect. The fact remains: outrage at this circumstance is fully justified and it really isn't good to have an FBI director who – however inadvertently – took inappropriate actions that threw a US Presidential election (in a 'but for X, Y wouldn't have happened' sense.) Nevertheless, it's hard to say when it would have been appropriate to fire Comey. Obama could have, but it would have looked real bad and partisan. Trump might have, before the point where Comey testified that there was an investigation of Trump's campaign but even then it would have looked real bad and partisan because it isn't believable that Trump is Hillary's white knight, concerned that someone called her 'crooked' in an unfair way. It would be obvious he was replacing Comey to install some crony (probably.) Worst of all, of course, is what actually happened.

Now this is sort of annoying; it's outrageous that Comey is still director, but there wouldn't have been an acceptable way to remove him at any point. But that's life. Sometimes there's no good procedural way to do something. But even if we disagree about that, we can all agree that, if you are going to fire Comey, you shouldn't do it in what looks to me the most inappropriate possible way, i.e. with intent to obstruct an ongoing investigation.
kidneystones 05.11.17 at 10:44 am ( 37
The principal reason Comey spoke out in the first place was because candidate Clinton's husband decided to pay an unscripted visit to his friend and long-time confident, the AG of the United States, at precisely the same time the Justice department was debating whether to open a criminal investigation into the handling of government documents by the Democratic nominee, also named Clinton. Comey's decision not greeted with universal applause. The partisan press has spent the last 8 years polishing the myth of the scandal-free Obama administration so that the gullible and the cynical can promulgate the myth among the masses. This rather good Wapo piece on AETNA's plan to walk away from Obama's signature program does more to explain why Trump is president and Clinton is not than any parsing of statements. The long and short of is that this election should never have been close. It was principally because of the broken promises and failed policies of the Obama administration.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/aetna-exiting-all-aca-insurance-marketplaces-in-2018/2017/05/10/9dedbeea-35d4-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.73cecd86b1f4 )
The principal reason Comey spoke out in the first place was because candidate Clinton's husband decided to pay an unscripted visit to his friend and long-time confident, the AG of the United States, at precisely the same time the Justice department was debating whether to open a criminal investigation into the handling of government documents by the Democratic nominee, also named Clinton. Comey's decision not greeted with universal applause. The partisan press has spent the last 8 years polishing the myth of the scandal-free Obama administration so that the gullible and the cynical can promulgate the myth among the masses. This rather good Wapo piece on AETNA's plan to walk away from Obama's signature program does more to explain why Trump is president and Clinton is not than any parsing of statements. The long and short of is that this election should never have been close. It was principally because of the broken promises and failed policies of the Obama administration.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/aetna-exiting-all-aca-insurance-marketplaces-in-2018/2017/05/10/9dedbeea-35d4-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.73cecd86b1f4

Bill Benzon 05.11.17 at 10:50 am ( 38
Over at Lawfare, a post on procedural issues in the firing:
The Administration, in short, has shown little regard for thoughtful process in law enforcement that is key to the maintenance of the integrity of the legal system, and of public confidence. Mr. Trump and his DOJ leadership have jumped ahead of the Inspector General's inquiry, moving suddenly to put their views on record on the same issues the IG is addressing. They have failed to explain why they did so, when the alleged misconduct to which they appeal is no different from that which generated the IG inquiry and was widely known when the President took office. The AG was involved in this decision when recused from any matter involving the Russia investigation-again with no explanation. The Deputy AG could not have weighed the matter carefully in 14 days, some part of which he spent writing the short memorandum: which means he reached his conclusion in less than those two weeks. So with whom did he consult-and on what factual record, developed in what way and by whom, did he depend? Again: no explanation.

https://lawfareblog.com/how-it-was-done-problem-not-only-trump-fired-comey-how-he-did-it
Lee A. Arnold 05.11.17 at 10:51 am ( 39
It looks even more like Comey was cashiered because he wanted to expand the investigation into Trump's Russian connections.
Trump screamed at Comey on the TV during the Senate hearing last week, then called Sessions & Rosenstein to the White House, said "Get rid of Comey".

Rosenstein went back to his office & dutifully wrote a letter to give some reasons why.

But then Trump used Rosenstein as the pretext, claiming that the Rosenstein letter INITIATED Comey's firing!

Washington Post top headline this morning: "Deputy attorney general threatened to quit after being cast as impetus of dismissal".

I had been wondering about Rosenstein's participation in Comey's sudden cashiering, because it didn't make sense. Rosenstein seems like the reasonable sort, but the reasons in his letter are last year's stories. Rosenstein must know (as everybody in D.C. does, including FBI rank-and-file) that Comey is a decent guy, not a politician, and that he was dirty-tricked into smearing Hillary in two different ways in July & October. So the command to write the letter must have seemed like a call to scribble some perfunctory bureaucratise, however unfair to a fellow.

But now it looks like Rosenstein is being sandbagged, too. And he doesn't like it.

Not good for Trump. Both Rosenstein & Comey can both be called up to the Hill for testimony.

Firing Comey was Trump's second big unforced error. A hyoooge error, even bigger than his shallow claim in a tweety pique that Obama wiretapped him.

Despite the Democrats' apparent indignation & hypocrisy at Comey's sacking, you can forget it, they are tickled to death.
J-D 05.11.17 at 11:21 am ( 40
John Holbo

Now this is sort of annoying; it's outrageous that Comey is still director, but there wouldn't have been an acceptable way to remove him at any point. But that's life. Sometimes there's no good procedural way to do something.

Sometimes, if there's no good procedural way to do something, that's a system flaw. There should be a good procedural way to remove the FBI director, and if there isn't, that a flaw in the system; although, now that I've got on to the subject, not nearly as big a flaw as the lack of a good procedural way to remove the US President. Yes, I know there's a procedure for removing the President, but it's not a good one, and there should be a good one.

But even if we disagree about that, we can all agree that, if you are going to fire Comey, you shouldn't do it in what looks to me the most inappropriate possible way, i.e. with intent to obstruct an ongoing investigation.

That still seems to me to be an issue of substance, not of procedure.
Cranky Observer 05.11.17 at 11:40 am ( 41 )

= = = John Holbo @ 9:42 am: The following things seem to me likely true.
Comey, in a mistaken attempt to protect the reputation of the FBI by forestalling pro-Trump leaks concerning Hillary's case, did something that was in-itself inappropriate and thereby threw the election to Trump. That's pretty outrageous even though Comey almost certainly intended no such effect. = = =

The difficulty is that there is an equally likely explanation that fits the facts and is no more complicated than this one and perhaps less complicated: there is a faction within the FBI that actively dislikes Hillary Clinton and took specific intended actions to damage her Presidential campaign, with the deliberate intention of seeing a candidate elected who was more congenial to their worldview. In this scenario whether Comney was a member of that faction or simply took no action to identify and fire/prosecute them, he was complicit in their actions.

[I saw a transcript yesterday in which Senator Schumer specifically asked Comney about Giuliani's magical ability to predict FBI announcements up to 36 hours in advance. Comney did his best to deflect but admitted he might have to look into that. I think we can assume that won't happen now. ]

If a large number of Democrats accept the fell scenario, then it becomes harder to disagree with Helipause: there is no justification for a law enforcement official not only violating the Hatch Act but actually throwing an election using law enforcement resources to remain in office regardless of what else he might be investigating.
Cranky Observer 05.11.17 at 11:45 am ( 43 )

= = =Lee A. Arnold @ 11:35 am: So far as I know, the big questions have never been asked in the media: Why were they all doing this? Why didn't the State Dept. provide a secure server? Are the State Dept's own computers underperforming, - or else compromised? Are gov't communications of all sorts OVER-classified? = = =

I was working in the technology sector at the time and perhaps it was covered in more detail by the technology press, but yes: Hillary's Clinton's first employee town hall meeting as Secretary of State turned into a 2-hour gripe session about how bad State Dept. computer and communication technology was, why State employees were forced to use only Internet Explorer 4 and forbidden to install Mozilla/Firefox despite the latter's vastly superior security record, etc. The answer from State's CIO was: because that's what our outsourcing contractor gives us and we are not allowed to complain or deviate from that.
Manta 05.11.17 at 11:52 am (
In other words: if "you" (a professional politician) demand that the presidents does X, you are implicitly claiming that there is an acceptable way to do X.
Otherwise, you are a buffoon.
John Holbo 05.11.17 at 12:23 pm ( 45 )
"If you think so, what would make of the demands by the Democrats to do exactly that?"
Well, it's a dilemma. But again, just because whatever you do there's something bad about it doesn't mean you should haul off and do something obviously worse.

It's true that in the post I take the 'Comey should have been fired' line, which honestly is a bit strong, given my view that really there wasn't a good way to do.
Manta 05.11.17 at 12:35 pm (
Also, motives are not important.
For instance, whether the Democrats elected official motives for asking Comey's head were sincerely felt outrage or simply a way to embarrass the president, is irrelevant.
What is important is that they asked X, and got X: now they cannot complains "but he did it for the wrong reasons!" (especially since the stated official reasons are the same that they claimed).

Mind you, procedure and rule of law *are* important, but it's pretty clear that
1) the rule of law was followed (i.e.: the President can fire the head of FBI)
2) no procedure would have been satisfactory (by your own admission).

The whole mess seems like a unruly kid, that first asks mommy for a toy, and then complains that he got what he asked for.
John Holbo 05.11.17 at 12:42 pm ( 47 )
"Also, motives are not important.
For instance, whether the Democrats elected official motives for asking Comey's head were sincerely felt outrage or simply a way to embarrass the president, is irrelevant."
I think you are confusing motives and procedures. As you yourself admit, those need to be kept distinct.

Also, just because no procedure would be satisfactory for dealing with Comey, it does not follow that all procedures are equally unsatisfactory. That's a fallacy. You can still have a worse option among bad options.
Katsue 05.11.17 at 12:48 pm (
Re: the Russia investigation, didn't Comey reveal during the Senate hearings that he didn't know what Gazprom was, and then go on to talk about Putin's motives? Surely a "What is a leppo?" moment if ever there was one.
Daragh 05.11.17 at 1:07 pm ( 49 )
I would argue there is an acceptable procedure for firing Comey. Trump could announce that due to Comey's intervention, the results of the election are clearly tainted and his own presidency is illegitimate. Pence could then resign, and be replaced by Hillary Clinton as VP. Trump could then fire Comey for cause, before handing his own resignation to the Secretary of State, and making Clinton president in accordance with the will of a plurality of the American people.
Will this ever happen? Of course not. But the arguments above seem to boil down to 'one cannot hold the opinion "Comey is unfit to be director of the FBI and, ceteris paribus, should be fired" and "Comey is unfit, but whoever Trump replaces him with will be far worse, so we must tolerate him" at the same time.' if there is no satisfactory procedure to remove him available. So consider this the possible, but wildly improbable, satisfactory procedure.
kidneystones 05.11.17 at 1:55 pm ( 50 )
Thanks, John, for remaining relatively level-headed over this. There are some sensible comments and fair push-back to the OP. There's also an unhealthy amount of wishful thinking.
Trump just imploded! For the last two years we have we been forced to endure countless convoluted LARGE CAP!!! assertions that THIS. IS. IT!!!! GAME OVER!!!!! Done, toast, finished, stick-a-fork-in-him MARK THIS DAY!!!!

I watched a fantastic sequence with a middle-aged female voter who, when informed that May had just called the UK election, reacted with NO! No more. Not another election, not more politics. She refused to even offer much of a comment beyond stating that she was sick to death of politics.

If Dems think that six months to six years of conspiracy theories is going to win back the voters, I'd suggest they think again. Yes, a large number of Americans would like to see an investigation of some sort. But that investigation probably concerns them less than taxes, jobs, education, health care, national security and a host of other issues. Trump supporters stopped listening to the media long ago, and I'm not convinced independents believe Comey matters much, much as the NYT wishes otherwise.

The Doctorow series was very good, btw. Enjoy!
John Holbo 05.11.17 at 1:58 pm ( 51
John Holbo 05.11.17 at 1:58 pm
One thing Manta may be getting at is that it is possible – no doubt actual – for some on the left to be rank hypocrites about Comey. But my point isn't that it's impossible for anyone to hold inconsistent positions about this (obviously that's possible.) Rather, it's possible – and actual – to hold consistent positions. One ought to hold a consistent position about this.
One thing I could be wrong about is this: have prominent Democratic elected officials (not just some dude on Twitter) called for Comey's head since he testified about the ongoing Trump-Russia investigation two months ago (or whenever exactly it was)? If so, then it's rank hypocrisy. Granted. But my impression is that Dems have 1) done most of their griping back in Nov-Dec. And why shouldn't they have griped? 2) not called on Trump (or Obama) to fire him but simply expressed that the situation is outrageous – which it is. I just did a quick search and here's the worst the Washington Examiner came up with from Schumer.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-too-lost-confidence-in-comey-in-november/article/2622608 )
One thing Manta may be getting at is that it is possible – no doubt actual – for some on the left to be rank hypocrites about Comey. But my point isn't that it's impossible for anyone to hold inconsistent positions about this (obviously that's possible.) Rather, it's possible – and actual – to hold consistent positions. One ought to hold a consistent position about this.
One thing I could be wrong about is this: have prominent Democratic elected officials (not just some dude on Twitter) called for Comey's head since he testified about the ongoing Trump-Russia investigation two months ago (or whenever exactly it was)? If so, then it's rank hypocrisy. Granted. But my impression is that Dems have 1) done most of their griping back in Nov-Dec. And why shouldn't they have griped? 2) not called on Trump (or Obama) to fire him but simply expressed that the situation is outrageous – which it is. I just did a quick search and here's the worst the Washington Examiner came up with from Schumer.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-too-lost-confidence-in-comey-in-november/article/2622608

It's not evidence of hypocrisy. Nothing that Schumer has said is inconsistent with him saying that it's outrageous for Trump to transparently interfere with an ongoing investigation by summarily firing its head.
John Holbo 05.11.17 at 2:07 pm (
Thanks, kidneystones, glad you like the Doctorow. The OP has problems. My point is fine but the capital crimes analogy is bad and misleading. The simple way to put it would be: if Dems have actually been calling for Comey's firing the last 2 months, since he testified about the ongoing investigation, then they are flagrant hypocrites. Otherwise, if they just complained about how outrageous the election interference was – especially if they did it back in November-Dec, but even more recently – well, they didn't ask for THIS. Not hypocrites.
Cranky Observer 05.11.17 at 2:13 pm (

kidneystones: If Dems think that six months to six years of conspiracy theories is going to win back the voters, I'd suggest they think again. Yes,

Alternate view: the Republicans managed to keep the EBOLA drumbeat going for 6 months even while the Liberian Health Service got the spread under control and the US health services stayed in top of it. You and your Republican allies are just surprised and set back on your heels to find out that Democrats can pull the same trick on you – and you know they have a real scandal to work with in the Trump case.
Sebastian H 05.11.17 at 3:11 pm (
J-D "That still seems to me to be an issue of substance, not of procedure."
You keep saying that but you aren't exhibiting an understanding of what these types of procedures are for–to protect against corrupt or improper decision making. You are also improperly trying to create a sharp divide between substance/procedure which does not exist in improper influence cases.

Lets take an area I've worked in, and which is directly on point–employment law.

In California, and many states, employees are "at-will", which means from that point of view, literally any procedure is enough to fire them.

But if you drill down half a step, you find that you can fire them for any reason, with a few exceptions which count as illegal reasons. Things like discrimination against certain classes, or retaliation for doing a legally important thing that you didn't like.

So, half a step down, lots of employers put in procedural safeguards to show that they aren't letting improper reasons influence their decision to fire someone. And that is good, because lots of times it actually stops improper reasons from influencing their decisions.

But sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the employers use these procedures in a pretextual way–they go through the some of the FORM of the procedures, but inject the improper reasons anyway. They do that by firing someone for reporting them to the FDA, but saying it was because they didn't fill out their timecard properly. Or they say that they screened the notorious anti-black bigot out of the decision making, but in reality he told one of the managers who was involved in the decision making that he wanted the nigger out of the office.

The purpose of the procedure is to screen out improper influence. If you purposely inject improper influence you aren't actually following the procedure .

A desire to avoid letting the Russia investigation get to the bottom of things would be obstruction of justice–one of the key things that procedures regarding the firing of the FBI director is supposed to avoid. So there are procedures to keep the improper influence away–like the Sessions 'recusing' himself (scare quotes to be explained in a moment).

So we examine the firing letter for pretext. We find that it claims to be firing Comey for things that were well known to the firing party for months. Things that the firing party in fact publicly praised Comey for. In any employment action this would be a clear sign of pretextual firing. Then you try to look beyond the pretext. Is there any evidence that there were other reasons for the firing? Yes there are–we have reports of Trump ranting about the Russia investigation (an improper motive). Is there any evidence of the procedure being subverted for an improper purpose–yes Rosenstein appears to have been ordered by Sessions (his boss and the very person supposedly recused from the investigation) and Trump (whose aides are being investigated) to draw up a memo with other reasons to fire Comey. All of those actions appear to subvert the procedural requirements.

What could Trump have done? He could have let the Inspector General finish his investigation into Comey and acted on his report. He didn't do that because Trump and Sessions weren't actually following the procedures to avoid improper influence.
Sebastian H 05.11.17 at 3:20 pm (
One thing I fail to mention above is that in a typical employment case with pretextual firing in retaliation for doing something legal (or legally mandated like reporting certain types of irregularities to the FDA) timing is almost always a factor. If you show that the legally mandated, but vexing to the employer, action is close in time to the firing, while the pretext is not close in time to the firing, you have gotten very far along to winning a lot of money.
Manta 05.11.17 at 4:40 pm (
John @51 & @52
I agree with your take there.
However, I remember (I hope correctly) that it was also the NYT and other news outlets to call for Comey's head: it's not "some dude on twitter", but it's also not prominent Dem official.
kidneystones 05.11.17 at 4:48 pm ( 57 )
Just took a final look at the international and national press coverage of Comey. Bottom line – the probe continues and there may be a special prosecutor. So, if the firing was an attempt to derail the investigation – that's clearly failed. So, why did Trump do it?
Absent any other explanation I return to my original suppositions re: Trump.
No 1: He's no politician, but a damn effective reality TV producer and actor. He builds and markets brand Trump. Comey was fired because he wasn't generating the kind of ratings Trump wanted, the narrative was stale and the actor 'playing the part of the FBI director' was hated by every demographic of the president's 'audience.' Trump isn't running a government, he's casting a reality TV show. Comey' replacement must be competent, but more important she, or he, must win the trust of the public and the nation that Comey had clearly lost. Pretty much all the air goes out of the obstruction argument with the investigation going forwards as is surely seems to be doing. Any remaining goes out with the appointment of a special prosecutor. There may be some piece of spectacular evidence that eluded the CIA, NSA, FBI, and other security agencies (many of which are evidently staffed by individuals hostile to Trump) that will knock the president off stride. Within a week, or two, the news cycle will move on. Feinstein confessed there's no there, there – at least not yet. And until there is, Trump moves on.

Comey is gone. He'll be trotted out as a martyr, but in the end will regarded unsympathetically by pretty much everyone, rightly or wrongly. The folks who hate Trump still will, and those who don't aren't paying much attention to hyperbolic after-the-election moaning. Trump may yet hit a wall, but that will most likely come from some future blunder, and so far he hasn't made any significant enough to knock too far off stride.

Praying for the president to fail? That's what Republicans did for 8 years. How'd that turn out? Dems still have no persuasive economic argument to win back white voters. Few liberals are ready to make common cause with the 'mouth breathers,' and until they are Republican fortunes remain bright.
Orange Watch 05.11.17 at 7:23 pm (
kidneystones@56:

Pretty much all the air goes out of the obstruction argument with the investigation going forwards as is surely seems to be doing. Any remaining goes out with the appointment of a special prosecutor.

It only goes out if you assume that it would have necessarily succeeded if that was the motivation. Which is a pretty hard assumption to justify, especially with the actors involved.
Heliopause 05.11.17 at 9:04 pm (
@36
"Sometimes there's no good procedural way to do something."
Trump's fans like him because he is supposedly decisive, and if someone needs firing he's not going to wait around 142 days for the HR report, he's just going to do it. That's his schtick and that's what we should expect him to do. If he carefully deliberated his decisions he'd be Obama.

If that's the way it's going to be, that we're going to pull the Capt. Renault routine every time Trump doesn't follow "procedure" and acts like Trump, then it's going to be years of these histrionics in the foreground while god knows what goes on in the back. More Russia nonsense, more Trump doing Trump stuff, more alienation of the general public from the whole stinking pile. I would say that the one good thing to come out of this is that there won't be any more Comey dog-and-pony shows on TV, but, alas, my fear is that we haven't seen the last of him.

Maybe I should be more positive about the Democratic party as Resistance. Maybe I should ignore obvious hypocrisy when I see it. Maybe I should immerse myself in procedure and personality and put all the stuff that matters on the back burner. Maybe I should look forward to our choice in 2020 between Mark Zuckerberg and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.
jack lecou 05.11.17 at 10:25 pm (
No 1: He's no politician, but a damn effective reality TV producer and actor. He builds and markets brand Trump.
We should be wary about underestimating Trump, but I wonder if this nevertheless gives too much credit.

What Trump does as a businessman promoting his "brand" is to self-aggrandize and act like a duplicitous, thin-skinned, imperious, tasteless jerk. What Trump does as an "actor" is to play a self-aggrandizing, duplicitous, thin-skinned, imperious, tasteless jerk. What Trump has done so far as both a candidate and a President is to behave like a self-aggrandizing, duplicitous, thin-skinned, imperious, tasteless jerk.

Which leads me to lean toward a hypothesis that he isn't so much an individual who is clever and talented at PLAYING a self-aggrandizing, duplicitous, thin-skinned, imperious, tasteless jerk - when the circumstances are appropriate - so much as that he IS a self-aggrandizing, duplicitous, thin-skinned, imperious, tasteless jerk. One who has simply been lucky enough to find himself (until now, perhaps) in circumstances where that more or less worked.

This might seem like a subtle distinction, and in a way it doesn't contradict the above statement. But it does put it in a different light.

It's kind of like how when a cymothoa exigua louse burrows into a red snapper's gills and attaches itself to its tongue. We don't say our louse is acting like a disgusting parasite because of talent, or because of a clever calculation that that's going to play well in the cable news cycle. Nope. Our C. exigua does so simply because it IS a disgusting parasite, and that's what it does. If and when the behavior works, it's only because it's found its niche on a susceptible fish.
kidneystones 05.11.17 at 11:02 pm (
@ 58 You put the pitfalls of focusing on bright, shiny objects – Trump's 'outrageous' 'unprecedented' actions (all as you note quite predictable) into sharp relief. Trump couldn't give a rat's behind about Comey and may actually respect him for all we know. I don't doubt for a second that Trump was going to dump him whatever the report said, or that many more former Obama officials will follow him out the door, a development which I hope comes as no surprise to anyone.
Who will be the first Dem to break ranks post-Comey and join the administration? That's an interesting question for the distant, or not too distant future. Media outlets are showing few signs of regaining any sense of balance, or focus and have devolved into click-bait camps for the shrill of various persuasions.
Faustusnotes 05.11.17 at 11:33 pm ( 62
Faustusnotes )
What's the point in talking about procedure in a political system where the entire civil service leadership changes hands every election and the current leader is an idiot who cares about nothing except his own grift? In any case trump has now helpfully stated in a tv interview that he had already decided to sack comey and didn't need reasons, just as everyone (rightfully) assumed. This won't sway the republicans of course because they're traitors and economic wreckers, and they don't care what orange shitgibbon does to violate norms so long as they can keep destroying the country.
Suzanne 05.11.17 at 11:47 pm (
58: "Maybe I should be more positive about the Democratic party as Resistance."
You should, actually. From the grassroots to the top the party has put up a quite spirited resistance and I think they can keep it up. Given the weakness of the Democrats' position, they can't stop much if the GOP gets it halfway together – they could not stop Gorsuch and they may not be able to stop "health care reform" if a bill actually gets out of the Senate or the "tax reform" that the Republicans also have planned. But they really are making things as difficult for the GOP as they responsibly can, with a powerful assist from the Toddler-in-Chief.

As for Comey, I'm willing to believe a considerable part of Trump's motivation was perfectly unserious. Comey had annoyed him by failing to support his claim that Obama tapped him, he had admitted the Russian investigation was underway, and apparently Trump took Comey's "nauseous" remark to mean that Comey wanted to puke at the thought that his actions might have elected Trump. Never underestimate personal spite when it comes to Trump.
J-D 05.12.17 at 1:49 am ( 64 )
kidneystones

Praying for the president to fail? That's what Republicans did for 8 years. How'd that turn out?

A Republican got elected President. Did you not notice? How do you think it turned out?
Pavel A 05.12.17 at 4:22 am ( 65 )
Given that the next Director is probably going to be Chris Christie or Rudy Guilliani (or Cushner perhaps), it's perfectly reasonable to despise Comey for influencing the election and fully expect that whoever replaces him is going to be considerably worse. This isn't a complicated position to hold and implies no hypocrisy on the part of the holder.
John Holbo 05.12.17 at 4:59 am ( 66 )
"Maybe I should ignore obvious hypocrisy when I see it. Maybe I should immerse myself in procedure and personality and put all the stuff that matters on the back burner."
My suggestion would be that focusing on 'some Democrat is being hypocritical somewhere' does not typically equal 'paying attention to what really matters'. Why is sniffing out hypocrisy – which necessarily involves immersing yourself in procedure and personality – help you extricate yourself from mere procedure and personality?
bruce wilder 05.12.17 at 5:39 am (
I don't think whatever the partisan Democrats are playing at constitutes "hypocrisy" per se. I can see why one might think hypocrisy is involved, because there's an elaborate sham being used as a "narrative" by the Media in cooperation with partisans, but I think the major actors would have to have some moral compass in order to deviate from its direction before "hypocrisy" was apt.
I do not think for one moment that there is any substance at all to the allegations of a Russian Conspiracy that meddled decisively and subversively in the U.S. election, so though I think Trump is annoyed at being dogged by investigations into the Russian Conspiracy, I find it impossible to credit this annoyance as morally significant "obstruction". As far as I can tell, there are not even any actual allegations, let alone evidence to support them. There is just the pretence of allegation, innuendo ad infinitum. It is completely maddening - gaslighting a whole country. And, Comey has been an instrument for this kind of crap going back at least to the Clinton email investigation.

It is not like this is anything new in U.S. politics. The Whitewater scandal was kept in motion for years. Two of the leading journalists promoting the "if there's smoke there must be fire" queries thru the 1996 election (20+ years ago!) at the NY Times and Washington Post founded Politico.com and another Whitewater scandal monger incongruously switched sides and became a favorite contract attack dog for the Clinton Machine.

The journalists and manipulators of the narrative that infect U.S. politics do not even know they are malevolent forces. The U.S. invaded Iraq with a majority of the electorate believing Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and had something to do with 9/11. Yet, the U.S. has been at war for 15 years with no end in sight. Pundits with the records of Tom Friedman and Charles Krauthammer continue on.

This has become U.S. politics, it is institutionalized as U.S. political discourse and now it is reaching its crescendo, with a reality teevee star in his dotage playing the President.

It is hard to have much sympathy for Trump, who was happy enough to use birtherism with his characteristic shameless disregard for all fact and, of course, to draw attention to Comey, when Comey was using "FBI investigation" as the instrument of Clinton's discomfort.

Still, I look on in horror and fear for my country.

There is a barb of irony in the letter report of the Deputy Attorney General, citing Comey's misconduct in the Clinton email inquiry as a reason for firing Comey. That barb of irony does not obviate the observations made about Comey's failure to perform his role properly or the importance of doing so. It may be that these sensible observations of the Deputy Attorney General were merely there as part of the cover story to bait the Democrats, but it isn't "hypocrisy" when the Democrats refuse to take the bait and continue to escalate the effort to de-legitimize Trump and oust him on completely bogus grounds. (And, why on bogus grounds - with Trump, it is hard to believe that a real, grounded case could not be built, not that option is considered an option.)

The erosion of norms of conduct and the failure of institutions to enforce those norms when violated actually has a lot to do with this growing crisis of legitimacy. I do not see many journalists let alone partisan pundits question the wisdom of keeping this narrative of the Russian conspiracy going. It is not that many years ago that a Presidential election actually was stolen, and prominent partisan Democrats did not get this excited. Most of them, led by Gore, rolled over, rather than risk critically de-legitimizing the government - it was viewed by some responsible politicians as an extortion attempt that they should accede to.

Trump's letter to Comey was remarkably direct. "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau." I read that as sarcasm. That might not be "the" correct reading, but if you cannot see the high plausibility of that interpretation, if you cannot read it as sarcasm, something has gone wrong with your reading comprehension. You have passed thru the looking glass into a political discourse conducted entirely in the subjunctive case ("as if") and a register of hyperactive albeit insincere and ungrounded outrage.

Trump is annoyed to be told repeatedly that he is not under investigation. Trump knows better than most the import of such negative messages. The whole narrative of the Russian Conspiracy is built on such empty non-allegation allegations and the conspicuous intent to never frame an investigation in terms that would bring it to a definite end and conclusion. Was there ever a final end to the Clinton email server investigation? Does any one ever investigate something with the intent of actually reaching a conclusion? There was that crazy dossier that floated about about Trump and golden showers in Moscow; did anyone, journalist or official investigator, ever confirm or disconfirm any of it? It was just another occasion for mindless, baseless speculation with no interest in judgment.

As Anarcissie @ 14 observed, one way to read these continuing events is as a struggle between a Deep State or Established Order and the rogue (but still billionaire elite) element represented by Trump. This is an E.O. that is remarkably careless about order itself.
faustusnotes 05.12.17 at 6:01 am ( 68
faustusnotes )
I'll care about Democrat hypocrisy when Republican "family values" crusading homophobes stop getting caught toilet trading. Until then, I don't think hypocrisy is the key issue in US politics.
J-D 05.12.17 at 6:03 am ( 69
J-D 05.12.17 at 6:03 am
Sebastian H )
Sebastian H

Is there any evidence of the procedure being subverted for an improper purpose–yes Rosenstein appears to have been ordered by Sessions (his boss and the very person supposedly recused from the investigation) and Trump (whose aides are being investigated) to draw up a memo with other reasons to fire Comey.

I agree absolutely. If Trump and/or Sessions asked Rosenstein to write the memo, that fact should be in the memo. On the other hand, if there was some other reason for Rosenstein to write the memo, that should be in the memo: for example, 'Immediately on being appointed Deputy Attorney-General, I set out to review the performance of all those reporting directly to my new office. As part of this process, I commenced a review of the performance of the Director of the FBI, who reports directly to the Deputy Attorney-General, and was concerned to find that ' and so on. There is nothing in the memo to explain why the memo is being written; that's a procedural flaw.

And then there's this report:

Rosenstein threatened to resign after the narrative emerging from the White House on Tuesday evening cast him as a prime mover of the decision to fire Comey and that the president acted only on his recommendation, said the person close to the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.bcaac13ed219

Rosenstein's grievance (if that story is true) is self-inflicted. If he had begun his memo to the Attorney-General, as he could have, 'As you are aware, we have been instructed by the President to state the argument in favor of dismissing the Director of the FBI. This memo has been prepared accordingly for your consideration.', it would have prevented the emergence of the narrative to which (reportedly) he objected.
kidneystones 05.12.17 at 7:23 am ( 70 )
@ 60 There's a great deal of truth in your observations, cheers.
@ 67 Thanks, Bruce, for the sensible jolt of reality.

@ 64 First, US presidential elections are held every four years, not eight. Second, Trump the reality TeeVee star destroyed the entire Republican political establishment because praying for a president to fail was the best that gang of charlatans could dream up. The Republican primary voters recognized that the Republican elite offered nothing, and gambled on the rodeo clown. The battle in the White House is between the nationalist insurgents (Bannon et al) and Democrats (Ivanka and allies). The Republican party won big as they usually do at all other levels because Democrats manage to make themselves even more distant and unfeeling than Pence and pals. And therein lies the real problem.

Trump is no Republican – he's the consequence of all that's wrong in both parties, and as Bruce W. points out, with much of the rest of the establishment.
J-D 05.12.17 at 10:09 am ( 71
J-D 05.12.17 at 10:09 am
kidneystone )
kidneystone

US presidential elections are held every four years, not eight

Why, thank you so much for explaining that to me. But as it happens I did already know that, so the explanation was in fact unnecessary.

Trump the reality TeeVee star destroyed the entire Republican political establishment

After something has been destroyed, it's not there any more. The entire Republican political establishment is still very much there, so clearly it has not been destroyed.

The Republican party won big as they usually do at all other levels

I don't know what your idea of 'usually' is, but it's obviously not the same as mine.

Trump is no Republican

The evidence is against you on that point.
faustusnotes 05.12.17 at 10:55 am ( 72 )
Yes, if there's any salutary lesson to be drawn from Trump's ascension, it's the terrible way that Republican elites like Paul Ryan were cast out into the cold, unable to influence policy in any way.
kidneystones 05.12.17 at 11:12 am (
@71 You're entirely right on all counts – you spent over a year asserting that Hillary would win and she did. The Republican establishment love Trump, but the base found Donald's dogmatic fixation on GOP principles to be excessively doctrinaire and impractical. Jeb Bush secured the nomination, but lost to Hillary, who is now making the world safe for everyone, including bankers. Republicans do not have control over far more state and local governments than Democrats and never have. Trump is now back to holding beauty contests, but regularly participates in local GOP contests like the lifelong Republican he is.
Democrats are more popular than ever having re-elected a young and dynamic leadership with no leader over the age of fifty. Trump never visits New York, but hangs out with his GOP buddies, the Bush family in Texas and Florida, who all attended Trump's wedding to Melania some years ago. Trump will write a column for the Weekly Standard along with his good friend William Kristol, but will find time to join David Frum and the NRO gang on their cruises.
Or, how about this – the GOP allowed Obama to win in 2012 as part of their 'master plan' to make Donald Trump, 'the Republican's Republican,' the nominee in 2016. Mitt worked as hard as he could to get Donald elected and was shattered when the man he admires most was demolished by Hillary's masterful fifty-state sweep.

It's your world we just live in it.
Lee A. Arnold 05.12.17 at 11:32 am ( 74
Lee A. Arnold )
Sounds like an argument that one is perfectly justified in believing the lies of a con artist, because he won the election.
Layman 05.12.17 at 11:53 am (
kidneystones: "Pretty much all the air goes out of the obstruction argument with the investigation going forwards as is surely seems to be doing."
Yet Trump says he meant to obstruct the investigation:

"And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: 'You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won.'"

You may be right that the obstruction won't work, but there's no reason to be optimistic about that. And, I'm pretty sure they prosecute bank robbers who fail in the attempt. Then there's Nixon, of course, who fired the special prosecutor who was investigating him. The investigation continued, carried on by others. Do you say Nixon wasn't obstructing justice, because the obstruction ultimately failed of its purpose?
Katsue 05.12.17 at 12:57 pm ( 76 )
@49
I can't say I ever thought I would see the events of the 3rd season of Battlestar Galactica being held up as an acceptable procedure in real life, with the Blob standing in for Bill Adama.
Suzanne 05.12.17 at 3:53 pm ( 77 )
67: "Trump is annoyed to be told repeatedly that he is not under investigation. Trump knows better than most the import of such negative messages."
We don't know that any such exchanges between Trump and Comey ever took place. The reports we do have suggest that Trump was pissed because Comey admitted in a public forum that Trump was under investigation.
bruce wilder 05.12.17 at 5:02 pm ( 78 )
Suzanne @ 77
I think you would have a hard time finding such a statement. Google it and you will find a stream of propaganda from Think Progress, a Clinton organ, and endless regurgitation of claims and denials cleverly misconstrued by the Media to keep the controversy going.

Actual facts disappear into a dust cloud of deliberate and irresponsible misinterpretation often driven by the needs of a narrative chosen for its tactical convenience without any concern for consequences for public policy or democratic discourse.

Automatic Earth had an essay yesterday that looked at this issue.
https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2017/05/comey-and-the-end-of-conversation/

I would not even concede as Raul does at the link that something might turn up to confirm the narrative. Like WMD? Or semen on a blue dress?

This is a contest among skilled and irresponsible manipulators - Trump not least among them so no sympathy for that ahole - and the rest of us should do more to question the value of playing our assigned parts as eager consumers of their dog food.
Layman 05.12.17 at 5:47 pm (
bruce wilder: "I think you would have a hard time finding such a statement. Google it and you will find a stream of propaganda from Think Progress, a Clinton organ, and endless regurgitation of claims and denials cleverly misconstrued by the Media to keep the controversy going."
It's hard to understand what this means. The first sentence is simply wrong, as a quick google search shows that lots of media (WaPo, Reuters, WSJ, etc) are reporting what you say is only being reported by Think Progress. The second sentence renders the first pointless anyway, as you make it clear you won't believe it no matter who reports it. This is tin-foil hat stuff.
PGD 05.12.17 at 6:56 pm ( 80 )
Layman, Bruce's basic point is that Trump can't be obstructing justice because the "Russian Conspiracy" is manifestly non-existent. I would say it is tin-foil hat territory to claim that Trump conspired with Russia to hack the election, but unfortunately the entire polity, media, and political system have been dragged into that territory.
Orange Watch 05.12.17 at 7:17 pm ( 81 )
@PGD #80:
Obstruction of justice does not require a finding that a crime was committed – it's a crime in itself, and more than a few people who could have walked away head unbowed have been convicted because they lied under oath or sought to influence legal proceedings. If you value rule of law and transparency, that's an entirely reasonable and just outcome.
Layman 05.12.17 at 7:29 pm (
PGD: "Bruce's basic point is that Trump can't be obstructing justice because the "Russian Conspiracy" is manifestly non-existent."
A conspiracy can be stupid, even hair-brained, and still be a conspiracy. And obstructing or interfering with an investigation is still obstruction, even if the conspiracy was stupid. There doesn't appear to be much doubt that some Trump team members were having conversations with Russians that, at least superficially, violate the law. And there is public evidence of collusion WRT the release of anti-HRC hacked material.
jack lecou 05.12.17 at 7:32 pm ( 83 )

I do not think for one moment that there is any substance at all to the allegations of a Russian Conspiracy that meddled decisively and subversively in the U.S. election, so though I think Trump is annoyed at being dogged by investigations into the Russian Conspiracy, I find it impossible to credit this annoyance as morally significant "obstruction". As far as I can tell, there are not even any actual allegations, let alone evidence to support them.

I haven't been paying attention *that* closely, so perhaps I'm in error here, but isn't at least some level of "subversive Russian meddling" (i.e., the DNC hacking) already more or less established fact? ('Decisively' is a weasel word – whether those attempts were truly decisive or not, they were certainly unwelcome.)

The matter of at least some inappropriate contact between Trump staffers and Russian diplomats - and attempts to then lie about and cover up those contacts - has also been established. Not to mention a pile of indistinct but distinctively unseemly-looking business ties with various Russian interests.

Thus the "Russian Conspiracy" you blithely dismiss is at least in some ways already a matter of fact. The remaining questions and investigation are instead about its size and scope: what were the content of those secret conversations, and how many others occurred? Was there any kind of prior communication - perhaps even quid-pro-quo agreement - between Russian officials and the highest levels of the Trump campaign regarding the hacking attempts which did occur?

That is, I believe, the implied allegation. And if any evidence for any of it were to be uncovered, it would in fact be scandalous, and perhaps even establish a crime.

(There's also a question in my mind about whether the hacking was limited to email servers. I see no reason to assume that *attempts* weren't at least made on the voting infrastructure itself. That would be enormously scandalous. And while I haven't heard anyone more than whisper about the scenario, given the porous nature of most voting machine systems, it's not nearly as tinfoil-hat as I think we'd all prefer.)
jack lecou 05.12.17 at 7:47 pm (

I would say it is tin-foil hat territory to claim that Trump conspired with Russia to hack the election.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the Russia stuff is a distraction from the actual policy catastrophes we should be worrying about.

At the same time, the variously corrupt and incompetent individuals who seem to inhabit all levels of the Trump campaign and the Trump White House sure look to me like so much stacked dry wood. And there is an awful lot of actual smoke swirling around.

So simply asserting forcefully that it's ludicrous on the face to entertain the possibility that some of that dry wood might have caught a spark at some point isn't actually doing a great deal to reassure me.
bruce wilder 05.12.17 at 8:02 pm (
I google, "Comey says Trump is under investigation" and I get a lot of links reporting back-and-forth on Trump "defending" his firing of Comey and noting Trump's claim that Comey told Trump Trump was not under investigation. I do not see any straight news report of Comey reporting on his own authority in a public forum that Trump was under investigation, which is what Suzanne claimed. I expect what Suzanne refers to was Comey's March 20 statement before Nunes' House Intelligence Committee about an ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation.
A lot of the reporting on investigation of the Russia Conspiracy is tin-foil hat stuff - people in the Media adopt phrasing and tone that induce imagining stuff.

In a functional political system, institutions circumspect concerning their own integrity would police the boundaries, but that isn't happening. Consider what happens to people who disclose actual, verified facts. What happened to the CIA officer who sought to verify rumors that Niger had supplied uranium to Saddam Hussein? What happened to Wikileaks? What happens to Media figures who come too close to critical thought? Ashleigh Banfield, I am sure, learned an important lesson in 2003.

Meanwhile, we have official statements from the likes of James Clapper to entertain us with empty innuendo and Seth Meyer drawing conclusions from how happy Trump appears in official photos of a meeting with the Russian ambassador. oooh, breaking news.
jack lecou 05.12.17 at 8:38 pm ( 86
jack lecou 05.12.17 at 8:38 pm

I do not see any straight news report of Comey reporting on his own authority in a public forum that Trump was under investigation

Maybe you're just really bad at google? Try this )

I do not see any straight news report of Comey reporting on his own authority in a public forum that Trump was under investigation

Maybe you're just really bad at google? Try this (@~34:00).

And here's a video from yesterday of the new acting FBI director talking about the effects of the firing on the "ongoing investigation of ties between Russia and the Trump campaign." I haven't watched the whole hearing – he may well never have occasion to flatly state "we are investigating X", but he certainly has plenty of opportunity to correct the apparent assumption of everyone else in the room that such an investigation in fact exists, and happily talks about, for example, how the investigation you say doesn't exist has enough resources in his opinion.

(Or is this a very clever word game we're playing, in which e.g., "investigation into links to the Trump campaign," is not the same thing as "investigation of Trump" .?)
Suzanne 05.12.17 at 8:41 pm ( 87
Suzanne 05.12.17 at 8:41 pm
@85: " I expect what Suzanne refers to was Comey's March 20 statement before Nunes' House Intelligence Committee about an ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation."
Well, yes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/intelligence-committee-russia-donald-trump.html?_r=0 )
@85: " I expect what Suzanne refers to was Comey's March 20 statement before Nunes' House Intelligence Committee about an ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation."
Well, yes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/intelligence-committee-russia-donald-trump.html?_r=0

"The F.B.I. is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government - and whether there was any coordination, Mr. Comey said."

If you want to make a distinction between investigating the Trump campaign and investigating Trump, fine by me. However, The Donald seems to have made no such distinction when it came to his displeasure at Comey's March testimony:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/09/trump-needed-a-really-good-excuse-to-fire-james-comey-comey-gave-it-to-him/?utm_term=.06abb6bb7eed

"A couple of weeks after Comey made those announcements in March, Trump talked about his job security at length in a pretty conspicuous way, re-litigating the FBI chief's handling of the Clinton investigation."
Layman 05.12.17 at 9:03 pm ( 88 )
@bruce wilder, that doesn't really support your original comment. You say the Russia conspiracy is fake news fanned by the establishment media, without addressing that
1) we know that Trump team members were discussing with Russians the content and timing of anti-Hillary propaganda (Stone), and

2) we know that Trump team members held illegal conversations with Russians and then lied about them (Flynn), and

3) we know that other Trump team members had contacts of an unknown nature with Russian officials, and then lied about those contacts (Sessions), and

4) we know that Trump fired the FBI Director at least in part because of the ongoing investigation (because Trump told us that.)

If, confronted with those facts, you claim there's nothing to be investigated, and that pro-Hillary media is responsible for ginning up this fake controversy, and that as a practical matter there is some substantial difference between an investigation into the Trump campaign team and one into Trump at this point in the process, and your support for this claim is what Seth Meyers says(!), then I think you're just shouting at passing traffic.
steven t johnson 05.12.17 at 9:14 pm ( 89 )
Yes, well, hypocrisy is indeed the opposite of sincerity. The thing is, sincerity is the cheapest of virtues, being available for the wee price of self-deception. It is beyond me how anyone can be sure someone truly is a hypocrite, or just kidding themselves. That is, absent the power to see into men's souls. Come to think of it, this power does seem to be standard equipment for pillars of rectitude. But if you're not a rectitudinous pillar, this accusation can border on charging someone with being human. Even worse, propriety is very much like beauty. (I suppose I could harden myself to charge a mother with hypocrisy for persisting in telling all and sundry her child is beautiful, but is it a worthwhile pursuit?)
The politics however I think are much clearer than the murky waters in the human consciousness: Convicting the Democrat Party of hypocrisy supports Trump. Insisting that Trump is effectively obstructing justice, does not. It will be the Republican Party that impeaches Trump, so the kerfuffle is noise and fury.
Layman 05.12.17 at 9:17 pm (
Suzanne @ 87, yes, and to state the obvious, Trump is a member of the Trump campaign team.
kidneystones 05.12.17 at 9:19 pm ( 91 )
Bruce is right, we all have better things to do.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/11/one-screenshot-captures-everything-wrong-media-coverage-trump/

Cheers, John!
jack lecou 05.12.17 at 9:57 pm (

There was that crazy dossier that floated about about Trump and golden showers in Moscow; did anyone, journalist or official investigator, ever confirm or disconfirm any of it? It was just another occasion for mindless, baseless speculation with no interest in judgment.</blockquote

You cannot use the existence of speculation as evidence for a lack of interest in judgement. It's simply that speculation inevitably precedes conclusive judgement, often by quite some time. (In an Einsteinian universe where cause precedes effect, I'm not sure how else it could possibly work.)

Of course, the Steele dossier hasn't disappeared from the radar. Individual portions continue to appear in the news from time to time as they are confirmed (or not) by press investigations, isolated official comments, and so forth. If there is any unified official investigation, it's probably part of the whole Trump/Russia ~~enchilada~~ blini, and of course we aren't likely to hear any judgements there until they're officially good and ready - which, even unobstructed, might take a while.

bruce wilder 05.12.17 at 11:48 pm (
jack lecou @ 83,84
I mostly don't pay that much attention either - very few do. We rely on a division of labor and institutional reputation to provide focus and filter. I think we have seen that institutional bulwark break down almost completely after being under considerable stress for a long time.

Not trying to pick a fight or anything like that, but it seems to me that you are, in your comments above, illustrating my thesis about how this political discourse in the subjunctive is synthesized out of sweeping generalizations and "as if" speculation.

EX: "isn't at least some level of "subversive Russian meddling" (i.e., the DNC hacking) already more or less established fact?"

EX: "the "Russian Conspiracy" you blithely dismiss is at least in some ways already a matter of fact."

EX: "The matter of at least some inappropriate contact between Trump staffers and Russian diplomats - and attempts to then lie about and cover up those contacts - has also been established. "

EX: "That is, I believe, the implied allegation. And if any evidence for any of it were to be uncovered, it would in fact be scandalous, and perhaps even establish a crime."

EX: "There's also a question in my mind about whether the hacking was limited to email servers. I see no reason to assume that *attempts* weren't at least made on the voting infrastructure itself. That would be enormously scandalous."

EX: "simply asserting forcefully that it's ludicrous on the face to entertain the possibility that some of that dry wood might have caught a spark at some point isn't actually doing a great deal to reassure me."

To paraphrase Nixon, let me be perfectly clear about one thing: I do NOT want to reassure you about the competence of Trump or the people he has assembled about him. (I am not here to do the impossible ;-)

That said, the way your mind has gone forward into projections about hacking the actual vote count or a quid-pro-quo agreement between Russian officials and the highest levels of the Trump campaign is exactly the way this kind of propaganda is designed to work. No one ever reports such eventualities as accomplished facts, but you still somehow end up thinking them. Just like people thought Saddam brought down the World Trade Center. It is declaring "don't think of a pink elephant" to induce people to think of pink elephants or asking a man when he stopped beating his wife or reporting a false but lurid rumor in the hopes of forcing an enemy to deny it. Richard Gere is never going to have a normal relationship with a gerbil, that much I know.

I am not saying that Michael Flynn's early departure from the Trump Administration wasn't a boon to the country, but speaking to the Russian Ambassador is hardly inappropriate conduct - it's routine conduct to speak to ambassadors, that's what ambassadors are for. And, Flynn, being Flynn and by many accounts possessed of singularly poor judgement and impulse control for a general officer, may have said more than he should and wanted to cover it up; maybe Flynn just lies compulsively. There are always going to be dots on the page; you need a little more to justify connecting those dots into a constellation and then making the supreme leap of asserting that the constellation represents anything at all in the world outside your own dreamscape.

Was it ever verified that the DNC was hacked on behalf of the Russian government? Not exactly yes and not exactly no - that event and the official narratives about it are a great illustration of how official secrecy and "investigations" that involve only a minimal nod to methods of investigation seem to breed this shadowy smoky stuff that get us worried about Manchurian candidates elected by rigged vote counts. A private firm, CrowdStrike, with some dubious political links and self-promotional flair, did the only hands-on investigation at the DNC and issued in place of documentary evidence a press release. They identified the hackers as the shadowy group dubbed by security researchers, Fancy Bear, and widely but vaguely thought to be a frequent instrument of some not altogether definitively identified Russian intelligence agency. CrowdStrike also asserted that another shadowy Russian hacker group working for a different Russian intelligence agency had broken into the DNC email server nearly a year before Fancy Bear tried their hand. Neither the FBI nor any other police agency conducted any kind of forensic examination. The CrowdStrike report was disputed. A former British diplomat with ties to Julian Assange claimed he had been involved in getting the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and knew the leaker was an insider. Guccifer 2.0, still another hacker(s), claimed to have done the dirty deed and there's been back-and-forth among people who care about such things about whether Guccifer 2.0, who appears to be Romanian, is on good terms with official Russia. It is an endless tunnel of mirrors where people freely speculate and then weasel out "medium confidence" in a conclusion. And, this becomes the foundation for an intelligence assessment that might be nine-tenths reading Putin's mind for intentions.

I think the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment commissioned by President Obama on Russian interference illustrates another way official secrecy is used to manufacture hysteria and outrage. There was, first of all, the ceremonial gravity given to the proceedings by Obama threatening retaliation and actually carrying out a gesture of expelling some diplomats. There was lots of high-flown language framed in general terms about a "massive" cyber operation, but the actual de-classified report mostly whined about the Russian cable-news channel, RT America. I suppose one is supposed to surmise that they just couldn't tell everyone about the juicy stuff - source and methods don't cha 'no - but it kind of looks like they got nuthin'. Unless you think RT America is somehow illegitimate - I'm not one of the 14 people who watch regularly, but from what little I know of it, it has higher journalistic standards than MSNBC.

In the end, you are supposed to imagine almost involuntarily that the Russians hacked the voting machines and Trump insiders were conspiring with Putin's minions in a quid-pro-quo. And, there's absolutely no reason to think either of those things is true. Other than the incessantly repeated propaganda stream that substitutes for a political discourse.

jack lecou: " 'Decisively' is a weasel word – whether those attempts were truly decisive or not, they were certainly unwelcome. "

I wasn't trying to weasel so much as to draw attention to mechanisms. To make a case for Russian interference, you have to put it into a context of mechanisms for winning elections. It can't just be serial liar James Clapper's ungrounded and unexplained "massive" - it has to be proportional to the task. The U.S. has interfered in some elections historically, and the interference was proportional to outcomes; governments were overthrown by military force when the vote didn't work out. You cannot in total secrecy win an election in which millions publicly campaign and vote. Some large part of your effort will appear above the waterline. So what was the mechanism? That the Podesta emails revealed true information? That RT America, with its audience of 14, overwhelmed the propaganda resources of the billion-dollar Clinton campaign?

jack lecou @ 86: . . . is this a very clever word game we're playing, in which e.g., "investigation into links to the Trump campaign," is not the same thing as "investigation of Trump" .?

Yes, I think it is akin to a very clever word game, but it's not my game.

Psychological processes like semantic generalization and narrative incompleteness are being exploited to lead us along a path. Very vague formulas are used, so a possibly legitimate, routine and pedestrian counterintelligence investigation advances by almost imperceptible increments from examining the affairs of a relative nobody named Carter Page with distant and tenuous links to Trump into a surmised accusation that Trump is Putin's Manchurian Candidate.

Or, speculation about who hacked the DNC becomes a fear that the electoral count was hacked. And, so on.

Again, I feel like I have to end by re-asserting that I do not want to "reassure" anyone. That's a trick of the mind - your mind, not mine. Hysteria over a false threat doesn't mean there isn't a real threat. Paranoia is no guarantee that they are not out to get you. It is, in fact, evidence of a real threat: re-read Anarcissie @ 14 above.
J-D 05.13.17 at 1:03 am ( 94
J-D 05.13.17 at 1:03 am
kidneystones )
kidneystones

You're entirely right on all counts

In accordance with your usual MO, you've obviously made up a fantasy version of me that bears no relation to me, just so you can sneer at it to prove your own superiority.

you spent over a year asserting that Hillary would win and she did.

I never made any such prediction, not even once.

The Republican establishment love Trump, but the base found Donald's dogmatic fixation on GOP principles to be excessively doctrinaire and impractical.

I have never made any of those assertions.

Jeb Bush secured the nomination, but lost to Hillary, who is now making the world safe for everyone, including bankers.

Again, not my predictions

and I could go on through your comment line by line, but you get the idea.
Anarcissie 05.13.17 at 5:18 am ( 95 )
John Holbo 05.11.17 at 9:42 am
' Comey, in a mistaken attempt to protect the reputation of the FBI by forestalling pro-Trump leaks concerning Hillary's case, did something that was in-itself inappropriate and thereby threw the election to Trump ..'
It is not possible to reason from evidence to the conclusion that Comey's actions, or Putin's for that matter, caused a particular outcome of the election, because if it were, the same reasoning could have been applied shortly before the election, and the result would have been a predominance of predictions that Trump was going to win.
Orange Watch 05.13.17 at 5:57 am (
@Anarcissie #95:
Your own comment shows why its conclusion is wrong: "the same reasoning could have been applied shortly before the election, and the result would have been a predominance of predictions that Trump was going to win" – just because someone could follow through with the reasoning does not mean they would, nor that they would give it the same weight as far as projected impact of conflicting factors (or their preexisting biases and conclusions) were concerned. You are narrowly correct that we do not, cannot, and never will have "exact reasons" why voters voted as they did during the election (just like every other election), but even if we did have it that in no way implies that the media would have en masse embraced and published it – and to further highlight the inherent meaninglessness of the sort of counterfactual you're proposing, the media concluding and predominantly predicting that these factors would tip the election to Trump could well have then prevented the election from going to Trump.
steven t johnson 05.13.17 at 9:55 am (
If Trump can't take Russian money, then gleefully stiff them, he's not the man I thought he was.
In other words, the old joke is, an honest politician stays bought, but Trump is not an honest politician.
Lee A. Arnold 05.13.17 at 11:30 am ( 98
Lee A. Arnold )
How can anyone maintain the ideas that there is a "Deep State or Established Order" which is being "opposed" by the "rogue capitalist Trump"? This a dramatic fantasy, worthy of a sword-and-sorcery TV miniseries.
Faustusnotes 05.13.17 at 12:30 pm ( 99
Faustusnotes )
Bruce, Flynn clearly broke basic rules on disclosure. He was working for Russia and turkey while advising trump on security. If you can think of an innocent reason for that I'd love to hear it. If you can explain why comeys sacking has nothing to do with the Russia inquiry when trump himself said that was the reason I would love to hear it.
Republicans are traitors and wreckers. That's the easiest explanation for their behavior.
JimV 05.13.17 at 1:39 pm ( 100
JimV 05.13.17 at 1:39 pm
"It is not possible to reason from evidence to the conclusion that Comey's actions, or Putin's for that matter, caused a particular outcome of the election, because if it were, the same reasoning could have been applied shortly before the election, and the result would have been a predominance of predictions that Trump was going to win."
Or, as actually happened at fivethirtyeight.com, the statistical predictions could have changed from a high probability that HRC would win to more of a toss-up. Trump was always going to be the worst candidate in most people's minds (e.g., see the popular vote), but with Comey's letter, and the big media play on it, Trump suddenly had a chance.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/ )
"It is not possible to reason from evidence to the conclusion that Comey's actions, or Putin's for that matter, caused a particular outcome of the election, because if it were, the same reasoning could have been applied shortly before the election, and the result would have been a predominance of predictions that Trump was going to win."
Or, as actually happened at fivethirtyeight.com, the statistical predictions could have changed from a high probability that HRC would win to more of a toss-up. Trump was always going to be the worst candidate in most people's minds (e.g., see the popular vote), but with Comey's letter, and the big media play on it, Trump suddenly had a chance.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

Kudos to all those who presciently predicted that Comey would come through for their cause.
jack lecou 05.13.17 at 9:56 pm ( 101 )

That said, the way your mind has gone forward into projections about hacking the actual vote count or a quid-pro-quo agreement between Russian officials and the highest levels of the Trump campaign is exactly the way this kind of propaganda is designed to work. No one ever reports such eventualities as accomplished facts, but you still somehow end up thinking them.

But I don't think them. Or think they're true anyway. You're essentially making the claim that people are so foolish that statements like "there's reason to be suspicious this might have happened, we should check it out" are equivalent in their minds to "this definitely happened".

I'm the first guy to admit that the public can be pretty foolish, but I think that's underestimating even them. The subjunctive continues to be used over the indicative for a reason .

Just like people thought Saddam brought down the World Trade Center. It is declaring "don't think of a pink elephant" to induce people to think of pink elephants or asking a man when he stopped beating his wife or reporting a false but lurid rumor in the hopes of forcing an enemy to deny it. Richard Gere is never going to have a normal relationship with a gerbil, that much I know.

Which aren't really equivalent at all. All of those examples are instances of non sequitur accusations invented out of whole cloth. There's a difference between on the one hand, asking a man whether he has stopped beating his wife, and on the other hand, observing that a woman seems to be able to offer only weak explanations for the bruises she has all the time, so maybe it's worth looking into whether her husband - or someone else she knows - may be responsible.

What we have with the Trump/Russia nexus is a series of accidental and clumsy revelations of misbehavior. Ripples in the water. There are enough of them that I - and apparently not a few others - think there's sufficient suspicion there to merit turning on the fish finder and seeing if we can find out what's down there. Could be a little school of minnows. Could be a great white whale. Could just be the wind.

I'm unclear on *your* position. Unless it's just to assume it's the wind because considering any other possibilities would involve use of the dreaded subjunctive.

In the end, you are supposed to imagine almost involuntarily that the Russians hacked the voting machines and Trump insiders were conspiring with Putin's minions in a quid-pro-quo. And, there's absolutely no reason to think either of those things is true. Other than the incessantly repeated propaganda stream that substitutes for a political discourse.

You act as if some sinister force is directing this process. Was it that force which conducted the DNC hacking? Was it that force which engineered inappropriate contacts between Trump staffers and Russian interests? No. And yet absent those events, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

*NO* reason to think those things were true would be the conditions which prevailed in the Clinton, Bush or Obama administrations, in which there were no ripples in the water. No potentially Russian linked hacks and high-level campaign contacts with Russian agents were ever revealed.

So there is not NO reason to think those things are true. Not enough to conclude they are true? Sure. We're somewhere in between. Which is what investigations are for. To do the best we can to get out of that zone.

Psychological processes like semantic generalization and narrative incompleteness are being exploited to lead us along a path. Very vague formulas are used, so a possibly legitimate, routine and pedestrian counterintelligence investigation advances by almost imperceptible increments from examining the affairs of a relative nobody named Carter Page with distant and tenuous links to Trump into a surmised accusation that Trump is Putin's Manchurian Candidate.

"Relative nobody" is doing a lot of work for you there. You're writing as if Page were a refrigerator salesmen from Toledo, rather than well connected businessman and highly - if not top - placed adviser in Trump's presidential campaign. Any in-progress counterintelligence investigation which involves individuals close to a sitting President is by definition not a "routine and pedestrian" one. Which is perhaps the crux of the disagreement here.
jack lecou 05.13.17 at 10:37 pm ( 102 )

To make a case for Russian interference, you have to put it into a context of mechanisms for winning elections. It can't just be serial liar James Clapper's ungrounded and unexplained "massive" - it has to be proportional to the task.

No, it only has to be proportional to the expense. It's very plausible (YMMV) that Russian authorities running a live-fire exercise of some of their 'cyber' forces in an operation which could both dig up dirt on an individual they dislike (Clinton) while perhaps winning brownie points with her more easily manipulable competitor (Trump) would be [oh dear] basically win-win-win for them relative to the risk and resources expended. Potentially influencing the actual election on top of that is pure gravy.
Collin Street 05.13.17 at 10:50 pm (
Republicans are traitors and wreckers. That's the easiest explanation for their behavior.
Actually, the easiest explanation is that they all have undiagnosed or unmanaged empathy impairments, which sometimes manifests as a difficulty with understanding why different people have different experiences and want different changes made and sometimes emerges as a crippling, all-encompassing narcissism.

Noone wrecks or traits for fun. They're doing it for reasons that seem to them just and mete, and to understand and predict actions you need to know what those just-and-mete reasons are and why they hold them. "People other than me don't have genuine experiences" actually fits the observed phenomena pretty damned well; I mean, I'm open to alternative explanations. But yours is, fundamentally, "they are devils in human flesh", and I find that unsatisfying.
kidneystones 05.13.17 at 11:09 pm ( 104
kidneystones 05.13.17 at 11:09 pm
@ 100 Stipulating first that I see no any additional reason not to waste countless mountains of money and energy engaging in 'connect-the-dots, duh' conspiracy theorizing beyond those all ready outlined up-thread, here's what Nate Cohen just wrote about the Comey effect.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/upshot/a-2016-review-theres-reason-to-be-skeptical-of-a-comey-effect.html?_r=0 )
@ 100 Stipulating first that I see no any additional reason not to waste countless mountains of money and energy engaging in 'connect-the-dots, duh' conspiracy theorizing beyond those all ready outlined up-thread, here's what Nate Cohen just wrote about the Comey effect.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/upshot/a-2016-review-theres-reason-to-be-skeptical-of-a-comey-effect.html?_r=0
"Most important, the polls taken before the letter were as bad for Mrs. Clinton as those conducted after it. Again, there aren't many of these polls, but taken at face value there's a case that Mrs. Clinton had nearly or even completely bottomed out by the time the Comey letter was released. Even if she had not, the trend line heading into the Comey letter was bad enough that there's no need to assume that the Comey letter was necessary for any additional erosion in her lead."

Cohen writes that he dismissed one poll that put Trump ahead in Florida before the Comey letter was released and others that reduced Clinton's lead to just 2 points. Cohen offers a solid critique of his own assumptions which will probably read like science fiction to many here.

Over 50 percent of the public believes the timing of the Comey firing to be problematic/suspect. The NYT suggested with 98 percent certainty that Hillary would win the night of the election. These two facts certainly support Bruce's arguments about the failure of the media.

My own confidence in the Trump victory was based (sorry, John) entirely on reading and accepting data that Cohen and others dismissed, with the key factor being enthusiasm and the lack there-of to predict actual turn out in key states. I also listened to and took seriously the warnings of African-American Democratic activists who others (ahem) tuned out and/or dismissed, Van Jones in particular.

Using a simply custom time search 7/1/2015 – 6/1/2016 with the key words "Clinton even with Trump in key states 40 to one" we get data confirming Hillary's problems in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/05/10/clinton-v-trump-swing-state-tie-obscures-deeper-divisions/

Here's Van Jones explicitly predicting exactly how Trump would win in May 2015. I just listened to Van getting it right – scroll down for the video: http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/05/02/van-jones-unexpected-warning-dems-trump-black-vote-video/
Anarcissie 05.13.17 at 11:34 pm ( 105
Anarcissie )
JimV 05.13.17 at 1:39 pm @ 100 -
I have another reason for not thinking that Comey's letter probably cost Clinton the election, besides that the outcome of the election was incomputable before it, and therefore opaque as to causes of its outcome after - a perception which seems so obvious to me that I am confounded that anyone disagrees. My other reason is that I have read that most voters do not vote according to lengthy chains of evidence-gathering and logical analysis, but according to intuition and emotion, and I believe this because it corresponds to my own observations. I do not believe the voters, in general, would be inclined to make the kind of extended analysis necessary to apportion blame for Clinton's improper email server and the circus (Anthony Weiner!) which surrounded it, in time to change their feelings and therefore their votes. Why would they?
kidneystones 05.13.17 at 11:47 pm (
One clarification, please John, and then I'm done. Trump is a vulgarian a-hole and possibly an entitled narcissist. Certainly that's what the media has led us all to believe and let's say the media is correct.
Bruce's point and my own is that the media isn't reliable. Period. What does that mean? It means whilst one of the two presidential candidates might well be an entitled narcissist, it means we can't trust the press to tell us. We are required to look at the evidence. The evidence as Van Jones outlines it is that one of the two presidential candidates recognized that victory would only/possibly come from hard work, that the outcome was not assured, that she/he was not entitled to the nomination, or the presidency because it was his, or her turn.

So, if we look at which candidate did more, worked harder – which one is entitled narcissist? Trump certainly sounds like an a-hole, but he almost never sounds like an entitled a-hole. He allowed that he could lose from the beginning right up to the end. He didn't spend much money, instead he reached out to voters who felt taken for granted by just about everyone. The other candidate did the opposite. Characterized as impulsive and undisciplined, the candidate crossed the nation speaking directly to crowds and virtually the entire media establishment mocked him and his supporters.

That doesn't mean Trump is a better person, in fact the opposite may be true. What it means is that offering a message that people want to hear works, if the candidate is willing to put the work in, and even then the outcome is far from certain.
There's a message of hope in Trump's example if critics are willing to learn. I suspect most aren't, which is why Trump is very likely to keep winning. And if you think he isn't you really aren't paying attention.

More than enough said. See you in 3 months.
faustusnotes 05.14.17 at 5:44 am ( 107
faustusnotes )
I'd like to point out the subtle tenor of Bruce Wilder's denials of the Russia thing, in which he focuses on "hacking voting machines." We all know this is largely not the way it most likely happened – that it was a bunch of other stuff. Also the inquiry is not about whether the Russians hacked voting machines, it's about whether they own Trump. Even if they didn't help him at all, the possibility that they own him is a matter of serious concern. Yet Bruce is focusing on specific material allegations that likely aren't true, using the same strategy that the Republicans have been using in issuing denials. e.g. how they seized on Comey's statement that there was no evidence the Russians hacked voting machines as a way to say the whole thing is a witch hunt.
Once again, just as he did with the stories about the Clinton Foundation and Obamacare, Bruce Wilder is reproducing right wing disinformation.

Why do you always repeat right wing lies, Bruce? Is it because you're being played?
Layman 05.14.17 at 12:01 pm ( 108
Layman 05.14.17 at 12:01 pm
@anarcissie, I confess that "[it] seems so obvious to me that I am confounded that anyone disagrees" is a powerful argument, and you nearly had me with it. Nevertheless, I find Nate Silver's analysis of the impact far more convincing.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/ )
@anarcissie, I confess that "[it] seems so obvious to me that I am confounded that anyone disagrees" is a powerful argument, and you nearly had me with it. Nevertheless, I find Nate Silver's analysis of the impact far more convincing.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

I suggest you read it.
JimV 05.14.17 at 12:56 pm ( 109 )
"I do not believe the voters, in general, would be inclined to make the kind of extended analysis necessary to apportion blame for Clinton's improper email server and the circus (Anthony Weiner!) which surrounded it, in time to change their feelings and therefore their votes. Why would they?"
Answer: there was a significant portion of voters who had not made up their minds – some leaning slightly one way or the other, others without any clue (and in fact something like a million voters handed in ballots with no selection or a write-in – often facetious – at the top). These voters did not have feelings or votes to change. Then they saw the front page of the NY Times after the Comey letter, or the cable news furor – the last supposedly significant thing before the election.

I don't know for certain, but it is equally if not more obvious to me that attributing a significant effect to the Comey letter is not a reach (and that the announcement itself turned out to be another red herring). Of course, it is always possible that I am indulging in motivated reasoning, the ill that all humanity is heir to.
bruce wilder 05.14.17 at 3:02 pm ( 110 )
faustusnotes @ 107: Why do you always repeat right wing lies, Bruce? Is it because you're being played?
lol
Anarcissie 05.14.17 at 3:06 pm ( 111
Anarcissie )
JimV 05.14.17 at 12:56 pm @ 109:
' Then they saw the front page of the NY Times after the Comey letter .'
Who, the people who voted for Trump in the Rust Belt? The Times? Come on.

Actually, I can see the Comey fandango producing a sympathy vote for Clinton. I am told most people hate email and prefer to communicate via texting and social media. What they get from email is mostly spam and messages from their bosses. That Clinton was having some kind of mysterious trouble with an email server in her basement would resonate favorably with them. Someone should look into this.
Layman 05.14.17 at 3:41 pm (
kidneystones: "Bruce's point and my own is that the media isn't reliable. Period. What does that mean?"
If true, it means that you can't know anything at all and should stop pontificating. I mean, without the media, you know nothing at all about any of the players.

Oddly, you don't stop. Instead, you quote the media(!) when it supports your preconceptions: "The evidence as Van Jones outlines it is "

So forgive me if I don't believe you actually think the media is unreliable, if in practice you do what many other people do, which is believe the media when they support your preconceptions and disbelieve them when they confound those preconceptions.
Layman 05.14.17 at 3:46 pm ( 113 )
Anarcissie: "Actually, I can see the Comey fandango producing a sympathy vote for Clinton "
Of course you can! I mean, that's not at all at odds with what you said before, which is that people paid no attention to it, and that people can't reason from evidence to make voting decisions. Who needs data, after all, when we can just go along with whatever you find impossible to believe today, and are confounded that anyone disagrees?
jack lecou 05.14.17 at 5:03 pm ( 114 )

I'd like to point out the subtle tenor of Bruce Wilder's denials of the Russia thing, in which he focuses on "hacking voting machines." We all know this is largely not the way it most likely happened – that it was a bunch of other stuff. Also the inquiry is not about whether the Russians hacked voting machines, it's about whether they own Trump.

As someone who did mention voting machines, I'd like to apologize if that wasn't particularly helpful or relevant to the discussion. To be clear, I don't think there is any evidence that this occurred, that any is likely to come to light, or that this is a focus of any of the ongoing investigations. There's plenty of other stuff to investigate.

I brought it up mostly because it's irritating to me that large scale voting machine hacking tends to be dismissed by 'serious' people as somehow unpossible. I don't know what that judgement is based on, but it certainly can't be based on any sober consideration of the security record of voting machine systems (amateur and laughable almost to a one) the existence of secure, fully auditable paper or other record trails with which to cross check the results (nonexistent) or the obvious nonexistence of any hacking groups (whether state or non-state, foreign or domestic) with the requisite ambition and ability to pull off such an attempt (nope, surely none of those out there, nosir).

Ohio, for example, is still using flaky touch screen machines from ca. 2005. A ballot box literally made out of swiss cheese would be more secure. Other key states aren't really any better. Search "[state] voting machines 2016" and see if you feel reassured*.

But is there evidence anything actually happened? No. And the voting results were more or less consistent with the late polls, so if it did, it wasn't blatant. We wouldn't necessarily expect to find hard evidence though, given the lack of security involved. Many of the actual, demonstrated vulnerabilities leave no traces. It's an essentially unfalsifiable hypothesis. And it really, really shouldn't be. That's a problem. Probably an off-topic problem (sorry), but still: a problem.

-
* I just did Wisconsin and found one about a kerfuffle in which some observers were concerned that machine seals were broken. These turned out to just be warranty seals, and we are reassured that it's probably nothing because physical tampering isn't really a primary threat anyway - most security researchers are instead primarily concerned that the machines and counting infrastructure are hackable remotely. Ha ha! Nothing to worry about then. I laugh because this state of affairs is both idiotic and terrifying.
F. Foundling 05.14.17 at 5:16 pm ( 115 )
@88
>1)we know that Trump team members were discussing with Russians the content and timing of anti-Hillary propaganda (Stone)

Stone has only boasted of having talked to *Wikileaks*, not 'Russians' (not to mention that Wikileaks has denied even that). Equating Wikileaks and the Russians is what the McCarthyist establishment does, of course.

>2) we know that Trump team members held illegal conversations with Russians and then lied about them (Flynn)

Breaking formally an antique and mostly pointless law that had been dormant for centuries and that nobody involved was probably aware of. The content of that conversation (as reported by the leakers themselves) wouldn't have seemed obviously wrong or sinister to anyone unaware of the specific law, and Flynn's subsequent lies were just an attempt to avoid admitting that he had broken it.

>3) we know that other Trump team members had contacts of an unknown nature with Russian officials, and then lied about those contacts (Sessions)

AFAIU, he said that he hadn't spoken to them in the capacity of a member of the campaign; and as a US senator, it was perfectly normal for him to speak to foreign ambassadors all the time.

In sum, one can note that sinister-sounding general formulations are often more useful for a certain purpose than the actually available specifics.

Of course, I can't *exclude* the possibility that any of the accusations are true (and, at least, it's only too plausible that some in Trump's entourage are motivated by their business interests in Russia), but what does seem quite clear is that a lot of very weak evidence is being trumpeted and misrepresented deliberately and systematically in order to manufacture a controversy.
JimV 05.14.17 at 5:47 pm (
Anarcissie, for some reason you cherry-picked my actual statement, so as to imply that only NY Times readers would be affected. Here is the complete form:
"Then they saw the front page of the NY Times after the Comey letter, or the cable news furor – the last supposedly significant thing before the election."

It has been estimated that about 80,000 more votes for Clinton, total, in the swing states she lost, would have won her the election. I myself know that one of my nephews, a lifelong Republican, had been planning to vote for HRC, mainly out of disgust at Trump, but changed his mind at the last minute and wrote in his son's name. He doesn't subscribe to the NY Times, but heard about the Comey letter via a Facebook reference. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh (voluntarily – a friend of mine at work used to play him on the radio most of the day, while drafting drawings), but I would bet he mentioned it, and that he has a lot of followers in the Rustbelt, and that these followers communicate with others.

My point about the NY Times was that what makes its front page (on the top) is usually considered big and important news, and a gloating point for conservatives when it is the sort of news they want to spread. To quote a previous poster, "a perception which seems so obvious to me that I am confounded that anyone disagrees."
bruce wilder 05.14.17 at 5:59 pm ( 117 )
jack lecou @ You act as if some sinister force is directing this process. . . . So there is not NO reason to think those things are true. Not enough to conclude they are true? Sure. We're somewhere in between. Which is what investigations are for. To do the best we can to get out of that zone.
So, in your mind our Disinterested Solons and Media Tribunes of the People are responding almost involuntarily to "a series of accidental and clumsy revelations of misbehavior" by doing the right thing, investigating smoke spotted in the distance, to see if there's fire. This, now, is nothing like the Clinton Whitewater scandal or the run-up to the Iraq War. That was then, this is now. Those were "non sequitur accusations invented out of whole cloth". Not like now. This time is different.

Boy, do I wish I lived in your world! (Faustusnotes probably does too; there he'd occasionally be right about something.)

I don't know if I would say "sinister forces" are driving this process - I did use the word "malevolent" above but in the context of suggesting actors lacked awareness of consequences - but it doesn't happen by itself, sua sponte . Recasting it as the outcome of a vast conspiracy with central direction misses my main point entirely. (I expect you are trying to miss my main point, but I am going to reiterate just in case your misunderstanding is my fault.)

I am not saying there's a conspiracy and that's what's wrong here. The public discourse is being driven - there are actual drivers, people whose roles are to press forward particular narratives and critiques - but my complaint isn't so much about the drivers' course and conduct per se , as it is about the condition of the road. I am saying there has been an institutional degeneration that leaves the road the public discourse must travel, deeply potholed, badly marked or lighted and inadequately policed. This degeneration increases the danger that the drivers of the public discourse run democracy and the republic into the ditch or into a tree. Not intentionally - though their own blindness and irresponsibility play a part in increasing the risk of a wreck - but, rather, as a consequence of a deteriorating institutional "infrastructure".

In principle, the remnants of the Clinton Machine and the Democratic Establishment pushing the narrative that Comey's misconduct (and I agree it was misconduct which was misconduct precisely because it could affect the election outcome) and Russian interference in the election ("Russian Wikileaks") is just part of the perpetual political campaign, a normal driver of the political discourse in a representative democracy with rotation in office: it is what the loyal opposition does. If partisan critiques from those out of office for the moment are occasionally "hypocritical" - as the OP tries to discern in this case - is by-the-by. Politics ain't beanbag. Those out of power but seeking office are motivated to criticize those in power; that's what makes democracy go 'round. Two cheers for democracy!

What's gone very dangerously wrong here is the institutional degeneration. If the public discourse were travelling along a well-paved, well-marked road with vigilant traffic cops, there would be limits to what partisans would try, because there would be limits to what would work to partisan advantage.

You have said that suspicion should lead to investigation. It is very logical and I agree with the logic. We see what looks like smoke in the distance; we should send someone out to look to see if there is fire. Logical. But, I think you are being naive to the point of being obtuse to think that is the function of "investigation" in the present deteriorated state of our political system. Whitewater was investigated for years on end. Or, maybe, you'd like an investigation of Iraqi WMD?

I can almost hear you even as I type saying in tones of uncomprehending outrage: "So, is it your position that there should be no investigation!??" [Rolling my eyes.]

In a well-functioning political system, actual investigations employing effective methods of verifying facts and reaching balanced judgments in a finite length of time would put effective limits on what partisans and other actors could claim in accusing officials of misconduct. We do not have such a well-functioning system, and consequently there are no curbs on what suspicions can be raised and repeated as propaganda. In a well-functioning political system, a great newspaper covetous of its own reputation for integrity might be counted on to investigate and publish facts. In a well-functioning political system, great public agencies also covetous of their own reputations for integrity could similarly be counted on to arbitrate partisan bickering or bring miscreants to justice. We are not living within such a well-functioning political system.

"Investigation" in our political system means the farce Comey's FBI conducted regarding Clinton's email server. An "investigation" that continues indefinitely, stirring up suspicion but never really settling any facts or reaching any judgments, at least none that put limits on partisan accusation. And, it is not that "investigation" has degenerated in isolation - the whole ecology (I know I am mixing metaphors) is dragging "investigation" down into this dysfunctional generator of leaks. That the news media report the exciting headline of suspicion on Sunday's Page 1 and then walk it all back on Saturday's page A32 is part of the process, as is the public's retreat from the common public square into tribalist cul de sacs and echo chambers of aligned voices. (See there, I got back to the road metaphor for a second.)

And, the intelligence community gets to play a role. The well-funded 17(!) agencies can have their consensus judgments reported by trustworthy figures like Comey and Clapper without any verifiable reference to actual facts. So, another flavor of "investigation" is available to us, to stoke groundless suspicion, and not incidentally to block any actual investigation (I'm sorry, that part had to be redacted.)

For those who like concrete examples, here is one from a relic of the ancient blogosphere, The Daily Howler : the "revelation" breathlessly reported by the Washington Post and New York Times that suggested that Comey asking for more money for the Russia probe got him fired.
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2017/05/days-of-excitement-and-scandal.html

Or, consider the example of James Clapper telling Meet the Press on March 5 that there is no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, but doing it in such a way as to stir groundless suspicions. The discussion by PolitiFact is absolutely classic:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/12/donald-trump/trumps-mostly-false-claim-clapper-said-no-collusio/
It is almost enough to make me sympathetic to Trump - not really, he deserves it, but it doesn't give me much hope for the country.
Layman 05.14.17 at 6:39 pm ( 118
Layman 05.14.17 at 6:39 pm
F. Foundling: "Stone has only boasted of having talked to *Wikileaks*, not 'Russians' "
Who cares what he boasts about? We know he communicated on twitter with Guccifer2.0, which is believed to be a Russian front. We know he predicted who would be targeted by leaks, and refused to say how he knew.

"Breaking formally an antique and mostly pointless law that had been dormant for centuries and that nobody involved was probably aware of. The content of that conversation (as reported by the leakers themselves) wouldn't have seemed obviously wrong or sinister to anyone unaware of the specific law, and Flynn's subsequent lies were just an attempt to avoid admitting that he had broken it."

Yet he lied about it from the start. If he didn't know about the law, why did he hide the content of his discussion? If no one cared about the law, why did people lie for him?

"AFAIU, he said that he hadn't spoken to them in the capacity of a member of the campaign; and as a US senator, it was perfectly normal for him to speak to foreign ambassadors all the time."

You're quite poorly informed. Here's a good recap of Sessions' Russian contacts and statements about them:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/02/what-jeff-sessions-said-about-russia-and-when/?utm_term=.1fdbe6fe74da )
F. Foundling: "Stone has only boasted of having talked to *Wikileaks*, not 'Russians' "
Who cares what he boasts about? We know he communicated on twitter with Guccifer2.0, which is believed to be a Russian front. We know he predicted who would be targeted by leaks, and refused to say how he knew.

"Breaking formally an antique and mostly pointless law that had been dormant for centuries and that nobody involved was probably aware of. The content of that conversation (as reported by the leakers themselves) wouldn't have seemed obviously wrong or sinister to anyone unaware of the specific law, and Flynn's subsequent lies were just an attempt to avoid admitting that he had broken it."

Yet he lied about it from the start. If he didn't know about the law, why did he hide the content of his discussion? If no one cared about the law, why did people lie for him?

"AFAIU, he said that he hadn't spoken to them in the capacity of a member of the campaign; and as a US senator, it was perfectly normal for him to speak to foreign ambassadors all the time."

You're quite poorly informed. Here's a good recap of Sessions' Russian contacts and statements about them:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/02/what-jeff-sessions-said-about-russia-and-when/?utm_term=.1fdbe6fe74da

And here's a good discussion on how unusual it is for a Senator to have a private meeting with a foreign Ambassador:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/02/so-is-it-ever-appropriate-for-a-senator-to-meet-with-the-russian-ambassador/?utm_term=.fc0ae4311bd2
William Timberman 05.14.17 at 7:40 pm ( 119 )
First Act: You lie to gain an advantage. They lie to gain an advantage. Everybody lies to gain an advantage. Result: nobody believes anybody anymore, but they are confused.
Second Act: Lies get louder, smarter, and more expensive. Whole industries evolve to advance this or that quality of mendacity, and to produce it in blinding and deafening quantities. A significant percentage of GDP is sucked up in the process.

(Intermezzo)

Final Act: David Broder wannabes all over the developed world publish a flurry of suitably weepy and high-toned op-ed pieces about the tragedy of our intellectual commons. The curtain falls. The house lights come back up. People nervously check their twitter feeds as they shuffle toward the aisles.

(Yes, I know that everyone has already seen this play. It even won a Tony back in the 90s or something, didn't it? I only bring it up because I read somewhere - on Facebook, maybe - that they're bringing it back as a musical.)
Suzanne 05.14.17 at 7:57 pm ( 120
Suzanne 05.14.17 at 7:57 pm
@155: Leaving aside your discussion of Flynn for the moment, Sessions' fellow members of the Armed Services Committee were not taking such meetings. Sessions did not disclose those meetings during his hearings and volunteered that he had " no communications with the Russians," period. He also denied any Russian contacts in response to a written question. He even denied he was a Trump surrogate. It is quite fair to say that the man who is now the nation's leader of law enforcement is guilty of a serious act of perjury.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?utm_term=.603cb4a7378d )
@155: Leaving aside your discussion of Flynn for the moment, Sessions' fellow members of the Armed Services Committee were not taking such meetings. Sessions did not disclose those meetings during his hearings and volunteered that he had " no communications with the Russians," period. He also denied any Russian contacts in response to a written question. He even denied he was a Trump surrogate. It is quite fair to say that the man who is now the nation's leader of law enforcement is guilty of a serious act of perjury.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?utm_term=.603cb4a7378d
jack lecou 05.14.17 at 11:04 pm ( 121 )

So, in your mind our Disinterested Solons and Media Tribunes of the People

Painfully blatant strawman is painfully blatant.

This, now, is nothing like the Clinton Whitewater scandal or the run-up to the Iraq War. That was then, this is now. Those were "non sequitur accusations invented out of whole cloth". Not like now. This time is different.

I mean, yes, there are differences. And to the extent there are similarities, I don't think they really show what you seem to want of them. Let's take the Iraq war. There we had on the one hand, a virtually united front of US intelligence agencies saying e.g., 'there is no material cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaida and no reason to think they'd want to be allies - it's like cats and mice teaming up to steal cheese' and on the other, ad hoc 'intelligence' shops within the Bush administration run by such worthies as Dick Cheney saying, basically, 'Saddam totally did 9-11, trust us. Mumble mumble. Mohammed Atta. Something something. Prague. Mumble. Anthrax!'

Now, are the press and the intelligence services hyper-flawed and manipulable institutions? Yes. Were we therefore unable to reach the correct conclusions about the Iraq/Al-Qaida connection based on the statements relayed to press by the various actors? No.

What's gone very dangerously wrong here is the institutional degeneration. If the public discourse were travelling along a well-paved, well-marked road with vigilant traffic cops, there would be limits to what partisans would try, because there would be limits to what would work to partisan advantage.

I'm more or less in agreement with this much at least. My quibble would be to point out that this 'degeneration', if that's the right word at all, isn't particularly recent. The low quality of the press and official institutions of various kinds has in fact been evident for decades (and your passing references to Whitewater, Watergate etc. suggest you might agree). Not to mention 'Remember the Maine' - I'm a little skeptical that there ever was a golden age of uniformly high-functioning institutions.

But I'm reading all of this very carefully in search of the point you mention you have, and coming up empty.

You have said that suspicion should lead to investigation. It is very logical and I agree with the logic. We see what looks like smoke in the distance; we should send someone out to look to see if there is fire. Logical. But, I think you are being naive to the point of being obtuse to think that is the function of "investigation" in the present deteriorated state of our political system. Whitewater was investigated for years on end. Or, maybe, you'd like an investigation of Iraqi WMD?

I can almost hear you even as I type saying in tones of uncomprehending outrage: "So, is it your position that there should be no investigation!??" [Rolling my eyes.]

Which suggests you agree and so DO think there should be an investigation. Again, searching for the point

In a well-functioning political system, actual investigations employing effective methods of verifying facts and reaching balanced judgments in a finite length of time would put effective limits on what partisans and other actors could claim in accusing officials of misconduct. We do not have such a well-functioning system, and consequently there are no curbs on what suspicions can be raised and repeated as propaganda. In a well-functioning political system, a great newspaper covetous of its own reputation for integrity might be counted on to investigate and publish facts. In a well-functioning political system, great public agencies also covetous of their own reputations for integrity could similarly be counted on to arbitrate partisan bickering or bring miscreants to justice. We are not living within such a well-functioning political system.

Again. I may quibble with specific points, but not very forcefully. We can certainly wish and work for a better system.

That said, we also all have to do our best to find whatever thread of truth may be revealed by the system as it actually exists.

You know, deal with reality.

"Investigation" in our political system means the farce Comey's FBI conducted regarding Clinton's email server. An "investigation" that continues indefinitely, stirring up suspicion but never really settling any facts or reaching any judgments, at least none that put limits on partisan accusation.

I do not agree that these necessarily continue indefinitely. Perhaps they outlast your own patience, but it's my perception that they do eventually roll to a halt.

Whether the partisans find the conclusions satisfactory is a different matter, and I think here is where I'd raise another point of difference: you're wishing fervently for hypothetically unimpeachable intelligence and/or press institutions that you believe would serve as a check on endless partisan dispute of the facts, but that's not necessarily the way it would work.

It's chicken and egg, to be sure, but I think it is as least as much the case that partisan disputation of facts causes erosion in institutional trust and quality (via funding and autonomy mechanism) as the other way around.

Take the climate 'debate'. Science is a far more trustworthy institution than e.g., the NSA, and is even - in the abstract - far more trusted by the public. And yet all it takes is a relative handful of outspoken corrupt/partisan dissenters to raise 'questions' in the mind of a substantial portion of the public and policymakers, and thus successfully block meaningful action in the halls of power. (Not all of the public however - which is another point I'd make. Polls suggest that a substantial majority of the public are not actually fooled on the facts . Somehow despite all the effort spent clouding the water, and the generally atrocious coverage in the press, most people have managed to find a thread of truth.)

And, it is not that "investigation" has degenerated in isolation - the whole ecology (I know I am mixing metaphors) is dragging "investigation" down into this dysfunctional generator of leaks. That the news media report the exciting headline of suspicion on Sunday's Page 1 and then walk it all back on Saturday's page A32 is part of the process, as is the public's retreat from the common public square into tribalist cul de sacs and echo chambers of aligned voices. (See there, I got back to the road metaphor for a second.)

And, the intelligence community gets to play a role. The well-funded 17(!) agencies can have their consensus judgments reported by trustworthy figures like Comey and Clapper without any verifiable reference to actual facts. So, another flavor of "investigation" is available to us, to stoke groundless suspicion, and not incidentally to block any actual investigation (I'm sorry, that part had to be redacted.)

I think part of this is you appear to place far too much significance on leaks and other transient events. Perhaps even erroneously conflating leaks, or random comments by investigators, with the investigations themselves.

When substantial questions like this are outstanding, are we all going to collectively scrabble at whatever scraps of information, leaks and rumor are available and form our own preliminary conclusions? Yes, of course. That's just human nature.

Will the later release of firm-ish 'official' conclusions down the road have zero effect on these preliminary judgements, rendering such investigations pointless? No. They still matter, even in our fallen state.

I for one will accept whatever conclusions the FBI/Senate/etc. reach in due course. If the result is negative, will I occasionally grumble to myself, "well, maybe they didn't leave any incriminating memos lying around, but those bastards are still totally in bed with the Russians"? Maybe. But I'll certainly accept that THIS is not the thing Trump is impeached for and it's time to move on.

For those who like concrete examples, here is one from a relic of the ancient blogosphere,

But an example of what, in service to what point?

An example of the press being breathless and incautious and terrible? Yes, probably. An example of the 'remnants of the Clinton Machine' or whoever planting fake news? It seems less likely.

And again, it looks a lot like you're placing a lot of undue weight on small events. What exactly is the measurable effect of this 1/2 news cycle worth of possibly questionable material? In the middle of a news cycle with some pretty dramatic and less disputed events? (I mean, was this false fact the key evidence in the impeachment proceedings? What impeachment you say? Exactly.)

Or, consider the example of James Clapper telling Meet the Press on March 5 that there is no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, but doing it in such a way as to stir groundless suspicions.

That's a weird reading.

Alternatively, the straight reading is that Clapper's a bureaucrat in a sensitive position trying to be very careful with how he words things, knowing they'll be read to death, one way or the other. Clapper says he hasn't seen such evidence. Contrary to Trump's claim, this really is not the same as either 'nobody has seen evidence' or 'there is no evidence to be found,' let alone 'there is no collusion'. I'm not sure what makes the Politifact link 'classic' – it seems to more or less get all of that straight.

OTOH, your reading is rather more strained - it only really works if we assume that Clapper knows Trump is innocent or at least knows no evidence exists, which in turn seems to require that Clapper be aware of the details and ongoing results within not only his own area of responsibility but also every other corner of the state investigatory & intelligence apparatus (implying in turn either that Clapper is a mastermind who has everyone under surveillance, or that the intelligence establishment is monolithic and shares information freely). It also requires Clapper to have malicious motive – less of a leap than the first, to be sure, but still assumes facts not in evidence.

Those seem like pretty big leaps to be making for someone throwing out accusations of hysteria at the rest of us for the high crime of making a few fairly mild-mannered preliminary inferences about the presence of all this smoke we're seeing.
Anarcissie 05.15.17 at 3:26 am ( 122
Anarcissie )
Layman 05.14.17 at 3:46 pm @ 113 -
Actually, the only alleged data I have seen about the effect of Comey's act on the election was that there wasn't any. I believe there is a cite up above somewhere. Of course I have no way of verifying or disproving this assertion, so it may be we are talking about 'data' with scare quotes, not plain old data. But that's what it said.
JimV 05.14.17 at 5:47 pm - Sorry, I couldn't resist making fun of the Times . 80,000 votes would be about 0.06% of the total electorate (unless I've lost a decimal point somewhere) and thus we are in the realm of noise and jitter, not reasonably computable behavior. Maybe 80,000 voters got out of the wrong side of the bed that morning, or it rained. (See Menand's article on what sort of events can affect an election.) Maybe it was just bad luck (or good luck if one is of the Trumpoids and Hell does not embarrass them with its bill before the end of his performance).
Peter T 05.15.17 at 5:13 am (
The issue of Trump and Russia is not one for legal standards of judgement than for intelligence assessment. It's worth remembering that the intelligence agencies and the UN assessed that Iraq very probably did not have WMD – something Cheney's smokescreens were designed to obscure.
On this issue, it would be odd if Russian and Chinese bureaucrats did not elevate loans to Trump and associates, or meetings, or trademark grants, to the political level. That is what they are trained to do. The impetus may not come from above, and the answer may be just an acknowledging nod, but surely the awareness is there. And that should be of concern to the US establishment – that foreign powers have purely personal ways of influencing a key player.

That it is not of serious concern to the Republicans exemplifies Bruce's point about broken processes. But surely the way to repair the process is to raise the issue and keep raising it.
Raven 05.15.17 at 8:27 am ( 124 )
bruce wilder @ 117: "Or, consider the example of James Clapper telling Meet the Press on March 5 that there is no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign ." - Except that Clapper made no such claim, and indeed could never have known that there was "no evidence" of that sort; all he could have known, and all he did in fact claim, was that he himself had not seen it (as the investigation and its evidence were and are classified, and he himself was and is not involved in it; "So it's not surprising or abnormal that I would not have known about the investigation, or even more importantly, the content of that investigation.") which meaning he later took care to clarify, after his original statement got taken and twisted into the misinterpretation you just repeated.
Layman 05.15.17 at 11:13 am ( 125 )
Anarcissie: "Actually, the only alleged data I have seen about the effect of Comey's act on the election was that there wasn't any "
Yet I offered you some, at #108. Did you read it?
Sebastian H 05.15.17 at 1:20 pm ( 126 )
The drop in the polls at the end appears to have started before Comeys last announcement. Also, the main characteristic of the polls being used to argue the letter had a big effect is the fact that a large percentage of the "undecideds" broke for Trump while in past elections we normally see a more even break. This would be strongervif we hadn't seen the exact same thing happen with the Brexit polls–which we can be fairly sure were not influenced by the Comey letter.
Katsue 05.15.17 at 1:42 pm (
To summarise the Russia hacking story as I understand it:
a) The evidence that APT 28 and APT 29 exist at all is only circumstantial – there is substantial doubt about whether the cybersecurity concept of "Advanced Persistent Threats" is of any use as a forensic or investigative tool
b) There is no evidence that, if they do exist, they are linked to any Russian intelligence agency – merely speculation
c) There is no evidence that, if they do exist and if they are linked to a Russian intelligence agency, that Vladimir Putin himself knew about and directed their activities – merely speculation
d) There is no evidence that if APT28 and APT29 do exist and are directed by Vladimir Putin, that Vladimir Putin directed their activities in order to get Donald Trump elected
e) There is no evidence that if APT28 and APT29 do exist and were directed by Vladimir Putin to elect Donald Trump, they were the source of the leaks to Wikileaks – Wikileaks could have obtained the leaks independently
f) There is no evidence that Donald Trump himself knew about, well, any of this

An alternative theory presents itself: Roger Stone, acting on behalf of Donald Trump, employed hackers to hack the DNC computers and passed the information on to Wikileaks, who published them. These hackers may have used some of the library of techniques associated with APT28.

Another alternative theory presents itself: a disgruntled DNC insider, perhaps a member of the IT staff, leaked the emails to Wikileaks, who published them.

It is also alleged that Michael Flynn met with the Russian ambassador after Donald Trump's election and asked him, on behalf of the President-elect, to convey a request to Vladimir Putin not to expel American diplomats from Russia in retaliation for Obama's expulsion of Russian diplomats for America. While obviously this can only be described as treason, treason to the Republic!, it seems like a minor treason in comparison to, say, Nixon sabotaging the Paris peace talks or Reagan sabotaging the Iranian hostage negotiations.
SusanC 05.15.17 at 3:37 pm ( 128 )

5th March 2017, as reported by NBC:

CHUCK TODD: Yeah, I was just going to say, if the F.B.I., for instance, had a FISA court order of some sort for a surveillance, would that be information you would know or not know?

JAMES CLAPPER: Yes.

CHUCK TODD: You would be told this?

JAMES CLAPPER: I would know that.

CHUCK TODD: If there was a FISA court order–

JAMES CLAPPER: Yes.

CHUCK TODD: –on something like this.

JAMES CLAPPER: Something like this, absolutely.

CHUCK TODD: And at this point, you can't confirm or deny whether that exists?

JAMES CLAPPER: I can deny it.

But then on 12 May 2017, Clapper says this:

So it is not surprising or abnormal that I would not have known about the investigation or even more important, the content of that investigation

The switch between Clapper saying he was in a position to know about an ongoing investigation and can categorically deny it, to saying that he was not in a position to know, is suggestive that he was either lying or being deliberately misleading. (e.g. by failing to say something on the lines of "Well, if there was a FISA warrant I'd have known about it, but if the FBI was investigating Trump under some other authorization they wouldn't have told me about it, and I have no idea whether they were or were not."

steven t johnson 05.15.17 at 4:50 pm ( 129 )
The Trumpists had no problem with the media shilling phony stories hinting at treason for years about Benghazi, email servers, Clinton Foundation and pizzagate. It is hypocritical of them to object now to how that game is played now (if your idea of political analysis is moralizing about hypocrisy.) Trumpists may think that joining in with the decades old tradition of Hilary bashing gives them more gravitas, but I think it makes them trashier. Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose, and everybody knows it.
The evidence that Comey influenced the election is much stronger than the evidence that Clinton or Trump are treasonous. A popsicle stick is stronger than a straw too, though, so you cannot honestly make of that what you will. The upshot is that Comey was fired because he couldn't be relied on to stay on message. Defending that with the childish claim that objecting to Comey's dismissal now is hypocritical is merely a way to defend Trump.
jack lecou 05.15.17 at 5:36 pm ( 130
jack lecou 05.15.17 at 5:36 pm
5th March 2017, as reported by NBC:
5th March 2017.

I wonder what could possibly be significant about that date that might provide context for the first quote. Hmm. Nope. Nothing comes to mind. )
5th March 2017, as reported by NBC:
5th March 2017.

I wonder what could possibly be significant about that date that might provide context for the first quote. Hmm. Nope. Nothing comes to mind.

So, since the first quote was obviously in the context of giving Chuck Todd a comprehensive briefing about how federal investigatory powers are delegated, rather than debunking a specific stupid tweet, you're right. It was incredibly misleading of Clapper to neglect to mention the obvious fact that other agencies might be conducting their own investigations down one or more of the dozens of other avenues which don't involve FISA warrants. /sarcasm.

In context, of course, his limited statements above seem reasonable. And if he HAD added ' but the FBI might still be investigating in other ways that I wouldn't be privy to' I can't help but wonder if some here feel that would have been unsolicited, out of context character assassination.

I'm no fan of James Clapper, but it does kind of seem like there's going to be something to complain about no matter what he says, doesn't it?
jack lecou 05.15.17 at 6:03 pm ( 131 )
Hell, there's plenty of context immediately above and below within the very interview transcript that above quote was mined from. For example:

Clapper: I can't say– obviously, I'm not, I can't speak officially anymore. But I will say that, for the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against– the president elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign. I can't speak for other Title Three authorized entities in the government or a state or local entity.

and:

[on the January hacking report] It did– well, it got to the bottom of the evidence to the extent of the evidence we had at the time. Whether there is more evidence that's become available since then, whether ongoing investigations will be revelatory, I don't know.

I'm really not sure what else Clapper could have said to satisfy you
Anarcissie 05.15.17 at 8:20 pm ( 132 )
Layman 05.15.17 at 11:13 am @ 125 -
I looked at the article, and the thing that caught my eye was the graph, which shows Clinton's lead declining sharply before the Comey letter. This data, if it was data, seemed redundant, in other words, not really information. However, I did get one interesting thing out of it, which I was hitherto unaware of. You will notice that shortly after Sept. 11, there was a dip in Clinton's numbers. What happened around then? One thing that was played up prominently in the media and was visual was that Clinton seemed to faint at the 9/11 memorial event; a picture of her being stuffed in a car by attendants, her feet askew and one shoe missing, was widely circulated. Clinton had shown physical weakness. Then the event was obfuscated in classical fashion, which added to its mystique and notoriety. Physical weakness makes people seem unfit for leadership; they're supposed to be ready to take the role of the alpha male baboon and go front and center in a crisis. Irrational as this thought may be, it is intuitively powerful. So I can assign the dip, Nate-Silver-in-explanatory-mode-wise, to the event, being careful to follow up the assertion with a disclaimer of certainty just as Mr. Silver would.
When you're talking about an electorate, this is the kind of thing you're dealing with. A trial lawyer will tell you that you can never tell what a jury is going to do, and that's just 12 people, not 130 million. I don't know what happened around October 16, and I don't want to look it up, but that's when Clinton's big slide began, not on October 28. That is, if the graph accurately and relevantly portrays reality, about which I have some doubts.
JimV 05.15.17 at 8:57 pm (
I don't think anything good is happening in this thread at this point, but one last comment here (by me) (I hope) on a possible misunderstanding, re:
"Sorry, I couldn't resist making fun of the Times. 80,000 votes would be about 0.06% of the total electorate (unless I've lost a decimal point somewhere) and thus we are in the realm of noise and jitter, not reasonably computable behavior."

Apology gratefully accepted. But the rest of the paragraph (not all of which is quoted above) seems to me to be assuming that 80,000 is an estimate of the number of voters who changed or made up their minds at the last minute (or so). It is not (see original comment). For a statistical estimate of the number of voters who changed their minds, see the Nate Silver analysis linked to previously by myself and repeated by Layman. It is bigger than 80,000. The point of the 80,000 was that even such a relatively minute effect of the Comey letter could have been enough to change the election result (and the Comey letter was the last big news before the election).
Raven 05.15.17 at 10:53 pm ( 134 )
Katsue @ 127: b) – f) repeating "There is no evidence ." - This is blatantly more than you know or can know. Even James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, took care to say of himself vs. that classified investigation: "So it's not surprising or abnormal that I would not have known about the investigation, or even more importantly, the content of that investigation." Are you claiming you have a more privileged inside view than he had?
Anarcissie 05.16.17 at 2:14 am ( 135 )
JimV 05.15.17 at 8:57 pm @ 133 -
Hence my belief that we are looking at 'noise and jitter', not a probable chain of causation from the Comey letter (or anything else).
Raven 05.15.17 at 10:53 pm @ 134 -
I imagine Katsue means that there is no evidence available to the public, that no evidence has been published. Of course we cannot know if there is some secret evidence hidden away in a cupboard somewhere with Vlad's guilty fingerprints upon it.

I wish, for the sake of my Social Security and Medicare if nothing else, that the Democratic Party leadership would stop blame-shifting and try to figure out how to win something in 2018.
Layman 05.16.17 at 3:09 am (
Anarcissie: "I looked at the article, and the thing that caught my eye was the graph, which shows Clinton's lead declining sharply before the Comey letter."
You read an analysis that specifically addressed the question of when the decline began, and what can be inferred by the data before and after the Comey letter, and what you took away from that analysis was the picture?

That's, something. I don't know what, but it's something.
Lee A. Arnold 05.16.17 at 11:40 am ( 137 )
One thing that everybody ought to be made aware of, is that the polls almost always tighten in the few months before a U.S. Presidential election. I'm not sure if anyone has bothered to tease that effect out of this last election however.
bruce wilder 05.16.17 at 1:31 pm ( 138
bruce wilder 05.16.17 at 1:31 pm
Raven @ 134: Are you claiming you have a more privileged inside view than he had?
Perhaps we should just elect Clapper, Dictator. I am sure he would enjoy that.

Clapper knew what he was doing when he went on Meet the Press . It wasn't informing the public.

Secrecy is a characteristic disease of a dysfunctional state. I do not mean the keeping of actual secrets, which by definition involves . . . well, secrets, or the keeping of confidences, which is a matter of trust. Actual secrets are rare in affairs of state, which is after all the public business, the confidential rather more common and routine. I refer to the gamesmanship of secrets and lies, where the pretence or conceit of "secret" knowledge is used strategically and tactically as a weapon of power.

That is what we are witnessing: the gamesmanship of secrets and lies in a politics gone senile. Leave a Comment

Name

E-mail

Website

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Recent Comments

Peter K. on Jane Jacobs, the tyranny of experts and Brexit )
Raven @ 134: Are you claiming you have a more privileged inside view than he had?
Perhaps we should just elect Clapper, Dictator. I am sure he would enjoy that.

Clapper knew what he was doing when he went on Meet the Press . It wasn't informing the public.

Secrecy is a characteristic disease of a dysfunctional state. I do not mean the keeping of actual secrets, which by definition involves . . . well, secrets, or the keeping of confidences, which is a matter of trust. Actual secrets are rare in affairs of state, which is after all the public business, the confidential rather more common and routine. I refer to the gamesmanship of secrets and lies, where the pretence or conceit of "secret" knowledge is used strategically and tactically as a weapon of power.

That is what we are witnessing: the gamesmanship of secrets and lies in a politics gone senile.

[May 10, 2017] FBI Found Email That Lynch Would Do Everything She Could to Protect Hillary from CRIMINAL CHARGES

Notable quotes:

"... The only way the people were ever going to believe in your system, was (and is) when you brought all of this Clinton email stuff before a grand jury and actually called it what it was and laid real charges!! ..."

"... When he laid out the case of everything Hillary did wrong in protecting classified information on her private server and then had the gumption to say that no "reasonable prosecutor" would take the case, I knew the fix was in. ..."

May 10, 2017 | nation.foxnews.com

https://youtu.be/cvvf4Sag7gk
Kathryn Powel l 1 week ago

The only way the people were ever going to believe in your system, was (and is) when you brought all of this Clinton email stuff before a grand jury and actually called it what it was and laid real charges!!

ckaz007 6 days ago

Comey was paid off somehow or maybe he was blackmailed with a picture of him wearing a dress. I'm not sure how. When he laid out the case of everything Hillary did wrong in protecting classified information on her private server and then had the gumption to say that no "reasonable prosecutor" would take the case, I knew the fix was in.

[Mar 31, 2017] New Emails Release Hillary Clinton Still Haunted by #Emailgate

Mar 31, 2017 | sputniknews.com

Judicial Watch, the US conservative watchdog, has recently released 1,184 pages of State Department records including previously undisclosed Hillary Clinton emails. The emails shed further light on Clinton's mishandling of top secret information, as well as potential conflicts of interest. © REUTERS/ Carlos Barria #LockHerUp: Hillary Clinton Gradually Losing Veneer of Being 'Too Big to Jail' Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton insists that the US Department of Justice should launch an independent investigation into the Clinton email case.
On Wednesday the American conservative non-partisan watchdog group released 1,184 pages of State Department records including "previously unreleased" Hillary Clinton emails.

The watchdog specified that the emails were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Judicial Watch's press release published on its website reveals that the records include 29 previously undisclosed Clinton's emails "of a total of which is now at least 288 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department."

"This further appears to contradict statements by [Hillary] Clinton that, 'as far as she knew,' all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department," the watchdog said.

© Twitter: RT_America Emailgate: Untold Story of Clinton Foundation's Ties With Defense Contractors The exposure has once again shed light on Clinton's mishandling of classified information.

For instance, back in February 2010, Jake Sullivan, then-Deputy Chief of Staff to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sent information concerning former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed to Clinton's and deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin's unsecure email accounts.

This email exchange has been classified by the State Department as information "to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy; foreign relations or foreign activities of the US, including confidential sources."

Yet another email containing classified information was forwarded by Hillary Clinton to Abedin's unsecure email account April 8, 2010.

The original email addressed to Sid Blumenthal and entitled "Change of Government in Kyrgyzstan," apparently discloses the US State Department's role in the Kyrgyz regime change in April 2010.

Blumenthal's source informed him that he/she had "worked in the Kyrgyz Republic continuously since 1991" and "became acquainted with each of the three Kyrgyz leaders" including Kyrgyz diplomat Roza Otunbayeva. The source provided Blumenthal with detailed characteristics of Otunbayeva, explaining why she was "selected" by the Kyrgyz opposition.

© REUTERS/ Yonhap Clinton's #Emailgate: The Dangerous Militarization of the Asia-Pacific Region The email was sent at the beginning of the Second Kyrgyz Revolution, which resulted in the ousting of Kyrgyz president Kurmanbek Bakiyev and appointment of Otunbayeva as the country's interim leader and then the country's president.

The source cited the opposition's doubts that Otunbayeva "can be a successful candidate for president especially given her weak performance in prior elections to parliament."

"It is stressed that her prospects increase as relations with foreign powers are seen as problematic, since she alone among the opposition figures is viewed as having the stature and skills necessary to cope with difficult foreign affairs problems," the source wrote.

In conclusion the redacted email reads that "all of this suggests the necessity for the State Department to assert itself and take the lead in developing relations with the new government."

© REUTERS/ Carlos Barria Flynn's RT Case: What About Hillary Clinton Taking Fees From Foreign Gov'ts? Meanwhile, an email exchange dated March 15, 2010, indicates that numerous accusations against Hillary Clinton, which cited possible conflicts of interest, were not completely unjustified.

The emails exposed that Doug Band, a former adviser to ex-president Bill Clinton forwarded Abedin a request for help from Philip Levine, presumably the mayor of Miami Beach. What is more interesting is that Levine had reportedly been a fundraiser for the Clintons since the 1990s, the watchdog remarked.

In his interviews with Sputnik investigative journalist and Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel, who is currently involved in a private inquiry into the Clinton Foundation's alleged fraud, highlighted that Hillary Clinton has long been criticized for her apparent use of "pay-for-play" schemes.

"These emails are yet more evidence of Hillary Clinton's casual and repeated violations of laws relating to the handling of classified information. The Justice Department should finally begin an independent investigation into the Clinton email matter," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated.

[Feb 26, 2017] What she did with bathroom email server is worse then a crime. It is a blunder. Which disqualifies Hillary (and her close entourage) for any government position.

Feb 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
ilsm -> geoff ... February 25, 2017 at 01:00 PM , 2017 at 01:00 PM
Clinton should have been prosecuted.
The GOP need not worry as long as the news is Russia!
im1dc -> ilsm... , February 25, 2017 at 02:16 PM
"Clinton should have been prosecuted."
I repeat to you this umpteenth time 'no mens rea' = no prosecution.
ilsm -> im1dc... , February 25, 2017 at 05:12 PM
The conclusion from 'no mens rea' implies "simple negligence", simple negligence only applies to GS 3's. The managers and the experience are held to a higher standard.
If it was 'no mens rea' then she was neither qualified nor experienced, she is no accountable.

Which may be okay for crooks in the swamp needing drained.
libezkova -> ilsm... , February 25, 2017 at 06:13 PM
ilsm,
What she did with "bathroom email server" is worse then a crime. It is a blunder. Which disqualifies Hillary (and her close entourage) for any government position.

The level of incompetence and arrogance demonstrated is just astounding. Actually it is not astounding. It is incredible. I can't believe that a person with Yale law degree can be so hopelessly stupid and arrogant.
geoff -> ilsm... , February 25, 2017 at 02:16 PM

Clinton should have....not been the dem nominee. The Russia fixation is all yours.

[Feb 21, 2017] My Kaspersky Internet Security blocked the No Hesitations link for phishing. I trust Kaspersky more between the two.

Feb 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
RC AKA Darryl, Ron : , February 20, 2017 at 04:09 AM
My Kaspersky Internet Security blocked the No Hesitations link for phishing. I trust Kaspersky more between the two.
cm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , February 20, 2017 at 11:04 AM
Probably a false positive, or the site may run ads/third party code that was flagged, which are not controlled by the author. Ads with their intrusiveness have been well-known malware vectors. Ad funded sites (or which "monetize" their brand by selling ad space) typically outsource the mechanics of inserting ads, user tracking etc. to third parties, and necessarily give them control over what content is delivered to readers. In part due to high overheads and low margins, there is not a lot of "vetting" what content gets on the page.
And of course intrusive tracking code may be legitimately viewed as malware in itself, even if it doesn't try to "infect" your system.

No reason to distrust the authors.

cm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , February 20, 2017 at 11:25 AM
Even if you use an ad blocker, the schemes they use are necessarily heuristic and reactive in nature - basically block/avoid accessing content by known domain name, URL patterns, common "standard" image sizes and other tells, known suspicious patterns in programmable content, etc.
It comes with the usual heuristic-detection/classification problem - you can increase the result rate only by increasing the error, and you can only choose whether you want to err on the side of more false positives or false negatives (misses). This is because of the forced binary outcome (block/let through, or flag/don't flag).

Usually the algorithm computes some sort of confidence score that is used to detect (and possibly reject) "inconclusive" results. If the algorithm is any good, there is a region where it accurately detects (presence or absence of the targeted feature) with high confidence. To simplify, the choice is then to map low confidence scores to "detect" (more security) or "not detect" (more convenience).

[Jan 14, 2017] Whether Hillary really damaged national security with her bathroom server

Jan 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
ilsm : January 13, 2017 at 06:45 PM

I do not know Logan, I know federal records act. Clinton is a felon!

You all got to be careful, after Friday those of us who still have a duty from our oaths have to protect Trump.

im1dc -> ilsm... January 13, 2017 at 08:14 PM
From Wikipedia
The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799 ) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position.

libezkova -> ilsm... , -1 January 13, 2017 at 09:06 PM

"I know federal records act. Clinton is a felon!"

Good summary, but now, with some time passed, and Hillary out of Presidential race we can create a more detailed summary. Actually for me it is unclear whether she is a felon, but she is definitely a moron (along with all her close entourage).

The key question here is the actual level of damage to national security achieved by her actions (or inactions). It might be great, but it might be nothing at all.

There is no question that Hillary Clinton "private" (aka bathroom) email server violated a lot of regulations and her NDA. So formally she is guilty as hell and as a felon should go to jail, like a lot of common folks do for similar, or even lesser, violations.

But she belongs to the "masters of the universe' and as such is above the common law. So let's limit ourselves to the question whether she really damaged national security

First of all what Hillary did is the not just creation of her private email server. She created her "Shadow IT" Department within State Department staffed with people, who are probably OK or even good for running IT in non-profits and charities, but not above this level. And that even abstracting from formalities such as security clearance, presence of classified mail in her mail stream, wiping the evidence, etc creation of Shadow IT is a a big "No-no". Clearly severely punishable "career-limiting" move. I now understand why Mills advised Hillary not to run. So why she survives after such a move. That's mystery.

In corporate environment the creation of "Shadow IT" is a very serious, typically fatal charge that usually leads to immediate termination. For federal government it is even worse, as it smells with treason. That means that all senior level IT staff of State Department is fully complicit, and needs to be investigated and probably persecuted for their cowardice. They understood well the level of danger and choose to ignore it "hiding their head in the sand, like an ostrich"

But there are a lot of strange thing in this story. Both the behavior of NSA, and, surprise, surprise White house IT staff was very strange. They definitely knew about this setup. They did not directly or indirectly reported to Hillary, unlike IT staff of State Department. And still they did nothing. Obama himself also knew about it. Did nothing. That tells us something about this president. Although interception of domestic communication were never in NSA charter, still this is what they do for living, and that means the NSA also played very strange, unexplainable to me role in this story. NSA staff also knew about the setup from Hillary request to provide a specially secured version of Blackberry (similar to what Obama used). Which surprisingly was denied. Looks like NSA did not like Hillary much, is not it.

Now about the security. On the level required to create State Department infrastructure the setup used was completely childish. It was not even incompetent, it was childish. Probably IT people responsible never saw any other type of IT infrastructure then cash poor non-profits and never ever read NIST recommendations for setup of this type of servers, to say nothing about more serious staff.

Even on my rather primitive understanding of computer security all those men and women involved in Clinton bathrooms mail server drama look like complete and utter morons. But this is a real life and such situations do happen in very large corporations, but not that often. So again what was the real damage?

Any discussion of whether the server was "open" for hacking to state or non state actors or not simply does not make any sense. My impression is that the level of security in Hillary's Shadow IT server infrastructure (which includes internet modem (they were using regular ISP, like any non-profit), router and other staff like networked printer(s)) was much lower that is required for this question to make sense.

Still miracles happen and may be some foreign agencies thought that this is a trap, a "honeypot" in "security-speak". So being utter moron might be a good security protection measure in its own right, as paradoxical as it is.

But it is unclear at what point the traffic was intercepted if it was. People usually concentrate of "bathroom server". But what about internet router and modem?

If traffic was intercepted on the router level in real time (it was not encrypted) then the damage was very real and Hillary can be viewed as a traitor. If not, and only dumps of old emails were obtained after she left her position of State Secratary, the question about real damage is more complex and here the situation is alot similar with the situation with Manning. An old staff (assuming that it was more the a year old) may be embarrsing, may be danaging, bit it is what it is "old". Played cards. Even if some of them were classified it is unclear what useful info can extracted for such emails. Compromising information probably yes. Tactical information that preempts some US actions probably .no.

Also we need to take into account that Huma Abedin was a completely computer illiterate person, who did her own set of blunders (including creating a hidden channel that copied emails to her home server). And that Hillary herself looks like reckless sociopath, concerned only about her personal power and money, not the interests of the state. Not to understand the level of danger she exposed State Department communications is unconceivable for any lawyer, forget about Yale graduate at the top of her class. That increase the damage.

Please note that whether the idea was to hide her activities was connected with "pay for pay" involving Clinton foundation, paranoia, or something else is a completely separate topic.

IMHO Comey proved to be a "despicable coward" who first decided not to derail Clinton run (probably not without pressure from Obama and/or Bill Clinton via Attorney General Loretta Lynch), but then, when he discovered "Abedin channel" it well might be that he has had a second thought. That's how I read his controversial behavior. Nothing honorable in this interpretation of his behavior too.

The whole set of events looks like literally taken from pages of the famous novel "The Good Soldier Svejk: and His Fortunes in the World War". And we know what eventually happened to Austro-Hungarian empire.

[Jan 12, 2017] I read all my email on via SSH on a shell server

Jan 12, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Matthew G. Saroff , January 12, 2017 at 2:56 pm

I read all my email on via SSH on a shell server.

If someone can hack my machine through a text window, they deserve to control my machine.

[Nov 21, 2016] Belgiums Dutroux Pedophile, Child Rape Affair A Road Map for Deep-State Criminality

Nov 20, 2016 | www.newnationalist.net
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, controlled press and a mere token opposition party.
1. Dummy up . If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant . This is also known as the "how dare you" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."

4. Knock down straw men . Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot" and, of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned.

6. Impugn motives . Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money.

7. Invoke authority . Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean . This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward , using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report it.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.

13. Change the subject . This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.

[Nov 14, 2016] Bernie Sanders Indicting Hillary Would Be An Outrage Beyond Belief

Nov 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
by Submitted by Stefanie MacWilliams via PlanetFreeWill.com,
In his first post-election interview , Bernie Sanders has declared to should-be-disgraced Wolf Blitzer that Trump seeking to indict Hillary Clinton for her crimes would be "an outrage beyond belief".

When asked if President Obama should pardon Hillary Clinton, Sanders seems almost confused as to why a pardon would even be needed.

Blitzer notes that Ford pardoned Nixon before he could be charged, to which Bernie seemed again incredulous as to the comparison was even being made.

He goes on to state:

That a winning candidate would try to imprison the losing candidate – that's what dictatorships are about, that's what authoritarian countries are about. You do not imprison somebody you ran against because you have differences of opinion. The vast majority of the American people would find it unacceptable to even think about those things.

Either Senator Sanders is a drooling idiot, or he is being willfully obtuse.

No one wants to imprison Hillary Clinton because of her opinion. They want to imprison Hillary Clinton because she has committed criminal actions that any other person lacking millions of dollars and hundreds of upper-echelon contacts would be imprisoned for.

Apparently, according to progressive hero Bernie Sanders, holding the elites to the same level of justice as the peons is undemocratic, authoritarian, and perhaps even dictatorial!

Enough with the damn emails?

Enough with any hope that the Democrats have retained a minute shred of credibility.

You can watch the full interview below:

[Nov 13, 2016] We were told confidently by Clinton surrogates like Krugman and DeLong that Brexit wouldnt happen again

By John Cassidy conviniently forget that Hillary was/is a neocon warmonger, perfectly cable of unleashing WWIII. Instead he pushes "Comey did it" bogeyman"...

Nov 13, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

Peter K. : November 13, 2016 at 03:48 AM

EMichael and im1dc would rather have their head in the sand. We were told confidently by Clinton surrogates like Krugman and DeLong that Brexit wouldn't happen again.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/media-culpa-the-press-and-the-election-result

MEDIA CULPA? THE PRESS AND THE ELECTION RESULT

By John Cassidy , NOVEMBER 11, 2016

Since Tuesday night, there has been a lot of handwringing about how the media, with all its fancy analytics, failed to foresee Donald Trump's victory. The Times alone has published three articles on this theme, one of which ran under the headline "How Data Failed Us in Calling an Election." On social media, Trump supporters have been mercilessly haranguing the press for getting it wrong.

Clearly, this was a real issue. It's safe to say that most journalists, myself included, were surprised by Tuesday's outcome. That fact should be acknowledged. But journalists weren't the only ones who were shocked. As late as Tuesday evening, even a senior adviser to Trump was telling the press that "it will take a miracle for us to win."

It also shouldn't be forgotten that, in terms of the popular vote, Clinton didn't lose on Tuesday. As of 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, a tally by CNN showed that Hillary Clinton had received 60,617,062 votes, while Trump got 60,118,567. The margin in her favor-now at 498,495-is likely to grow as the remaining votes are counted in California. At the end of the day, Clinton may end up ahead by two per cent of the total votes cast. If the United States had a direct system of voting, Clinton would have been the one at the White House on Thursday meeting with President Obama. But, of course, Trump won the Electoral College. If the final count in Michigan remains in his favor, Trump will end up with three hundred and six Electoral College votes, to Clinton's two hundred and twenty-six.

Still, as journalists and commentators, we all knew the rules of the game: if Trump got to two hundred and seventy votes in the Electoral College, he'd be President. Why did so few observers predict he'd do it? Many Trump supporters insist it was East Coast insularity and ideological bias, and many in the media are now ready to believe that. To be sure, it's easy to get sucked into the media bubble. But there are also strong professional incentives for journalists to get things right. Why did that prove so difficult this year?

It wasn't because journalists weren't legging it to Michigan or Wisconsin or West Virginia. In this magazine alone, a number of writers-including Larissa MacFarquhar, Evan Osnos, George Packer, and George Saunders-published long, reported pieces about the Trump phenomenon in different parts of the country. Many other journalists spent a lot of time talking with Trump supporters. I'd point you to the work of ProPublica's Alec MacGillis and the photojournalist Chris Arnade, but they were just two among many. So many, in fact, that some Clinton supporters, such as Eric Boehlert, of Media Matters, regularly complained about it on social media.

To the extent that there was a failure, it was a failure of analysis, rather than of observation and reporting. And when you talk about how the media analyzed this election, you can't avoid the polls, the forecasting models, and the organizing frames-particularly demographics-that people used to interpret the incoming data.

It was clear from early in the race that Trump's electoral strategy was based on appealing to working-class whites, particularly in the Midwest. The question all along was whether, in the increasingly diverse America of 2016, there were enough alienated working-class whites to propel Trump to victory.

Some analysts did suggest that there might be. Immediately after the 2012 election, Sean Trende, of Real Clear Politics, pointed out that one of the main reasons for Mitt Romney's defeat was that millions of white voters stayed home. Earlier this year, during the Republican primaries, Trende returned to the same theme, writing, "The candidate who actually fits the profile of a 'missing white voter' candidate is Donald Trump."

The Times' Nate Cohn was another who took Trump's strategy seriously. In June, pointing to a new analysis of Census Bureau data and voter-registration files, Cohn wrote, "a growing body of evidence suggests that there is still a path, albeit a narrow one, for Mr. Trump to win without gains among nonwhite voters." As recently as Sunday, Cohn repeated this point, noting that Trump's "strength among the white working class gives him a real chance at victory, a possibility that many discounted as recently as the summer."

Among analysts and political demographers, however, the near-consensus of opinion was that Trump wouldn't be able to turn back history. Back in March, I interviewed Ruy Teixeira, the co-author of an influential 2004 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority," which highlighted the growing number of minority voters across the country, particularly Hispanics. Drawing on his latest data, Teixeira, who is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress, offered some estimates of how many more white working-class voters Trump would need to turn out to flip states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. "It's not crazy," he said. "But I think it would be very hard to pull off."

Trump managed it, though. He enjoyed a thirty-nine-point advantage among whites without college degrees, according to the network exit poll, compared to the twenty-six-point advantage Romney saw in 2012. "What totally tanked the Democrats was the massive shift in the white non-college vote against them, particularly in some of the swing states," Teixeira told me by telephone on Thursday. "And that by itself is really enough to explain the outcome."

In the lead-up to the election, the possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote while losing the Electoral College was well understood but, in hindsight, not taken seriously enough. In mid-September, David Wasserman, an analyst at the Cook Political Report, laid out a scenario in which turnout among white non-college voters surged and turnout among some parts of the Democratic coalition, particularly African-Americans, fell. "Clinton would carry the popular vote by 1.5 percentage points," Wasserman wrote. "However, Trump would win the Electoral College with 280 votes by holding all 24 Romney states and flipping Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Maine's 2nd Congressional District."

In the days and weeks leading up to the election, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver also considered the possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote and losing the election. But he, Wasserman, and others who looked at the matter believed this was an unlikely outcome. On Tuesday, the FiveThirtyEight forecasting model estimated that the probability of such a scenario happening was about one in ten.

There was a straightforward reason for all the skepticism about Trump's chances: when you looked at the state-level polling, it looked like Clinton's "blue wall" was holding. Take Wisconsin, which turned out to be a state that Trump won. The Huffington Post's polling database lists the results of more than thirty polls that were taken in the Badger State since June: Trump didn't lead in any of them. Three of the final four surveys showed Clinton ahead by six points or more, and the Huffpollster poll average put her lead at 6.3 percentage points. Trump carried the state by one point. In other key states, the pattern was similar. The final Huffington Post poll averages showed Trump losing by nearly six points in Michigan, and by four points in Pennsylvania.

In a public statement issued on Wednesday, the American Association for Public Opinion Research said bluntly, "The polls clearly got it wrong this time." The organization announced that it had already put together a panel of "survey research and election polling experts" tasked with finding some answers. Several possible explanations have already been floated.

First, it's possible there was a late swing to Trump among undecided voters, which the state polls, in particular, failed to pick up. Another possibility is that some Trump voters didn't tell the pollsters about their preferences-the "shy Trump supporter" hypothesis.

A third theory, which I suspect may be the right one, is that a lot of Trump voters refused to answer the pollsters' calls in the first place, because they regarded them as part of the same media-political establishment that Trump was out railing against on the campaign trail. Something like this appears to have happened in Britain earlier this year, during the run-up to the Brexit referendum. Turnout wound up being considerably higher than expected among lower-income voters in the north of England, particularly elderly ones, and that swung the result.

Whatever went wrong with the polls in this country, they inevitably colored perceptions. "The reason it surprised me was because, like everyone else, I was taken in by those pesky polls," Teixeira told me. "It didn't look like, by and large, that he was running up as big a margin as he needed among non-college whites."

The prediction models didn't help things. On Tuesday morning, FiveThirtyEight's "polls-only" prediction model put the probability of Clinton winning the presidency at 71.4 per cent. And that figure was perhaps the most conservative one. The Times' Upshot model said Clinton had an eighty-five per cent chance of winning, the Huffington Post's figure was ninety-eight per cent, and the Princeton Election Consortium's estimate was ninety-nine per cent.

These numbers had a big influence on how many people, including journalists and political professionals, looked at the election. Plowing through all the new polls, or even keeping up with all the state and national poll averages, can be a time-consuming process. It's much easier to click on the latest update from the model of your choice. When you see it registering the chances of the election going a certain way at ninety per cent, or ninety-five per cent, it's easy to dismiss the other outcome as a live possibility-particularly if you haven't been schooled in how to think in probabilistic terms, which many people haven't.

The problem with models is that they rely so much on the polls. Essentially, they aggregate poll numbers and use some simulation software to covert them into unidimensional probabilistic forecasts. The details are complicated, and each model is different, but the bottom line is straightforward: when the polls are fairly accurate-as they were in 2008 and 2012-the models look good. When the polls are off, so are the models.

Silver, to his credit, pointed this out numerous times before the election. His model also allowed for the possibility that errors in the state polls were likely to be correlated-i.e., if the polls in Wisconsin got it wrong, then most likely the Michigan polls would get it wrong, too. This was a big reason why FiveThirtyEight's model consistently gave Trump a better chance of winning than other models did. But the fact remains that FiveThirtyEight, like almost everyone else, got the result wrong.

I got it wrong, too. Unlike in 2012, I didn't make any explicit predictions this year. But based on the polls and poll averages-I didn't look at the models much-I largely accepted the conventional wisdom that Clinton was running ahead of Trump and had an enduring advantage in the Electoral College. In mid-October, after the "Access Hollywood" tape emerged, I suggested that Trump was done.

Clearly, he wasn't. In retrospect, the F.B.I. Director James Comey's intervention ten days before the election-telling Congress that his agency was taking another look at e-mails related to Clinton's private server-may have proved decisive. The news seems to have shifted the national polls against Clinton by at least a couple of points, and some of the state polls-in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and other places-also moved sharply in Trump's direction. Without any doubt, it energized Republicans and demoralized Democrats.

One thing we know for sure, however, is that in mid-October, even some of the indicators that the Trump campaign relied on were sending out alarm signals. "Flash back three weeks, to October 18," Bloomberg News's Joshua Green and Sasha Issenberg reported on Thursday. "The Trump campaign's internal election simulator, the 'Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory,' showed Trump with a 7.8 percent chance of winning. That's because his own model had him trailing in most of the states that would decide the election, including the pivotal state of Florida."

Of course, neither the Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory software nor I knew that fate, in the form of Comey, was about to take a hand.

[Nov 11, 2016] Abedin and her husband had money, or a source of income, above beyond what their salaries would indicate. The latter could be the former.

Notable quotes:

"... Abedin had top secret information on a laptop in her home that she never disclosed to FBI interviwers. She and her husband had money, or a source of income, above & beyond what their salaries would indicate. The latter could be the former. ..."

"... If military intelligence folk gave Trump his insider knowledge about Weiner's laptop, maybe they suspected the source of leaking intelligence. Dig? ..."

Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
JSM November 10, 2016 at 3:51 pm

Willing to go out on a speculative limb. Some people want answers like Giuliani, and not because they're interested, as Holder shrilly claimed, in 'jail[ing] political opponents.'

Abedin had top secret information on a laptop in her home that she never disclosed to FBI interviwers. She and her husband had money, or a source of income, above & beyond what their salaries would indicate. The latter could be the former.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/01/huma-abedin-hillary-clinton-adviser

If military intelligence folk gave Trump his insider knowledge about Weiner's laptop, maybe they suspected the source of leaking intelligence. Dig?

[Nov 07, 2016] Mike Pence Responds to FBI Mishandling Classified Information Is a Crime

I think email sandals essentially zeroed Hillary changes to win any traditional Republican states... But we will know for sure in two days. It also exposed such a level of incompetence by Hillary herself and her close entourage that is really staggering even after Bush II administration.

Notable quotes:

"... Pence was not having it. "Ladies and gentlemen, mishandling classified information is a crime." He reminded the audience that "Hillary Clinton said there's nothing marked classified on her emails, sent or received, and the FBI director told to Congress, that's not true." ..."

"... Separate emails also indicated that a top State Department official had attempted to offer the FBI quid pro quo if the bureau agreed to let Clinton alter the classified status of the documents found on her private server. ..."

www.breitbart.com

Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence tells New Hampshire residents that "mishandling classified information is a crime" and is discussing Hillary Clinton's ethical lapses.

During a rally in North Carolina on Sunday, Pence taled about FBI Director James Comey, shortly after news broke that Comey issued a written that the bureau had "not changed" its conclusions that Clinton should not face indictment over her raucous email scandal.

Speaking at the Hickory Regional Airport, Pence said, "You have a four-star general that might get five years in prison, before the end of this year, for mishandling classified information," of retired Gen. James Cartwright who was charged with lying to the FBI about discussing classified information with reporters about Iran's nuclear program, during a probe.

Pence continued, "you have a sailor that just went to jail for taking a half-a-dozen photographs in a classified area of a nuclear submarine. So let me say this, if only for their decades of self-dealing with the politics of personal enrichment, mishandling classified information and compromising our national security, we must ensure that Hillary Clinton is never elected president of the United States of America."

... ... ...

Comey wrote, "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton."

Pence was not having it. "Ladies and gentlemen, mishandling classified information is a crime." He reminded the audience that "Hillary Clinton said there's nothing marked classified on her emails, sent or received, and the FBI director told to Congress, that's not true."
He also pointed out that Clinton said she did not email any classified information to anyone. "And the head of the FBI told to Congress, there was classified information that was emailed."
Separate emails also indicated that a top State Department official had attempted to offer the FBI quid pro quo if the bureau agreed to let Clinton alter the classified status of the documents found on her private server.

RNC chairman Reince Priebus issued a statement to Breitbart News, following Comey's announcement, making it clear that the FBI's public corruption investigation of the Clinton Foundation - which has raised billions of dollars - is ongoing:

The FBI's findings from its criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's secret email server were a damning and unprecedented indictment of her judgment. The FBI found evidence Clinton broke the law, that she placed highly classified national security information at risk and repeatedly lied to the American people about her reckless conduct. None of this changes the fact that the FBI continues to investigate the Clinton Foundation for corruption involving her tenure as secretary of state. Hillary Clinton should never be president.

[Nov 07, 2016] Former House Intelligence Chairman Im 100 Percent Sure Hillarys Server Was Hacked

It is unclear whether it was actually hacked, but the server was so unprofessionally managed that hacking it is within the reach of medium qualification hacker. It violates the USA guidelines for setting government mail server in all major areas. The only thing that could saved it from hacking is that it looked very much as honeypot. On state level hacking there are no idiots or script kiddies. They would never attack the server directly. They would probably go first after 'no so bright" Bryan Paglian home network, or, better, after home network of completely clueless in computer security Huma Abedin. There are many ways to skin the cat, and after the USA developed Flame and Stixnet the gloves went off. At least for Iranians, who were targeted by those cyber attacks.

Notable quotes:

"... he is "100 percent confident" that Clinton's secret private email server was hacked by foreign enemies. ..."

"... Clinton could face espionage charges if FBI investigators find that she permitted national defense information to be "lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed" through "gross negligence," which includes dishonesty. ..."

"... Wouldn't we love to have in real time, the emails and the electronic communications of the Russian foreign minister, the Iranian foreign minister, and the Chinese? They're going to use that to exploit their advantage in their global strategy. That is what was going on. Our enemies were getting information on our national security issues, our economic security issues, in real time to plan their strategy for how they will thwart American interest. ..."

"... So what did we lose? Did she identify some of our sources? Some of the people that were working for the United States getting information. If we did, then we've got to go back and get those people out of the field. People might have died because of the information that she left and put onto her server. ..."

www.breitbart.com

Former House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Pete Hoekstra said that he is "100 percent confident" that Clinton's secret private email server was hacked by foreign enemies.

"I said this right away when we found out she had a secret server. I said, 'OK, that thing was hacked by the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and maybe some other governments,'" Hoekstra said on "Breitbart News Saturday" on Sirius/XM Channel 125.

Clinton could face espionage charges if FBI investigators find that she permitted national defense information to be "lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed" through "gross negligence," which includes dishonesty.

... ... ...

Wouldn't we love to have in real time, the emails and the electronic communications of the Russian foreign minister, the Iranian foreign minister, and the Chinese? They're going to use that to exploit their advantage in their global strategy. That is what was going on. Our enemies were getting information on our national security issues, our economic security issues, in real time to plan their strategy for how they will thwart American interest.

So what did we lose? Did she identify some of our sources? Some of the people that were working for the United States getting information. If we did, then we've got to go back and get those people out of the field. People might have died because of the information that she left and put onto her server.

Breitbart News has led the media in exposing the national security ramifications of Clinton's private email server. In a recent piece entitled, "Hillary Clinton Email Case Explained," Breitbart News reported:

Hillary's 2008 campaign IT specialist Bryan Pagliano labored for months in a room on K Street in Washington, D.C., building the server for Clinton to use.

Hillary Clinton kicked off her State Department career in Foggy Bottom in January 2009 with a private Apple server, then switched to Pagliano's handcrafted server in March 2009…

…Hillary Clinton went to great lengths to hide the fact that she was using a private email server. She emailed with President Obama while Obama was using a pseudonym. She kept her own State Department IT Help Desk in the dark about her secret email activities, because her private email account got flagged when she tried to send emails to her own staff. "It bounced back. She called the email help desk at state (I guess assuming u had state email) and told them that. They had no idea it was YOU," Abedin told her. Clinton even paid a firm in Jacksonville called "Perfect Privacy LLC" to plug in phony owner names for her email network on Internet databases.

The server had an open webmail portal, making it easily vulnerable to run-of-the-mill hackers. James Comey noted evidence showing hacks by "hostile actors." Capitol Hill sources speak in hushed tones about the "Russian Files," which are said to include information about a Russian hack. Clinton was warned of a security "vulnerability" on her BlackBerry on her first official trip to China, and the State Department told her to stop using it. But Clinton decided to keep using it. She told a private audience in a paid speech that her BlackBerry was under attack constantly by the Chinese and Russians.

The State Department warned Clinton to stop using her Blackberry to conduct email business after the Department flagged a major security "vulnerability" on Clinton's first official trip to China as Secretary of State. But Clinton ignored the warning and kept using her Blackberry.

[Nov 07, 2016] Gen. Mike Flynn Hillary Clintons Email Setup Was Unbelievable Active Criminal Behavior

Nov 07, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
Flynn said that the media is covering up Clinton's alleged crimes:

People need to know what this is and so the mainstream media-all of the media, basically 99 percent of the media-doesn't even bother with it anymore. Nobody even covers it anymore. This is dangerous for our country and then you throw in all this stuff from this past week-you have this case against Anthony Weiner and he's directly tied to Hillary Clinton.

He's under multiple investigations. Then you have the Clinton Foundation, which is under multiple investigations by the FBI, and not just one but multiple.

You have the reopening of the national security investigation by the FBI directly against Hillary Clinton, that's another one that's open.

So I mean we are stupid people, we are stupid people in this country is we elect Hillary Clinton to be our next president because we're going to have nothing but scandal and dark cloud scandal over our country for the next four years and we cannot afford it with all the problems we face in this country and all the problems we face around the world.

What we need is we need to drain the damn swamp .

We need to get new leadership in our country, we need to get fresh blood in our country, and we need to stop the madness we are facing with this era of corruption in our country that has been going on for decades. We have got to stop it.

[Nov 06, 2016] Emails Warrant No New Action Against Hillary Clinton, F.B.I. Director Says

Now the question is: if this is true, why the invetigation was reopened in the first place? For many voters, this story comes too late. More than 12m votes have already been cast across the country in early voting, representing around 10% of the likely total votes in this election.

www.nytimes.com

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, told Congress on Sunday that he had seen no evidence in a recently discovered trove of emails to change his conclusion that Hillary Clinton should face no charges over her handling of classified information.

... ... ...

The letter was a dramatic final twist in a tumultuous nine days for both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Comey, who drew widespread criticism for announcing that the F.B.I. had discovered new emails that might be relevant to its investigation of Mrs. Clinton, which ended in July with no charges. That criticism of Mr. Comey from both parties is likely to persist after the election.

[Nov 06, 2016] Hillary Accepted Qatar Money Without Notifying Government, While She Was Head Of State Dept

Notable quotes:

"... according to the State Department, the previously undisclosed donation suggests there may be an ethics violation by the foundation, even though the State of Qatar is shown on the foundation's website as having given at least that amount. There is no date listed for the donation. ..."

"... Underscoring the potential flagrant abuse of ethical guidelines if the Qatar payment is confirmed, Hillary Clinton promised the U.S. government that while she served as secretary of state the foundation would not accept new funding from foreign governments without seeking clearance from the State Department's ethics office . The agreement was designed to dispel concerns that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by donations to the foundation. ..."

"... She has another problem. Previous posts on ZH indicate that there exists a conflict between the Clinton Foundation and the CHAI the Clinton Health Access Initiative. ..."

"... The board of CHAI is upset that the CF accepts money intended for CHAI but this money never flows through to CHAI. The CF accepts funds and encourages donations based on CHAI activity but these funds do not appear to be transferrred to the legal entity undertaking the health work. ..."

"... "Pay my foundation": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GHth-bt0Qs ..."

"... We (CHAI) are very concerned about cases where we meet Clinton Foundation donors who believe they have given money to support CHAI's work because they have donated to the CF, when in reality CHAI does not receive the funds. ..."

"... only 5.7% goes to charitable causes. The remainder goes to salaries, travel and confrences. In other words, goes to pay Hillary's and Bill's personal and political expenses. ..."

"... The Clintons out Mafia the Mafia. ..."

"... "The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, 'We're going to go public with this if you don't reopen the investigation and you don't do the right thing with timely indictments,'" ..."

Nov 06, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

Three weeks ago, when we first reported that Qatar had offered to pay the Clinton Foundation $1 million after a hacked Podesta email disclosed that the ambassador of Qatar " Would like to see WJC [William Jefferson Clinton] 'for five minutes' in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011 ", we said that in this particular case, the Clinton Foundation may also be in violation of State Department ethics codes.
As we said in early October, while this has been seen by critics of the Clinton Foundation as yet another instance of influence pandering and "pay-to-play", this time there may actually be consequences for the Clinton Foundation: according to the State Department, the previously undisclosed donation suggests there may be an ethics violation by the foundation, even though the State of Qatar is shown on the foundation's website as having given at least that amount. There is no date listed for the donation.
Underscoring the potential flagrant abuse of ethical guidelines if the Qatar payment is confirmed, Hillary Clinton promised the U.S. government that while she served as secretary of state the foundation would not accept new funding from foreign governments without seeking clearance from the State Department's ethics office . The agreement was designed to dispel concerns that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by donations to the foundation.

Of course, US foreign policy could be very easily swayed if Hillary accepted money and simply did not report it the receipt of such money.

sushi 1980XLS Nov 5, 2016 8:30 AM ,

She has another problem. Previous posts on ZH indicate that there exists a conflict between the Clinton Foundation and the CHAI the Clinton Health Access Initiative.
The board of CHAI is upset that the CF accepts money intended for CHAI but this money never flows through to CHAI. The CF accepts funds and encourages donations based on CHAI activity but these funds do not appear to be transferrred to the legal entity undertaking the health work.

Next question is - Where does the money go? And who benefits? ,

clooney_art sushi Nov 5, 2016 8:32 AM ,
"Pay my foundation": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GHth-bt0Qs
sushi clooney_art Nov 5, 2016 8:46 AM ,
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-02/chai-management-mutiny
CHAI is often portrayed by the Clinton Foundation (CF) as an initiative of the Foundation. . . . We (CHAI) are very concerned about cases where we meet Clinton Foundation donors who believe they have given money to support CHAI's work because they have donated to the CF, when in reality CHAI does not receive the funds.

See paragraph 4 on page 3 of the full memo which is a part of the above ZH post.

The Saint bamawatson Nov 5, 2016 10:47 AM ,
Hillay said at one of the debates that the Clinton Foundation pays out 90% to charity.
NOT SO. Latest filing - 2014 - shows that only 5.7% goes to charitable causes. The remainder goes to salaries, travel and confrences. In other words, goes to pay Hillary's and Bill's personal and political expenses.

The Clintons out Mafia the Mafia.

Cigar Smoker The Saint Nov 5, 2016 12:42 PM ,
Ten years ago I considered setting up a Non-profit Family Charitable corporation, the minimum yearly donation was 7% at that time, of course it may have changed.
The Saint Cigar Smoker Nov 5, 2016 2:16 PM ,
Here's something new from WND/Breitbart:
Citing a "well-placed source" in the New York Police Department, Blackwater USA founder and retired Navy SEAL Erik Prince.....said the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in the Weiner investigation but received "huge pushback" from the Justice Department.

"The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, 'We're going to go public with this if you don't reopen the investigation and you don't do the right thing with timely indictments,'"

http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/source-fbi-has-evidence-hillary-visited-orgy-...

[Nov 05, 2016] Clinton Deleted Classified Email To Her Daughter The Daily Caller

Nov 05, 2016 | dailycaller.com
Hillary Clinton deleted a 2009 email in which she forwarded classified information to her daughter, Chelsea.
The email was released on Friday by the State Department. It is one of thousands of documents recovered by the FBI from Clinton's private email server.

The Dec. 20, 2009 email chain , entitled "Update," started with a message from Michael Froman, who served as a deputy assistant to President Obama and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.

The email, which is redacted because it contains information classified as "Confidential," was sent to Jake Sullivan, Clinton's foreign policy adivser at the State Department, and several Obama aides. Sullivan sent it to Hillary Clinton who then forwarded it to Chelsea, who emailed under the pseudonym "Diane Reynolds."

[Nov 05, 2016] Hillary's High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Notable quotes:

"... If this is so, Hillary Clinton as security risk ranks right up there with Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, though they acted out of treasonous ideology and she out of Clintonian hubris. What do these foreign intelligence agencies know about Clinton that the voters do not? ..."

"... The second revelation from Baier is that the Clinton Foundation has been under active investigation by the white-collar crime division of the FBI for a year and is a "very high priority." ..."

"... The FBI told Baier that they anticipate indictments. ..."

"... Indeed, with the sums involved, and the intimate ties between high officials of Bill's foundation, and Hillary and her close aides at State, it strains credulity to believe that deals were not discussed and cut. ..."

"... Wall Street Journal ..."

"... And he knows better than any other high official the answer to a critical question that needs answering before Tuesday: has Baier been fed exaggerated or false information by FBI agents hostile to Clinton? Or has Baier been told the truth? In the latter case, we are facing a constitutional crisis if Clinton is elected. And the American people surely have a right to know that before they go to the polls on Tuesday. ..."

"... Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of ..."

"... and the author of the book ..."

The American Conservative

For, if true, Clinton could face charges in 2017 and impeachment and removal from office in 2018.

According to Baier, FBI agents have found new emails, believed to have originated on Clinton's server, on the computer jointly used by close aide Huma Abedin and her disgraced husband, Anthony Weiner.

Abedin's failure to turn this computer over to the State Department on leaving State appears to be a violation of U.S. law.

Moreover, the laptops of close Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, thought destroyed by the FBI, were apparently retained and are "being exploited" by the National Security division.

And here is the salient point. His FBI sources told Baier, "with 99 percent" certitude, that Clinton's Chappaqua server "had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence services."

If this is so, Hillary Clinton as security risk ranks right up there with Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, though they acted out of treasonous ideology and she out of Clintonian hubris. What do these foreign intelligence agencies know about Clinton that the voters do not?

The second revelation from Baier is that the Clinton Foundation has been under active investigation by the white-collar crime division of the FBI for a year and is a "very high priority."

Specifically, the FBI is looking into published allegations of "pay-to-play." This is the charge that the Clinton State Department traded access, influence, and policy decisions to foreign regimes and to big donors who gave hundreds of millions to the Clinton Foundation, along with 15 years of six-figure speaking fees for Bill and Hillary.

According to Baier's sources, FBI agents are "actively and aggressively" pursuing this case, have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple persons, and are now being inundated in an "avalanche of new information" from WikiLeaks documents and new emails.

The FBI told Baier that they anticipate indictments.

Indeed, with the sums involved, and the intimate ties between high officials of Bill's foundation, and Hillary and her close aides at State, it strains credulity to believe that deals were not discussed and cut.

Books have been written alleging and detailing them.

Also, not only Fox News but also the Wall Street Journal and other news sources are reporting on what appears to be a rebellion inside the FBI against strictures on their investigations imposed by higher ups in the Department of Justice of Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Director Comey has come under fire from left and right-first for refusing to recommend the prosecution of Clinton, then for last week's statement about the discovery of new and "pertinent" emails on the Abedin-Weiner computer-but retains a reputation for integrity.

And he knows better than any other high official the answer to a critical question that needs answering before Tuesday: has Baier been fed exaggerated or false information by FBI agents hostile to Clinton? Or has Baier been told the truth? In the latter case, we are facing a constitutional crisis if Clinton is elected. And the American people surely have a right to know that before they go to the polls on Tuesday.

What is predictable ahead?

Attorney General Lynch, whether she stays or goes, will be hauled before Congress to explain whether she or top aides impeded the FBI investigations of the Clinton scandals. And witnesses from within her Justice department and FBI will also be called to testify.

Moreover, Senate Republicans would block confirmation of any new attorney general who did not first promise to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the email and pay-to-play scandals, and any pressure from Lynch's Justice Department on the FBI.

Even Democrats would concede that a Department of Justice staffed by Hillary Clinton appointees could not credibly be entrusted with investigating alleged high crimes and misdemeanors by former Secretary of State Clinton and confidants like Abedin and Mills.

An independent counsel, a special prosecutor, appears inevitable.

And such individuals usually mark their success or failure by how many and how high are the indictments and convictions they rack up.

... ... ...

Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.

[Nov 05, 2016] What does it take to bring Hillary Clinton to justice

Nov 03, 2016 | thesaker.is
54 Comments Guest Posts The Saker
Originally written for RT

Virtually the whole planet holds its collective breath at the prospect of Hillary Clinton possibly becoming the next President of the United States (POTUS).

How's that humanly possible, as the (daily) Bonfire of The Scandals – relentlessly fed by WikiLeaks revelations and now converging FBI investigations – can now be seen from interstellar space?

It's possible because Hillary Clinton, slouching through a paroxysm of manufactured hysteria, is supported by virtually the whole US establishment, a consensual neocon/neoliberalcon War Party/Wall Street/corporate media axis.

But History has a tendency to show us there's always a straw that breaks the camel's back.

... ... ...

As far as the Clinton machine is concerned, an interlocking influence peddling pile up is the norm. John Podesta also happens to be the founder of the Center for American Progress – a George Soros operation and prime recruiting ground for Obama administration officials, including US Treasury operatives who decided which elite Too Big To Fail (TBTF) financial giants would be spared after the 2008 crisis. DCLeaks.com , for its part, has connected Soros Open Society foundations to global funding rackets directly leading to subversion of governments and outright regime change (obviously sparing Clinton Foundation donors.)

Exceptional bananas, anyone?

The perfectly timed slow drip of WikiLeaks revelations, for the Clinton machine, feels like a sophisticated form of Chinese torture. To alleviate the pain, the relentless standard spin has been to change the subject, blame the messenger, and attribute it all to "evil" Russian hacking when the real source for the leaks might have come straight from the https://www.rt.com/news/365164-assange-interview-wikileaks-russia/ belly of the (Washington) beast.

At the Valdai discussion club last week, it took President Putin

http://valdaiclub.com/events/posts/articles/vladimir-putin-took-part-in-the-valdai-discussion-club-s-plenary-session/ only a few sentences to debunk the whole Clinton machine narrative with a bang:

"Another mythical and imaginary problem is what I can only call the hysteria the USA has whipped up over supposed Russian meddling in the American presidential election. The United States has plenty of genuinely urgent problems, it would seem, from the colossal public debt to the increase in firearms violence and cases of arbitrary action by the police. You would think that the election debates would concentrate on these and other unresolved problems, but the elite has nothing with which to reassure society, it seems, and therefore attempt to distract public attention by pointing instead to supposed Russian hackers, spies, agents of influence and so forth.

I have to ask myself and ask you too: Does anyone seriously imagine that Russia can somehow influence the American people's choice? America is not some kind of 'banana republic', after all, but is a great power. Do correct me if I am wrong."

Reality, though, continues to insist on offering multiple, overlapping banana republic instances, configuring a giant black hole of transparency.

Anthropologist Janine Wedel has been one of the few in Clinton-linked US mainstream media

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clintons-latest-email-scandal-why-it-deserves-scrutiny_us_58177d54e4b08301d33e0cdb?24hp9z9vxqa6y9zfr acknowledging how Bill Clinton, while Hillary was Secretary of State, perfected his version of "philantro-capitalism" (actually a money laundering "pay to play" racket), a practice "by no means confined to the Clintons".

And the racket prospered with inbuilt nuggets, such as Hillary being http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html perfectly aware that prime Clinton Foundation donors Qatar and Saudi Arabia were also financing ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

Huma, the Fall Princess

Now, less than a week before the election, we have come to the crucial juncture where the WikiLeaks revelations are merging with the FBI investigations – all three of them.

Exhibit A is https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150#efmABWAB8ACiACqACvADUADXAIF

this WikiLeaks bombshell; Peter Kadzik, who's now in charge of the Department of Justice (DOJ) probe into the 650,000 emails found on the laptop shared by Clinton's right-hand woman Huma Abedin and her estranged, pervert husband Anthony Wiener, is a Clinton asset.

Not only Kadzik was an attorney for Marc Rich when he was pardoned by Bill Clinton; Podesta – as also revealed by WikiLeaks – thanked Kadzik for keeping him "out of jail"; and it was Kadzik who gave Podesta a secret heads up https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150#efmABWAB8ACiACqACvADUADXAIF on the Clinton email investigation.

The Clinton machine, starring a self-described virtuous Madonna, is actually a pretty nasty business. Huma and her family's close connections to Saudi Arabia – and the Muslim Brotherhood – are legendary (that includes his brother Hassan, who works for Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi). Podesta, by the way, is a handsomely remunerated lobbyist for Saudi Arabia in Washington; that's part of the Clinton Foundation connection.

Yet now, with Huma in the spotlight – still maintaining she didn't know all those emails were in her and Wiener's laptop – it's no wonder Hillary has instantly downgraded her, publicly, to "one of my aides". She used to be Hillary's ersatz http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/01/huma-abedin-hillary-clinton-adviser "daughter"; now she's being framed as The Fall Princess.

And that brings us to the intersection of those three FBI investigations; on Hillary's Subterranean Email Server (in theory closed by FBI's Comey last summer); on the Clinton Foundation; and on Wiener's sexting of minors. The FBI has been investigating the Clinton Foundation for over a year now. Let's try to cut a long story short.

Follow the evidence

Last July, the DOJ – under Clinton/Obama asset Loretta Lynch – decided not to prosecute anyone on Emailgate. And yet FBI director Comey – who nonetheless stressed Hillary's "extreme carelessness" – turbo-charged his no-denial mode on another investigation, as in the FBI "sought to refocus the Clinton Foundation probe."

Soon we had Clinton Foundation FBI investigators trying to get access to all the emails turned over in the Emailgate investigation. The East District of New York refused it. Very important point; up to 2015, guess who was the US attorney at the East District; Clinton/Obama asset Lynch.

Enter an extra layer of legalese. Less than two months ago, the Clinton Foundation FBI investigators discovered they could not have access to any Emailgate material that was connected to immunity agreements.

But then, roughly a month ago, another FBI team captured the by now famous laptop shared by Huma and Wiener – using a warrant allowing only a probe on Weiner's sexting of a 15-year-old girl. Subsequently they found Huma Abedin emails at all her accounts – from [email protected] to the crucial [email protected] . This meant not only that Huma was forwarding State Dept. emails to her private accounts, but also that Hillary was sending emails from the "secret" clintonemail.com to Huma at yahoo.com.

No one knew for sure, but some of these emails might be duplicates of those the Clinton Foundation FBI investigators could not access because of the pesky immunity agreements.

What's established by now is that the metadata in the Huma/Wiener laptop was duly examined. Now picture both teams of FBI investigators – Clinton Foundation and pervert Wiener – comparing notes. And then they decide Huma's emails are "relevant".

Key questions apply; and the most pressing is how the emails were deemed "relevant" if the investigators could only examine the metadata. What matters is that Comey certainly was made aware of the content of the emails – a potential game-changer. That's why one of my sources https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201610311046920348-clinton-fbi-november-surprise/ insists his decision to go public came from above.

The other key question now is whether the DOJ – via Kadzik? – will once again thwart another investigation, this time on the Clinton Foundation. Senior, serious FBI agents won't take that – massive euphemism – kindly. The FBI has been on the Clinton Foundation for over a year. Now, arguably, they are loaded with evidence – and they won't quit. Winning the presidency now seems to be the least of Hillary Clinton's Bonfire of Scandals' problems.

Eric, November 4, 2016 1:08 pm

After the Nixon Watergate scandal, which avoided discussion of his war crimes and treasonous undermining of Vietnamese peace talks, and probable role in JFK's assassination. And after the Iran Contra scandal which also involved illegal arms transfers, obstruction of justice, end running around supplying arms to terrorists, drug dealing, etc., it is refreshing that after Bill's impeachment on relatively minor charges (do older guys having affairs with younger women occur, and they don't want to talk about it?), to see some Democrats, who have always portrayed themselves as the good guys against the evil Nixons and Reagans and Bushes, being caught red handed in good oldfashioned money laundering, gun running, supplying arms to terrorists and cavorting with and accepting money from good old fashioned head chopping human rights violators, in true treasonous style.
As the saying goes, "The country is run by gangsters, and the ones who win are called 'The Government'.
Vote Third Party.

[Nov 04, 2016] Erik Prince NYPD Ready to Make Arrests in Anthony Weiner Case

Nov 04, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
Blackwater founder and former Navy SEAL Erik Prince told Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM that according to one of his "well-placed sources" in the New York Police Department, "The NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making" in the Anthony Weiner investigation, but received "huge pushback" from the Justice Department.
Prince began by saying he had no problem believing reports that the FBI was highly confident multiple foreign agencies hacked Hillary Clinton's private email server . "I mean, it's not like the foreign intelligence agencies leave a thank-you note after they've hacked and stolen your data," Prince said to SiriusXM host Alex Marlow.

Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton's email server last week.

"Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing," Prince claimed.

"They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times," he said.

"The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, 'We're going to go public with this if you don't reopen the investigation and you don't do the right thing with timely indictments,'" Prince explained.

"I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they've gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That's the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters," Prince said.

"There's five different parts of the FBI conducting investigations into these things, with constant downdrafts from the Obama Justice Department. So in the, I hope, unlikely and very unfortunate event that Hillary Clinton is elected president, we will have a constitutional crisis that we have not seen since, I believe, 1860," Prince declared.

Marlow asked Prince to clarify these revelations.

"NYPD was the first one to look at that laptop," Prince elaborated. "Weiner and Huma Abedin, his wife – the closest adviser of Hillary Clinton for 20 years – have both flipped. They are cooperating with the government. They both have – they see potential jail time of many years for their crimes, for Huma Abedin sending and receiving and even storing hundreds of thousands of messages from the State Department server and from Hillary Clinton's own homebrew server, which contained classified information. Weiner faces all kinds of exposure for the inappropriate sexting that was going on and for other information that they found."

"So NYPD first gets that computer. They see how disgusting it is. They keep a copy of everything, and they pass a copy on to the FBI, which finally pushes the FBI off their chairs, making Comey reopen that investigation, which was indicated in the letter last week. The point being, NYPD has all the information, and they will pursue justice within their rights if the FBI doesn't," Prince contended.

"There is all kinds of criminal culpability through all the emails they've seen of that 650,000, including money laundering, underage sex, pay-for-play, and, of course, plenty of proof of inappropriate handling, sending/receiving of classified information, up to SAP level Special Access Programs," he stated.

"So the plot thickens. NYPD was pushing because, as an article quoted one of the chiefs – that's the level just below commissioner – he said as a parent, as a father with daughters, he could not let that level of evil continue," Prince said.

He noted that the FBI can investigate these matters, "but they can't convene a grand jury. They can't file charges."

"The prosecutors, the Justice Department has to do that," he explained. "Now, as I understand it, Preet Bharara, the Manhattan prosecutor, has gotten ahold of some of this. From what I hear, he's a stand-up guy, and hopefully he does the right thing."

Marlow agreed that Bharara's "sterling reputation" as a determined prosecutor was "bad news for the Clintons."

Prince agreed, but said, "If people are willing to bend or break the law and don't really care about the Constitution or due process – if you're willing to use Stalinist tactics against someone – who knows what level of pressure" could be brought to bear against even the most tenacious law enforcement officials?

"The point being, fortunately, it's not just the FBI; [there are] five different offices that are in the hunt for justice, but the NYPD has it as well," Prince said, citing the Wall Street Journal reporting that has "exposed downdraft, back pressure from the Justice Department" against both the FBI and NYPD, in an effort to "keep the sunlight and the disinfecting effects of the truth and transparency from shining on this great evil that has gone on, and is slowly being exposed."

"The Justice Department is trying to run out the clock, to elect Hillary Clinton, to prevent any real justice from being done," he warned.

As for the mayor of New York City, Prince said he has heard that "de Blasio wants to stay away from this."

"The evidence is so bad, the email content is so bad, that I think even he wants to stay away from it, which is really telling," he said.

Prince reported that the other legislators involved in the case "have not been named yet," and urged the NYPD to hold a press conference and name them.

"I wish they'd do it today," he said. "These are the unusual sliding-door moments of history, that people can stand up and be counted, and make a real difference, and to save a Republic, save a Constitution that we actually need and love, that our forefathers fought and died for. For any cop that is aware of this level of wrongdoing, and they have veterans in their family, or deceased veterans in their family, they owe it to them to stand up, to stand and be counted today , and shine the light of truth on this great evil."

"From what I understand, up to the commissioner or at least the chief level in NYPD, they wanted to have a press conference, and DOJ, Washington people, political appointees have been exerting all kinds of undue pressure on them to back down," he added.

Marlow suggested that some of those involved in keeping the details quiet might want to avoid accusations of politicizing the case and seeking to influence the presidential election.

"Sure, that's it. That's the argument for it," Prince agreed. "But the fact is, you know that if the Left had emails pointing to Donald Trump visiting, multiple times, an island with underage sex slaves basically, emails, you know they'd be talking about it. They'd be shouting it from the rooftops."

"This kind of evil, this kind of true dirt on Hillary Clinton – look, you don't have to make any judgments. Just release the emails," he urged. "Just dump them. Let them out there. Let people see the light of truth."

Prince dismissed the claims of people like Clinton campaign CEO John Podesta and DNC chair Donna Brazile that some of the damaging emails already released by WikiLeaks were fabricated, noting that "forensic analysis done shows that, indeed, they are not fabricated; they are really legitimate."

"This is stuff coming right off a hard drive that was owned by Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin, Hillary's closest adviser for the last 20 years," he said of the new bombshells. "This is not from some hacker or anybody else. This is a laptop seized from a warrant in a criminal investigation."

Prince confirmed that based on his information, Abedin is most likely looking at jail time, unless she cuts a deal with prosecutors.

"There's a minimum of obstruction of justice and all kinds of unlawful handling of classified information," he said. "Because remember, this laptop was in the possession of Weiner, who did not have a security clearance. And many, many of those emails were from her Yahoo account, which had State Department emails forwarded to them, so she could easier print these messages, scan them, and send them on to Hillary. That's the carelessness that Hillary and her staff had for the classified information that the intelligence community risks life and limb to collect in challenged, opposed areas around the world."

"That's not who you want in the White House," Prince declared.

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

[Nov 03, 2016] And Now For Some Comic Relief by Jonathan V. Last

Nov 03, 2016 | www.weeklystandard.com
Presenting...the Clinton IT Department! This has not been an especially ennobling election. Or a rewarding one. Or even entertaining. Pretty much everything about 2016 has been boorish and grotesque. But finally it is time to laugh.
This has not been an especially ennobling election. Or a rewarding one. Or even entertaining. Pretty much everything about 2016 has been boorish and grotesque. But finally it is time to laugh.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present the Clinton IT department.

Over the weekend we finally found out how Clinton campaign honcho John Podesta's emails were hacked. But first a couple disclaimers:

1) Yes, it's unpleasant to munch on the fruit of the poisoned tree. But this isn't a court of law and you can't just ignore information that's dragged into the public domain.

2) We're all vulnerable to hackers. Even if you're a security nut who uses VPNs and special email encryption protocols, you can be hacked. The only real security is the anonymity of the herd. Once a hacker targets you, specifically, you're toast.

I'm a pretty tech-savvy guy and if the Chinese decided to hack my emails tonight, you'd have everything I've ever written posted to Wikileaks before the sun was up tomorrow.

But that is … not John Podesta's situation.

What happened was this: On March 19, Podesta got what looked--kind of, sort of--like an email from Google's Gmail team. The email claimed that someone from the Ukraine had tried to hack into Podesta's Gmail account and that he needed to change his password immediately.

This is what's called a "phishing" scam, where hackers send legitimate-looking emails that, when you click on the links inside them, actually take you someplace dangerous. In Podesta's case, there was a link that the email told him to click in order to change his password.

This was not an especially good bit of phishing. Go have a look yourself. The email calls Podesta by his first name. It uses bit.ly as a link shortener. Heck, the subject line is the preposterous "*someone has your password*". Why would Google say "someone has your password?" They wouldn't. They'd say that there had been log-in attempts that failed two-step authentication, maybe. Or that the account had been compromised, perhaps. If you've spent any time using email over the last decade, you know exactly how these account security emails are worded.

And what's more, you know that you never click on the link in the email. If you get a notice from your email provider or your bank or anyone who holds sensitive information of yours saying that your account has been compromised, you leave the email, open your web browser, type in the URL of the website, and then manually open your account information. Again, let me emphasize: You never click on the link in the email!

But what makes this story so priceless isn't that John Podesta got fooled by an fourth-rate phishing scam. After all, he's just the guy who's going to be running Hillary Clinton's administration. What does he know about tech? And Podesta, to his credit, knew what he didn't know: He emailed the Clinton IT help desk and said, Hey, is this email legit?

And the Clinton tech team's response was: Hell yes!

No, really. Here's what they said: One member of the team responded to Podesta by saying "The gmail one is REAL." Another answered by saying "This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately."

It's like the Clinton IT department is run by 90-year-old grandmothers. I half-expect the next Wikileaks dump to have an email from one Clinton techie to another asking for help setting their VCR clock.

As the other guy likes to say, "only the best people."

[Nov 03, 2016] Wiener laptop emails are not duplicates of emails previously found on Hillary private email server.

www.moonofalabama.org

Thirdeye | Nov 3, 2016 8:44:28 PM | 45

And the hits just keep on comin' with the Abedin email stash:
"These emails, CBS News' Andres Triay reports, are not duplicates of emails found on Secretary Clinton's private server. At this point, however, it remains to be seen whether these emails are significant to the FBI's investigation into Clinton."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-finds-emails-related-to-hillary-clintons-state-department-tenure/

[Nov 03, 2016] FBI took Clinton II up on her demand that all the emails be released

Notable quotes:

"... I haven't read where this has been posted yet but evidently the FBI took Clinton II up on her demand that all the emails be released ..."

www.moonofalabama.org

psychohistorian | Nov 3, 2016 9:10:02 PM | 49
I haven't read where this has been posted yet but evidently the FBI took Clinton II up on her demand that all the emails be released
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/breaking-fbi-just-released-hillarys-email-investigation-online/

I am sure glad I went long on popcorn....should have enough to last through next Tuesday.

psychohistorian | Nov 3, 2016 9:25:22 PM | 51
I am sorry for not providing the FBI link which is below
https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton

[Nov 03, 2016] Obama created this situation by allowing Loretta Lynch to be compromised

Nov 03, 2016 | profile.theguardian.com

MerlinUK 10h ago

Obama can GTFO. He created this situation by allowing Loretta Lynch to be compromised, as well as himself. The BFBI was left with little choice but to go public in a legal way via FOIA requests, something that the corrupt DoJ can't stop. Jason Chaffetz has now formally asked another member of the corrupt Government to recuse himself, as he too is compromised and was tipping off the Clintons. We have yet to find out just how far these rabbit holes go, but the Illuminati appear to be worried - $150M is a lot to explain away...

BillFromBoston 10h ago

Obama criticizes the FBI today...but didn't have a single bloody word to say when BillyBob (that's Bill Clinton to you Brits) happened to bump into the nation's Attorney General several days before she declared Hillary to be a candidate for sainthood.

But that's understandable...after all, all they talked about was grandchildren and golf.Just ask them,they'll tell you!

curiouschak 10h ago

Idiot democrat primary voters. They actually ended up selecting such a toxic, defensive, shifty corrupt candidate that she may up handing the election to an orange turd with a dead raccoon on its head.

They couldn't do the right and smart thing and elect Sanders. He would have wiped the floor with this tangerine blowhard

Chuckman 10h ago

You are pathetic, Obama, absolutely pathetic. Who ever heard of the chief magistrate criticizing law enforcement during an investigation about which he indeed knows very little.

Or, maybe that should be, pretends to know very little. There are suggestions that some material could be dangerous to Obama.

His previous testimony that he knew nothing about illegal, insecure computers being used at State appears contradicted by the fact we now know from Wiki-Leaks material he had a pseudonym and had e-mails back and forth from Hills and Company.

[Nov 03, 2016] Senior FBI officials were told of new emails in early October but wanted more information before renewing Clinton probe

So from early October the FBI new exactly what is in the mails.

www.washingtonpost.com

Senior FBI officials were informed about the discovery of new emails potentially relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server at least two weeks before Director James B. Comey notified Congress, according to federal officials familiar with the investigation.

The officials said that Comey was told that there were new emails before he received a formal briefing last Thursday, although the precise timing is unclear.

The information goes beyond the details provided in the letter that Comey sent to lawmakers last week declaring that he was restarting the inquiry into whether Clinton mishandled classified material during her tenure as secretary of state. He wrote in the Friday letter that "the investigative team briefed me yesterday" about the additional emails.

The people familiar with the investigation said that senior officials had been informed weeks earlier that a computer belonging to former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) contained emails potentially pertinent to the Clinton investigation. Clinton's top aide, Huma Abedin, shared the computer with her husband, from whom she is now separated.

[Nov 03, 2016] Changing subject lines of classified e-mails days before attorneys delete e-mails of personal nature by...subject line contents

Notable quotes:

"... The Presidency is the Clinton's last chance to protect their empire. ..."

"... People are theorizing that the Clinton emails were in a folder marked life insurance because Uma feared for her life and thought that the folder would protect from being murdered. Good thinking Uma! ..."

"... You know, Huma looks so totally clueless about everything mechanical or technical that I might actually believe it if she were to nailgun herself to death. Same for Hillary, for that matter. ..."

Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

ghengis86 Nov 3, 2016 12:20 PM ,

Changing subject lines of classified e-mails days before attorneys delete e-mails of personal nature by...subject line contents!?!?! Intent motherfuckers.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/5ax9ki/classified_email_chan...

Holy crap.....they are both changing this email to be personal so it can be deleted and not turned over! This is obstruction of justice!

Podesta replies, changes the subject line, and adds personal comments a month later because that is when the lawyers were sorting through the emails to determine which ones were personal. Hillary replied too!

This is big!

http://www.thompsontimeline.com/10221/2014/09/30/clintons-lawyers-are-sent-the-rest-of-clintons-emails-so-they-can-finish-sorting-them/ ,

gratis already......

Handful of Dust jcaz Nov 3, 2016 12:42 PM ,

Hillary deleted her incriminating emails. State covered it up. Asked about using White House executive privilege to hide from Congress.

· https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272#efmBI2BOJ

· https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545

· https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34370

· https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32007

· "They do not plan to release anything publicly, so no posting online or anything public-facing, just to the committee."

· "That of course includes the emails Sid turned over that HRC didn't, which will make clear to them that she didn't have them in the first place, deleted them, or didn't turn them over. It also includes emails that HRC had that Sid didn't."

· "Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That's the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I seems like they will."

· "We brought up the existence of emails in reserach this summer but were told that everything was taken care of."

· "That of course includes the emails Sid turned over that HRC didn't, which will make clear to them that she didn't have them in the first place, deleted them, or didn't turn them over."

· The State Department was:

o (1) Coordinating with the Clinton political campaign.

o (2) Colluding with the press to spin it positively.

o (3) Doing so BEFORE they released it to AN EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. The Clinton campaign was always a step ahead of the committee investigating them. Shameful.

· Nick states "Just spoke to State" He goes on to reveal that State colluded with him about which emails are being revealed to committee and that the State plans to plant a story with AP.

· Shows intent to withhold emails from the subpoena.

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

two hoots Nov 3, 2016 12:21 PM ,

The Presidency is the Clinton's last chance to protect their empire.

Withdrawn Sanction two hoots Nov 3, 2016 12:44 PM ,
Worked for el-BJ....until it didnt...until he was hounded from office for the war HE started. Hubris has its own set of checks and balances.
Rebel yell Nov 3, 2016 12:31 PM ,
People are theorizing that the Clinton emails were in a folder marked life insurance because Uma feared for her life and thought that the folder would protect from being murdered. Good thinking Uma!
Clinton dead bodies toll at 90:

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/liberty/liberty/bdycount.txt

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QuwQm7Sxcy0

tarabel Rebel yell Nov 3, 2016 12:32 PM ,

You know, Huma looks so totally clueless about everything mechanical or technical that I might actually believe it if she were to nailgun herself to death. Same for Hillary, for that matter.

[Nov 03, 2016] Now being reported that the Cheryl Millls laptop, thought to have been destroyed as part of her immunity deal, is actually intact and being reviewed by the FBI

Notable quotes:

"... Now being reported that the Cheryl Millls laptop, thought to have been destroyed as part of her immunity deal, is actually intact and being reviewed by the FBI. Ruh Roh. Not sure if it will contain emails related to yoga classes or national security ..."

Nov 03, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
stratplaya , 3 Nov 2016 17:1>
Now being reported that the Cheryl Millls laptop, thought to have been destroyed as part of her immunity deal, is actually intact and being reviewed by the FBI. Ruh Roh. Not sure if it will contain emails related to yoga classes or national security

Rouvas -> stratplaya 45m ago

Why does she get immunity anyway? Usually you give someone immunity in return for getting them to blab on someone...

Oh yes, silly me, it's the Clinton's we are talking about... different rules apply

[Nov 03, 2016] Podesta Files Part 27 Wikileaks Releases Another 1,100 Emails, Total Is Now 44218

Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

Today's release follows dramatic revelations in which we learned that the DOJ's Peter Kadzik had colluded with John Podesta in the early days of the Clinton campaign, while in a serpate email we found more evidence of collusion between the Clinton campaign, the NYT and the State Department in drafting the "breaking" story that exposed Hillary's possession of a home email server.

[Nov 03, 2016] On 12 June 2016, Petra, the official Press agency of Jordan, published an interview with the crown prince of Arabia, Mohamed Ben Salmane, in which he affirmed the modernity of his family, which had illegally financed Hillary Clintons Presidential campaign to the tune of 20 percent, despite the fact that she is a woman

Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

From: E-mails - Hillary Clinton and the Muslim Brotherhood, by Thierry Meyssan

by: Thierry Meyssan

"Huma Abedin is a US citizen who was raised in Saudi Arabia. Her father is director of an academic revue – of which, for many years, she was the sub-editor – which regularly prints comments from the Muslim Brotherhood. Her mother is president of the Saudi association of female members of the Brotherhood, and worked with the wife of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi. Her brother Hassan works for Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the religious authority of the Brotherhood and spiritual counsellor of Al-Jazeera."

... ... ...

Huma Abedin is today a central figure of the Clinton campaign, alongside the campaign director, John Podesta, ex-General Secretary of the White House under the Presidency of Bill Clinton. Podesta is also the appointed Congressional lobbyist for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – for the modest amount of $200,000 per month. On 12 June 2016, Petra, the official Press agency of Jordan, published an interview with the crown prince of Arabia, Mohamed Ben Salmane, in which he affirmed the modernity of his family, which had illegally financed Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign to the tune of 20%, despite the fact that she is a woman. The day after this publication, the agency cancelled the dispatch and claimed that its Internet site had been hacked.

... ... ...

As it happens, in the team of her challenger, Donald Trump, we note the presence of General Michael T. Flynn, who attempted to oppose the creation of the Caliphate by the White House, and resigned from the direction of the Defense Intelligence Agency in order to signal his disapproval. He works alongside Frank Gaffney, a historical "Cold Warrior", now qualified as a "conspiracy theorist" for having denounced the presence of the Brotherhood in the Federal State.

It goes without saying that from the FBI's point of view, any support for jihadist organisations is a crime, whatever the policy of the CIA may be. In 1991, the police – and Senator John Kerry – had provoked the ecollapse of BCCI, a Pakistani bank (although it is registered in the Cayman Islands), which the CIA used for all sorts of secret operations with the Muslim Brotherhood and also the Latino drug cartels.

[Nov 03, 2016] Democrats should ask Clinton to step aside - Chicago Tribune

Hillary lost, even is she wins...

Notable quotes:

"... What if she is elected? Think of a nation suffering a bad economy and continuing chaos in the Middle East, and now also facing a criminal investigation of a president. Add to that congressional investigations and a public vision of Clinton as a Nixonian figure wandering the halls, wringing her hands. ..."

www.chicagotribune.com
It's obvious the American political system is breaking down. It's been crumbling for some time now, and the establishment elite know it and they're properly frightened. Donald Trump, the vulgarian at their gates, is a symptom, not a cause. Hillary Clinton and husband Bill are both cause and effect.
FBI director James Comey's announcement about the renewed Clinton email investigation is the bombshell in the presidential campaign. That he announced this so close to Election Day should tell every thinking person that what the FBI is looking at is extremely serious.

This can't be about pervert Anthony Weiner and his reported desire for a teenage girl. But it can be about the laptop of Weiner's wife, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and emails between her and Hillary. It comes after the FBI investigation in which Comey concluded Clinton had lied and been "reckless" with national secrets, but said he could not recommend prosecution.>

... ... ...

What if she is elected? Think of a nation suffering a bad economy and continuing chaos in the Middle East, and now also facing a criminal investigation of a president. Add to that congressional investigations and a public vision of Clinton as a Nixonian figure wandering the halls, wringing her hands.
The best thing would be for Democrats to ask her to step down now. It would be the most responsible thing to do, if the nation were more important to them than power. And the American news media - fairly or not firmly identified in the public mind as Mrs. Clinton's political action committee - should begin demanding it.

... ... ...

The Clintons weren't skilled merchants. They weren't traders or manufacturers. The Clintons never produced anything tangible. They had no science, patents or devices to make them millions upon millions of dollars.
All they had to sell, really, was influence. And they used our federal government to leverage it.
If a presidential election is as much about the people as it is about the candidates, then we'll learn plenty about ourselves in the coming days, won't we?

[Nov 03, 2016] Classified Email - Changed subject when returned to Hillary (Personal Subject) Proof of changing subject Lines for Deletion

Notable quotes:

"... 'Yes and interesting but not for this channel.' ..."

www.reddit.com
Original Email Chain ('Here's what I mentioned') from August 19th
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43648

Same Email but with Personal Subject Line ('Congrats!') from September 28th

https://wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/14068

After Podesta mentions in the original email chain 'Yes and interesting but not for this channel.', he then sends this email back to Hillary's inbox a month later with a subject line of 'Congrats!'. Could this be an example of altering email subject lines for the purpose of getting deleted as 'personal' emails? This chain appears to have classified material. I would assume Clinton would not want this email in her system, and Podesta very blatantly was aware of it not belonging there. (More aware than Clinton herself, which is quite frightening).

Can we compare this email to the emails that were turned over to state? Or, compare it to the date that Congress sent the order to provide all emails? When was that again? I'm assuming it's certainly not there.

EDIT: The dates line up. This email subject was changed and sent at the same time Hillary's team was wiping personal emails.

EDIT 2: This needs to get out to everyone. Media / FBI / Wikileaks / TYT / You name it. Please share/tweet/whatever!

[Nov 01, 2016] Ed Klein Comey Under Pressure to Redeem Himself

Notable quotes:

"... "And Valerie Jarrett was under explicit orders – I know people say, 'Well, you never really tell the Attorney General exactly what to do; you kind of wink.' There was no wink. She was told in no uncertain terms, according to my sources, that under no circumstances should Hillary Clinton be indicted because Barack Obama wants desperately for Hillary Clinton to succeed him in the White House, and not to have Donald Trump in the White House because Donald Trump will completely undo everything that Obama thinks is his legacy," he added. ..."

"... Obama's real endgame is to get Clinton over the finish line in the 2016 election, then let her running mate, Tim Kaine, the "real Obama guy," take over if she's removed from office. ..."

"... Tim Kaine and the Clintons were never good friends because Tim Kaine backed Obama in 2008 against Hillary, and one of the deals for Obama to back Hillary this time was for her to pick Tim Kaine, Obama's boy, as her vice president." ..."

Nov 01, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
"In my view, what has not been reported, and what I think is very significant, is that we've all forgotten that Anthony Weiner is under investigation for what amounts to child pornography, alleged child pornography," said Klein.
"Now, if he's found guilty on multiple charges, they can put him away for life because each charge brings 15, 20 years. So if you're his attorney, you say to him, 'Tony, what can you give the prosecutors in exchange for bringing down the number of years you're gonna have to serve?' And it's my view that what he offered them was the computer, and that in exchange, he has gotten an agreement to reduce his charges," he speculated.

"This computer apparently was unknown to the FBI, and I think the reason that it took two, three, or even four weeks between the time that they stumbled on this computer – because Weiner made it available in exchange for a deal – and the time that [James] Comey knew about it, the director of the FBI, was because they were in the process of cutting this arrangement," Klein continued.

"Finally, it came to Comey's attention, as we know, and it became obvious to him and imperative to him that he do something about it – because if he didn't, can you imagine what would happen after the election, and it became knowledge that he knew about this, did nothing about it? Clearly, the Congress would open a probe of the FBI and why it did nothing about it. And Comey would be, not only on the hot seat, but perhaps even impeachable. So I think that this is the untold story of behind-the-scenes maneuvering on these emails," he said.

Klein was convinced the allegations of Weiner "sexting" with underage children were "the alpha and the omega of this whole story" because "otherwise, this computer would never have come to light."

Another factor Klein highlighted was the revolt among FBI agents angry at political interference in their investigations of Hillary Clinton.

"That's not my opinion; this is my reporting," he said. "My reporting indicates from several sources that the atmosphere at the FBI has never been, the morale has never been lower, that there is a stack, literally a stack of resignations waiting on Comey's desk for him to sign, which he has yet to do, that people, when they meet him in the hallway, and he says, 'Good morning' to them, many of them don't even reply because they're not talking to him; that the sense within the FBI is that he disgraced the institution back in July, when he knew quite well, obviously, that Mrs. Clinton had violated not one, but several federal statutes in jeopardizing national security, and raked her over the coals verbally – and then, for reasons that I think had to do with his not wanting to interfere in the presidential race, let her off legally."

"Many of the people in the FBI thought that that was disgraceful," Klein asserted. "I think he's been under huge pressure ever since to redeem himself. I'm told his wife even – who is not only his most personal, deepest relationship, but also a major adviser in his career – has been telling him, 'Jim, you've got to do something about this.'"

"This is a guy who goes to church every Sunday. He's an evangelical Catholic," he said of Comey. "He gets on his knees every night, prays to God, prays about his dead child that he lost, two or three days after the child was born, believes deeply in his own moral rectitude and constantly thinks that he is on the side of the angels. And I think he felt that what he did this time around, which was to send this letter to the Congress, was the highest right, moral thing to do. Whether it was or not, I think that's what motivated him."

Marlow suggested Comey would not have reopened the Clinton investigation "unless he knows he's got the goods."

"I agree with you. I think the disgrace is not James Comey. I think the disgrace is the White House and the Justice Department because as I report in my book Guilty as Sin, despite what Loretta Lynch said about how independent she was or is, she and Valerie Jarrett were having secret meetings last summer about the email investigation, keeping the President and the White House up to date on everything that Jim Comey was doing," Klein said.

"And Valerie Jarrett was under explicit orders – I know people say, 'Well, you never really tell the Attorney General exactly what to do; you kind of wink.' There was no wink. She was told in no uncertain terms, according to my sources, that under no circumstances should Hillary Clinton be indicted because Barack Obama wants desperately for Hillary Clinton to succeed him in the White House, and not to have Donald Trump in the White House because Donald Trump will completely undo everything that Obama thinks is his legacy," he added.

"So I think the disgrace is the Attorney General, and the Attorney General trying to interfere with the FBI's investigations – both of the emails and the Clinton Foundation," Klein reiterated.

Marlow mentioned a theory proposed by Breitbart News Daily callers that Obama's real endgame is to get Clinton over the finish line in the 2016 election, then let her running mate, Tim Kaine, the "real Obama guy," take over if she's removed from office.

"That's not such a crazy theory," said Klein. "It may be a little far-fetched, but your callers are completely right: Tim Kaine and the Clintons were never good friends because Tim Kaine backed Obama in 2008 against Hillary, and one of the deals for Obama to back Hillary this time was for her to pick Tim Kaine, Obama's boy, as her vice president."

[Nov 01, 2016] Why FBI Director Comey jumped at chance to reopen Hillary Clinton email investigation

Notable quotes:

"... 'The people he trusts the most have been the angriest at him,' the source continued. 'And that includes his wife, Pat. She kept urging him to admit that he had been wrong when he refused to press charges against the former secretary of state. ..."

"... 'He talks about the damage that he's done to himself and the institution [of the FBI], and how he's been shunned by the men and women who he admires and work for him. It's taken a tremendous toll on him. ..."

"... 'It shattered his ego. He looks like he's aged 10 years in the past four months.' ..."

"... But Comey's decision to reopen the case was more than an effort to heal the wound he inflicted on the FBI. He was also worried that after the presidential election, Republicans in Congress would mount a probe of how he had granted Hillary political favoritism. His announcement about the revived investigation, which came just 11 days before the presidential election, was greeted with shock and dismay by Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the prosecutors at the Justice Department. ..."

"... 'Lynch and Obama haven't contacted Jim directly,' said the source, 'but they've made it crystal clear through third parties that they disapprove of his effort to save face.' ..."

Oct 31, 2016 | dailymail.co.uk

'The people he trusts the most have been the angriest at him,' the source continued. 'And that includes his wife, Pat. She kept urging him to admit that he had been wrong when he refused to press charges against the former secretary of state.

'He talks about the damage that he's done to himself and the institution [of the FBI], and how he's been shunned by the men and women who he admires and work for him. It's taken a tremendous toll on him.

'It shattered his ego. He looks like he's aged 10 years in the past four months.'

But Comey's decision to reopen the case was more than an effort to heal the wound he inflicted on the FBI. He was also worried that after the presidential election, Republicans in Congress would mount a probe of how he had granted Hillary political favoritism. His announcement about the revived investigation, which came just 11 days before the presidential election, was greeted with shock and dismay by Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the prosecutors at the Justice Department.

'Jim told me that Lynch and Obama are furious with him,' the source said. As I revealed in my latest New York Times bestseller Guilty As Sin Obama said that appointing Comey as FBI direct was 'my worst mistake as president.' 'Lynch and Obama haven't contacted Jim directly,' said the source, 'but they've made it crystal clear through third parties that they disapprove of his effort to save face.'

[Nov 01, 2016] Top Constitutional Law Expert Comey Did NOT Violate Law By Announcing Email Investigation

Notable quotes:

"... You can disagree with the timing of Comey's disclosure, but that is not a matter for the Hatch Act or even an ethical charge in my view. ..."

"... Congress passed the Hatch Act in response to scandals during the 1938 congressional elections and intended the Act to bar federal employees from using "[their] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election." Comey is not doing that in communicating with Congress on a matter of oversight. ..."

Nov 01, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid alleges that FBI Director Comey has violated the law by announcing the re-opened investigation into Clinton emails so close to the presidential election.

Is he right?

One of the top constitutional law experts in the United States (and a liberal), Professor Jonathan Turley, says no :

[Reid's] allegation is in my view wildly misplaced. Reid is arguing that the actions of FBI Director James B. Comey violates the Hatch Act . I cannot see a plausible, let alone compelling, basis for such a charge against Comey.

In his letter to Comey, Reid raised the the Hatch Act, which prohibits partisan politicking by government employees.

5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1) prohibits a government employee from "us[ing] his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election."

Reid argued:

"Your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be a clear intent to aid one political party over another. I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act, which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election. Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law."

The reference to "months" is curious. Comey has kept Congress informed in compliance with oversight functions of the congressional committees but has been circumspect in the extent of such disclosures. It is troubling to see Democrats (who historically favor both transparency and checks on executive powers) argue against such disclosure and cooperation with oversight committees. More importantly, the Hatch Act is simply a dog that will not hunt.

Richard W. Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and the chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush White House from 2005 to 2007, has filed a Hatch Act complaint against Comey with the federal Office of Special Counsel and Office of Government Ethics. He argues that "We cannot allow F.B.I. or Justice Department officials to unnecessarily publicize pending investigations concerning candidates of either party while an election is underway."

However, Comey was between the horns of a dilemma. He could be accused of acts of commission in making the disclosure or omission in withholding the disclosure in an election year. Quite frankly, I found Painter's justification for his filing remarkably speculative. He admits that he has no evidence to suggest that Comey wants to influence the election or favors either candidate. Intent is key under the Hatch investigations. You can disagree with the timing of Comey's disclosure, but that is not a matter for the Hatch Act or even an ethical charge in my view.

Congress passed the Hatch Act in response to scandals during the 1938 congressional elections and intended the Act to bar federal employees from using "[their] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election." Comey is not doing that in communicating with Congress on a matter of oversight.

Such violations under the Hatch Act, even if proven, are not criminal matters . The Office of Special Counsel can investigate such matters and seek discipline - a matter than can ultimately go before the Merit Systems Protection Board.

[Oct 31, 2016] Obama lied: he knew about Hillarys secret server and wrote to her using a pseudonym

Oct 31, 2016 | stateofthenation2012.com

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077#efmAABABT

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-03-of-04/view

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/779729882146283521

"Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it in the news we need to clean this up – he has emails from her – they do not say state.gov"

"How is that not classified?" Huma Abedin to FBI when shown email between Clinton & Obama using his pseudonym. Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."

I can't state how huge this is, it's a cover up involving the President of the United States. There are a lot of emails implying this, but this email states it very clearly so anyone can understand. The email proves obstruction of justice and shows how they lied to the FBI, and likely perjury of Congress. This at the very least proves intent by her Chief of Staff.

Obama used executive privilege on their correspondence. Cheryl Mills (who was given immunity) states they need to "clean up" the Clinton/Obama e-mails because they lacked state.gov.

Additionally, Obama on video publicly denied knowing about the server. He also claimed on video that he learned about the secret server through the news like everyone else. The corruption goes all the way to the top! Obama is lying to the American public.

Hillary Clinton set up her private server to hide her pay to play deals discovered throughout these leaks, and to prevent FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests.

Paul Combetta was hired to modify the email headers that referred to a VERY VERY VIP individual, i.e. change the name of who it was from. If you read Stonetear/Combetta story , it's easy to see this is exactly what he was attempting. He wanted to change header information on already sent mail to show "state.gov" instead of Hillary's private email address. Multiple people informed him of the infeasibility (and illegality) of it, so somewhere in the next 6 days it was decided that simply eradicating them was the only option left.

The FBI said they could not find intent of trying to break the law, therefore no recommendation of prosecution. This email proves, in plain language, that there was intention, and knowingly broke the law.

Ask yourselves: why would they both be communicating on a secret server to each other? Why not through normal proper channels? What were they hiding? We may soon find out
(Source: The Top 100 Most Damaging WikiLeaks )

_ _ _
For the uninitiated this breakdown essentially says that President Barack Obama is stone-cold guilty of crimes and cover-ups that would make Watergate look like a walk in the park .

"How Is This Not Classified?"- Obama Used A Pseudonym In Emails With Hillary, FBI Data Dump Reveals

In fact, Obama is so deeply involved with the criminal workings of State that he had no choice but to lie about his knowledge of Clinton's private server and personal email account. This is why Emailgate is so HUGE- it's a massive cover-up of the greatest crimes EVER committed by the US Government . And Obama lied his way all through the never-ending conspiratorial saga. As follows:

VIDEO: Barack Obama Outright Lies To The American People On National TV About Clinton's Private Email

[Oct 31, 2016] The FBIs Clinton Investigation Is Wider Than Assumed

Notable quotes:

"... The Wall Street Journal today added to its so far excellent reporting on the Clinton issues by revealing the much bigger story behind it: FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe - Laptop may contain thousands of messages sent to or from Mrs. Clinton's private server (open copy here ). ..."

"... B, you're dead right, Hillary is screwed either way. Uncle Bill won't get to wave his mouldy bratwurst in the East Wing for long if she does get through this. ..."

"... Seems the entire "Atlantic media"(bbc, cnn etc etc, aka msm) have all put their collective eggs in Killary's leaky basket. Any pretence of balanced journalism's been thrown out of the window and replaced with brutal yellow propaganda - one which will make chairman Mao blush. ..."

"... The only downside of this for voters and for the people of the world is that a wounded Hillary Clinton may be even MORE likely to push for confrontation leading to WWIII. ..."

"... So did the FBI find Abedin's get out of jail insurance policy, and has that now become Comey's get out of jail insurance policy? ..."

"... Agree with WorldBLee. Hillary has virtually no mandate, little trust, and little support from we, the people...unless she can make the case for a big war. ..."

"... To rule, she will have to rely on her friends on Wall Street, the security establishment, and the media...all of whom find war to be lucrative. ..."

"... The dirt unearthed on HRC ought to have her facing prison for life. ..."

"... If HRC should somehow get elected, more than enough evidence already exists to Impeach and Convict ..."

"... b, you don't list the significance of the 650,000 (!) emails themselves among your bullets. That number of emails may well represent an image of Hillary's private server email store. It's said that several of her aides were tasked with their destruction ... but it now looks like Abedin 'forgot' about the copy on this machine. Once they're loose ... you're right when you say of Hillary that ... ..."

"... @7 stumpy, 'So did the FBI find Abedin's get out of jail insurance policy, and has that now become Comey's get out of jail insurance policy?' Very succinctly and well-put. ..."

Oct 31, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

The Washington Post editors today added to their hypocrisy with three additional anti-Comey op-eds:

Eric Holder: James Comey is a good man, but he made a serious mistake

The costs of Comey's appeasement

Comey's mistaken quest for transparency

I interpret that as naked fear that their candidate Hillary Clinton may now loose. That fear is justified.

The Wall Street Journal today added to its so far excellent reporting on the Clinton issues by revealing the much bigger story behind it: FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe - Laptop may contain thousands of messages sent to or from Mrs. Clinton's private server (open copy here ).

According to the reporting, based on FBI sources, FBI agents in New York and elsewhere have been looking into the Clinton Foundation for several months. They suspect that this "charity" was selling political favors by then Secretary of State Clinton in exchange for donations that personally benefited the Clinton family.

The Justice Department blocked further aggressive investigations into the issue, allegedly because of the ongoing election. A high FBI official, Andrew McCabe, also showed disinterest in a further pursuit of the issue. McCabe's wife had just tried to get elected as state senator and had receive a campaign donation of nearly $500,000 from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton friend and at times board member of the Clinton Foundation. The FBI agents pursuing the investigation into the Clinton Foundation were not amused.

The separate investigation into former Congressman Weiner for sexual contacts with minors was looking for pedophile stuff on Weiner's electronic devices. It didn't find any as far as we can tell, but found some 650,000 emails archived on a laptop.

Several thousand of these emails were sent or received by Weiner's spouse, the intimate Clinton aide Huma Abedin. They came through Clinton's private email server. At least some of these thousands of emails are likely copies of those that were deleted from Clinton's server when the (separate) investigation into it started.

They may be evidence that Clinton sent and received classified documents through her unsecured system. Some of these emails may also contain serious dirt related to the Clinton Foundation. (It is highly likely that at least some FBI agents know "unofficially" what these emails contain. Legally they could not look at them without a warrant which they only got today.)

Thus we have three ongoing FBI investigations:

into Clinton's private email-server used illegally for official State Department business;

into the Clinton Foundation and its role in peddling political influence in exchange for donations;

into the personal conduct of Anthony Weiner.

Additional investigations that may come up are on:

the mixing of donations to the Clinton Foundation and personal compensation for Bill Clinton for holding highly paid speeches;

for profit activities by the group of people running Bill Clinton's businesses as well as the Clinton Foundation financing;

inappropriate hindering of the FBI investigations by the Justice Department and/or by McCabe.

With such a list of potentially very serious scandals pending it is highly understandable that FBI director Comey went public and did not follow the advice from the Justice Department to pursue these issues only on a reduced level. It would have been political suicide to try to keep this silent. Way too many FBI agents eager to pursue these case were in the known and would have talked, as they do now, to the media.

If Clinton gets elected she will be hampered by these scandals for the next two years. The Republicans in Congress will jump on these issues as soon as possible. There will be endless hearings with large media coverage. The only question is when the first attempts at an impeachment process will be made - before or after she moves back into the White House. She and her family may be better off with her losing the campaign.

b on October 31, 2016 at 03:19 PM | Permalink

Yup. Al Capone went down for tax evasion.

MadMax2 | Oct 31, 2016 3:49:02 PM | 2
If I'm not mistaken Eric Holder was a recurring chatacter in that 80's TV show CHIPS was he not...? Something about that greasy B-Grade pornstar moustache.
B, you're dead right, Hillary is screwed either way. Uncle Bill won't get to wave his mouldy bratwurst in the East Wing for long if she does get through this.

But she wont. Hillary has fallen off the cliff (see poll below) in the poll below and we're all gonna get to Pitch'n'Putt a nice little 18 holes around the White House lawns on the back of The Don.

No MSM poll is worth anything, especially with so many closet Trump voters this election... but the USC/Dornslife Daybreak differs a little in it's methodology that's worthy of inspection (random selection of 600-800 of the same 3000 participants emailed each day being the main feature). Also worth checking the Characteristics of Candidate graphs - really interesting to get ro know the demographics of what is going to drive what is now a likely landslide win.

http://cesrusc.org/election/

The methodology behind this poll was developed by the RAND corp and correctly predicted Obama beating Romney to 0.5 percentage points in 2012.

Zico | Oct 31, 2016 3:51:48 PM | 3
Seems the entire "Atlantic media"(bbc, cnn etc etc, aka msm) have all put their collective eggs in Killary's leaky basket. Any pretence of balanced journalism's been thrown out of the window and replaced with brutal yellow propaganda - one which will make chairman Mao blush.
Trump is gunning for the WH those concerned better get use to it. The sad part is, the American people are f*cked either way. Killary will only hasten America's decline and Trump will make it a slow motion one.

What I don't get is, out of the approximately 300 million US citizens, couldn't they find any smart,less crooked person to lead them???

chet380 | Oct 31, 2016 3:52:36 PM | 4
Comey caved to right-wing criticism and pressure. In the U.S. there is a law that prohibits a public official from influencing, or attempting to influence, an election and yet he took this incomprehensible step against the advice of the Justice Dep't. lawyers.
WorldBLee | Oct 31, 2016 3:53:15 PM | 5
The only downside of this for voters and for the people of the world is that a wounded Hillary Clinton may be even MORE likely to push for confrontation leading to WWIII. Once talk of war starts, all concern over illegal wrongdoing will fade to the background as everyone rallies in the US to support the "Commander in Chief".
Many people have already voted via early voting and can't take back their votes even if they wanted to. However, I suspect that dyed in the wool Clinton/DNC/Democrat zealots will continue to shout that this is all a vast alt-right conspiracy to tarnish their sweet, innocent Hillary.

stumpy | Oct 31, 2016 3:59:43 PM | 7
So did the FBI find Abedin's get out of jail insurance policy, and has that now become Comey's get out of jail insurance policy?
JohnH | Oct 31, 2016 4:08:03 PM | 8
Agree with WorldBLee. Hillary has virtually no mandate, little trust, and little support from we, the people...unless she can make the case for a big war.
To rule, she will have to rely on her friends on Wall Street, the security establishment, and the media...all of whom find war to be lucrative.

Northern Observer | Oct 31, 2016 4:08:13 PM | 9
You do not want to give the GOP control of three branches of government, unless you really hate the American people and want to see them suffer. Actually now it makes sense...
Mina | Oct 31, 2016 4:12:59 PM | 10
I suggest a triumvirat Trump-Johnson-Wilders or The Three Blond Mops to rule Amerikka and let the rest of the world be a safer place without their interventionism (but if we look at the UK, France or the Turks not to mention KSA and Qatar or Israel, it is hard to believe it would work out).
karlof1 | Oct 31, 2016 4:18:53 PM | 11
Marcy Wheeler weighs-in on the scandal here, https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/10/30/story-judicial-dysfunction-behind-comey-whiplash/
The dirt unearthed on HRC ought to have her facing prison for life. Never knew about the quaint rule chet380 @4 alludes to until I read Wheeler's item--a rule that grossly undermines the Rule of Law and shouldn't exist!

If HRC should somehow get elected, more than enough evidence already exists to Impeach and Convict -- but then the same was true regarding WJC's impeachment.

jfl | Oct 31, 2016 4:22:26 PM | 12
b, you don't list the significance of the 650,000 (!) emails themselves among your bullets. That number of emails may well represent an image of Hillary's private server email store. It's said that several of her aides were tasked with their destruction ... but it now looks like Abedin 'forgot' about the copy on this machine. Once they're loose ... you're right when you say of Hillary that ...
She and her family may be better off with her losing the campaign.

... and the people on the other end of all those emails will be able to see that - and even more clearly that they may be better off with her losing her campaign - even if dogged determination keeps the blinders on the Clintons themselves.
Edward | Oct 31, 2016 4:23:58 PM | 13
Maybe Clinton will withdraw from the race. The DNC apparatchniks and the establishment have a stake in defeating Trump. At what point do they bail on Hillary?
jfl | Oct 31, 2016 4:27:35 PM | 14
@7 stumpy, 'So did the FBI find Abedin's get out of jail insurance policy, and has that now become Comey's get out of jail insurance policy?' Very succinctly and well-put.
jfl | Oct 31, 2016 4:31:53 PM | 15
b, 'The Washington Post editors today added to their hypocrisy with three additional anti-Comey op-eds:
Eric Holder: James Comey is a good man, but he made a serious mistake ...'

That has got to be the kiss of death in itself ... Mr Too-Big to Jail weighs-in in defense of the world's - well, the country's - most jailable whale.

[Oct 31, 2016] Team Clinton tracked Weiners sexting since 2011

Oct 31, 2016 | nypost.com
Team Clinton was keeping tabs on Anthony Weiner's sexting habits as far back as 2011, according to WikiLeaks emails.
One disturbing report came to the attention of John Podesta, now chair of Clinton's presidential campaign, and Neera Tanden, a Senate aide and 2008 presidential campaign staffer, when Jennifer Palmieri, the current campaign communications director, forwarded news of an investigation into Weiner's contacts with a Delaware teenager.

"Police on Friday afternoon came to the home of a 17-year-old high school junior to ask her about direct online communications she has had with Rep. Anthony Weiner," read the report dated June 10, 2011.

"Two officers from the New Castle County Police Department arrived at the girl's home around 4:30 p.m. and asked to speak with the girl's mother about the daughter's contact with Weiner. Another officer appeared at the home a short time later."

A FoxNews.com reporter was at the home when the police arrived, the story from Fox News stated.

Palmeiri passed along the news story to Podesta and Tanden with a one-word comment: "Oof."

Weiner resigned from Congress on June 21, 2011, after he accidentally tweeted a picture of himself in bulging briefs.

He apparently intended to send the photo privately to a woman he communicated with online - and though he first insisted his Twitter account had been hacked, he later admitted wrongdoing and stepped down from Congress.

Weiner, who is married to Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, was recently busted for sexting another underage girl - a 15-year-old in North Carolina.

[Oct 31, 2016] Hillary has only herself to blame for the mess she's in

Notable quotes:

"... We must forgive Mark Twain for his error when he declared that "history never repeats itself but it often rhymes." After all, he'd never met the Clintons. ..."

"... Why didn't you turn that computer over to the FBI during its initial investigation? ..."

"... Did you lie to the FBI about having work-related emails on it? ..."

"... Also, did Weiner have access to classified material? ..."

nypost.com

We must forgive Mark Twain for his error when he declared that "history never repeats itself but it often rhymes." After all, he'd never met the Clintons.

... ... ...

...Clinton is understandably panicked because the timing of Comey's announcement could cost her the election. Her demand that he release everything immediately is also understandable, even as she knows it is impossible for him to release potential evidence before it is examined.

Clinton created the mess with her incredibly stupid decision to use a private server as secretary of state.

... ... ...

She could simply order Abedin to hold a press conference and answer any and every question about the newest batch of emails. Let reporters ask Abedin directly:

What's in those emails?

Did any contain classified material?

Why didn't you turn that computer over to the FBI during its initial investigation?

Did you lie to the FBI about having work-related emails on it?

Also, did Weiner have access to classified material?

Was the computer ever hacked?

... ... ...

Hillary won't do any of that because the potential downside is also huge. My guess is she fears the worst, and may secretly subscribe to the idea that Comey wouldn't have acted in such a bold and controversial way without some conviction that he had stumbled on a potential bombshell.

.... ... ...

[Oct 31, 2016] FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe - WSJ

Notable quotes:

"... told agents to limit their pursuit of the case. ..."

"... Justice Department officials told the FBI at the meeting they wouldn't authorize more aggressive investigative techniques, such as subpoenas, formal witness interviews, or grand-jury activity. But the FBI officials believed they were still well within their authority to pursue the leads and methods already under way, these people said. ..."

Oct 31, 2016 | archive.fo

The continuing work means that if Mrs. Clinton wins the White House, she will likely do so amid at least one ongoing investigation into her inner circle being handled by law-enforcement officials who are deeply divided over how to manage such cases.

The latest development began in early October when New York-based FBI officials notified Andrew McCabe, the bureau's second-in-command, that while investigating Mr. Weiner for possibly sending sexually charged messages to a minor, they had recovered a laptop with 650,000 emails. Many, they said, were from the accounts of Ms. Abedin, according to people familiar with the matter.

Those emails stretched back years, these people said, and were on a laptop that both Mr. Weiner and Ms. Abedin used and that hadn't previously come up in the Clinton email probe. Ms. Abedin said in late August that the couple were separating.

The FBI had searched the computer while looking for child pornography, people familiar with the matter said, but the warrant they used didn't give them authority to search for matters related to Mrs. Clinton's email arrangement at the State Department. Mr. Weiner has denied sending explicit or indecent messages to the teenager.

In their initial review of the laptop, the metadata showed many messages, apparently in the thousands, that were either sent to or from the private email server at Mrs. Clinton's home that had been the focus of so much investigative effort for the FBI. Senior FBI officials decided to let the Weiner investigators proceed with a closer examination of the metadata on the computer, and report back to them.

At a meeting early last week of senior Justice Department and FBI officials, a member of the department's senior national-security staff asked for an update on the Weiner laptop, the people familiar with the matter said. At that point, officials realized that no one had acted to obtain a warrant, these people said.

... ... ...

New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the strength of the evidence in that probe, sought to condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case.

That led to frustrations among some investigators, who viewed FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the charity, these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case.

Such internal tensions are common, and it isn't unusual for field agents to favor a more aggressive approach than supervisors and prosecutors think is merited. But the internal debates about the Clinton Foundation show the high stakes when such disagreements occur surrounding someone who is running for president.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Mr. McCabe's wife, Jill McCabe, received $467,500 in campaign funds in late 2015 from the political action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime ally of the Clintons and, until he was elected governor in November 2013, a Clinton Foundation board member.

Mr. McAuliffe had supported Dr. McCabe in the hopes she and a handful of other Democrats might help win a majority in the state Senate, giving Mr. McAuliffe more sway in the state capitol. Dr. McCabe lost her race last November, and Democrats failed to win their majority.

A spokesman for the governor has said that "any insinuation that his support was tied to anything other than his desire to elect candidates who would help pass his agenda is ridiculous."

Dr. McCabe told the Journal, "Once I decided to run, my husband had no formal role in my campaign other than to be a supportive husband to me and our children."

In February of this year, Mr. McCabe ascended from the No. 3 position at the FBI to the deputy director post, making him second only to Mr. Comey. When he assumed that role, officials say, he started overseeing the probe into Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server for government work when she was secretary of state.

FBI officials have said Mr. McCabe had no role in the Clinton email probe until he became deputy director, and there was no conflict of interest because by then his wife's campaign was over.

But other Clinton-related investigations were under way within the FBI, and they have been the subject of internal debate for months, according to people familiar with the matter.

Early this year, four FBI field offices-New York, Los Angeles, Washington and Little Rock, Ark.-were collecting information about the Clinton Foundation to see if there was evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling, according to people familiar with the matter.

Los Angeles agents had picked up information about the Clinton Foundation from an unrelated public corruption case and had issued some subpoenas for bank records related to the foundation, these people said.

The Washington field office was probing financial relationships involving Mr. McAuliffe before he became a Clinton Foundation board member, these people said. Mr. McAuliffe has denied any wrongdoing, and his lawyer has said the probe is focused on whether he failed to register as an agent of a foreign entity.

Clinton Foundation officials have long denied any wrongdoing, saying it is a well-run charity that has done immense good around the world.

The FBI field office in New York had done the most work on the Clinton Foundation case and received help from the FBI field office in Little Rock, the people familiar with the matter said.

In February, FBI officials made a presentation to the Justice Department, according to these people. By all accounts, the meeting didn't go well.

... ... ...

Justice Department officials told the FBI at the meeting they wouldn't authorize more aggressive investigative techniques, such as subpoenas, formal witness interviews, or grand-jury activity. But the FBI officials believed they were still well within their authority to pursue the leads and methods already under way, these people said.

In July, Mr. Comey announced he was recommending against any prosecution in the Clinton email case. About a week later, the FBI sought to refocus the Clinton Foundation probe, with Mr. McCabe deciding the FBI's New York office would take the lead with assistance from Little Rock.

The Washington field office, FBI officials decided, would focus on a separate matter involving Mr. McAuliffe. Mr. McCabe had decided earlier in the spring that he would continue to recuse himself from that probe, given the governor's contributions to his wife's former political campaign.

Within the FBI, the decision was viewed with skepticism by some, who felt the probe would be stronger if the foundation and McAuliffe matters were combined. Others, particularly senior officials at the Justice Department, felt that both probes were weak, based largely on publicly available information, and had found little that would merit expanded investigative authority.

According to a person familiar with the probes, on Aug. 12, a senior Justice Department official called Mr. McCabe to voice his displeasure at finding that New York FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe, despite the department's refusal to allow more aggressive investigative methods in the case. Mr. McCabe said agents still had the authority to pursue the issue as long as they didn't use those methods.

... ... ...

Others further down the FBI chain of command, however, said agents were given a much starker instruction on the case: "Stand down." When agents questioned why they weren't allowed to take more aggressive steps, they said they were told the order had come from the deputy director-Mr. McCabe.

Others familiar with the matter deny Mr. McCabe or any other senior FBI official gave such a stand-down instruction.

For agents who already felt uneasy about FBI leadership's handling of the Clinton Foundation case, the moment only deepened their concerns, these people said. For those who felt the probe hadn't yet found significant evidence of criminal conduct, the leadership's approach was the right response to the facts on the ground.

In September, agents on the foundation case asked to see the emails contained on nongovernment laptops that had been searched as part of the Clinton email case, but that request was rejected by prosecutors at the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn. Those emails were given to the FBI based on grants of partial immunity and limited-use agreements, meaning agents could only use them for the purpose of investigating possible mishandling of classified information.

Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. McCabe, these people said, told them no and added that they could not "go prosecutor-shopping."

Not long after that discussion, FBI agents informed the bureau's leaders about the Weiner laptop, prompting Mr. Comey's disclosure to Congress and setting of the furor that promises to consume the final days of a tumultuous campaign.

[Oct 31, 2016] Eight days before the election: Overview of political situation

Notable quotes:

"... For Comey to do what he did, when and how he did it, I gotta believe there is some extinction-level event inside those emails. Something so toxic that even Obama is throwing up his hands, or at least easing hiimself way, way back on the periphery. ..."

"... If Comey is playing politics with such an important job or can't even handle a mutiny us department, why did Obama nominate a life long Republican to the post of FBI Director? ..."

"... Interesting to literally see where Obama draws the line in the sand. "Sorry, you're on your own (smug Barry laugh meme)." ..."

Oct 31, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Corruption

"Clinton Foundation: Inurement" [ Amy Sterling Cassill ]. Word of the day: "The concept of "inurement" is one that most nonprofit organization board members should be familiar with. In common language, "inurement" is a concept that means a board member, donor, or employee can't benefit excessively from the organization's funds."

"Donald Trump's Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders" [Kurt Eichenwald, Newsweek ]. Oppo garbage truck unloads….

War Drums

"Harry Reid's incendiary claim about 'coordination' between Donald Trump and Russia" [ WaPo ].

But there is no public evidence to support Reid's claim of actual "coordination" between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. And were that to be the case, it would be a scandal of epic proportions. Asked what evidence exists of such a connection, Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson cited classified briefings. "There have been classified briefings on this topic," Jentleson said. "That is all I can say."

Nudge nudge wink wink. Say no more! Say no more!

The Voters

"Signs Grow of Another Third-Party Fizzle" [ Wall Street Journal ]. "But it appears increasingly likely that no outside candidate will take a meaningful chunk of the national vote, as seemed plausible in the early summer. The combined clout of Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stein fell from 17% of registered voters in July to 9% in the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. The running RealClearPolitics polling average of all four candidates is even less generous, showing Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stein dropping from around 12% at various times this summer to just 7% now."

Realignment

"Would Trump "Make a Deal" With The Left?" [ Michael Tracey ]. I doubt it. And would the Left make a deal with Trump? Still, if the deal were to prevent a war…

The Trail

UPDATE "CNN says it is 'completely uncomfortable' with hacked emails showing former contributor and interim DNC chair Donna Brazile sharing questions with the Clinton campaign before a debate and a town hall during the Democratic primary, and has accepted her resignation" [ Politico ]. Too funny! Instant karma, and Brazile turns out to be just as clumsy and dishonest a hack as Wasserman-Shultz. No doubt there will be a place for her in the Clinton administration.

"FT endorsement: For all her weaknesses, Clinton is the best hope" [ Financial Times ].

"Donald Trump has a path to victory again thanks to Florida" [ WaPo ]. "Remember that winning Florida isn't a luxury for Trump - it's a necessity. If Clinton wins the 18 states (plus D.C.) that every Democratic presidential nominee has carried between 1992 and 2012, she has 242 electoral votes. Add Florida's 29 to that total and Clinton is at 271 and the election is over."

Democrat Email Hairball

"How Clinton plans to deal with Comey's October surprise" [ Politico ]. "Projecting confidence" and "galvanizing supporters." Those are the talking points? Really? Seems a little meta.

Corruption

"A $72-million apartment project. Top politicians. Unlikely donors." [ Los Angeles Times ]. "No one is registered to vote at the run-down house on 223rd Street. The living room window has been broken for months. A grit-covered pickup sits in the dirt front yard with a flat tire. Yet dozens of donations to local politicians - totaling more than $40,000 - have come from four of the people who have lived there over the last eight years." That's so dumb. If you want to launder money, you set up a family foundation. What's wrong with these people?

"When CIA and NSA Workers Blow the Whistle, Congress Plays Deaf" [ The Intercept ].

Jim Haygood, October 31, 2016 at 2:18 pm

'7' years:

One could add a few more. The Panic of 1907. The bear market of 1917. The recession and bear market (50% decline) of 1937. The recession and bear market of 1957. The bear market of 1977.

Not that I would trade on this decadal pattern alone. But "7" years see more than their fair share of calamities.

hunkerdown, October 31, 2016 at 3:07 pm

Christine Lagarde said something about sevens six months before MH17 was downed by drunken Ukies. 7 is one of the more common digits coerced into weak passwords by password "diversity" standards.

It's bisyllabic and sibilant, therefore powerful and mystical to the ear.

Jim Haygood, October 31, 2016 at 2:25 pm

This ought to shut up Harry Reid.

But then again, who cares what a lame duck thinks?

White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Monday said President Obama does not believe FBI Director James Comey was meddling in the presidential election by announcing Friday that his agency discovered new emails that may be related to its investigation of Hillary Clinton's private server.

In his daily press briefing, Earnest said Obama believes Comey "is a man of principle and good character," and "doesn't believe that Director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of the election."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/josh-earnest-on-comey-letter

Tom, October 31, 2016 at 2:28 pm

Hillary Clinton 10/28/16:

"We've heard these rumors. We don't know what to believe. I'm sure there will be even more rumors," she explained about the new emails being connected to Abedin and Weiner. "That's why it is incumbent upon on the FBI to tell us what they're talking about."

Obama 10/31/16:

Who is this we you're talking about?

hunkerdown, October 31, 2016 at 3:08 pm

Incumbent. I do not think that word means what you think it means, Madame Secretary.

Jen October 31, 2016 at 2:29 pm

Well, well. Another feud breaking out in the open?

Pat October 31, 2016 at 2:33 pm

Interesting. Obama going high, or deciding where the chips may fall.

Tom October 31, 2016 at 2:36 pm

I think the latter.

For Comey to do what he did, when and how he did it, I gotta believe there is some extinction-level event inside those emails. Something so toxic that even Obama is throwing up his hands, or at least easing hiimself way, way back on the periphery.

temporal October 31, 2016 at 2:38 pm

Personal briefing perhaps? Most likely this is just as it appears. It's all going to be about the Weiner and the person that shared his hardware.

NYPaul October 31, 2016 at 3:18 pm

I'd like to know more about the folder, "life insurance."

NotTimothyGeithner October 31, 2016 at 3:20 pm

Don't forget Obama can't be embarrassed or make mistakes. Comey as an Obama appointee will always be defended by Obama until there is a risk of the stench reaching Obama or missing a round of golf.

If Comey is playing politics with such an important job or can't even handle a mutiny us department, why did Obama nominate a life long Republican to the post of FBI Director?

Roger Smith October 31, 2016 at 3:15 pm

Interesting to literally see where Obama draws the line in the sand. "Sorry, you're on your own (smug Barry laugh meme)."

MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 31, 2016 at 3:23 pm

Does it mean that the Russians have Comey and Obama working for them?

Who can you trust but Hillary?

[Oct 31, 2016] Their IT guy, Justin Cooper I believe, put spyware on Bills phone

Oct 31, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
Krungle Bastiat Oct 31, 2016 1:39 PM ,
Their IT guy, Justin Cooper I believe, put spyware on Bill's phone (per Chelsea in one of the Wikileaks emails) and also embezzled CF money (again, per Chelsea).
Also, he's apparently kind of dim as he had to get IT advice from Reddit. So either JC was deep undercover for the feds and he set them up, or, when Huma was working from home during his pregnancy he set up auto-sync on her devices. Or...if they were using iPhones and Macs, they idiot proof syncing and it happens without someone who isn't computer literate even knowing.

The most likely scenario IMO is simply hubris and stupidity. IT guy set that laptop on auto-sync, they forgot about it when the FBI came calling the first time because that computer had fallen into Weiner's sticky fingers full-time for a few years by that point.

Carelessness and poor judgement seem most likely here--remember thesee folks can get the best Google IT people to their home anytime to deal with their IT needs. They could have gotten the best people at the NSA. They didn't even get the best guy out of the phone book. As their colleagues say in various Wikileaked emails, they have terrible judgement.....

[Oct 31, 2016] In the second act of this movie, Comey learns that the Weiner laptop had emails that were so damning it would be a crime against the public to allow them to vote without first seeing a big red flag

Notable quotes:

"... In the second act of this movie, Comey learns that the Weiner laptop had emails that were so damning it would be a crime against the public to allow them to vote without first seeing a big red flag. And a flag was the best he could do because it was too early in the investigation to leak out bits and pieces of the evidence. That would violate Clinton's rights. ..."

"... In this movie, Comey did the hero thing. He alerted the public to the fact that the FBI found DISQUALIFYING information on the Weiner laptop. And he took a second bullet to his reputation. ..."

"... I start by assuming Comey is the same man now as the one who was carefully vetted before being hired to protect the integrity of one of our most important institutions. And even Comey's critics concede he's smart. ..."

"... The way you know the new emails are disqualifying for Clinton is because otherwise our hero would have privately informed Congress and honored the tradition of not influencing elections. Comey is smart enough to know his options. And unless he suddenly turned rotten at his current age, he's got the character to jump in front of a second bullet for the Republic. ..."

Oct 31, 2016 | blog.dilbert.com
Back to Comey.
I'm hearing several interpretations for these two observations:

1. Comey seemed pro -Clinton when he dropped the initial email case.

2. Comey seems anti -Clinton this week because he announced a new round of investigations right before the election.

How can both behaviors be explained? Or, as I like to ask, which movie does the best job of explaining our observations and also predicting the future?

Some say Comey is a political pawn in a rigged system. By that movie script we can explain why he dropped the initial email case. But we can't explain why he's acting against Clinton's interests now. What changed?

Well, some say Comey had to reopen the case against Clinton after discovering the Weiner laptop emails. If he failed to act, there might be a revolt at the FBI and maybe a whistleblower would come forward. But that leaves unexplained why Comey detailed to Congress how Clinton appeared to be guilty of crimes at the same time he said the FBI was dropping the case. If Comey had been protecting Clinton on the first round, he would have softened his description of her misdeeds, wouldn't he? But he didn't seem to hold back anything.

And none of those hypotheses explain why the people who know Comey have high regard for his integrity. Comey also has the security of a 10-year appointment as Director, so he has a low chance of getting fired or politically influenced. That's exactly why the job has a 10-year term. Given what we know of Comey before any of the Clinton emails, any movie that casts Comey as an ass-covering weasel is probably making a casting mistake.

So allow me to offer an interpretation of events that casts Comey as more of a patriot and hero than an ass-covering weasel. Compare my interpretation with whatever movie you have in your head and see which one works best for explaining and predicting.

My movie says Comey had good evidence against Clinton during the initial investigation but made a judgment call to leave the decision to the American public. For reasons of conscience, and acting as a patriot, Comey explained in clear language to the public exactly what evidence the FBI found against Clinton. The evidence looked damning because it was. Under this interpretation, Comey took a bullet to his reputation for the sake of the Republic. He didn't want the FBI to steal this important decision away from the people, but at the same time he couldn't let the people decide blind. So he divulged the evidence and stepped away, like the action hero who doesn't look back at the explosion.

In the second act of this movie, Comey learns that the Weiner laptop had emails that were so damning it would be a crime against the public to allow them to vote without first seeing a big red flag. And a flag was the best he could do because it was too early in the investigation to leak out bits and pieces of the evidence. That would violate Clinton's rights.

But Comey couldn't easily raise a red flag to warn the public because it was against FBI policy to announce a criminal investigation about a candidate so close to election day. So Comey had a choice of either taking another bullet for the Republic or screwing the very country that he has spent his career protecting.

In this movie, Comey did the hero thing. He alerted the public to the fact that the FBI found DISQUALIFYING information on the Weiner laptop. And he took a second bullet to his reputation.

How do I know the new emails are that bad?

I start by assuming Comey is the same man now as the one who was carefully vetted before being hired to protect the integrity of one of our most important institutions. And even Comey's critics concede he's smart.

So…

The way you know the new emails are disqualifying for Clinton is because otherwise our hero would have privately informed Congress and honored the tradition of not influencing elections. Comey is smart enough to know his options. And unless he suddenly turned rotten at his current age, he's got the character to jump in front of a second bullet for the Republic.

According to this movie, no matter who gets elected, we'll eventually learn of something disqualifying in the Weiner emails.

And we can't say we weren't warned. Comey took two bullets to do it.

So compare this movie to your own movie and see which one does the best job of explaining the observed facts. And when we find out what is in the Weiner laptop emails, compare that news to my prediction that the information is disqualifying.

The Persuasion Filter says there is no prefered reality. We all see our own movies. In my movie, Comey's has a consistent personality from start to finish. He starts out his career as a smart, competent patriot and he later proves it by taking two bullets for the Republic. If your movie script has Comey suddenly changing his basic character for this election season, don't expect an Oscar.

[Oct 31, 2016] 12 Facts About the FBI Investigation of Hillary Clintons Emails

Oct 31, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
Twelve facts reveal what everyone needs to know about the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server.
Those twelve facts consist of:

On October 3, FBI agents seized a laptop, an iPhone, and an iPad from disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, as part of the investigation into a report that he was sexting a 15-year-old girl. While searching the laptop, FBI agents uncovered new emails that are likely connected to the agency's investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server. The laptop was used by Anthony Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin and reportedly has 650,000 emails on it. Earlier in the investigation, Huma Abedin swore under oath in a deposition that she had turned over the devices that may have been used to email Clinton: two laptops, a BlackBerry, files she found in her apartment. Huma Abedin reportedly did not know about emails that were on the computer the FBI discovered. "The possibility that this device contains any emails of hers is news to her," a source familiar with the investigation told CNN . Anthony Weiner is cooperating with the FBI's investigation, according to Fox News anchor Bret Baier . FBI Director James Comey was reportedly informed about the new emails last Thursday. He notified Congress the following day. Comey had testified to Congress that the investigation was complete. He sent a letter on Friday to both Democrats and Republican members of Congress to clarify that the case remained open. Justice Department officials tried to stop James Comey from sending the letter, according to the New York Times , warning that it would be a break of longstanding policy. Investigators believe that some of the emails deleted from Hillary Clinton's private server are on this laptop, according to CNN . Many of the emails were "either sent to or from the private email server at Mrs. Clinton's home," according to the Wall Street Journal . Officials received a court order during the weekend to investigate the emails. The process has begun, but it will take weeks, according to several sources.

[Oct 31, 2016] ITS OVER Huma Abedin Just Flipped! What She Did Minutes Ago Has Hillary In Tears…

Oct 31, 2016 | endingthefed.com

EndingFed News Network

Huma Abedin has VOIDED her immunity deal with the FBI. She will be facing jail time or give up dirt on Hillary Clinton. Hillary has got to be crying big ol' gator tears right about now…

Huma Abedin has been by Hillary's side for a long time. After those emails were found on her husband Anthony Weiner's computer. Hillary Clinton does not want her around anymore. According to Hillary's campaign, Abedin is now sitting in a different section of the plane when it was traveling to Florida.

[Oct 31, 2016] Roger Stone Its Time America Got Some Answers About Huma Abedin EndingFed News Network

Notable quotes:

"... Abedin was deeply involved with the establishment of Hillary's private email server, which was used for all of her work as Secretary of State. Now, since we know Hillary had hundreds of classified or top-secret documents on her vulnerable server (despite her early lies saying she did not), any faith in Huma's judgment - at the very least - has been demolished. You will soon ask yourself, "how did this woman get a security clearance?" ..."

"... There is no doubt that she and Hillary have an extremely close relationship. She has been loyal and faithful to Hillary for twenty years. "I have one daughter. But if I had a second daughter, it would be Huma." So spoke Hillary in 2010. She even visited with Huma's mother Saleha in Saudi Arabia in 2011, telling her that Huma's position was "very important and sensitive." Saleha is reportedly an outspoken advocate for genital mutilation for girls in the Islamic world. ..."

"... One exception to this was the February 2016 issue of Vanity Fair . Author William D Cohen's story, titled "Is Huma Abedin Hillary Clinton's Secret Weapon or Her Next Big Problem?" tackled some of the issues I have gone over in this piece. It was well written, informative, and controversial. The backlash was immediate. ..."

Oct 31, 2016 | endingthefed.com

Chic gal pal? Mild mannered politician's wife? Harmless clotheshorse? Saudi plant? Innocent aide? Handler?

Huma Abedin is Vice Chair of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. But Huma is more, much more than that. She is the person closest to the most powerful woman in American politics and perhaps the next President. Huma has been described variously as Hillary's "body woman," a sort of glorified go-to personal maid, gentle confidant, and by others as an Islamic spy. She may be all of these things, because as we shall see, Huma Abedin has an interesting and complex career history.

Abedin was deeply involved with the establishment of Hillary's private email server, which was used for all of her work as Secretary of State. Now, since we know Hillary had hundreds of classified or top-secret documents on her vulnerable server (despite her early lies saying she did not), any faith in Huma's judgment - at the very least - has been demolished. You will soon ask yourself, "how did this woman get a security clearance?"

She was born Huma Mahmood Abedin in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Her father, Syed Zainul Abedin, was Indian and born in New Delhi. In the early 1970s, he was affiliated with the Muslim Students Association at Western Michigan University. The Muslim Students Association or MSA was started in 1963 by Saudi Arabia's biggest charity, the Muslim World League, a group formed and funded by the Kingdom to spread Islam throughout the world.

... ... ...

There were several issues being investigated both internally by the State Department and Sen. Charles Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee for conflicts of interest and embezzlement . She filed inaccurate time sheets overpaying herself $10,000. Mr. Grassley has also questioned whether the deal with Abedin really met the requirements for a special government employee status. One of those requirements is that someone's work as a contractor be different enough from the original job to warrant giving the person contractor status. Documents acquired by the Washington Times show that she told State officials that she planned to do the same kind of work as an SGE that she did as Deputy Chief of Staff.

She became part of Hillary's transition team in 2013, helping her to return to private life. She continued her work at the Clinton Foundation and set up her own consulting firm, Zain Endeavors LLC .

On October 16, 2015, Abedin testified in a closed session before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, in a session that was expected to focus on the 2012 Benghazi attack during which Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed. She said, "I came here today to be as helpful as I could be to the committee. I wanted to honor the service of those lost and injured in the Benghazi attacks," adding she was "honored" to work for Clinton at State and "proud" of her service there. Representative Lynn Westmoreland, a Republican panel member, said Abedin frequently answered questions with responses of "'I don't remember' and 'I don't recollect.'"

There is no doubt that she and Hillary have an extremely close relationship. She has been loyal and faithful to Hillary for twenty years. "I have one daughter. But if I had a second daughter, it would be Huma." So spoke Hillary in 2010. She even visited with Huma's mother Saleha in Saudi Arabia in 2011, telling her that Huma's position was "very important and sensitive." Saleha is reportedly an outspoken advocate for genital mutilation for girls in the Islamic world.

So how has the media dealt with Huma Abedin? In short, they haven't. The family's critics have been attacked and labeled as conspiracy theorists.

One exception to this was the February 2016 issue of Vanity Fair . Author William D Cohen's story, titled "Is Huma Abedin Hillary Clinton's Secret Weapon or Her Next Big Problem?" tackled some of the issues I have gone over in this piece. It was well written, informative, and controversial. The backlash was immediate.

[Oct 31, 2016] Watch the Post twist itself into a pretzel, trying to explain, carefully walking through this latest Clinton mess, picking certain facts, ignoring others, not asking the obvious questions

Notable quotes:

"... I watch the Post twist itself into a pretzel, trying to explain, carefully walking through this latest Clinton mess, picking certain facts, ignoring others, not asking the obvious questions ..."

"... In a previous release of information as a result of a Freedom of Information suit, it became known that Huma Abedin had forwarded emails from Clinton's private email server, to Ms. Abedin's personal yahoo email account. ..."

"... I understand that Mrs. Clinton was SOS for four years. Nevertheless, how do you forward tens of thousands of emails? ..."

"... And what of the 30,000 destroyed (by Clinton) emails? The only thing that makes sense, is that the newly discovered emails include some of the missing emails. ..."

"... "We don't know what this means yet except that it's a real bombshell. And it is unthinkable that the Director of the FBI would take this action lightly, that he would put this letter forth to the Congress of the United States saying there is more information out there about classified e-mails and call it to the attention of congress unless it was something requiring serious investigation. So that's where we are..." ..."

Oct 31, 2016 | washingtonpost.com

HappyInSF 10/29/2016 7:44 PM EST

As I watch the Post twist itself into a pretzel, trying to explain, carefully walking through this latest Clinton mess, picking certain facts, ignoring others, not asking the obvious questions (e.g. are some of the emails found on Weiner's laptop copies of the 30,000 emails that Clinton destroyed, even though she was under subpoena to turn them over to the State Dept.?) it makes me believe that there is not an honest, moral, trustworthy person, left in our government, our political leadership, or our press corps.
HappyInSF 10/29/2016 7:09 PM EST
In a previous release of information as a result of a Freedom of Information suit, it became known that Huma Abedin had forwarded emails from Clinton's private email server, to Ms. Abedin's personal yahoo email account.
The new bit of news today, is that the FBI found TENS OF THOUSANDS of Clinton related emails on Weiner's (shared with Abedin?) laptop. I understand that Mrs. Clinton was SOS for four years. Nevertheless, how do you forward tens of thousands of emails? I don't think it can be a batch operation, they must have been forwarded individually. And what of the 30,000 destroyed (by Clinton) emails? The only thing that makes sense, is that the newly discovered emails include some of the missing emails. As Carl Bernstein (one of the two original Post reporters who broke the Watergate story, which led to Nixon's resignation) said yesterday:

"We don't know what this means yet except that it's a real bombshell. And it is unthinkable that the Director of the FBI would take this action lightly, that he would put this letter forth to the Congress of the United States saying there is more information out there about classified e-mails and call it to the attention of congress unless it was something requiring serious investigation. So that's where we are..."

[Oct 31, 2016] Sherlock Holmes: How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

Oct 31, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
fresno dan October 30, 2016 at 7:39 am

Top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin has told people she is unsure how her emails could have ended up on a device she viewed as her husband's computer, the seizure of which has reignited the Clinton email investigation, according to a person familiar with the investigation and civil litigation over the matter.

The person, who would not discuss the case unless granted anonymity, said Abedin was not a regular user of the computer, and even when she agreed to turn over emails to the State Department for federal records purposes, her lawyers did not search it for materials, not believing any of her messages to be there.

….

Abedin told the FBI in an interview in April that her attorneys asked for guidance from the State Department on how to conduct that review but did not receive a response.

Summarizing Abedin's interview, FBI agents wrote that she told them the attorneys "erred on the side of caution and opted to include anything that they were unsure about."

In a sworn deposition in June, Abedin said she "looked for all the devices that may have any of my State Department work on it and returned - returned - gave them to my attorneys for them to review for all relevant documents."

=============================================================
Curiouser and curiouser.

Sherlock Holmes: How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

We have a Russian Weiner in our computers… And in an abundance of caution, I am checking my drawers…

the source
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-aide-huma-abedin-has-told-people-she-doesnt-know-how-her-emails-wound-up-on-her-husbands-computer/2016/10/29/1d30c2b8-9e15-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html

[Oct 31, 2016] FBI investigating new e-mail tied to Clinton scandal

Notable quotes:

"... I have to take the same or similar training as Hillary Clinton must have taken when she was secretary of state. The difference is that I do not have selective memory like Hillary nor am I a pathological liar. If I had done what Hillary has done no doubt I would be in federal prison! ..."

"... IMO either one is disqualifying to be President of the United States. Her extraordinary incompetence need not rise to the level of criminality. The court of public opinion is not a court of law, and candidates running for public office are judged in the court of public opinion accordingly. ..."

"... Apparently Weiner is "cooperating" with the FBI, which gives them the right to search emails on the laptop without an additional warrant... including the Abedin emails. I would likely think this would involve a plea deal for Weiner for throwing Abedin and Hillary under the bus. Despicable , but this is Weiner we're talking about. ..."

Oct 31, 2016 | arstechnica.com
bettercitizens Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Oct 30, 2016 3:15 PM
I work with classified data and create derivative classifications as part of my job as a civilian with the Navy. Classified information is a pain in the ass, but it has to be dealt with properly and securely. That is why we have SIPRNET to e-mail classified data.
The SIPRNET system forces a header at the top of all e-mail messages stating the classification level and if foreign nationalities can view the data, etc. Additonally when creating a derivative classification one has to consult the security classification guide for the program and mark the data properly in any files.

I have to take the same or similar training as Hillary Clinton must have taken when she was secretary of state. The difference is that I do not have selective memory like Hillary nor am I a pathological liar. If I had done what Hillary has done no doubt I would be in federal prison!

Cheers, DC

Red Foreman Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
... ... ...
IMO either one is disqualifying to be President of the United States. Her extraordinary incompetence need not rise to the level of criminality. The court of public opinion is not a court of law, and candidates running for public office are judged in the court of public opinion accordingly.

Thoughtful Ars Tribunus Militum et Subscriptor

... ... ...

What may have been confusing you is that POP3 clients (generally speaking, unless told NOT to) remove e-mail from the server and keep it locally. IMAP and MS Exchange can do that too but you have to take extra configuration steps to ensure that the client removes the mail and stores it locally (instead of the e-mail simultaneously residing on both the client and the server).

Drone13 Smack-Fu Master, in training reply 5 hours ago drachasor wrote:

... ... ...

Apparently Weiner is "cooperating" with the FBI, which gives them the right to search emails on the laptop without an additional warrant... including the Abedin emails. I would likely think this would involve a plea deal for Weiner for throwing Abedin and Hillary under the bus. Despicable , but this is Weiner we're talking about.

This morning the FBI also secured a warrant for the notebook, so warrant-less search is no longer an issue to discuss. It has also been reported that there are somewhere around 650,000 emails to sort through between Weiner's and Abedin's emails. That has to be a very distasteful task.. separating the wheat from the shaft.

whobeme Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Oct 30, 2016 1:01 PM Drone13 wrote:

... ... ...

I believe the first one indicates this scenario is unfolding:

1. laptop went with Weiner when they split, so the FBI did not review it during the initial investigation. (Gross incompetence on their part.)

2. In the later investigation for Weiner's weenie wagging the FBI obtained the laptop and reviewed HIS emails. In the process they found some to or from HER, most likely in a separate login account. The warrant they were using for his investigation did not apply to the Clinton investigation, and they passed the observation up the chain of command but did not read those emails (or will not admit to reading them.)

which brings us to today

3. Huma says she doesn't know what is on that laptop and does not know how any of her emails got there.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

We have been speculating previously about what mail protocols were used. The presence of a large number of emails when she expected none suggests to me that at some point she borrowed his machine to check her emails. (Hers being on the blink or left at the office or some such thing.) The email client used may have employed IMAP and while she thought it was just showing her the couple of emails she needed to look at, in the background it was downloading a full copy of each folder she accessed. She may not have expected that because on her machine whichever email client this was was configured to not make local copies.

[Oct 30, 2016] The FBIs email inquiry is a fitting end to this dumpster fire of an election by Richard Wolffe

Neoliberal queen is waiting coronation, but ...

Notable quotes:

"... The US has one thing in common with the UK. A massive hidden disenfranchised underclass, who are often unemployed or underemployed . He will get that vote, just as brexit did, and the reason he invited Farage over was because he knows this. ..."

"... When you see all the corruption and fraud that goes on around the world by the wealthy and powerful you see that change by grass root movements doesn't stand a chance. ..."

"... Politicians with their nepotism and cronyism , CEO's, Bankers/Hedge Funnd Managers, Big Business, Big Pharma, Lobbyists, Industrialists, Multi-Nationals...all part part of a Global Cabal that doesn't care about the poor or the working class. ..."

"... it is my belief that they are already relatively certain that at least one State Department email with classified information, and perhaps many more, reside on a laptop computer owned by Anthony Weiner and used by him to exchange sexually explicit content with supposedly underage women -- and I say "supposedly" because posing as an available member of the opposite sex is a common clandestine maneuver. ..."

"... The war candidate is and always has been Hillary. Never met a war she didn't like. Trump OTOH is much more interested in money than in war. He is an isolationist. It's one reason I like his platform, I am tired of the wars. Hillary would continue them. ..."

"... The problem with Hillary (which the DNC should have thought about as they sabotaged Bernie Sander's bid in the primaries) is that there is more then enough kindling in her background to create a decent fire....and lots and lots of smoke! ..."

"... exactly - enough skeletons in her closet to fill a good sized cemetery. ..."

"... "Pseudo-scandal"? Or pseduo-journalism. Richard Wolffe's credibility as a journalist just went up in flames. If you want to read Hillary Clinton's media releases, cut out the middle man and go directly to her campaign website. ..."

"... Clinton is unpopular because, at the innermost core, she's unlikable. Sort of an evil stepmother type who's trying to look more motherly. ..."

"... Into this mess is the media, which refuses to provide serious discussion and analysis over important economic, social, environmental and foreign policy issues. Instead it turns everything into theatre with a focus on sex scandals, rumours, hair cuts and what the candidate is wearing. ..."

"... Elections are being won or lost on wafer thin margins because the choice of candidate are so poor. Policy is ignored or even mostly absent. Instead we have what is little better than a game show. ..."

"... It is like a choice between Pepsi and Coke, whatever choice you make you only get highly sugared and fizzy lolly water that won't do your health any good in the long run. ..."

"... Perhaps all politicians close to an election should be immune from the law for a period? ..."

"... No spin from the neoliberal establishment will save their queen Hillary. ..."

"... Because we're talking about the Big Circumcised Weiner, someone who self-identifies as "a perpetually horny middle-aged man", we've got the fun prospects of one or more sex crimes, along with volumes of sorta' consensual sex, being documented among the, possibly, famous and the soon to famous; and a little wealthier too. ..."

"... When the the swamp is drained the American people will be shocked and sickened by the crimes of the people behind the so-called progressive, globalist, socialist, thieving, murdering vermin that the bankster cabal sent among the people to destroy the United States. By all means, the corrupt politicians and their masters must be investigated. So too the people who run the disgusting corporate media and scurrilous vermin behind groups like "Media Matters" "Open Societies" etc. etc. etc. ..."

"... The trouble with your argument is that the Conservative side has analogous front organisations backed by oil and other interest groups which are intent on imposing their will regardless of the popular will. The Conservatives have indeed been outgunned by the Liberal mafia this time. ..."

"... " progressive, globalist, socialist, thieving, murdering vermin"... How are the "bankster cabal" you conjure in any way progressive and/or socialist? Do you have any clue, or are these just two of your go-to slurs? ..."

"... She doesn't mind the disgusting behaviour and carryings-on of Trump being exposed before an election and it shouldn't be any different for her either. We hear a lot about the accusations against Donald Trump in this country and we don't hear much about what Hillary has done with all her emails or what is alleged to have been written in them. ..."

"... You have got to be joking. How about the War in Yemen, 90% + casualty rates with drone strikes and targeted assassination, Saudi Arabia weapons deals, vetoing JASTA, War in Syria and Libya disaster, NSA surveillance continuing, Civil Asset forfeiture equitable sharing program, NDAA 2012 - 17 including indefinite detention and now women's draft, 2nd Amendment infringement and calls for Australian gun control , Guantanamo still open, still pursuing REAL ID, TSA groping, Biometric database and associated ID card to track movements 24/7, Militarization of the police under 1033 program, Federal government procurement of Stingrays and ALPR readers, smart meter program spying, CISA, IRS and Fast and Furious scandals, prosecution of Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, pursuance of TPP, TISA and TTIP ? ..."

"... "The latest pseudo-scandal to hit Clinton is unlikely to rob her of the presidency. But it sure isn't going to impress voters already sickened by a shocking campaign." ..."

"... Even a number of actions such as the possible destruction of 31,000 emails and several mobiles after receiving a Congressional subpoena to produce them was not enough to persuade him otherwise. ..."

"... A reasonable conclusion must be the latest criminal investigation concerns not the finding of these additional emails but the actual content of the emails. This matter therefore -far from a pseudo-scandal- must take a very serious form if it causes the FBI at this acutely sensitive time for the election to reopen criminal investigations. ..."

"... Comey has not re-opened the investigation, he simply notified Congress he is looking at "newly obtained info" to determine what it is and how should something be found) it might relate to a decision to re-open the investigation. Basically he is simply covering his ass, although, he now screwed that up and has Justice on his ass also calling for him to make a full disclosure. He will have to make public the info or possibly face a Justice Department investigation of his agency. Major error on his part. ..."

"... How many "non-stories" did Hillary generate in her lifetime? 50? 100? 200? It seems to me that wherever she goes, a "non-story" or two is sure to follow. This may be a non-story that broke the camel's back. Yes, Virginia, you can politically die of one "non-story" too many. ..."

"... Are they a banana republic? They are a great power, correct me if I'm wrong. ..."

"... It's bad enough that the 47 year old Jennifer Lopez, dressed in boots and suspenders is prancing about on stage in Miami. But she brings onto the stage the almost 70 year old Hillary Clinton who, as one of the worst speakers in political history, has the crowd silenced within seconds as she rants about how "we're not going to let Donald Trump get away with it". ..."

"... Her campaign is a fucking joke and they and the MSM are trying to sell this fetid pile of shit to the whole world ..."

"... Obama, Hillary, the Clinton Foundation, and Wall Street decided eight years ago she would be president in 2017. Americans are fed up with that sort of bullshit. ..."

"... Clinton's attacks on Russia are deeply worrying. I have no doubt at all that she'll try and impose a no fly zone in Syria, which will mean direct confrontation, risking an all out war. This woman is a warmonger and she needs to be stopped. ..."

"... People, this whole thing is merely a diversion to move attention from corruption in high places, onto Huma and Anthony Weiner. Comey's had to do something to move attention from the fact that Obama lied to the people, he lied to Congress concerning not knowing about Clinton's private e-mail arrangement and even used a pseudonym to connect with her. This is public knowledge now and not speculation. ..."

"... Clinton will make sure that the NWO gains control. It is being implemented in the background as all this is going. Many people are not the least bit interested in how their children are being brainwashed, how borders have been dissolved, how Obama has been quietly taking unilateral control of government. It seems that they will sit through the pantomime that is this election enjoying every diversionary twist, then when Clinton is elected, they will be unaware that the tentacles of the enemy of the people have penetrated every compartment of government. Vote for Clinton and you are voting for a one world government. There is a war going on and it is truly a battle between good and evil! God help the world. ..."

www.theguardian.com

MichaelKenyon 29 Oct 2016 17:50

I think the reason people don't like Obama is because he has bombed 7 countries. Maybe Clinton can get to 8 if she goes after Russia.

NotKindOrGentle 29 Oct 2016 17:52

How do the Americans ever get anything done when 18 months of their electoral cycle is taken up with campaigning for the next one.

riggbeck -> NotKindOrGentle 29 Oct 2016 18:13

Then there's the lunacy of mid-term elections. Four years isn't very long for a president to deliver on major election promises, yet the constitution potentially halves that time with the threat of losing majorities in the House of Representatives or the Senate.
Checks and balances turn into gridlock.

GeeDeeSea 29 Oct 2016 17:54

It's not the FBI that made her use a private e-mail account. It's not the FBI that decided to install a private server. Get real. These were her decisions in an attempt to conceal her activities while in public office.

Preparetobeoffended 29 Oct 2016 17:58

And so it goes on.
Clinton, still heading for the White House? What planet are you on!
Will Bernie supporters vote for Clinton knowing the Democrats conspired to steal the nomination from him. Will they, really.
Will Wikileaks and Project Veritas`s most damning offerings be ignored by these sheep with hands covering ears yelling I`m not listening! Will they, really.
Trump is the less frightening of two frightening options, but at least he has going for him the fact that he has tenaciously attacked the corruption clear to all capable of an independent thought.
Trump is going to win, and going to win comfortably. Get used to it.

GeeDeeSea 29 Oct 2016 18:01

2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election

"I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake," said Sen. Clinton. "And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."
http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/

absentlyadjustable 29 Oct 2016 18:06

We don't know what the emails are, I wouldn't expect us to. If there's an investigation then you don't release confidential information. But the information that we have gleaned from Wikileaks shows that the State authorities have been involved in shutting things down, as has the Clinton campaign and we know that a large and suspicious payment was made to a close relative of an investigator.

We also know that the IRS has been used over a period in a partisan manner to the disadvantage of the Republicans and that the previous decision on the emails not to take action was met with incredulity within the FBI.
If the FBI is making this announcement now then it must have discovered something that has worried it. It made the announcement soon after the matter arose as it should have done given that this is a very important piece of information of which voters need to be aware.
The press to date has handled Clinton with kid gloves and it still wants to do so. Fortunately the revelations coming out and probably the true polls have been making them think again and so they are allowing a little doubt to enter their coverage.
Hopefully this will be the end of the Clinton campaign, but with the money, contacts and other resources available to it there will be an immense effort, from the State and campaign, to blacken the reputation of a body which previously has served Clinton so well.

absentlyadjustable 29 Oct 2016 18:16

Can I point out as well how biased the reporting of the Presidential campaign has been in the UK? Most of the media have been acting as the publicity wing of the Democrats and the only people to be interviewed, especially on the BBC, seem to have been from the liberal Clinton supporting press

AndyPandy1968 29 Oct 2016 18:29

I am sorry to say my personal feeling is that this is the last straw and Trump will win.
I don't support him but he is not stupid, and he was running too close for comfort even before this. He is not playing to the Guardian, he is playing to an American audience, many of whom have a totally different view of the world.
The US has one thing in common with the UK. A massive hidden disenfranchised underclass, who are often unemployed or underemployed . He will get that vote, just as brexit did, and the reason he invited Farage over was because he knows this.
That is why he says these clumsy things. Not because he is stupid. He says them because he is playing to that audience. It is deliberate.
Let's hope I am wrong.

DogsLivesMatter 29 Oct 2016 18:31

When you see all the corruption and fraud that goes on around the world by the wealthy and powerful you see that change by grass root movements doesn't stand a chance.

Politicians with their nepotism and cronyism , CEO's, Bankers/Hedge Funnd Managers, Big Business, Big Pharma, Lobbyists, Industrialists, Multi-Nationals...all part part of a Global Cabal that doesn't care about the poor or the working class.

Even the UN and WHO are stacked with those who have influential connections. Pay to Play has become the norm. What choice does anyone have anymore other than going with the devil you know? None!

Sappho53 29 Oct 2016 18:35

The world wants a complete investigation into the illegal Iraq War with consequences. The world is still reeling form this Republican LIE and it has cost US allies dearly in lives, finances, and terrorism. The Republicans have hidden from the biggest scandal of the past one hundred years. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice must answer and so must all of their supporters in the Republican Party.

Glenn Smith 29 Oct 2016 18:40

Contrary to your interpretation, Mr. Wolffe, I think the FBI's brave action is going to have precisely the result of denying Hillary the election, and justifiably so (and not that I think Trump is any better): it is my belief that they are already relatively certain that at least one State Department email with classified information, and perhaps many more, reside on a laptop computer owned by Anthony Weiner and used by him to exchange sexually explicit content with supposedly underage women -- and I say "supposedly" because posing as an available member of the opposite sex is a common clandestine maneuver.

providenciales -> BlueberryCompote 29 Oct 2016 19:12

Actually, people will be able to buy the insurance they can afford and that they want if we get rid of Obamacare. You wouldn't like unaffordable insurance with deductibles that mean you don't have any coverage either.
Trump has already said who he would nominate to SCOTUS so you can't scaremonger on that score. He gave a list in fact.
The war candidate is and always has been Hillary. Never met a war she didn't like. Trump OTOH is much more interested in money than in war. He is an isolationist. It's one reason I like his platform, I am tired of the wars. Hillary would continue them.

Casey13 29 Oct 2016 18:51

Once Hillary is elected the whole stinking cesspit of Clinton Inc will start crashing down around her in a hodgepodge of scandals that make Watergate look like Jay walking. She will be Impeached within a year.

JavaZee 29 Oct 2016 18:56

The problem with Hillary (which the DNC should have thought about as they sabotaged Bernie Sander's bid in the primaries) is that there is more then enough kindling in her background to create a decent fire....and lots and lots of smoke!

boxcarwillie -> JavaZee 29 Oct 2016 19:08

exactly - enough skeletons in her closet to fill a good sized cemetery.

Theleme1532 29 Oct 2016 19:03

"Pseudo-scandal"? Or pseduo-journalism. Richard Wolffe's credibility as a journalist just went up in flames. If you want to read Hillary Clinton's media releases, cut out the middle man and go directly to her campaign website.

boxcarwillie 29 Oct 2016 19:06

Clinton is unpopular because, at the innermost core, she's unlikable. Sort of an evil stepmother type who's trying to look more motherly. doesn't work. with that said, the article is right - this has been a dumpster fire campaign and i'll be glad to see it over. i doubt HRC will make good on any of her campaign promises, but i would be afraid Trump would. Hope it's better next time. Bernie would be 78, but that's not as old as it used to be.

Reality_Man 29 Oct 2016 19:14

On the web I read that the NY FBI office is in open rebellion with the DC FBI and that during the Antony Wiener investigation they found classified emails on a shared laptop PC. Who knows maybe Huma will be under arrest before November the 8th. One way or another it was done for a reason I would suggest that the FBI is still a law enforcement agency not a political organization. As the end of the Obama administration comes to pass it's only natural that the Chinese made him get out of the back of air force one to show a lack of respect and other countries and agencies may be showing what they feel. Strong Together may not work if Huma is separated from her baby. She just may sing terrified bird. Just Saying.

Arcane 29 Oct 2016 19:15

This election is a sad reflection on the current state of democracy across much of the Western World. The major political parties are so compromised with insider politics and a lack of genuine concern for the long-term benefit of the voters they purport to represent that they keep on producing candidates of the worst quality.
Into this mess is the media, which refuses to provide serious discussion and analysis over important economic, social, environmental and foreign policy issues. Instead it turns everything into theatre with a focus on sex scandals, rumours, hair cuts and what the candidate is wearing.
Our democracies - not just in the United States but around the world - are under threat from this same malaise. It starts with political parties that care more about protecting the interests of a few insiders and influential interest groups. These political movements no longer appeal to the majority of voters.
Elections are being won or lost on wafer thin margins because the choice of candidate are so poor. Policy is ignored or even mostly absent. Instead we have what is little better than a game show.
It is like a choice between Pepsi and Coke, whatever choice you make you only get highly sugared and fizzy lolly water that won't do your health any good in the long run.

BlueberryCompote -> Arcane 29 Oct 2016 19:22

You've got to admit, however, that America has the worst and most extreme version of this problem with little sign of anyway out.

bookworm7 29 Oct 2016 19:29

This raises the obvious question: what on earth was the FBI director thinking when he dropped his letter on Friday making it crystal clear that he knew nothing?

He said the investigation was being re-opened in the light of new evidence. If the investigators 'knew everything' why would they investigate? The above is a piece of sophistry conflating the knowledge of the facts with the knowledge that the facts are to be investigated.
I can see how the timing looks suspect, but consider the alternative; if he knew about the new evidence necessitating the re-opening of the investigation, and withheld telling Congress on purpose because Clinton was a politician close to an electron, would this also not look bad? Could he not be accused of withholding pertinent information for political purposes?
Perhaps all politicians close to an election should be immune from the law for a period?

PlayaGiron 29 Oct 2016 19:32

No spin from the neoliberal establishment will save their queen Hillary.

Gangoffour -> Bifocal 29 Oct 2016 20:52

Because we're talking about the Big Circumcised Weiner, someone who self-identifies as "a perpetually horny middle-aged man", we've got the fun prospects of one or more sex crimes, along with volumes of sorta' consensual sex, being documented among the, possibly, famous and the soon to famous; and a little wealthier too.
I'm sure it's a lot easier to pick up honey pots when they provide a sympathetic shoulder to snuggle into because your wife refuses to satisfy your needs since she's doing all of Hillary's work.
Who wouldn't want to be part of the Clinton matchmaking machine?

Berkeley2013 29 Oct 2016 20:22

Mr Wolffe writes:

"From the Clinton Foundation to the private email server, from Benghazi to Weiner, from Whitewater to Monica, the list is as long as it is utterly spurious. Whatever crumbs of wrongdoing there may be, they don't amount to something worthy of Watergate, or even the myriad gate-suffixed scandals since. Questionable behavior is not the same as criminal or even impeachable conduct."

How could anything involving the protocols and laws regarding national security communications be called "spurious?"
How can anything involving many separate pieces of DoS communication be called "crumbs of wrongdoing?"

gladiointurkey 29 Oct 2016 20:41

When the the swamp is drained the American people will be shocked and sickened by the crimes of the people behind the so-called progressive, globalist, socialist, thieving, murdering vermin that the bankster cabal sent among the people to destroy the United States. By all means, the corrupt politicians and their masters must be investigated. So too the people who run the disgusting corporate media and scurrilous vermin behind groups like "Media Matters" "Open Societies" etc. etc. etc.

BlueberryCompote -> gladiointurkey 29 Oct 2016 20:45

The trouble with your argument is that the Conservative side has analogous front organisations backed by oil and other interest groups which are intent on imposing their will regardless of the popular will. The Conservatives have indeed been outgunned by the Liberal mafia this time.

nostrobo -> gladiointurkey 29 Oct 2016 20:57

" progressive, globalist, socialist, thieving, murdering vermin"... How are the "bankster cabal" you conjure in any way progressive and/or socialist? Do you have any clue, or are these just two of your go-to slurs?

AdamEdward88 29 Oct 2016 21:10

She doesn't mind the disgusting behaviour and carryings-on of Trump being exposed before an election and it shouldn't be any different for her either. We hear a lot about the accusations against Donald Trump in this country and we don't hear much about what Hillary has done with all her emails or what is alleged to have been written in them. I'd be quite interested to find out what was in any she might have sent to Tony Blair. She hasn't got a good track record on the Middle-East and we base our opinions in this country on a different set of media reports to people in the US.

Starwars102 29 Oct 2016 21:11

The integrity of the Obama administration.

You have got to be joking. How about the War in Yemen, 90% + casualty rates with drone strikes and targeted assassination, Saudi Arabia weapons deals, vetoing JASTA, War in Syria and Libya disaster, NSA surveillance continuing, Civil Asset forfeiture equitable sharing program, NDAA 2012 - 17 including indefinite detention and now women's draft, 2nd Amendment infringement and calls for Australian gun control , Guantanamo still open, still pursuing REAL ID, TSA groping, Biometric database and associated ID card to track movements 24/7, Militarization of the police under 1033 program, Federal government procurement of Stingrays and ALPR readers, smart meter program spying, CISA, IRS and Fast and Furious scandals, prosecution of Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, pursuance of TPP, TISA and TTIP ?
That list of problems was a mile long and there is probably a lot more I have not mentioned. Says a lot about Obama's time in office.

mrjonno 29 Oct 2016 21:26

And we still look to the USA for leadership in the world? Give me a break. This is a country that is responsible for destroying much of the world through the economic paradigm of neoliberalism which has seen the introduction of economy based in 'throw away and buy new' along with 'dodgy money' to create the 1% leading to resource overshoot. On current trends we are well in deficit. From World Footprint -

Moderate UN scenarios suggest that if current population and consumption trends continue, by the 2030s, we will need the equivalent of two Earths to support us. And of course, we only have one.

Neither Clinton nor Trump are suitable presidential material but when has the USA ever been about being suitable for the world? Never.

BTW Earth Overshoot Day happened on August 8 this year. Since then we are using more than the planet Earth can absorb or replenish. We are on a collision course with catastrophe.
Well done America....

unlywnted 29 Oct 2016 21:34

"The latest pseudo-scandal to hit Clinton is unlikely to rob her of the presidency. But it sure isn't going to impress voters already sickened by a shocking campaign."

Pseudo-scandal??!! Where in Gods name are you coming from to arrive at that conclusion? FBI Director Comey closed the file on further investigation a few months ago saying while Clinton's casual handling of certain State Dept classified emails was reprehensible, he was not recommending criminal action because there was an absence of any evidence she had acted with criminal intent.

Even a number of actions such as the possible destruction of 31,000 emails and several mobiles after receiving a Congressional subpoena to produce them was not enough to persuade him otherwise.

Yet now, despite clearly realising its dramatic effect on the impending presidential election Comey informs all interested parties that the file on the criminal investigation is to be re-opened because of new emails that have come to light. However, since his original ruling was that he saw no criminal intent in Clinton's careless dissemination of State emails to private servers it is difficult to understand why that ruling doesn't also cover the latest emails that presumably are from Clinton's secretary's -or spouse- computer.

A reasonable conclusion must be the latest criminal investigation concerns not the finding of these additional emails but the actual content of the emails. This matter therefore -far from a pseudo-scandal- must take a very serious form if it causes the FBI at this acutely sensitive time for the election to reopen criminal investigations.

OXIOXI20 -> unlywnted 29 Oct 2016 21:44

Comey informs all interested parties that the file on the criminal investigation is to be re-opened because of new emails that have come to light.
NOT TRUE. That's the bullshit Trump is spewing. Comey has not re-opened the investigation, he simply notified Congress he is looking at "newly obtained info" to determine what it is and how should something be found) it might relate to a decision to re-open the investigation. Basically he is simply covering his ass, although, he now screwed that up and has Justice on his ass also calling for him to make a full disclosure. He will have to make public the info or possibly face a Justice Department investigation of his agency. Major error on his part.

HerrPrincip -> sgwnmr 29 Oct 2016 22:38

How many "non-stories" did Hillary generate in her lifetime? 50? 100? 200? It seems to me that wherever she goes, a "non-story" or two is sure to follow. This may be a non-story that broke the camel's back. Yes, Virginia, you can politically die of one "non-story" too many.

pfox33 29 Oct 2016 22:13
Are they a banana republic? They are a great power, correct me if I'm wrong.
JuicyMinion 29 Oct 2016 22:15
It's bad enough that the 47 year old Jennifer Lopez, dressed in boots and suspenders is prancing about on stage in Miami. But she brings onto the stage the almost 70 year old Hillary Clinton who, as one of the worst speakers in political history, has the crowd silenced within seconds as she rants about how "we're not going to let Donald Trump get away with it".
Her campaign is a fucking joke and they and the MSM are trying to sell this fetid pile of shit to the whole world

antobojar -> JuicyMinion 29 Oct 2016 22:29

..Do you expect that declining empire, led by arrogant, corrupt and greedy "elite" can act rationally..?
Look, who they chosen as a prospective saviours.. he he..

AveAtqueCave 29 Oct 2016 23:13

Obama, Hillary, the Clinton Foundation, and Wall Street decided eight years ago she would be president in 2017. Americans are fed up with that sort of bullshit.

irishguy 30 Oct 2016 0:33

The author is baffled as to why the FBI has intervened this late in the election by opening an apparent pseudo-scandal case against Clinton? Here's my theory why:
Maybe it's all about managing the psychology of the the majority voters through the media.

Maybe this whole episode has been orchestrated by the establishment (who want Clinton in); is designed to go nowhere and allow Clinton to ultimately claim she was vindicated in the whole email affair while at the same time with the purpose of maintaining a perceived sense of tension in the minds of the US public in the run up to election day – in the sense that the election result is not perceived to be a foregone conclusion already.

However, when you take a step back, it's not realistic to think Trump has a chance of getting in at this point. He's alienated too much of the electorate already.
But the majority voters need to be made feel they're doing something positive by averting the danger of Trump through voting Clinton – not simply voting for Clinton as the establishment's chosen candidate in a foregone conclusion.

HarryFlashman 30 Oct 2016 1:26

Hillary Nixon. I mean would you buy a used car from her?

JVRTRL -> HarryFlashman 30 Oct 2016 3:19

It depends who the customer is. The Clintons have always taken very good care of their biggest money donors. For ordinary people, it would be a bad idea. For their connected donors, it's a completely different reality. The dealership and the other employees would have the problem, not the rich and connected customer.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, would pawn off the lemons on unsuspecting customers, loot the dealership purely for his own benefit, somehow get a tax credit for his trouble, and brag to the world about what a smart and ethical guy he is.

europeangrayling 30 Oct 2016 1:35

Looks to me like the FBI got done taken over by Putin. This Putin guy, he is everywhere. Pike fishing on horseback in Siberia while banging some hot Russian gold medal gymnast and overthrowing the US government and running the FBI now. Putin is on a whole new level, he is changing the game.
And a few days ago, I got a pizza with hamburger and mushroom, and I didn't like it as much, the regular mushroom one was better, and I said 'f-ing Putin man'. This guy, he did it again, made me question myself and order that hamburger, meddling in our democracy. It was still OK, I ate it, but that's 20 bucks I could have spent on a much better regular mushroom instead of that Russian hamburger crap. Or at least put some chicken on it. Putin man.

furminator 30 Oct 2016 1:53

Anyway Howard Dean, you know primal scream Dean, is saying on his twitter that Comney is on the side of Putin. Yes the Director of the FBI is really a Russian stooge, a sleeper agent. Poor Hillary, the FBI, which is controlled by the Justice Department, which is controlled by the Obama White House, is out to get her coz Russia. She's the victim of a vast right and left wing conspiracy.

Henrychan 30 Oct 2016 2:31

John Pilger's latest article:
"Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education – Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia – and with careers on the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post.
These organisations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT.
And they love war.
While they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless women, including the right to life."
https://newmatilda.com/2016/10/28/inside-the-invisible-government-john-pilger-on-war-propaganda-clinton-and-trump

furminator -> Henrychan 30 Oct 2016 2:56

Clinton's attacks on Russia are deeply worrying. I have no doubt at all that she'll try and impose a no fly zone in Syria, which will mean direct confrontation, risking an all out war. This woman is a warmonger and she needs to be stopped.

Kess 30 Oct 2016 3:00
The media hasn't exactly cover itself in glory either. Throughout the nomination process Clinton was given an incredibly easy ride. If the media (including the Guardian) had highlighted her issues earlier then perhaps the DNC would'be been forced to nominate a candidate with a little more integrity, and Trump wouldn't stand a chance.

BelieveItsTrue 30 Oct 2016 3:13

People, this whole thing is merely a diversion to move attention from corruption in high places, onto Huma and Anthony Weiner. Comey's had to do something to move attention from the fact that Obama lied to the people, he lied to Congress concerning not knowing about Clinton's private e-mail arrangement and even used a pseudonym to connect with her. This is public knowledge now and not speculation.
Of course HC has said publicise everything but she does not have to wait for the FBI to do this, she could have done this to begin with, before she bleached her server, before evidence was destroyed by the Democratic campaign (13 smart-phones) and lap tops destroyed by the FBI. It is a croc and if you do not wake up to this, the world is lost.
Clinton will make sure that the NWO gains control. It is being implemented in the background as all this is going. Many people are not the least bit interested in how their children are being brainwashed, how borders have been dissolved, how Obama has been quietly taking unilateral control of government. It seems that they will sit through the pantomime that is this election enjoying every diversionary twist, then when Clinton is elected, they will be unaware that the tentacles of the enemy of the people have penetrated every compartment of government. Vote for Clinton and you are voting for a one world government. There is a war going on and it is truly a battle between good and evil! God help the world.

[Oct 30, 2016] M of A - Unprincipled WaPo Editors Damned Comey Critics - Now Join Them

Notable quotes:

"... Schrodinger's Election: Simultaneously hacked by Russia to make Trump win and not rigged at all if Killary wins. ..."

"... Hillary's tech guy asking questions on Reddit about how to manipulate/destroy email info for a VIP; ..."

"... Immunity given to virtually everyone involved that was close to Hillary. I believe that the number was 5 people. This seems overly generous and not in keeping with good investigative practice. ..."

"... Yes, people less well connected have gone to jail for lesser offenses than Hillary Clinton and her unsecured email thing. However, I think this issue is being deliberately raised specifically to shield Hillary Clinton and boost her candidacy. It's being used to flood the airwaves, and drive out the even more damning evidence against her. ..."

"... I mean, consider what she did in Libya: attacked a relatively prosperous and stable nation that was not a threat to us and was actually trying to cooperate, she allied us with Al Qaeda (!! why is this not blowing people's minds !!) blew it all to smithereens leaving behind a Mad max-style dystopia. And that's just for starters. There is her apparent desire to attack Russian forces in Syria, her desire to loot social security and give it all to her buddies in Wall Street, her desire to tear up the constitution and give supreme plenary power to multinational corporations... She is the Queen of Chaos, the candidate of Wall Street and War. ..."

"... I think the FBI suddenly raised this issue because the polls are tightening, and the establishment would prefer that in the remaining few days the airwaves be filled with lesser offenses that many Americans regard as technical, than with solid coverage of just what a corrupt monster Clinton really is. I mean, do you really think that any high governmeant official does anything that is not scripted and approved in advance? ..."

"... This would all be funny if it didn't represent the machinations of our overlords. This is like a carousel that is spinning out of control and now the pieces are starting to break off. ..."

"... Looks like he was wrong a lot farther back than July. Now we know that there was never a grand jury. Even the astute, ex-judge Andrew Napolitano claimed on more than one occasion that a GJ must be sitting. For instance, when the FIB gave immunity to Pagliano, that signaled to many in the know that a GJ had to be sitting. Not so. W/out a GJ, there was no real investigation. 147 FIB agents working on a sham. ..."

"... Napolitano also predicted a Saturday Massacre if Hilton was not indicted -- dozens of FIB agents would resign. ..."

"... He is doing Hilton a favor by trying to keep pissed-off FIB agents from jumping ship and spilling beans in the week before the election. ..."

"... Hillary is taking a risk in asking the FBI for more details. It could backfire. If Comey is put under heavy pressure to unveil the reasons that made him send this warning to the Congress, he may admit that at least one email his team checked was classified. ..."

"... That would be a huge blow to Hillary's campaign. She may have either to withdraw from the elections or risk been prosecuted after she is elected. She should pray that the FBI does not release more details... ..."

"... The funny aspect of this struggle is three women are involved in the justice abuse drama: Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin and Loretta Lynch, while three men are involved in the sexual abuse drama: Trump, Bill Clinton and Weiner. ..."

"... Let me tell you, if the FIB ever got a search warrant for your husband's computer and found your criminal em's on that computer, the original search warrant for the computer would be more than enough to allow them to open your em's. But the rules are different for Hilton, Bilton, and the entire Clinton RICO team. ..."

"... Sounds like FIB is going to Abedin's suits and asking for permission to look at the em's. Like WTF???? Since when does FIB or any law enforcement seek permission from a target's legal team to carry out an investigation? ..."

"... (there are reports that Abedin -- as is customary -- swore under oath that she had scrubbed all state department documents from all of her personal devices ... and -- FWIW -- she was granted immunity during the earlier investigation ... ..."

"... So Comey didn't use any of the Podesta files as evidence ? He's still an establishment coward. Comedy is a A lower class of criminal still serving a higher class of partisan criminals. ..."

"... I think Abedin's career is over ... which is a good thing since the reports of Clinton's cult-like oh-so-"loyal" inner circle were dismaying (cough). ..."

"... If most of these people never really look at urls, their tech people and security people, did. They passed it as acceptable. ..."

"... Comey couldn't prosecute Clinton without prosecuting all those people too, which is impossible ..."

"... Huma no sign of today 30th on or near Clingon campaign plane Florida this AM. ..."

"... Obviously Huma had an email account on Weiner's computer. It seems that the existence of this account and its email contents were found while looking at Wiener's email account. ..."

"... My suspicion was always that Comey was trying to preempt a leak ... likely by some FBI-well connected congress critter ..."

"... Calling for the FBI to release information is double edged. If the emails are copies of the ones that Hillary destroyed from her server because they were too compromising then she will be in deep trouble. ..."

"... Gee! What could go wrong with a scenario like that – a high-ranking government official seeking to become president who exhibits callous disregard for national security protocols, a trusted aide who worked in her family magazine in Saudi Arabia on behalf of radical Islamic causes who was married to a Jewish member of Congress who had a propensity for compromising himself through illicit and bizarre sexual activity? ..."

"... Demanding that the DOJ or FBI "release all the information" is simply grandstanding ... they can't (they apparently don't have legal access and haven't reviewed it) ... and Weiner and Abedin are entitled to privacy protection for all non-related content, and the various government agencies also have security and other concerns ... ..."

"... Demand away!!! Film at 11!!! Shake that fist, hold your breath until your face is read and your eyes bulge ... show the world just how well you can simulate OUTRAGE. ..."

"... Let's recall 24 years ago the 11th hr indictment of Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger that doomed the re-election of president George H.W. Bush . ..."

"... The Clintons seized on the new indictment, howling about a "culture of corruption" that supposedly pervaded the administration. Bush's poll numbers declined and Bill Clinton won the election. ..."

"... Brace for more bombshells – up next, The Clinton Family Foundation. ..."

"... Question of the day. Over half million emails on Weiner's computer, are the 33,000 deleted emails in this trove? ..."

"... According to a NYPD source, the emails on Weiner's laptop are NOT about state secrets, but are in fact pointing to a pedophilia ring with the Clintons at the center. ..."

"... New headaches for VP nominee Tim Kaine as alleged mistress comes forward with tape of thr ..."

"... FWIW, I read today Huma was also getting paid by Tedeo ... she is always described as "like a daughter", working for clinton since SHE was a 19 year old intern ... she's now 40 ... shudder ... meaning 21 years or 1996 ... ..."

"... The Lewinsky scandal was an American political sex scandal that came to light in 1998, referring to a sexual relationship between 1995 and 1996 with then 49-year-old President Bill Clinton and a 22-year-old White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. ..."

"... I've always wondered how Chelsea feels about the oh-so-elegant like-a-daughter Abedin ..."

"... Still, while Bill was destroying long-term Clinton family relationships via Lewinsky (and demands that people lie for him), Hillary had "Huma" to lean" on and "mentor" ... It sounds so co-dependent. (and I suggest zero other impropriety) I've witnessed some very dysfunctional boss/assistant relationships ... shudder. ..."

"... This is what I like about Donald Trump... (not exactly the same words) If I'm elected you will go to jail and to Ford's executives in Detroit. If you move productions to Mexico, I'll impost a 35% on all vehicles from Mexico and no one will buy Ford! ..."

"... The #1 meme about Donald Trump is his racism ... and the racism of his supporters ... this has been the drumbeat since last Spring ... daily, constant, unrelenting and without exception ... and unfair and ridiculous, without nuance, rejecting all other explanations and flatly rejecting any number of contradicting Trump rally witness reports ... ..."

"... The meme has been: Support Trump and you are a racist ... full stop. That all Trump supporters want to go back to pre-Civil Rights, pre-Women's liberation, and support for Trump is a rage-induced quest regain lost "white privilege" ... ..."

Oct 30, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
Juan Moment | Oct 30, 2016 8:53:27 AM | 2
Comment on Twitter, made me laugh.
Schrodinger's Election: Simultaneously hacked by Russia to make Trump win and not rigged at all if Killary wins.

Fontana | Oct 30, 2016 9:24:31 AM | 3
Whatever else happens in this race, it has been a pleasure watching the media destroy what little credibility they had left.

Noirette | Oct 30, 2016 10:22:56 AM | 8
Comey is under pressure. Either thru his own reading of the situation and head banging ("I have to act now"), because threats of new/other leaks are looming, or because some are pushing to break the dams (e.g. internal to FBI) or just becos the info is so damning covering it up if it ever comes out will spark disaster for him in any case. Or a combination, or even other, extra, reasons.
He is compelled, or wishes to as a white knight, I doubt that actually, to 're-open' with vague, indeterminate words, the HRC e-mail private-server matter. Obviously coverin' his ass but waiting on decisions from the VIPs. (Lynch. Clinton.)

3 FBI investigs. are ongoing:

1) Into the Clinton Foundation, which was never halted but seems to limp along (held back? bogged down as very complicated, e.g. insider trading?) See also the Bill Clinton foundation, though afaik it is not under scrutiny?

2) Into the sexting Wiener scandal, which was 'independent'? Not, imho, an FBI matter, but NY authorities? - Charges of sexting to minors, one person, one count, not too hard to deal with, but when huma - clinton - govmt. e-mails were found on 'his' laptop, another dimension came into play…

3) Killary private server, e-mail scandal, bis repetita

…> there might even be other unknowns

Imho these 3 investigs. have now become intertwined, there is simply no way for the FBI to keep up any Chinese Walls any longer.

Jackrabbit | Oct 30, 2016 10:29:38 AM | 10
I wrote about Comey and the newly discovered emails on the Open Thread here and here
There's still lots of questions.

Some thought that Comey was part of the 'fix' when Bill Clinton met with Lynch on the tarmac and Comey subsequently made the judgment call to NOT recommend prosecution.

We then heard about flaws in the investigation:

1. Hillary's tech guy asking questions on Reddit about how to manipulate/destroy email info for a VIP;
2. Immunity given to virtually everyone involved that was close to Hillary. I believe that the number was 5 people. This seems overly generous and not in keeping with good investigative practice.

Comey's letter to Congress has reinvigorated the Trump campaign but also:

1. served as a distraction to Wikileaks release of the Podesta emails (MSMS wrote more about Russian hacking than about the Podesta emails)
2. allowed Hillary & Co. to grandstand and beat their chests

It's likely that Huma has told Hillary what these emails are (if Hillary didn't already know) . So look at how hard Obama/Hillary fight the FBI to get a sense for how important these emails are.
There's a possibility that these emails are a nothingburger and that the Hillary campaign ultimately benefits from the perception that Republicans are after Hillary.

Ben | Oct 30, 2016 10:53:28 AM | 13
#9
Have you ever been party to a bureaucracy with electronic mail policies? If you are anal-retentive, have no family life and sleep an hour a day, you could possibly comply with the panoply written by lawyers covering the legal ass of the organization. Other than that….

Pot/kettle..

Bill H | Oct 30, 2016 11:15:24 AM | 14
"He should have pressed for charges against Clinton..."
Sorry, no. It is not his position to press for charges or to advocate against him. It is his job to perform the investigation and turn to facts over to the prosecutor who decides whether or not a prosecution is warranted. He may decide that duties assigned to him are not consistent with the law and refuse to perform them, and has done so, but he does not decide how the law should be enforced.

Virgile | Oct 30, 2016 11:34:13 AM | 15
The weiner-abedin computer that carries sexting and US state emails has certainly been hacked. US state secrets are intermixed with porno emails and available to the public. yes america is great!
TG | Oct 30, 2016 11:34:45 AM | 16
I would like to propose an alternative explanation.
Yes, people less well connected have gone to jail for lesser offenses than Hillary Clinton and her unsecured email thing. However, I think this issue is being deliberately raised specifically to shield Hillary Clinton and boost her candidacy. It's being used to flood the airwaves, and drive out the even more damning evidence against her.

I mean, consider what she did in Libya: attacked a relatively prosperous and stable nation that was not a threat to us and was actually trying to cooperate, she allied us with Al Qaeda (!! why is this not blowing people's minds !!) blew it all to smithereens leaving behind a Mad max-style dystopia. And that's just for starters. There is her apparent desire to attack Russian forces in Syria, her desire to loot social security and give it all to her buddies in Wall Street, her desire to tear up the constitution and give supreme plenary power to multinational corporations... She is the Queen of Chaos, the candidate of Wall Street and War. She is Vlad the Impaler on crack.

I think the FBI suddenly raised this issue because the polls are tightening, and the establishment would prefer that in the remaining few days the airwaves be filled with lesser offenses that many Americans regard as technical, than with solid coverage of just what a corrupt monster Clinton really is. I mean, do you really think that any high governmeant official does anything that is not scripted and approved in advance?

psychohistorian | Oct 30, 2016 11:50:33 AM | 18
This would all be funny if it didn't represent the machinations of our overlords. This is like a carousel that is spinning out of control and now the pieces are starting to break off.
I hope that question that the rest of the world is asking itself is: Why the heck are we continuing to buy American T-bills?

The global plutocrats have had since 2008 to set this casting of throwing the US under the bus up. The US public will rise up but have been too brainwashed to do anything intelligent, unfortunately.

We need to rid ourselves of the tools that the global plutocrats use to retain control of the West, Private Finance and unfettered inheritance.

And yes, I voted for Jill Stein again because I want to see the Green party get to at least 5% so we can build another choice than the bifurcated one before Americans currently.

What is next? I don't think the show is over yet.

Denis | Oct 30, 2016 11:53:30 AM | 19
b: "I for one believe that Comey was wrong in July and is right today. He should have pressed for charges against Clinton early on."
Looks like he was wrong a lot farther back than July. Now we know that there was never a grand jury. Even the astute, ex-judge Andrew Napolitano claimed on more than one occasion that a GJ must be sitting. For instance, when the FIB gave immunity to Pagliano, that signaled to many in the know that a GJ had to be sitting. Not so. W/out a GJ, there was no real investigation. 147 FIB agents working on a sham.

Napolitano also predicted a Saturday Massacre if Hilton was not indicted -- dozens of FIB agents would resign. Two days day before Comey's October IED Napolitano claimed that was now happening -- FIB agents are resigning and once they are out, the leaks will become a flood. Comey is the Dutch boy with his thumb stuck ~~up his ass~~ in the dike. He is doing Hilton a favor by trying to keep pissed-off FIB agents from jumping ship and spilling beans in the week before the election.

There is one certainty in this election: Whoever loses it will be someone most Americans absolutely despise. (It is important to emphasize the positive.)

psychohistorian | Oct 30, 2016 12:41:46 PM | 28
And in other empire building/dying news there is this from Turkey
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-dismissals-idUSKBN12U04L

virgile | Oct 30, 2016 12:46:20 PM | 29
Hillary is taking a risk in asking the FBI for more details. It could backfire. If Comey is put under heavy pressure to unveil the reasons that made him send this warning to the Congress, he may admit that at least one email his team checked was classified.
That would be a huge blow to Hillary's campaign. She may have either to withdraw from the elections or risk been prosecuted after she is elected. She should pray that the FBI does not release more details...

The funny aspect of this struggle is three women are involved in the justice abuse drama: Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin and Loretta Lynch, while three men are involved in the sexual abuse drama: Trump, Bill Clinton and Weiner.

This will make the next successful series on HBO: Sex, power and politic!

Kalen | Oct 30, 2016 12:55:53 PM | 30
Had enough to of this meaningless disgusting farce called elections in the US and what wonder the hell purpose it serves?
Here is the answer:
https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/faux-elections-and-american-insanity-of-fear/

Penelope | Oct 30, 2016 1:46:43 PM | 33
Here's stuff you didn't know about Trump. Not silly or salacious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60nOmmLtJSY

mauisurfer | Oct 30, 2016 2:22:28 PM | 36
President Putin's speech at Valdai:
October 29, 2016.
(Putin covers everything, deserves a full read)
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/10/30/president-putin-asks-us-to-stop-provoking-russia/

Denis | Oct 30, 2016 2:22:36 PM | 37
The story now is that FIB agents investigating Weiner's kiddie sexting stumbled on Abedin's em's on Weiner's laptop. Apparently, they think they have to have a special search warrant to look at her em's.
Let me tell you, if the FIB ever got a search warrant for your husband's computer and found your criminal em's on that computer, the original search warrant for the computer would be more than enough to allow them to open your em's. But the rules are different for Hilton, Bilton, and the entire Clinton RICO team.

Sounds like FIB is going to Abedin's suits and asking for permission to look at the em's. Like WTF???? Since when does FIB or any law enforcement seek permission from a target's legal team to carry out an investigation?

CNN also raises the specter of spousal privilege between Wiener and Abedin. Shouldn't be a problem. Spousal privilege means one spouse cannot be compelled to testify against another. It does not provide a safe haven on one spouse's computer for illegal em's of the other . . . well, you know, unless you are on the Clinton RICO team. CNN's theory (probably from Jeffrey Toobin) would be like saying, the cops can't look in a wife's underwear drawer for a pistol used by the husband to commit a murder. What BS.

Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 2:29:36 PM | 38
As far as I can tell, Comey knew that getting an expanded warrant (to cover actually opening Abedin's newly discovered email trove) would be leaked and that that would be more damaging (in many ways to many people) ... so he bit the bullet and is being subjected to massive criticism from everyone ...
Imagine the bombshell if they had attempted to keep this secret and it had been revealed next week or after the election ...

""The issue is complicated because the computer is considered to belong to Anthony Weiner, her estranged husband, and the case may raise spousal privilege legal protections for Abedin.
Government lawyers hope to secure the warrant to permit investigators to review thousands of emails on a computer Abedin shared with Weiner, officials said.The new search warrant is needed because the existing authorization, covered by a subpoena, related only to the ongoing investigation of Weiner, who is accused of having sexually explicit communications with an underage girl.Investigators from the FBI's New York field office who are conducting the Weiner investigation " ""

cnn: Justice Department seeks approval for email search
(there are reports that Abedin -- as is customary -- swore under oath that she had scrubbed all state department documents from all of her personal devices ... and -- FWIW -- she was granted immunity during the earlier investigation ...

schlub | Oct 30, 2016 2:37:49 PM | 39
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/10/30/491364/US-presidential-election-Donald-Trump-Hilalry-Clinton-polls-911
A political commentator believes the polls in the United States are being "manipulated," adding that they are not reflecting the will of the American people.

"Trump is an outsider. He is coming in new. He does not have any political history, he has no political experience. He is coming as an agent of change," Mike Harris told Press TV in an interview on Sunday.

SCARY...Helloween coming,& you know what that means...Samhain.
That's right...even worse than this this year:
http://www.halloween-mask.com/morb/09/hellary_m36465.jpg

Sometimes right on time, almost as if using a calendar(!), like 2011 when they decided to sacrifice MF Global.
Or 2011 also when they ended their murderous bombing of Libya, started earlier MAR 31 by those uncouth frenchie fokkers.

Sometimes "celebrated" late, as in 1956 NOV 5 with Brits sending invasion force to take back Suez that Nasser just nationalized, or 1979 NOV 4 Iran US embassy hostages (not like that wasn't due...Mossadegh was overthrown in 1953).

tom | Oct 30, 2016 2:41:29 PM | 41
So Comey didn't use any of the Podesta files as evidence ? He's still an establishment coward. Comedy is a A lower class of criminal still serving a higher class of partisan criminals.

Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 2:58:32 PM | 44
Sure drove WikiLeaks' (damning) Band memo out of discussion or consideration ... and the irony is that this probably -- ultimately -- has nothing to do with Clinton ... I think Abedin's career is over ... which is a good thing since the reports of Clinton's cult-like oh-so-"loyal" inner circle were dismaying (cough).
GOP congresscritters were already having kittens over the number of Clinton insiders granted immunity during the long tangled course of the investigation ..
Cnn 09/23/201 .

Caveat: I previously found mention of Abedin getting immunity prior to July and now cannot find a confirming source .... sigh

s | Oct 30, 2016 3:04:35 PM | 45
If using a private server to get around FOIA was a problem, it was a problem then, not now. But getting around FOIA was something everybody else, as well as Clinton wanted. That's why they had no problems sending and receiving emails from another server. If most of these people never really look at urls, their tech people and security people, did. They passed it as acceptable.
Comey couldn't prosecute Clinton without prosecuting all those people too, which is impossible. Pretending you really give a shit about the server when you don' care about all those other people who committed the same crime just proves one thing: It's a political prosecution aimed exclusively at an opponent. Another phrase for political prosecution is "show trial." You can't always make sure only the people you don't like get prosecuted.

And, security issues? In the world of Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and wikileaks, no sensible and honest person thinks using government equipment means security.

The only use for this fake scandal is to pander to mad dog reactionaries.

schlub | Oct 30, 2016 3:22:46 PM | 48
Huma no sign of today 30th on or near Clingon campaign plane Florida this AM.
Supposedly Lord O tried but failed to directly intercede to block the FBI from searching Anthony's computer.

Maybe that 'suicided' top US missile general a day ago was the start of the cleanup crew moving, & the rats are doing what they always do---ratting, or scurrying for cover.

OH, the Huma-nity!

harrylaw | Oct 30, 2016 3:45:04 PM | 51

...Did Hilary Clinton give non cleared people access to classified information? Comey.. Yes sir. http://www.libertywritersnews.com/2016/10/breaking-obama-just-caught-trying-sabotage-new-clinton-email-investigation-sick/

virgile | Oct 30, 2016 4:41:50 PM | 59
Obviously Huma had an email account on Weiner's computer. It seems that the existence of this account and its email contents were found while looking at Wiener's email account.
Possibly it is a pop3 account (connected to Hillary server) meaning that these emails have been downloaded from the server and are physically on the computer probably without any password. If these emails are duplicates of 'classified' emails that Hillary has purposely deleted from her server, then she and Huma could be in deep trouble. In any case Huma is in trouble even if the emails are not classified as she did not declare their existence to the FBI. I understand the Wiener computer is in the hands of the Wiener's case investigators.

My guess is that the FBI has already had access to that computer and had a peek at these emails. I think that after examining some of them, they realize they were relevant to the investigation. As they have no warrant, they cannot announce anything officially. The FBI is now waiting for a warrant from Huma's lawers to officially view the account.

If Hillary is so keen to have details from these email, Huma should immediately give the ok for a warrant.
My opinion is that Hillary is terrified that these emails are very damaging so she needs to obstruct their release, while still accusing the FBI of backstabbing. It seems that her only chance is to discredit Comey and she is working on that now.

Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 4:51:18 PM | 60
My suspicion was always that Comey was trying to preempt a leak ... likely by some FBI-well connected congress critter ... According to the NYT, while Weiner investigators (and god knows who else) have known about the e-mails for weeks, Comey was not informed until shortly before his announcement (he must have been angry and horrified).
I still think that the shit-storm that would have erupted from a "leak" of a "secret" newly expanded arm of a "closed" investigation would have been far worse ... wrt to the whole "undermining" or "rigging" the election meme being sold -- by both parties ...

I'm getting conflicting impressions of "plausible deniability" by folks claiming to have been blind-sided by Comey's announcement ... I think (as I've said before) Comey is the designated whipping boy, and perhaps even volunteered to be just that, as everyone and their brother expresses horror at something that cannot be undone ...

virgile | Oct 30, 2016 5:04:41 PM | 62
Calling for the FBI to release information is double edged. If the emails are copies of the ones that Hillary destroyed from her server because they were too compromising then she will be in deep trouble.
I guess her only way out is to discredit Comey and get him out of the way. Is Comey strong enough to stand against the war Clinton will start on him?

virgile | Oct 30, 2016 5:08:38 PM | 65

Gee! What could go wrong with a scenario like that – a high-ranking government official seeking to become president who exhibits callous disregard for national security protocols, a trusted aide who worked in her family magazine in Saudi Arabia on behalf of radical Islamic causes who was married to a Jewish member of Congress who had a propensity for compromising himself through illicit and bizarre sexual activity?
"I have an idea! Let's make the architect of this mess the president of the United States." That's what the Democratic Party decided.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/why-hillary-is-disqualified-for-president/
Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 5:14:47 PM | 67
Demanding that the DOJ or FBI "release all the information" is simply grandstanding ... they can't (they apparently don't have legal access and haven't reviewed it) ... and Weiner and Abedin are entitled to privacy protection for all non-related content, and the various government agencies also have security and other concerns ...
Demand away!!! Film at 11!!! Shake that fist, hold your breath until your face is read and your eyes bulge ... show the world just how well you can simulate OUTRAGE.

Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 5:22:47 PM | 68
and let's not forget -- as everyone seems to be doing -- that these e-mails are years old and that there is no genuine urgency to this matter, no matter how much outrage and urgency and panic and other theatrics are demonstrated.
This investigation is (almost certainly) a dead parrot ... but like Weiner's sexting, it's something everyone can quite safely be OUTRAGED!!! about. Democrats and Clinton supporter long ago announce they didn't give a flying fig about Clinton's disregard for rules or transparency or truthfulness ... and the Republicans demonstrated -- that like Whitewater and Benghazi that came before -- that they didn't care about a lack of actionable findings as determined by those empowered to make such determinations ... There were no indictments because even the wrongdoing that was found was "determined" to not rise to the criteria necessary wrt to intent.

so, they cry ... let's have another investigation, more hearings, maybe a change in venues, leadership, oversight authority ...

(is it rigged? almost certainly, but more more and more isn't likely to change the outcome)

Ken Nari | Oct 30, 2016 5:38:24 PM | 69
Susan Sunflower @ 40
Probably just a coincidence, but as for Kaine making demands on Comey, one has to wonder why he doesn't just pick up the phone and call him?

How close they are (were) is hard to say, but they are certainly well acquainted. Both lived in Richmond, and taught at the University of Richmond Law School, a small, private school. Both moved in the same Richmond social circle and have friends in common.

Believe me, I do not move in that social circle, or have many friends in Richmond, but at least two are also friends of both Kaine and Comey. Maybe Kaine's wife could just call Comey's wife to find out what's going on. Or maybe Kaine is starting to get cold feet about running with Hillary and put Comey up to this. :-)

Small world. Just another oddity of this comedy-horror show of an election.

Petri Krohn | Oct 30, 2016 6:00:39 PM | 71
Re: But this season's version has at least some amusing moments.
I have tried to collect the funniest moments to this page on ACLOS:

US presidential elections
1 - Trump loves Putin
1.1 - Trump conspires with Putin

2 - Putin rigs elections
2.1 - Trump and Putin poisoned Hillary
2.2 - Assange sucks Putin's dick
2.3 - McCarthy runs for president

3 - News of Putin's rigging of election makes Americans question integrity of election
3.1 - Obama threatens WW3 with Russia
3.2 - Obama launches cyber attack on Russia
3.3 - Trump won't accept result if he loses

4 - Obama cancels elections

5 - Hillary grabs pussy

6 - Historians find signs of intelligent life

7 - The ballots

Everything is sourced to the most reliable sources, like the Washington Post , Wall Street Journal , and The New York Times .

Petri Krohn | Oct 30, 2016 6:02:04 PM | 72
Sorry, the link was broken: US presidential elections

Tobin Paz | Oct 30, 2016 6:14:30 PM | 74
@NemesisCalling | Oct 30, 2016 3:11:26 PM | 47
I do believe that Trump is a safer candidate than Clinton, but he is still seriously flawed. He stands out as a peace candidate next to Clinton, but he still makes statements about bombing ISIS and their family members. Two war crimes in that statement seeing as the US is in Syria illegally. He also wants to increase the defense budget... WTF, it's already more than half of the federal discretionary spending. His choice of Pence is also a huge warning sign.

Stein is the only candidate that I have heard make a rational statement regarding Syria... stop sending in more weapons. I'll concede that I may be naive, but as a true outsider she has the best chance to rein in the military. We could discuss the deep state and who calls the shots, but at point it wouldn't matter who gets elected.

Baraka's Soros connection should be considered, but let's not forget that Rothschild helped bailout Trump with his casino. I'm also very concerned about his dealings and potential ties with organized crime.

... ... ..

Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 6:21:50 PM | 75
I think the possibility that there were "rogue" FBI investigators keeping Comey in the dark -- to create an "October surprise" -- may be the most significant (and scary) part of this story (if true) ... shades of the numerous other "rogue" factions we've seen under Obama ... see also the 50 anonymous state department dissenters to Obama's policies (obviously endorsing Hillary). I'm curious if they and this ruse will ever be mentioned again.
Another failure of the chain of command ... lack of respect for authority within the highest levels of government. I'm thinking some people understood the message in too many movies glorifying renegades and mavericks. This isn't whistleblowing because no one will listen, this is subverting the process because you didn't like the outcome ... will cheating and fabrication come next to these ideology driven zealots? Has it already?

likklemore | Oct 30, 2016 6:24:46 PM | 77
The Bezos' Wapo rag is expected to be selective. Credibility destroyed. Now, with all the howling from The Clinton gang. The best display of what goes around, comes around! ……
Let's recall 24 years ago the 11th hr indictment of Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger that doomed the re-election of president George H.W. Bush .
This was the weekend before the election!

Bill Clinton cheered 11th hour indictment that doomed Bush re-election

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-clinton-cheered-11th-hour-indictment-that-doomed-bush-reelection/article/2606000

[24 years ago], as former President George H.W. Bush was surging back against challenger Bill Clinton, a special prosecutor raised new charges against Bush in the Iran-Contra probe, prompting Clinton to claim he was running against a "culture of corruption."

[.] Many Republicans claimed that the indictment made by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh against former Reagan-era Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger the weekend before the 1992 election cost Bush a second term. The indictment, later thrown out, challenged Bush's claim that he did not know about a controversial arms-for-hostages deal that dogged the Reagan-Bush administration."

[.]The Clintons seized on the new indictment, howling about a "culture of corruption" that supposedly pervaded the administration. Bush's poll numbers declined and Bill Clinton won the election.

Shortly after the election, a federal judge threw out the new indictment because it violated the five-year statute of limitations and improperly broadened the original charges. President Bush then pardoned Weinberger.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Speechless but I am not shocked.

likklemore | Oct 30, 2016 7:10:05 PM | 81
@ Susan Sunflower 75

I think the possibility that there were "rogue" FBI investigators keeping Comey in the dark -- to create an "October surprise" -- may be the most significant (and scary) part of this story (if true) ... shades of the numerous other "rogue" factions we've seen under Obama ... see also the 50 anonymous state department dissenters to Obama's policies (obviously endorsing Hillary). I'm curious if they and this ruse will ever be mentioned again.

It's called Mutiny in D.C. Comey's hand was forced.

Is This Why Comey Broke: A Stack Of Resignation Letters From Furious FBI Agents
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/why-comey-broke-stack-resignation-letters-furious-fbi-agents

and, add this to the mix – I read an article on a credible site of a new bombshell but before I link to it, the contents should be confirmed during week of November 1st. However, this gem was included in the article:

"people at the Pentagon are aligned:
Will not silently sit still as one of their 4-Star generals get ramrodded for MUCH less than Hillary did. They are aligned with the insurrectionists at the FBI.

The general in question
Oct. 17, 2016 NYT
James Cartwright, Ex-General, Pleads Guilty in Leak Case,
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/us/marine-general-james-cartwright-leak-fbi.html?_r=0

(General Cartwright's undoing)

"It was wrong for me to mislead the F.B.I. on Nov. 2, 2012, and I accept full responsibility for this," General Cartwright said. "I knew I was not the source of the story and I didn't want to be blamed for the leak. My only goal in talking to the reporters was to protect American interests and lives; I love my country and continue to this day to do everything I can to defend it."

~ ~ ~ ~

Brace for more bombshells – up next, The Clinton Family Foundation.

Question of the day. Over half million emails on Weiner's computer, are the 33,000 deleted emails in this trove?

persiflo | Oct 30, 2016 8:16:06 PM | 89
There is another, rather adventurous accounting of the investigation. According to this transcript from a chat board, some anonymous analyst at the Bureau turned to the public, basically saying they can't do anything about the Clinton Foundation because the case is too big - it would mean taking on the totally implied government, and exposing deeds that they fear might lead to foreign declarations of war. He proceeded to ask the public instead to go after the Foundation. But after seeing this route did actually not work out, the people at the Bureau might have come up with plan B. This seems consistent; as long as you accept the assumption. The transcript is a bit hard to read, but the story rather thrilling, and definitely "se non è vero, è ben trovato".
You also might appreciate Bill Still's narration of the Phoenix incident with Loretta Lynch.

Tobin Paz | Oct 30, 2016 8:21:00 PM | 90
@jdmckay | Oct 30, 2016 7:38:37 PM | 84
The Clinton administration was bombing Iraq three times a week during 1999 and 2000 at a cost of over $2 billion a year. Regardless of who the next president was going to be, I think you could make a strong case that they were going to war in Iraq. The war record of Clinton, followed by Bush, followed by Obama lends credence to this assumption. Note that the attack on Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001, less than a month after September 11. I'm not a military expert, but that seems incredibly quick. Bush hadn't even been president for a year.

Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 8:22:55 PM | 91
The Clinton Family Foundation seems so slushy ... the funds are totally at the family's "discretion" and it's hard to imagine a genuine "scandal" The Foundation/CGI (Clinton Global Initiative) really only needs a credible "dissatified customer" with records saying they didn't get the quid-pro-quo what they paid for ... however, two credible above-reproach dissatisified customers each other would be better. I've figured someone like that exists (or even that one could have been created/manufactured for this purpose) ... however, it's the bridgeburning involved in going public ....

\
PhobosMoon | Oct 30, 2016 9:14:12 PM | 94
(!) According to a NYPD source, the emails on Weiner's laptop are NOT about state secrets, but are in fact pointing to a pedophilia ring with the Clintons at the center.
Looks like Bill wasn't alone on Epsteins Lolita Express. Hillary has a well documented preference for underage girls.

Look into
-Jared Fogle
-Cathy O'^Brien
-the 'Hillary Clinton Tapes'
-Tim Kaine (WikiLeaks, VP choice since 07.2015(!))

(

beq | Oct 30, 2016 9:15:31 PM | 95
Her Majesty has a solution

blues | Oct 30, 2016 9:30:37 PM | 97
And... Hillary's "running mate":
DEVELOPING New headaches for VP nominee Tim Kaine as alleged mistress comes forward with tape of thr
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g95HySIhLrc

Don't you want somebody to love.

(Maybe NOT Tim Kaine.)

blues | Oct 30, 2016 9:56:08 PM | 100

... DEVELOPING New headaches for VP nominee Tim Kaine as alleged mistress comes forward with tape of thr
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g95HySIhLrc

D

virgile | Oct 30, 2016 9:57:27 PM | 101
Is Comey trying to back the expected winner?
Paul Craig Roberts • October 29, 2016

The problem for the FBI, which once was a trusted American institution, but no longer is, is that there is no longer any doubt that Donald Trump will win the popular vote for president of the United States. His appearances are so heavily attended that thousands are turned away by local fire/occupancy regulations. In contrast, Hillary has curtailed her appearances, because she doesn't draw more than 30 or 40 people.

Americans are sick to death of the corrupt Clintons and the corrupt American media. The Clintons are so completely bought-and-paid-for by the Oligarchy that they were able to outspend Hollywood on their daughter's wedding, dropping $3,000,000 on the event.

http://www.unz.com/proberts/the-director-of-the-fbi-reopens-the-hillary-case/

likklemore | Oct 30, 2016 10:03:12 PM | 103
@ Susan Sunflower 86
It's hard to imagine what "bombshell" could involve the Family Foundation unless they's paying for the upkeep of Bill's baby-mamas and kiddy-farm ... would anyone care?

Soon, more facts will be revealed - there is the probe of the Clinton Foundation that the DOJ tried blocking but there is the mutiny.

One of the 7 appetizers before the main course:
via ZH:

Doug Band To John Podesta: "If This Story Gets Out, We Are Screwed"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/doug-band-john-podesta-if-story-gets-out-we-are-screwed

Until the Friday blockbuster news that the FBI was reopening its probe into the Hillary email server, the biggest overhang facing the Clinton Campaign was the escalating scandal involving the Clinton Foundation, Doug Band's consultancy firm Teneo, and Bill Clinton who as a result of a leaked memo emerged was generously compensated for potential political favors by prominent corporate clients using Teneo as a passthru vehicle for purchasing influence.

In a section of the memo entitled "Leveraging Teneo For The Foundation," Band spelled out all of the donations he solicited from Teneo "clients" for the Clinton Foundation. In all, there are roughly $14mm of donations listed with the largest contributors being Coca-Cola, Barclays, The Rockefeller Foundation and Laureate International Universities. Some of these are shown below (the full details can be found in "Leaked Memo Exposes Shady Dealings Between Clinton Foundation Donors And Bill's "For-Profit" Activities")

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Do read the article and embedded links within.

Influence – peddling. I do recall some congress critters being charged and sent to the other big house. This is more than pay-for-play

Added to what has already been exposed about the Clinton Foundation, here also ZH via WSJ:

[650,000 emails found…..] DOJ blocked the Foundation probe
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/fbi-scour-through-650000-emails-found-weiners-laptop

~ ~ ~ ~
Oh wait, there was this meeting on the tarmac. It is said the discussion was about the grand kids.

A charitable entity for the Clintons and their cronies.

Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 10:25:49 PM | 106
I had heard (sorry no memory of where and no cite) that the meeting on the tarmac was actually about the Foundation probe ... it was ridiculous. That video is certainly "partisan" but I had wondered who initiated the meeting and whose plane they met on ... (as I recall those details somehow never made it into any article I read). So, if accurate, Bill Clinton is an overbearing intimidating azzhole -- to his loyal long-term "protégé" ... so what else is new. She can commiserate with the ex-Clinton-friend club
FWIW, I read today Huma was also getting paid by Tedeo ... she is always described as "like a daughter", working for clinton since SHE was a 19 year old intern ... she's now 40 ... shudder ... meaning 21 years or 1996 ...

wiki:

The Lewinsky scandal was an American political sex scandal that came to light in 1998, referring to a sexual relationship between 1995 and 1996 with then 49-year-old President Bill Clinton and a 22-year-old White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

I've always wondered how Chelsea feels about the oh-so-elegant like-a-daughter Abedin. I saw a picture of her on the phone "on the tarmac" in 4-5 inch stilettos ... Even when slender and glammed up, Chelsea looks just like her "rather dumpy" mother ... blech... forgive me. Weiner, by reports, is whip smart and very funny, very well read and delightful company ... he's just a compulsive wanker -- apparently in need of constant re-assurance and praise and attention ... blech.

Still, while Bill was destroying long-term Clinton family relationships via Lewinsky (and demands that people lie for him), Hillary had "Huma" to lean" on and "mentor" ... It sounds so co-dependent. (and I suggest zero other impropriety) I've witnessed some very dysfunctional boss/assistant relationships ... shudder.

Jack Smith | Oct 30, 2016 10:28:33 PM | 107
This is what I like about Donald Trump... (not exactly the same words) If I'm elected you will go to jail and to Ford's executives in Detroit. If you move productions to Mexico, I'll impost a 35% on all vehicles from Mexico and no one will buy Ford!
Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 10:34:50 PM | 108
The #1 meme about Donald Trump is his racism ... and the racism of his supporters ... this has been the drumbeat since last Spring ... daily, constant, unrelenting and without exception ... and unfair and ridiculous, without nuance, rejecting all other explanations and flatly rejecting any number of contradicting Trump rally witness reports ...
The meme has been: Support Trump and you are a racist ... full stop. That all Trump supporters want to go back to pre-Civil Rights, pre-Women's liberation, and support for Trump is a rage-induced quest regain lost "white privilege" ...

It's not true ... but that's the drill... utter ostracism, forever, long past the election ... it's very destructive and dangerous ... it's a red-line, unforegivable ...

Moore's movie challenged that mindset and he was criticised for his "tolerance" of and reaching out to Trump voters... to the point that the "claim" more was supporting Trump has been widely repeated (sliming Moore) ... Sorry I was so emphatic, it's just I supported Moore's outreach (because it's humane and reality-based) ... and I hated seeing him slimed by the intolerant ... ghastly election.

Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 10:44:35 PM | 109
As you have heard, the 30% import tax is an absolute non-starter ... in that the president does not have that power and there is probably still too many automotive jobs and the auto lobby too strong for congress is spank them in that way ... Driving the auto industry into bankruptcy isn't good for "America's bottom line" either.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/16/news/economy/mexico-imports-trump/

It's like the wall ... It's a when pigs fly "feel-good" nonstarter

[Oct 30, 2016] House Committee Chairmen Lay Out Case For Perjury Against Hillary

Aug 15, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, may have committed perjury in testimony before Congress, two separate U.S. House committee chairmen detailed late Monday.
In a letter from House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Channing Phillips, the two top House Republicans made their case that Clinton committed perjury.

Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote to Phillips:

On August 2, 2016, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik confirmed that you received the Committees' request for an investigation regarding certain statements made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her testimony before Congress and will 'take appropriate action as necessary. To assist the investigation, this letter identifies several pieces of Secretary Clinton's testimony that appear to implicate 18 U.S.C. §§1621 and 1001 the criminal statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements, respectively. The evidence collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during its investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony, which are described in greater detail below.

Before detailing at least four specific instances in which Clinton allegedly committed perjury, the House Republicans explained the matter a bit further:

During a House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing on October 22, 2015, Secretary Clinton testified with respect to (1) whether she sent or received emails that were marked classified at the time; (2) whether her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on her personal email system; (3) whether there was one, or more servers that stored work-related emails during her time as Secretary of State; and (4) whether she provided all her work-related emails to the Department of State. Although there may be other aspects of Secretary Clinton's sworn testimony that are at odds with the FBI's findings, her testimony in those four areas bears specific scrutiny in light of the facts and evidence FBI Director James Comey described in his public statement on July 5, 2016 and in testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016.

The first of four main areas where Hillary Clinton allegedly perjured herself before the U.S. Congress was with her claim in sworn testimony that she never sent or received emails on her illicit home-brew email server-which was in violation of State Department guidelines, and according to FBI director James Comey "extremely careless."

"With respect to whether she sent or received emails that were marked classified at the time, Secretary Clinton testified under oath to the Select Committee that she did not," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote to the U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. "Specifically, during questioning by Rep. Jim Jordan, Secretary Clinton stated 'there was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received.'"

Chaffetz and Goodlatte further quoted from Clinton's testimony by including this quote:

[M]any Americans have no idea how the classification process works. And therefore I wanted to make it clear that there is a system within our government, certainly within the State Department . . . where material that is thought to be classified is marked such, so that people have the opportunity to know how they are supposed to be handling those materials . . . and that's why it became clearer, I believe, to say that nothing was marked classified at the time I sent or received it.

The two House Committee chairmen detail in the letter to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. that Clinton, according to the FBI Director, was not telling the truth in that testimony before Congress:

The FBI, however, found several of Secretary Clinton's emails did in fact contain markings that identified classified information therein. In Director Comey's public statement on July 5, 2016, he said, 'a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore the markings indicating the presence of classified information.' When Director Comey testified on July 7, 2016, he specifically addressed this issue. Rep. Trey Gowdy asked, 'Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified either sent or received. Was it true?' He said it was not. Director Comey also stated, 'There was classified material emailed.' Specifically, he stated that three documents on Secretary Clinton's private server contained classified information clearly marked 'Confidential.' He further testified, 'In the one involving 'top secret' information, Secretary Clinton not only received but also sent emails that talked about the same subject.'

The second claim on which Hillary Clinton appears to have been caught perjuring herself according to the two top House Republicans was with regard to her statements that her lawyers read all of her emails.

"With respect to whether her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on her personal email system, Secretary Clinton testified that her attorneys used search terms and reviewed every single email to identify any that were work-related and should therefore be returned to the Department of State," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before quoting directly from Clinton's transcript from when she testified under oath:

Rep. Jordan: But I'm asking how - I'm asking how it was done. Was

- did someone physically look at the 62,000 e-mails, or did you use search terms, date parameters? I want to know the specifics.

Mrs. Clinton: They did all of that, and I did not look over their shoulders, because I thought it would be appropriate for them to conduct that search, and they did.

Rep. Jordan: Will you provide this committee - or can you answer today, what were the search terms?

Mrs. Clinton: The search terms were everything you could imagine that might be related to anything, but they also went through every single e-mail.

"The FBI found, however, that Secretary Clinton's lawyers did not in fact read all of her emails-they relied exclusively on a set of search terms to identify work-related messages," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before quoting from Comey's July 5 testimony:

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server. It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

The third area where Hillary Clinton seems to have perjured herself according to the two House Committee chairmen is when she testified that she only used one server or device.

"With respect to whether there was one, or more servers that stored work-related emails during her time as Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton testified there was only one server," Goodlatte and Chaffetz wrote to the D.C. U.S. Attorney, before pulling another transcript of congressional testimony:

Rep. Jordan: In March, you also said this: your server was physically located on your property, which is protected by the Secret Service. I'm having a hard time figuring this out, because this story's been all over the place. But - there was one server on your property in New York, and a second server hosted by a Colorado company in - housed in New Jersey. Is that right? There were two servers?

Mrs. Clinton: No.

Rep. Jordan: OK.

Mrs. Clinton: There was a - there was a server…

Rep. Jordan: Just one?

Mrs. Clinton: . . . that was already being used by my husband's team. An existing system in our home that I used, and then later, again, my husband's office decided that they wanted to change their arrangements, and that's when they contracted with the company in Colorado.

Rep. Jordan: And so there's only one server? Is that what you're telling me? And it's the one server that the FBI has?

Mrs. Clinton: The FBI has the server that was used during the tenure of my State Department service.

Goodlatte and Chaffetz also wrote:

The FBI, however, found Secretary Clinton stored work-related emails on several servers. In Director Comey's public statement, he said, 'Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain.' In Director Comey's testimony on July 7, 2016, he stated that Secretary Clinton used several devices to send and receive work-related emails during her tenure as Secretary of State. He testified, 'She used multiple devices during her four years as secretary of state.'

The fourth and final area where Clinton seems to have, according to Chaffetz and Goodlatte, perjured herself while under oath was during her claim that she provided all of her work-related emails to the Department of State.

"Finally, with respect to whether she provided all her work-related emails to the Department of State, Secretary Clinton testified to the Select Committee that she had," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before again pulling a transcript of Clinton's testimony before Congress.

Mrs. Clinton: Well, Congressman, I have said repeatedly that I take responsibility for my use of personal e-mail. I've said it was a mistake. I've said that it was allowed, but it was not a good choice. When I got to the department, we were faced with a global financial crisis, major troop decisions on Afghanistan, the imperative to rebuild our alliances in Europe and Asia, an ongoing war in Iraq, and so much else. E-mail was not my primary means of communication, as I have said earlier. I did not have a computer on my desk. I've described how I did work: in meetings, secure and unsecured phone calls, reviewing many, many pages of materials every day, attending . . .

Rep. Jordan: I - I - I appreciate (inaudible).

Mrs. Clinton: . . . a great deal of meetings, and I provided the department, which has been providing you, with all of my work-related e-mails, all that I had. Approximately 55,000 pages. And they are being publicly released.

Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote:

The FBI found, however, 'several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.' In the course of its investigation, the FBI recovered 'still others . . . from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.' When Director Comey appeared before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016, he confirmed that Secretary Clinton did not turn over all work-related emails to the FBI. He stated, 'We found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.'

Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrapped their letter to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. by noting that the FBI's findings prove Hillary Clinton was not telling the truth when she testified under oath before Congress.

"The four pieces of sworn testimony by Secretary Clinton described herein are incompatible with the FBI's findings," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote.

[Oct 30, 2016] Report Huma Abedin Doesnt Know How Her Emails Wound Up on Her Husbands Computer - Breitbart

Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's top aide Huma Abedin said she doesn't know how her emails wound up on a device she said was her husband's computer, according to a person familiar with the investigation.
The person, who requested anonymity, said Abedin was not a regular user of the computer and her lawyers did not search it for materials, thinking no messages would be there even after she agreed to turn over her messages to the State Department for record-keeping, the Washington Post reported.

On June 28, 2016, Abedin swore under oath that she looked for all devices containing work information so the records could be given to the State Department, the Daily Beast reported.

In the sworn oath, she said she "looked for all the devices that may have any of my State Department work on it and returned - returned - gave them to my attorneys for them to review for all relevant documents."

Investigators found thousands of emails on Weiner's computer that they believe to be relevant to the Clinton investigation, according to federal law enforcement officials.

It is still unknown how the emails are relevant or whether or not they are significant.

Officials say it is possible that the messages could be duplicates of already investigated emails, but that will not be determined until a computer program goes through the emails to weed out the duplicates so officials can closely examine the emails for classified information.

[Oct 30, 2016] Former FBI Official Calls Bill, Hillary Clinton a Crime Family

Notable quotes:

"... "The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that." ..."

"... Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau. ..."

"... "The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said. ..."

Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
A former FBI official said Sunday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a "crime family" and added that top officials impeded the investigation into Clinton's email server while she was secretary of state.
Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom praised Donald Trump before he offered a take down of the Clintons in a radio interview with John Catsimatidis, The Hill reported.

"The Clintons, that's a crime family, basically," Kallstrom said. "It's like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool."

Kallstrom, best known for spearheading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late '90s, called Clinton a "pathological liar" and blamed Attorney General Loretta Lynch for botching the Clinton email server investigation.

"The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that."

"God forbid we put someone like that in the White House," he added of Clinton.

Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau.

"The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said.

[Oct 30, 2016] The elections became a referendum on Mrs Clinton fitness for office, and that had increasingly seemed to be Mrs. Clintons to lose

Notable quotes:

"... But the Clinton team also had to deal with a newly emboldened Mr. Trump, who urged voters at a rally on Saturday in Golden, Colo., to oppose Mrs. Clinton because of her "criminal action" that was "willful, deliberate, intentional and purposeful." ..."

"... Handed a new opening against Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump used the moment to baselessly claim there had been an internal F.B.I. "revolt" and made a sexually suggestive joke about Mr. Weiner. ..."

"... "As Podesta said, she's got bad instincts," Mr. Trump said, distorting a comment in one of the thousands of Mr. Podesta's hacked emails recently released by WikiLeaks. "Well, she's got bad instincts when her emails are on Anthony Weiner's wherever." ..."

"... The paramount fear among Clinton advisers and Democratic officials was that an election that had become a referendum on Mr. Trump's fitness for office, and that had increasingly seemed to be Mrs. Clinton's to lose, would now become just as much about her conduct. ..."

"... "This is like an 18-wheeler smacking into us, and it just becomes a huge distraction at the worst possible time," said Donna Brazile, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and a close Clinton ally. ..."

"... a reflection of 18 months of frustration that her personal decisions about her email practices and privacy were still generating unhelpful political drama. ..."

"... Two Clinton aides, for example, pointedly noted in interviews that it was difficult to press a counterattack without fully knowing what was in Ms. Abedin's emails. ..."

"... While some voters are undecided, about 20 million Americans have already cast ballots in early voting, and millions more long ago concluded which candidate they would support. ..."

"... In a polarized country where many are unwaveringly contemptuous of either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton, the latest development in the email story prompted a mix of shrugs and renewed determination from the left and told-you-so claims of Clinton perfidy from the right. ..."

Oct 30, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs, Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 07:37 PM

'Some prominent Democratic women, meanwhile, were angry that a murky announcement from the F.B.I. might impede the election of the first female president of the United States.
"It worries me because it gives the Republicans something to blow up and fan folks' anger with," said former Representative Patricia Schroeder of Colorado, who considered a run for the Democratic nomination for president in 1988. "I was on the Judiciary Committee when I was in Congress, and I have never seen the F.B.I. handle any case the way they have handled hers."'

Hillary Clinton Assails James Comey, Calling Email
Decision 'Deeply Troubling' http://nyti.ms/2dYalYs
NYT - PATRICK HEALY and JONATHAN MARTIN - Oct 29

Hillary Clinton and her allies sprang onto a war footing on Saturday, opening a ferocious attack on the F.B.I.'s director, James B. Comey, a day after he disclosed that his agency was looking into a potential new batch of messages from her private email server.

Treating Mr. Comey as a threat to her candidacy, Mrs. Clinton took aim at the law enforcement officer who had recommended no criminal charges less than four months earlier for her handling of classified information as secretary of state.

"It's pretty strange to put something like that out with such little information right before an election," Mrs. Clinton said at a rally in Daytona Beach, Fla. "In fact, it's not just strange; it's unprecedented and it is deeply troubling."

For Democrats, it was also deeply worrying. Mrs. Clinton's advisers expressed concern that the F.B.I.'s renewed attention to emails relating to the nominee would turn some voters against her, hurt party candidates in competitive House and Senate races, and complicate efforts to win over undecided Americans in the final days of the election.

So after stepping gingerly around the issue on Friday, calling on Mr. Comey to release more specific information but not overtly criticizing him, her campaign made it personal on Saturday, accusing the director of smearing Mrs. Clinton with innuendo late in the race and of violating Justice Department rules.

The decision to target Mr. Comey for his unusual decision to publicly disclose the inquiry came during an 8 a.m. internal conference call, after aides saw reports that Justice Department officials were furious, believing he had violated longstanding guidelines advising against such actions so close to an election.

Even before Mrs. Clinton spoke in Florida, her campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, and campaign manager, Robby Mook, criticized Mr. Comey for putting out incomplete information and breaking with Justice Department protocol.

"By providing selective information, he has allowed partisans to distort and exaggerate to inflict maximum political damage," Mr. Podesta said during a conference call with reporters. "Comey has not been forthcoming with the facts," he added, describing the director's letter to Congress on Friday as "long on innuendo."

Whatever shortcomings Mrs. Clinton may have as a candidate, Saturday's coordinated effort showed that the political organization that she, her husband and her allies had built over decades remained potent and would not let what seemed like victory erode easily. By midday, Mr. Comey, a Republican appointed by President Obama and confirmed nearly unanimously by the Senate, found himself in its cross hairs.

Encouraged by Mrs. Clinton's senior aides to reframe the story and make it about Mr. Comey's actions, liberal groups such as the Congressional Black Caucus demanded that he release more information. Other surrogates were emailed talking points prodding them to deem it "extraordinary that 11 days before the election a letter like this - with so few details - would be sent to 8 Republican committee chairmen." (Ranking Democrats on the committees also received copies.)

Mr. Comey has not publicly commented on the investigation, other than with the letter saying that more emails were being examined. He also wrote an email to F.B.I. employees explaining that he felt he had to inform Congress even though the agency did not yet know "the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails."

With Mrs. Clinton leading Donald J. Trump in nearly every battleground state, Clinton advisers were emphatic that they would not be thrown off stride. They said they would not change any political strategy, television advertising or campaign travel plans.

For months, the F.B.I. had investigated whether Mrs. Clinton had broken any laws by using a private email server while she was secretary of state. This past summer, Mr. Comey said that Mrs. Clinton had been "extremely careless" by allowing sensitive information to be discussed outside secure government servers, but that the agency had concluded that Mrs. Clinton had not committed a crime. The investigation was closed.

But on Friday, Mr. Comey notified Congress that the agency had discovered emails, possibly relevant to the investigation, that belonged to Mrs. Clinton's top aide, Huma Abedin. The emails were discovered on the computer of Ms. Abedin's estranged husband, Anthony D. Weiner, during a separate investigation into allegations that he had exchanged sexually explicit messages with a teenager.

According to several Clinton advisers, Mrs. Clinton told them overnight and on Saturday that she wanted the campaign to operate normally, not rashly, while pressuring Mr. Comey to dispel any possibility that her candidacy was under legal threat.

But the Clinton team also had to deal with a newly emboldened Mr. Trump, who urged voters at a rally on Saturday in Golden, Colo., to oppose Mrs. Clinton because of her "criminal action" that was "willful, deliberate, intentional and purposeful."

Handed a new opening against Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump used the moment to baselessly claim there had been an internal F.B.I. "revolt" and made a sexually suggestive joke about Mr. Weiner.

"As Podesta said, she's got bad instincts," Mr. Trump said, distorting a comment in one of the thousands of Mr. Podesta's hacked emails recently released by WikiLeaks. "Well, she's got bad instincts when her emails are on Anthony Weiner's wherever."

The paramount fear among Clinton advisers and Democratic officials was that an election that had become a referendum on Mr. Trump's fitness for office, and that had increasingly seemed to be Mrs. Clinton's to lose, would now become just as much about her conduct.

In phone calls, email chains and text messages on Saturday, Clinton aides and allies were by turns confident that the F.B.I. would find nothing to hurt Mrs. Clinton and concerned that the inquiry would nudge demoralized Republicans to show up to vote for down-ballot candidates - and perhaps even cast ballots, however reluctantly, for the battered Mr. Trump.

"This is like an 18-wheeler smacking into us, and it just becomes a huge distraction at the worst possible time," said Donna Brazile, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and a close Clinton ally. "We don't want it to knock us off our game. But on the second-to-last weekend of the race, we find ourselves having to tell voters, 'Keep your focus; keep your eyes on the prize.'"

As much as Clinton advisers stressed that they were not panicking, some of them radiated anger at Mr. Comey, Mr. Weiner and even Mrs. Clinton - a reflection of 18 months of frustration that her personal decisions about her email practices and privacy were still generating unhelpful political drama. Two Clinton aides, for example, pointedly noted in interviews that it was difficult to press a counterattack without fully knowing what was in Ms. Abedin's emails.

Some prominent Democratic women, meanwhile, were angry that a murky announcement from the F.B.I. might impede the election of the first female president of the United States.

"It worries me because it gives the Republicans something to blow up and fan folks' anger with," said former Representative Patricia Schroeder of Colorado, who considered a run for the Democratic nomination for president in 1988. "I was on the Judiciary Committee when I was in Congress, and I have never seen the F.B.I. handle any case the way they have handled hers."

While some voters are undecided, about 20 million Americans have already cast ballots in early voting, and millions more long ago concluded which candidate they would support.

In a polarized country where many are unwaveringly contemptuous of either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton, the latest development in the email story prompted a mix of shrugs and renewed determination from the left and told-you-so claims of Clinton perfidy from the right.

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , October 29, 2016 at 09:12 PM

'Hopefully, it will infuriate & motivate
Dem voters more than it will please
& energize GOPsters.'
likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
"Encouraged by Mrs. Clinton's senior aides to reframe the story and make it about Mr. Comey's actions"
Reminds me a reaction of a cornered rat...

It was she who created private "Shadow IT" within the State Department.

It was she who hired Huma Abedin who proved to be completely clueless in computer security (and not only in computer security) and, as such, represented probably even higher level of security risks then Mrs Clinton herself. Forwarding email to her private Web mail account for printing because direct printing from the State Department email account was convoluted is an interesting solution for a high level State Department official, who signed various non-disclosure documents.

It was she who was eliminated incriminating emails by claiming the they are private after investigation was already opened and she was asked to provide them. Elimination was done using special software to prevent recovery.

It was she who lied about her actions.

, October 29, 2016 at 09:58 PM

[Oct 29, 2016] Phishing for Fools, Hipster Edition

Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
allan October 28, 2016 at 10:19 pm

Phishing for Fools, Hipster Edition:

Emails show how Clinton campaign chairman apparently hacked [AP]

New evidence appears to show how hackers earlier this year stole more than 50,000 emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, an audacious electronic attack blamed on Russia's government and one that has resulted in embarrassing political disclosures about Democrats in the final weeks before the U.S. presidential election.

The hackers sent John Podesta an official-looking email on Saturday, March 19, that appeared to come from Google. It warned that someone in Ukraine had obtained Podesta's personal Gmail password and tried unsuccessfully to log in, and it directed him to a website where he should "change your password immediately."

Podesta's chief of staff, Sara Latham, forwarded the email to the operations help desk of Clinton's campaign, where staffer Charles Delavan in Brooklyn, New York, wrote back 25 minutes later, "This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately."

But the email was not authentic. …

Lambert Strether Post author October 29, 2016 at 12:49 am

And if the ploy was that low-grade, that means that the Russki superbrains in the KGB didn't have to be behind it. Dear Lord.

This really is a hubris followed by nemesis thing, isn't it? And how sad it is, how tragic, that it was Brooklyn that brought Podesta down. Somehow I think Delavan is going to have a hard time getting a job in politics again, but he did the country a great service.

TheCatSaid October 29, 2016 at 1:17 pm

Social engineering wins again. This was something I learned about long ago when Black Box Voting.org started (approx. 2004). It was one of the many vulnerabilities in various points of election systems, both with paper and paperless. Very easy to get officials to reveal passwords that allowed access–that's in addition to the corruption situations. (Or rather, the social engineering angle would be just one of the tools used by insiders.)

[Oct 29, 2016] Clinton Right Hand Woman Huma Abedin Takes the Stage at Center of Email Scandal

Oct 29, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
The FBI announcement comes on the heels of a report yesterday by journalist Paul Sperry, who gave new details about Abedin's role in the email scandal.

Protective detail assigned to guard former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her two residences complained that her closest aide Huma Abedin often overrode standard security protocols during trips to the Middle East, and personally changed procedures for handling classified information, including highly sensitive intelligence briefs the CIA prepared for the president, newly released FBI documents reveal.

The security agents, who were interviewed as witnesses in the FBI's investigation of Clinton's use of an unauthorized private email server to send classified information, complained that Abedin had unusual sway over security policies during Clinton's 2009-2013 tenure at Foggy Bottom.

Abedin's influence in these matters, including the revelation in Sperry's article that "Abedin possessed much more power" over Clinton's staff, schedule, and security than other former chiefs of staffs, is especially concerning given the links that Abedin has to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and to the Muslim World League, a group that Hillary Clinton herself said in 2009 was funding terrorism.

... ... ...
Here is some of the exhaustive reporting Breitbart has done on Huma Abedin: Hillary Clinton's History: Muslim Connections Stem Back To 1990s Hillary Clinton's History: How Huma Abedin Went from Intern to Top Adviser After 9/11, Saudis Had Huma Abedin-Connected Group Removed from Terror List On September 11, Huma Abedin Worked For Hillary Clinton and Saudi Charity Suspected of Terror Funding Memo: Clinton State Department Thought Huma Abedin-Connected Saudi Group Funded Terror 28 Pages Suggest Huma-Connected Group Funded Terrorism Hillary Clinton's Top Aide Huma Abedin Published Articles that Blamed USA for 911, Blamed Women For Violence
Media coverage of this story has been supporessed owing to pressure from the Democratic Party.

For example, Vanity Fair magazine published an article Jan. 6 of this year with the now eerily accurate title, " Is Huma Abedin Hillary Clinton's Secret Weapon or Her Next Big Problem? " The left-wing attack machine Media Matters for America wasted no time in posting an article with false information and smears in order to protect the Clinton campaign.

Hillary Clinton has stated publicly that she helped "start and support" the Media Matters group, and that organization has consistently come to her rescue with misinformation, half-truths, and smears that invariably get repeated by the established media.

The Vanity Fair article apparently sent shockwaves through the Clinton camp. Any mainstream press coverage of Huma Abedin is rare, and what coverage there is almost universally laudatory. Despite the fawning coverage she has received, there are many unanswered questions about Abedin, especially given Abedin's complete access to Hillary Clinton, one of the most powerful people in the world, a former Secretary of State and possible future president.

As Vanity Fair's William Cohan writes in his piece:

Over the years Huma has served in several positions, with increasingly important-sounding titles. She has been Hillary's "body woman," her traveling chief of staff, a senior adviser, and a deputy chief of staff when Hillary was secretary of state. Now, based in Brooklyn, she is the vice-chair of Hillary's 2016 presidential campaign.

The Vanity Fair piece on the secretive Abedin confirmed a number of facts that have been reported by conservative media for a couple of years but have been twisted and convoluted by the mainstream media.

For example, the Vanity Fair article flatly lays out the information that Huma Abedin was an assistant editor at a publication called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from 1996 until 2008. He writes:

When (Huma) Abedin was two years old, the family moved to Jidda, Saudi Arabia, where, with the backing of Abdullah Omar Nasseef, then the president of King Abdulaziz University, her father founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a think tank, and became the first editor of its Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which stated its mission as "shedding light" on minority Muslim communities around the world in the hope of "securing the legitimate rights of these communities."…

It turns out the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs is an Abedin family business. Huma was an assistant editor there between 1996 and 2008. Her brother, Hassan, 45, is a book-review editor at the Journal and was a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, where Nasseef is chairman of the board of trustees. Huma's sister, Heba, 26, is an assistant editor at the Journal.

Breitbart News added information this year that shows that the "Abedin family business" is housed in the offices of the Muslim World League.

The webpage for the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs site says how to reach the Journal : "Editorial Correspondence including submission of articles and books for review should be addressed to: Editor, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 46 Goodge Street, London WIP 1FJ, U.K."

The current official Journal website also lists the same 46 Goodge Street address, which is the same exact address listed on the Muslim World League's London office address.

The official website for the Muslim World League's London office lists its address as 46 Goodge Street.

The current day London Online website also lists the Muslim World League office in London and the Journal's parent organization, Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs , as having the exact same 46 Goodge Street address.

A Yelp! listing for the Muslim World League shows the same 46 Goodge Address and a photo of the entrance.

Google Maps from 2008 -the earliest date available-shows the Muslim Word League London office entrance, which appears to have office space above a pizza restaurant .

This direct connection to the Muslim World League and a child organization called the World Arab Muslim Youth Association (WAMY)-also housed at Goodge Street offices-is significant due to a 2009 State Department memo which reveals that while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and Huma Abedin was her top aide, and the Secretary of State's office was engaged in talks with Saudi Arabia about stopping the Muslim World League from funding terrorism at the same time the "Abedin family business" was operating out of the Muslim World League's London office.

This revelation shows that while Huma Abedin was serving at the highest level of government as Hillary Clinton's aide and had access to this information, Abedin had a direct connection to a group that was suspected of actively funding groups like al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Hamas, which had not only killed civilians around the world but also U.S. servicemen.

The memo, which was originally published by WikiLeaks , was sent on December 30, 2009 from the Secretary of State to the Department of Treasury and ambassadors in several Gulf region countries including Saudi Arabia. The stated goal of the memo is that "all action posts deliver the general talking points" to those countries.

The connection to terror funding is also listed in the infamous "missing 28 pages" from a report by the 9/11 commission that were kept hidden for years until their release on a Friday afternoon earlier this year. Page 24 of the 28-page report discusses Osama Bin Laden's half-brother and says in part:

According to the FBI, Abdullah Bin Ladin has a number of connections to terrorist organizations. He is the President and Director of the World Arab Muslim Youth Association (WAMY) and the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Science in America. Both organizations are local branches of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

According to the FBI, there is reason to believe that WAMY is "closely associated with the funding and financing of international terrorist activities and in the past has provided logistical support to individuals wishing to to fight in the Afghan War." In 1998, the CIA published a paper characterizing WAMY as a NGO that provides funding. logistical support and training with possible connections to the Arab Afghans network, Hamas, Algerian extremists and Philippine militants.

Although the 28 pages make no mention of Abedin at all, the information in the 28 pages lays out a timeline of events during the planning and execution of the 9/11 terror attack that shows that, at all times, Huma Abedin was working for both Hillary Clinton and the WAMY organization the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs.

These connections become especially disturbing when you consider what Sperry reported yesterday:

Another guard assigned to Clinton's residence in Chappaqua, N.Y., recalled in a February FBI interview that new security procedures for handling delivery of the diplomatic pouch and receiving via fax the highly classified Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had been "established by Abedin." The witness added that Abedin controlled the operations of a secure room known as a SCIF located on the third floor of the residence.

In her own April 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin contended that she "did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago, when it became public knowledge." The clintonemail.com server was set up in the basement of the Chappaqua residence.

However, another witness told agents that he and another Clinton aide with an IT background built the new server system "at the recommendation of Huma Abedin," who first broached the idea of an off-the-grid email server as early as the "fall (of) 2008," ostensibly after Barack Obama was elected president.

With the FBI investigation reopened, it will be interesting to see if the mainstream media finally begins to do their job and ask tough questions about Huma Abedin.

[Oct 29, 2016] James Comey was on the Board of Directors of HSBC while they were money laundering for drug runners and terrorists, he has done squat to stop GamerGate

Notable quotes:

"... James Comey was on the Board of Directors of HSBC while they were money laundering for drug runners and terrorists, he has done squat to stop GamerGate, he has a horrible record as director of the FBI and should have never been nominated, never been confirmed, and is a completely horrible person. ..."

"... Mark Felt was of the same mind when it came to being passed over after J. Edgar Hoover died. And recall that he gained notoriety as Deep Throat. ..."

"... Here is a chance to redeem himself and stop Hillary. ..."

"... In a situation where one has an truly abysmal leader, that leader will need sidekicks who are obviously worse. The abysmal leader can position herself to the reasonable / competent side of the "bad cop" sidekicks, thus being not exactly the "good cop" but the "better cop" while still going in the desired direction of crazy and misery for all. ..."

"... If things get a bit out of hand, the blame can be pinned on the sidekick "going overboard" and the sidekick publicly sacrificed to "restore confidence" and "look forward". ..."

"... I think there is some possibilities, The rusty old ship "The Foundation" has simply sprung yet another leak and there is more evidence for FBI to dismiss and immunities to be doled out to fix the situation ..."

"... Something so nasty has come up so that the oligarch factions forming the "inner party" decided that Something Must be Done About The Situation – or Else. Jeffrey Epstein did home movies, apparently. ..."

Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

dcblogger October 28, 2016 at 4:45 pm

James Comey was on the Board of Directors of HSBC while they were money laundering for drug runners and terrorists, he has done squat to stop GamerGate, he has a horrible record as director of the FBI and should have never been nominated, never been confirmed, and is a completely horrible person.

Arizona Slim October 28, 2016 at 5:17 pm

Mark Felt was of the same mind when it came to being passed over after J. Edgar Hoover died. And recall that he gained notoriety as Deep Throat.

Andrew Watts October 28, 2016 at 9:57 pm

Mark Felt had already gained notoriety before Watergate because he was one of the FBI's special agents who was charged for conducting illegal surveillance on American leftists. It's one of those things all those conspiracy theorists don't emphasis about COINTELPRO and other programs. The only people actually charged and convicted in the matter were FBI agents.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 28, 2016 at 5:32 pm

Here is a chance to redeem himself and stop Hillary. The race is Trump's to lose now.

allan October 28, 2016 at 5:44 pm

He was also general counsel of the largest defense contractor in the world (Lockheed Martin) and general counsel of the largest hedge fund / personality cult in the world (Bridgewater). Just a small town lawyer. If the town is Davos.

polecat October 28, 2016 at 6:05 pm

Perhaps that's part and parcel to our current heroin epidemic …….

fajensen October 29, 2016 at 6:07 am

Perfectly Qualified –

In a situation where one has an truly abysmal leader, that leader will need sidekicks who are obviously worse. The abysmal leader can position herself to the reasonable / competent side of the "bad cop" sidekicks, thus being not exactly the "good cop" but the "better cop" while still going in the desired direction of crazy and misery for all.

If things get a bit out of hand, the blame can be pinned on the sidekick "going overboard" and the sidekick publicly sacrificed to "restore confidence" and "look forward".

Why Obama needed Biden around, George Bush had Cheney … The European Left has the Islamists and the Social Democrats has the neo-liberals to bisect against.

PS:

I think there is some possibilities, The rusty old ship "The Foundation" has simply sprung yet another leak and there is more evidence for FBI to dismiss and immunities to be doled out to fix the situation

Enough mail-votes have come in to predict a crushing victory for Trump. Comey realizes that he is maybe on the wrong side of this whole thing and goes for "incompetence" being part of his legacy rather than "conspiracy"

Something so nasty has come up so that the oligarch factions forming the "inner party" decided that Something Must be Done About The Situation – or Else. Jeffrey Epstein did home movies, apparently.

However, I think that it is just FBI doing another fix for Hillary.

[Oct 29, 2016] Two word summary: CORNERED RAT

Notable quotes:

"... Two word summary: CORNERED RAT ..."

"... Just like 0bama finding out about HRC's private email from the press … after he'd been corresponding with her from his own private email address. ..."

"... With daily practice, the faux naif act comes easy. :-) ..."

"... I gather that Clintonland is honestly shocked, though. They're having to expose their talking points unmodified pushed directly by people like Krugman, instead of their normal process of using CTR trolls for cover. ..."

"... It's also possible that the emails are more about Clinton Foundation corruption than they are State Department rule breaking, so there wouldn't be any reason to notify State. (Although how that would connect to the original case without being at least in part about transmitting classified information insecurely is beyond me.) ..."

Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 8:04 pm

Hillary's 4-minute apologia pro vida sua in response to Comey's volte face :

https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/792142514471907329

Two word summary: CORNERED RAT

Can't get over the Nuremberg rally massed flags behind her.

The future's so bright, she shoulda wore shades. ;-)

abynormal October 28, 2016 at 8:14 pm

UHH @4:30…State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Friday that the department knows nothing about why the FBI reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server just hours earlier.

Toner began the State Department daily press briefing by telling Associated Press reporter Matt Lee that he already knew what the topic of the first question would be. Lee asked Toner what the State Department knew of the FBI's actions and what may be involved in the reopened investigation. http://freebeacon.com/politics/state-department-knows-nothing-about-fbi-reopening-clinton-email-probe/

"First, what do we know? Not much more than you know, in fact. About the same," Toner said. "We just learned about this when we saw news reports of the letter."

"What emails they may be looking at, what they're looking for, any more details at all, we just don't know anything about the scope of this new–I'm not even sure it's an investigation, but this effort to look at additional emails," Toner continued.

Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 8:20 pm

Just like 0bama finding out about HRC's private email from the press … after he'd been corresponding with her from his own private email address.

With daily practice, the faux naif act comes easy. :-)

aab October 28, 2016 at 11:28 pm

I gather that Clintonland is honestly shocked, though. They're having to expose their talking points unmodified pushed directly by people like Krugman, instead of their normal process of using CTR trolls for cover.

I don't have an explanation for why Comey would start acting like a law enforcement official at this late date, but it does look like he didn't notify Clintonland ahead of time, and apparently the State Department has basically been a Clinton sleeper cell for the last four years, so that would include State.

It's also possible that the emails are more about Clinton Foundation corruption than they are State Department rule breaking, so there wouldn't be any reason to notify State. (Although how that would connect to the original case without being at least in part about transmitting classified information insecurely is beyond me.)

Lambert Strether Post author October 29, 2016 at 1:25 am

Maybe Comey needed to get out in front of ticked off FBI worker bees. Better Comey release it himself than have it leaked over the weekend.

[Oct 29, 2016] Cyberspace opened up the Clinton Foundation's Pay for Play scams for scrutiny despite the best efforts of corporate media and the connected elite to keep it closed

Notable quotes:

"... Intriguing. Maybe these emails have survived so far is, because Abedin's laptop was shared, it wasn't on the list of agreed-to-be-destroyed laptops (so far, at least). ..."

"... I wonder if there will be any public pressure on FBI to go after some of the numerous devices/servers you posted about on other threads about a week ago. If so, no one is talking about it yet. ..."

Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

VietnamVet October 28, 2016 at 8:05 pm

Cyberspace opened up the Clinton Foundation's Pay for Play scams for scrutiny despite the best efforts of corporate media and the connected elite to keep it closed; the endless wars at Saudi Arabia and Israel's bequest, the purposeful burdening of debt on anyone who needs housing, medical care or education, and the utter contempt for the little people. Corruption so inept that missing Hillary Clinton e-mails are in Carlos Danger's explicit underage passion filled smartphone in FBI's possession.

Lambert Strether Post author October 29, 2016 at 1:34 am

The emails (are said to be) on Abedin's laptop (shared with Weiner), not on Weiner's phone.

TheCatSaid October 29, 2016 at 12:52 pm

Intriguing. Maybe these emails have survived so far is, because Abedin's laptop was shared, it wasn't on the list of agreed-to-be-destroyed laptops (so far, at least).

I wonder if there will be any public pressure on FBI to go after some of the numerous devices/servers you posted about on other threads about a week ago. If so, no one is talking about it yet.

[Oct 29, 2016] DOJ Complaint Filed Against FBI Director James Comey For Interfering In Presidential Election

Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

UserFriendly October 28, 2016 at 10:35 pm

DOJ Complaint Filed Against FBI Director James Comey For Interfering In Presidential Election
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/28/doj-complaint-filed-fbi-director-james-comey-interfering-presidential-election.html

LOL he had no choice
http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-reviewing-more-clinton-emails-514825

pretzelattack October 28, 2016 at 10:46 pm

i wouldn't think the clinton campaign would welcome that complaint, unless they're more desperate than i think.

UserFriendly October 28, 2016 at 11:39 pm

They probably got someone to file it. It just reeks of holier then thou temper tantrum. But Comey had no choice, he had to amend his testimony.

pretzelattack October 28, 2016 at 11:45 pm

maybe clinton made the decision unilaterally, which is quite possible. seems like the campaign would want to bury the email scandal instead of going on the offensive. i do so hope this means their internal polling is scaring them.

UserFriendly October 29, 2016 at 12:39 am

This close? no way. she needs a full rebuttal.

Foppe October 29, 2016 at 2:54 am

Maybe it can be used to cut off the FBI's internet access until the elections are over?

[Oct 29, 2016] Huma abedin became also intanged in mishandling classified materials and may face criminal procecution

Her immunity deal does not cover this incident. They now can force her sing...

Notable quotes:

"... Hillary Clinton's most trusted State Department aide Huma Abedin once left classified papers in the pocket behind the front seat of a staff car she was assigned in India, according to an email released Monday. ..."

"... Abedin wrote to Clinton's personal assistant Lauren Jiloty on July 20, 2009 to ask her to move the material to her trunk so an ambassador wouldn't see them when he rode with her in the back seat. ..."

"... She told Jiloty that the papers consisted of 'burn stuff,' indicating that they were classified documents that belonged among materials that agency rules required employees to place in 'burn bags' for incineration. ... ..."

"... New emails the FBI is examining related to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's use of a private computer server were discovered after the agency seized electronic devices belonging to Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her husband, Anthony Weiner, the New York Times reported on Friday, citing law enforcement officials. ... ..."

Oct 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... October 28, 2016 at 03:32 PM

(So, more sloppy handling of classified material going on, looks like. Not by Hillary Clinton however.)
Bombshell email shows Huma Abedin left classified material in her CAR http://dailym.ai/2bz34lU via @MailOnline - Aug 23

Hillary Clinton's most trusted State Department aide Huma Abedin once left classified papers in the pocket behind the front seat of a staff car she was assigned in India, according to an email released Monday.

Abedin wrote to Clinton's personal assistant Lauren Jiloty on July 20, 2009 to ask her to move the material to her trunk so an ambassador wouldn't see them when he rode with her in the back seat.

She told Jiloty that the papers consisted of 'burn stuff,' indicating that they were classified documents that belonged among materials that agency rules required employees to place in 'burn bags' for incineration. ...

FBI found Clinton-related emails on devices belonging to Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner
http://aol.it/2ejHtuo via @AOL - Oct 28

New emails the FBI is examining related to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's use of a private computer server were discovered after the agency seized electronic devices belonging to Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her husband, Anthony Weiner, the New York Times reported on Friday, citing law enforcement officials. ...

ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
Someone at FBI missed the cease and desist memo....
likbez said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... October 28, 2016 at 09:23 PM
Huma immunity deal does not extend to this incident. She might get into really hot water now.

[Oct 28, 2016] Clinton camp blindsided by email story

Notable quotes:

"... The discussion, which was released by WikiLeaks from a batch of messages apparently stolen from Podesta's account, sheds additional light on the campaign's lack of preparation for questions about Clinton's bespoke setup. The private email arrangement has become a cloud over the Democratic presidential nominee and spurred a yearlong FBI investigation. ..."

Oct 27, 2016 | thehill.com
Hillary Clinton presidential campaign-in-waiting appeared unprepared for a New York Times story last year that exposed her exclusive use of private email account and server for government business, according to a newly released email.
The day the Times story was published, John Podesta, who would later be named campaign chairman, asked future campaign manager Robby Mook if he had seen it coming .
"Did you have any idea of the depth of this story?" Podesta asked Mook in an email late on the evening of March 2, 2015, roughly a month before Clinton launched her bid for the White House.
"Nope," Mook responded after 1 a.m. that night. "We brought up the existence of emails in research (sic) this summer, but were told that everything was taken care of."

The discussion, which was released by WikiLeaks from a batch of messages apparently stolen from Podesta's account, sheds additional light on the campaign's lack of preparation for questions about Clinton's bespoke setup. The private email arrangement has become a cloud over the Democratic presidential nominee and spurred a yearlong FBI investigation.

The email released on Thursday is one of several published by WikiLeaks detailing the Clinton campaign's scurrying response to revelations about her email server.

Days later, President Obama would say that he was unaware of Clinton's email setup until it became public knowledge.

However, Clinton's aides knew that he and the former secretary of State had exchanged emails, and they worried that contradicted Obama's public statement.

"[W]e need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov," Cheryl Mills, Clinton's former State Department chief of staff, told other aides on March 7.

The White House later said Obama was aware of Clinton's email address but did not know the full scope of her unusual setup. Notes from the FBI investigation into Clinton's arrangement revealed that Obama used a pseudonym for emailing with Clinton and others.

[Oct 28, 2016] Breaking: Clinton Journalists Already Spinning Latest FBI Revelation by Michael Sainato

Notable quotes:

"... The announcement comes at a pivotal time in Clinton's presidential campaign, as recent polls have suggested she is strongly favored to win the presidential election. But with this recent development-coupled with embarrassing revelations recently released by WikiLeaks implicating the Clinton Foundation and exposing Clinton's policies as little more than political expediency --- a victory that seemed almost inevitable is now in jeopardy. ..."

"... What's more likely is that James Comey chose to announce the new evidence under the review in the investigation shortly after it was discovered, rather than wait to announce its review after the election, as that would politicize the investigation. If Democrats didn't want an FBI investigation impacting their presidential candidate, then they shouldn't have propped up a candidate who was under a FBI criminal investigation. ..."

Oct 28, 2016 | observer.com

The FBI announced on October 28 that they are reopening their investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server.

"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation," wrote FBI Director James Comey in a statement .

The announcement comes at a pivotal time in Clinton's presidential campaign, as recent polls have suggested she is strongly favored to win the presidential election. But with this recent development-coupled with embarrassing revelations recently released by WikiLeaks implicating the Clinton Foundation and exposing Clinton's policies as little more than political expediency --- a victory that seemed almost inevitable is now in jeopardy.

WikiLeaks emails from Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta confirmed criticisms of Clinton's private email server. In the leaked emails , her staff is shown coordinating with the State Department, the White House , the Department of Justice, and mainstream media to cover up the scandal and distort it as a partisan issue to protect Clinton's presidential candidacy. Reports from the State Department Inspector General , FBI Director Comey, and two reports on the FBI's investigation have effectively disproven every defense of Clinton's private email server that has been utilized by Clinton partisans since it's use was first revealed in early 2015.

And pro-Clinton journalists are already trying to spin the FBI's latest announcement.

Newsweek 's Kurt Eichenwald falsely claimed the FBI wasn't re-opening their investigation but that FBI Director Comey had to amend his previous testimony. But Comey never testified the FBI reviewed all the evidence-rather, he testified there is a list of evidence we saw in the investigation. If Eichenwald is correct about Comey needing to amend his testimony, it is because the FBI found new evidence that suggests Clinton is guilty. Eichenwald, notorious for touting disproven assumptions and theories-as with a Russian conspiracy theory he still pushes, which The Washington Post , BuzzFeed and other news outlets have debunked-is incorrect. The FBI investigation is being reopened because new emails were discovered, and the FBI is going to review them.

Ian Millhiser of Think Progress , founded by Podesta, called Comey "extremely careless" for reopening the investigation before the election, and claimed the FBI director was meddling in the election by doing so because he is a Republican. This is the same argument Clinton partisans refuted when critics argued politics played a role in Comey's initial decision not to recommend an indictment.

MSNBC's Joy Reid made the same claim that Comey was meddling in the election.

What's more likely is that James Comey chose to announce the new evidence under the review in the investigation shortly after it was discovered, rather than wait to announce its review after the election, as that would politicize the investigation. If Democrats didn't want an FBI investigation impacting their presidential candidate, then they shouldn't have propped up a candidate who was under a FBI criminal investigation.

[Oct 28, 2016] Carlos Danger Reopens EmailGate and Team Clinton Trembles

Notable quotes:

"... The New York Times is reporting that the emails came from the FBI's investigation into the sexting habits of former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner , who was married to Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's all-purpose factotum. The idea that another hack by persons unknown has truly opened Pandora's Box for Clinton, Inc. less than two weeks before the election, seems too delicious for some Republicans to contemplate. ..."

"... It could be the long-awaited "smoking gun" that establishes serious criminality by Clinton, Inc.-or it could be more emails of Hillary discussing yoga and how to figure out the DVR. ..."

"... That said, Democrats who are wordsmithing this development and prematurely declaring that it's no big deal-or worse, some nefarious Trumpian plot-need to step back and let the FBI do its job. It seems unlikely that the Bureau will wrap this up before November 8, and since Comey has informed Congress what's going on, the FBI director won't be telling the public much either. ..."

"... Just over a year ago I predicted that EmailGate was far from over, and it remains very much alive today, despite the best efforts of Hillary Clinton, her staff, and her ardent defenders in the media. Nobody should expect that the Democratic nominee will be charged with any crimes in EmailGate: the naked interference of President Obama's Justice Department in this case demonstrates that reality. ..."

"... However, this scandal remains very much alive as a political matter, and less than two weeks before the election, politics is what matters now. Hillary has never come up with very good answers about why she strictly avoided the use of State Department email when she was the boss at Foggy Bottom, much less why her "unclassified" emails contained so much highly classified information -and she seems unlikely to, all of a sudden. ..."

"... Throughout this scandal, Friday news-dumps have been a regular feature, per well-honed Beltway bureaucratic practice. This one may be the biggest of all. ..."

Oct 28, 2016 | observer.com
Newly incriminating Clinton emails may have been found during the FBI's investigation into the sexting habits of former NY Congressman Anthony Weiner
FBI Is Re-Opening Clinton E-Mail Investigation Oct. 28 -- The inquiry into Hillary Clinton's use of private e-mail as secretary of state is being re-opened by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to Congressional committee chairman alerting them of his decision. Bloomberg's Margaret Talev reports on "Bloomberg Markets."

Just 11 days before our presidential election, the explosive issue of EmailGate is back in the news, thanks to James Comey, the FBI director who less than four months ago gave Hillary Clinton a pass on her illegal use of email and a personal server when the Democratic nominee was secretary of state.

After weeks of damaging revelations care of Wikileaks about just how much the Clinton camp knew about EmailGate for years, and tried to downplay its significance in the media, Comey today sent a letter to the chairmen of the relevant Congressional committees-including, significantly, the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees -- that blows EmailGate wide open all over again. He says:

"In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.

Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony."

Having taken Comey to task for his serious mishandling of the FBI's year-long EmailGate investigation-particularly how his account of what the Bureau discovered made Hillary's guilt clear, but he still declined to ask the Department of Justice to seek prosecution-he deserves some credit for due diligence here. It requires some political fortitude to do this practically on an election's eve.

Clearly the FBI has uncovered new emails-the mention of "connection with an unrelated case" is intriguingly vague-that may (or may not) have relevance to the investigation. We don't yet know what that information might be, or how it was obtained, but rumors are swirling as usual. Some are pointing a finger at a leaker inside the U.S. Government; other rumors point to a foreign origin of these newly discovered emails. The New York Times is reporting that the emails came from the FBI's investigation into the sexting habits of former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner , who was married to Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's all-purpose factotum. The idea that another hack by persons unknown has truly opened Pandora's Box for Clinton, Inc. less than two weeks before the election, seems too delicious for some Republicans to contemplate.

In truth, the FBI isn't reopening the EmailGate investigation because it was never actually closed. Director Comey here is merely doing what he's legally required to: inform the relevant Congressional committees that new information which may have relevance has been discovered, and the FBI is now assessing its value to the on-going investigation.

Republicans shouldn't get too excited just yet, since Comey hasn't told us anything about the provenance of these emails. It could be the long-awaited "smoking gun" that establishes serious criminality by Clinton, Inc.-or it could be more emails of Hillary discussing yoga and how to figure out the DVR.

That said, Democrats who are wordsmithing this development and prematurely declaring that it's no big deal-or worse, some nefarious Trumpian plot-need to step back and let the FBI do its job. It seems unlikely that the Bureau will wrap this up before November 8, and since Comey has informed Congress what's going on, the FBI director won't be telling the public much either.

Just over a year ago I predicted that EmailGate was far from over, and it remains very much alive today, despite the best efforts of Hillary Clinton, her staff, and her ardent defenders in the media. Nobody should expect that the Democratic nominee will be charged with any crimes in EmailGate: the naked interference of President Obama's Justice Department in this case demonstrates that reality.

However, this scandal remains very much alive as a political matter, and less than two weeks before the election, politics is what matters now. Hillary has never come up with very good answers about why she strictly avoided the use of State Department email when she was the boss at Foggy Bottom, much less why her "unclassified" emails contained so much highly classified information -and she seems unlikely to, all of a sudden.

For Team Clinton, EmailGate remains a nightmare that they would really prefer not to talk about. But here we are, talking about it all over again, thanks to Director Comey. Throughout this scandal, Friday news-dumps have been a regular feature, per well-honed Beltway bureaucratic practice. This one may be the biggest of all.

[Oct 28, 2016] New Emails in Clinton Case Came From Devices Once Used by Anthony Wiener

Oct 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs : , October 28, 2016 at 02:05 PM
(Is this anything?)
Carlos Danger Reopens EmailGate and Team Clinton Trembles http://observer.com/2016/10/carlos-danger-reopens-emailgate-and-team-clinton-trembles/
Observer - John R. Schindler • 10/28/16

Just 11 days before our presidential election, the explosive issue of EmailGate is back in the news, thanks to James Comey, the FBI director who less than four months ago gave Hillary Clinton a pass on her illegal use of email and a personal server when the Democratic nominee was secretary of state.

After weeks of damaging revelations care of Wikileaks about just how much the Clinton camp knew about EmailGate for years, and tried to downplay its significance in the media, Comey today sent a letter to the chairmen of the relevant Congressional committees-including, significantly, the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees-that blows EmailGate wide open all over again. He says:
ADVERTISING

"In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.

Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony." ...

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
New Emails in Clinton Case Came From Devices Once Used by Anthony Weiner http://nyti.ms/2dU5zed
NYT - Oct 28
Fred C. Dobbs : , October 28, 2016 at 02:05 PM
(Is this anything?)
Carlos Danger Reopens EmailGate and Team Clinton Trembles http://observer.com/2016/10/carlos-danger-reopens-emailgate-and-team-clinton-trembles/
Observer - John R. Schindler • 10/28/16

Just 11 days before our presidential election, the explosive issue of EmailGate is back in the news, thanks to James Comey, the FBI director who less than four months ago gave Hillary Clinton a pass on her illegal use of email and a personal server when the Democratic nominee was secretary of state.

After weeks of damaging revelations care of Wikileaks about just how much the Clinton camp knew about EmailGate for years, and tried to downplay its significance in the media, Comey today sent a letter to the chairmen of the relevant Congressional committees-including, significantly, the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees-that blows EmailGate wide open all over again. He says:
ADVERTISING

"In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.

Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony." ...

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
New Emails in Clinton Case Came From Devices Once
Used by Anthony Weiner http://nyti.ms/2dU5zed
NYT - Oct 28
ilsm : , -1
Suddenly, the FBI finding 'stuff'.
Too many 'agency' whistleblowers have been talking to congress persons!

Will the country be better off with a 'Nixon' gone in a few months or Trump with no public trial of the crooked [yes, redundant word use] DNC 'establishment'?

[Oct 28, 2016] Trump Hopes Justice Will Finally Be Done As FBI Reopens Probe Into Hillary Clinton Emails

Looks like Obama decided to throw Hillary under the bus or was force to do so...

Oct 28, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

Zero Hedge Update:

As CNBC adds , Donald Trump seized on the news Friday that the FBI is probing new emails related to Hillary Clinton's private server, contending that she threatens United States security and cannot be trusted in the White House. "I have great respect for the fact that the FBI and Department of Justice are now willing to have the courage to right the horrible mistake that they made," Trump said at a rally in New Hampshire. "This was a grave miscarriage of justice that the American people fully understood and is about to be corrected."

"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation," Comey wrote.

As FBI reopens inquiry into @HillaryClinton emails, @realDonaldTrump says it's a scandal worse than Watergate https://t.co/XNZcYcbbYU pic.twitter.com/9V4G699fbQ

- BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) October 28, 2016

"Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony," he concluded.

Trump claimed that "Clinton's corruption is on a scale we have never seen before."

Update:

More details from CNN which writes that after recommending this year that the Department of Justice not press charges against the Secretary of State, Comey said in the letter to eight congressional committee chairman that "recent developments" urged him to take another look.

"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear pertinent to the investigation," Comey wrote the chairmen. "I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation."

Comey said that he was not sure how long the additional review would take and said the FBI "cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant."

Law enforcement sources say the newly discovered emails are not related to WikiLeaks or the Clinton Foundation. They would not describe in further detail the content of the emails. It's also unclear whether the emails in question are from Clinton herself.

Clinton's campaign learned of the news while they were aboard a flight to Iowa. "We're learning about this just like you all are," a Clinton aide told CNN.

The surprising news jolts a presidential race that had largely settled as Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump struggled in national and key battleground polls. Now, Clinton will be placed back on the defensive and forced to confront yet again questions about her trustworthiness.

* * *

As we detailed earlier, in a stunning development moments ago Jason Chaffetz tweeted that the FBI's probe into Hillary Clinton emails has been reopened: saying that "The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation."

FBI Dir just informed me, "The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation." Case reopened

- Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) October 28, 2016

After being briefed by his investigative team, Comey "agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to asses their importance to our investigation." Comey said he could not predict how long it would take the bureau to assess whether the new emails are "significant."

Moments later, NBC News reported that the agency was reopening the investigation and shared a letter from FBI director James Comey informing key lawmakers of the investigation.. .

"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation," Comey wrote.

"I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information," Comey wrote

The full letter to members of Congress, in which FBI director James Comey said the agency had "learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation" in connection with an unrelated case, is shown below.

BIG: The FBI is reopening its investigation into @HillaryClinton 's email server. Here's the letter from the FBI to Congress: pic.twitter.com/OKjipTeiJp

- Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) October 28, 2016

JLee2027 Oct 28, 2016 1:08 PM ,

WOW.
Trying to save himself from a jail cell after Trump wins.

Stainless Steel Rat JLee2027 Oct 28, 2016 1:09 PM ,
Don't fuck with me Chaffy... is this for real?!?!?! :-D
greenskeeper carl Stainless Steel Rat Oct 28, 2016 1:12 PM ,
No, it's not for real. How much more evidence can you possibly need? She is guilty of at least 5 violations of federal law by any objective measure and they let her walk. Anyone thinking this will go any different hasn't been paying attention. Banana republic, two sets of laws.
evoila greenskeeper carl Oct 28, 2016 1:12 PM ,
perhaps 33K emails found their way into his inbox with a note saying do the right thing.
WillyGroper evoila Oct 28, 2016 1:20 PM ,
only if accompanied by this from the NSA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu-K3VcHH9s&index=19&list=PLRK4syRaAH0G0SvgY3IKI49ylwpDzSY3W

that would explain a 180.

only to save their worthless evil hide.

[Oct 28, 2016] Hillary Holds 4 Minute Press Conference Demands Full And Complete Facts From FBI Zero Hedge

Oct 28, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
Blink and you missed it: in a brief, 3 minute 47 second address to the press, a defiant Hillary slammed the FBI, said that she hopes that whatever information the Bureau has will be shared with the American people and added that she is confident that no charges will be brought against her by the FBI, while taking the opportunity to ask people to go out and vote for her.
She took three questions which some have mockingly said were drafted and/or preapproved by Clinton campaign direction of communications Jennifer Palmier.

"We are 11 days out from perhaps the most important national election of our lifetimes," Clinton said during the brief press conference in Des Moines, Iowa. "Voting is already underway in our country, so the American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately."

Hillary revealed that the FBI had not contacted her before or since Comey sent a letter to lawmakers Friday afternoon.

"So we don't know the facts, which is why we are calling on the FBI to release all the information that it has," she said. "Even Director Comey noted that this new information may not be significant, so let's get it out."

Comey's letter said that the FBI was reviewing pertinent emails that it found in an unrelated investigation, but did not reveal much more than that. Republicans and the GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump quickly pounced on the news.

Clinton was asked about a New York Times report that said the FBI had found the new emails in its separate investigation into Anthony Weiner's sexting scandal.

"We've heard these rumors," she said "We don't know what to believe. And I'm sure there will be even more rumors. That's why it's incumbent on the FBI to tell us what they're talking about, Jeff. Your guess is as good as mine and I don't think that's not good enough."

Watch the brief recording below:

BREAKING: Hillary Clinton addresses FBI director's revelation of new review related to private email server case. https://t.co/vSxftfXcIZ

- NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) October 28, 2016

Hillary's statement was similar to what Tim Kaine said earlier: it's "very, very troubling" that the FBI is releasing information about a new probe into emails that may relate to Hillary Clinton just 11 days before the election. The Democratic vice presidential nominee is commenting on the development in an interview with Vice News. Kaine says the FBI director needs to provide more details on the situation. He suggests it's troubling that members of the press are finding out information before campaign officials. Kaine's comments in turn echo the a statement made by Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, and thus by Hillary.

* * *

Finally, President Obama is staying silent - for now - on the FBI director's announcement of an investigation into new emails related to Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. Obama is in Orlando, Florida, where according to AP he is encouraging voters - young voters in particular - to take advantage of their opportunity to cast their ballots before Election Day on Nov. 8.

[Oct 28, 2016] New Clinton Emails Emerged As Part Of Probe Into Anthony Weiner's Electronic Devices NYT

Oct 28, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Oct 28, 2016 3:22 PM 0 SHARES In the latest stunning revelation in today's saga involving the FBI's second probe, moments ago the NYT reported that the new emails uncovered in the closed investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server were discovered after the F.B.I. seized electronic devices belonging to Huma Abedin and her husband, Anthony Weiner.

The F.B.I. is investigating illicit text messages that Mr. Weiner sent to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina . The bureau told Congress on Friday that it had uncovered new emails related to the Clinton case - one federal official said they numbered in the thousands - potentially reigniting an issue that has weighed on the presidential campaign and offering a lifeline to Donald J. Trump less than two weeks before the election.

Until recently Anthony Weiner was married to Hillary Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, who separated from Weiner recently after news emerged that Weiner had engaged in an online affair with an underage girl .

The F.B.I. told Congress that it had uncovered new emails related to the closed investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton or her aides had mishandled classified information, potentially reigniting an issue that has weighed on the presidential campaign and offering a lifeline to Donald J. Trump less than two weeks before the election.

One clue as to what the FBI may have uncovered comes courtesy of FOIAed Judicial Watch email disclosures, revealed one month ago, according to which Hillary Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department, Cheryl Mills, had received classified national security information through one of two or three personal, unsecured email accounts she regularly used to communicate with Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

Approximately 10 percent of Abedin's emails released through Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act requests were addressed to one of Mills' various personal email addresses. As WND reported at the time , several were found to contain such highly sensitive material that the State Department redacted 100 percent of the content pages, marking many pages with a bold stamp reading "PAGE DENIED ."

Of the more than 160 emails in the latest Judicial Watch release, some 110 emails – two-thirds of the total – were forwarded by Abedin to two personal addresses she controlled . The Washington Times reported in August 2015 that the State Department had admitted to a federal judge that Abedin and Mills used personal email accounts to conduct government business in addition to Clinton's private clintonemail.com to transact State Department business.

In a curious twist, one heavily redacted email, dated May 15, 2009, was sent by the infamous Doug Band (who until today was the primary source of headaches for Hillary Clinton due to his role as head of the Clinton Foundation-linked Teneo consulting firm whose recently leaked confidential memo exposed the fund flows involving Bill Clinton), to Mills at a personal address and to Huma Abedin at her State Department address.

Band was forwarding to Mills and Abedin an email request from an associate who was seeking a State Department position in Charleston, South Carolina. Attached was a letter that the office-seeker had first sent to Bill Clinton containing the office-seeker's resume . In the email Band was making a State Department job request on behalf of a Clinton Foundation and/or Teneo-related person.

The email from Band was completely redacted, except for a salutation and first sentence. The letter the office-seeker had sent to President Clinton, as well as the office-seeker's résumé, was redacted except for a phrase that reads, "Well organized, driven professional."

A second email dated May 15, 2009, was sent by Abedin from her State Department email to her personal email, presumably [email protected] . Abedin apparently was archiving in her personal email account an email Hillary Clinton sent her from Clinton's private email server at [email protected] . Abedin was asked to print out attachments to an email Mills sent via a private address the previous day to Clinton involving "timetables and deliverables" for her review via Alec Ross, a technology policy expert who then held the title of senior adviser for innovation to Secretary Clinton.

The two pages of timetables and deliverables attached to the email were 100 percent redacted, with "PAGE DENIED" stamped across the first redacted page.

* * *

Ironically, it appears that Donald Trump was spot on once again, first with a recent statement on the Huma-Abedin split :

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON HILLARY CLINTON'S BAD JUDGMENT

"Huma is making a very wise decision. I know Anthony Weiner well, and she will be far better off without h im. I only worry for the country in that Hillary Clinton was careless and negligent in allowing Weiner to have such close proximity to highly classified information. Who knows what he learned and who he told? It's just another example of Hillary Clinton's bad judgment. It is possible that our country and its security have been greatly compromised by this. " - Donald J. Trump

and then, previously with this August 3, 2015 tweet:

It came out that Huma Abedin knows all about Hillary's private illegal emails. Huma's PR husband, Anthony Weiner, will tell the world.

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 3, 2015

Well, maybe not tell the world, but certainly drag Hillary into another scandal just as she appeared certain to win the election with less than 2 weeks until D-Day.

[Oct 27, 2016] Podesta wants Clintons Email Aide to be Drawn and Quartered

Notable quotes:

"... The revelations that - as Secretary of State - Clinton had committed such a huge security gaffe was quickly picked up on - and has since extensively been used by - Republican candidate Donald Trump, as an example of how Clinton is unfit for the presidency. ..."

"... "This is a change election: people (even those who support Obama) are not interested in the status quo. Therefore they want a candidate who will make change, actually fight the status quo." ..."

"... It is believed they will continue to be dripped out ahead of the presidential election on November 8. Apart from the embarrassment over the email account, the leaks show Clinton changing her position on free trade agreements. ..."

"... The question is not whether or not Donald or Hillary are fit to be US President. The question should be is the United States fit to exist in a civilized world? The answer is; not in its current form! Perhaps if the US returned to following its Constitution, but not otherwise! ..."

sputniknews.com

Whoever advised US Democratic Party presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton that she could use private emails while in office should have been "drawn and quartered," according to the latest batch of emails of the campaign chairman John Podesta, published by WikiLeaks on October 27.Clinton ran into huge trouble when it was revealed that - while Secretary of State - she had been using insecure private email accounts based on non-government servers, exposing the US administration to hacking or surveillance from foreign nations.
In the latest cache of emails, one of Clinton's advisers, Neera Tanden wrote to Podesta asking: "Do we actually know who told Hillary she could use a private email? And has that person been drawn and quartered? Like whole thing is f****** insane."

One of the 'Podesta Emails' released by Wikileaks An investigation by the FBI concluded that 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information.

The revelations that - as Secretary of State - Clinton had committed such a huge security gaffe was quickly picked up on - and has since extensively been used by - Republican candidate Donald Trump, as an example of how Clinton is unfit for the presidency.

Apology Enough?

Another chain of emails delivered Clinton's advisers' verdict on her round of interviews with the media apologizing for the email gaffe and saying: "As I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. That was a mistake. I'm sorry about that. I take responsibility."

Tanden responded: "She rocked it!" in a suggestion that the plan had been to admit culpability personally - an honest appeal for empathy to kill the political furore.

Another adviser, Jennifer Palmieri replied: "I actually cried a little bit with relief."

However, John Podesta replied that Clinton may not have gone far enough and that Trump had found her weak spot. "No good deed goes unpunished. Press takeaway was the whine of but 'she really didn't apologize to the American people' I am beginning to think Trump is on to something," Podesta wrote

Too 'Establishment'?

Meanwhile, another email - also from Tanden - show the sense of vulnerability within the Clinton camp: her need to appeal to voters who conceive of her as being part of the establishment and - in particular - part of the Obama set who promised much, but delivered little. "So if she attacks [Trump] from the right (say on taxes), she will sound establishment/centrist and that hurts her. She needs to reaffirm her liberal credentials, not just her doer credentials," Tanden wrote.

"This is a change election: people (even those who support Obama) are not interested in the status quo. Therefore they want a candidate who will make change, actually fight the status quo."

Wikileaks has gradually been releasing more than 30,000 emails hacked from the account belonging to Podesta since October 7, 2016, giving an insight into the background thinking within her team.

It is believed they will continue to be dripped out ahead of the presidential election on November 8. Apart from the embarrassment over the email account, the leaks show Clinton changing her position on free trade agreements.
Read more: https://sputniknews.com/us/201610271046799130-clinton-podesta-email-apology/

William Cocker · Port Alberni, British Columbia

The question is not whether or not Donald or Hillary are fit to be US President. The question should be is the United States fit to exist in a civilized world? The answer is; not in its current form! Perhaps if the US returned to following its Constitution, but not otherwise!

[Oct 26, 2016] Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, FBI documents reveal

Using pseudonym suggests full understand that email goes to the private server...

Oct 26, 2016 | www.politico.com

President Barack Obama used a pseudonym in email communications with Hillary Clinton and others, according to FBI records made public Friday.
The disclosure came as the FBI released its second batch of documents from its investigation into Clinton's private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.

Story Continued Below

The 189 pages the bureau released includes interviews with some of Clinton's closest aides, such as Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills; senior State Department officials; and even Marcel Lazar, better known as the Romanian hacker "Guccifer." In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.

"Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be a pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report says. "Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."

[Oct 25, 2016] Ex-State Department IT Staffer Pleads the Fifth on Clinton Email Questions

Notable quotes:

"... A former [key] IT staffer at the State Department who oversaw technology for senior officials invoked his Fifth Amendment right in a sworn deposition on Monday when asked about Hillary Clinton's private email server. ..."

Oct 25, 2016 | freebeacon.com

John Bentel is one of the key future of "private email server" scandal, the manager who squashed concerns of other IOt personnel about legality of the so called "bathroom server".

October 24, 2016

A former [key] IT staffer at the State Department who oversaw technology for senior officials invoked his Fifth Amendment right in a sworn deposition on Monday when asked about Hillary Clinton's private email server.

Bentel answered over 90 questions that were submitted him to by Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group that has been leading the charge for more information from Clinton and her associates regarding her email server. Bentel was ordered by a federal judge to answer the questions similarly to how Clinton had been.

Judicial Watch says that the topics of the questions they submitted to Bentel included whether Clinton was paying Bentel's legal fees or had offered him other compensation.

"On advice from my legal counsel, I decline to answer the question and I invoke my Fifth Amendment rights," Bentel answered each question.

Bentel invoking the Fifth Amendment "highlights the disturbing implication that criminal acts took place related to the Clinton email and our Freedom of Information Act requests," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said Monday.

[Oct 24, 2016] Clinton ally gave $500K to wife of FBI agent on email probe

Notable quotes:

"... Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton confidant, helped steer $675,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an FBI official who went on to lead the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email system, according to a report. ..."

"... The money directed by McAuliffe began flowing two months after the FBI investigation into Clinton began in July 2015. Around that time, the candidate's husband was promoted from running the Washington field office for the FBI to the No. 3 position at the bureau. ..."

"... In a statement to the Journal, the FBI said McCabe "played no role, attended no events, and did not participate in fundraising or support of any kind. Months after the completion of her campaign, then-Associate Deputy Director McCabe was promoted to Deputy, where, in that position, he assumed for the first time, an oversight role in the investigation into Secretary Clinton's emails." ..."

nypost.com

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton confidant, helped steer $675,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an FBI official who went on to lead the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email system, according to a report.
The political action committee of McAuliffe, the Clinton loyalist, gave $467,500 to the state Senate campaign of the wife of Andrew McCabe, who is now deputy director of the FBI, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The report states Jill McCabe received an additional $207,788 from the Virginia Democratic Party, which is heavily influenced by McAuliffe.
The money directed by McAuliffe began flowing two months after the FBI investigation into Clinton began in July 2015. Around that time, the candidate's husband was promoted from running the Washington field office for the FBI to the No. 3 position at the bureau.
Within a year, McCabe was promoted to deputy director, the second-highest position in the bureau.
In a statement to the Journal, the FBI said McCabe "played no role, attended no events, and did not participate in fundraising or support of any kind. Months after the completion of her campaign, then-Associate Deputy Director McCabe was promoted to Deputy, where, in that position, he assumed for the first time, an oversight role in the investigation into Secretary Clinton's emails."
The governor's office claimed the FBI's McCabe met the governor only once - on March 7, 2015, when McAuliffe persuaded Jill McCabe to run.
The 2015 Virginia state Senate run - her first attempt to gain public office - was unsuccessful as she lost to the incumbent Republican.
McAuliffe "supported Jill McCabe because he believed she would be a good state senator. This is a customary practice for Virginia governors … Any insinuation that his support was tied to anything other than his desire to elect candidates who would help pass his agenda is ridiculous," a spokesman for the Virginia governor told the Journal.
McAuliffe has been a longtime backer of the Clintons, even serving as Hillary Clinton's campaign chair in 2008.

[Oct 19, 2016] Wikileaks Releases Another 1803 Podesta Emails In Part 12 Of Data Dump; Total Is Now 18953

Notable quotes:

"... Among the initial emails to stand out is this extensive exchange showing just how intimiately the narrative of Hillary's server had been coached. The following September 2015 email exchange between Podesta and Nick Merrill, framed the "core language" to be used in response to questions Clinton could be asked about her email server, and the decision to "bleach" emails from it. The emails contain long and short versions of responses for Clinton. ..."

Oct 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
The daily dump continues. In the now traditional daily routine, one which forces the Clinton campaign to resort to ever more stark sexual scandals involving Trump to provide a media distraction, moments ago Wikileaks released yet another 1,803 emails in Part 12 of its ongoing Podesta Email dump, which brings the total number of released emails to 18,953.

RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 12 https://t.co/wzxeh70oUm #HillaryClinton #imWithHer #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails12 pic.twitter.com/druf7WQXD5

- WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 19, 2016

As a reminder among the most recent revelations we got further insights into Hillary's desire to see Obamacare " unravel" , her contempt for "doofus" Bernie Sanders, staff exchanges on handling media queries about Clinton "flip-flopping" on gay marriage, galvanizing Latino support and locking down Clinton's healthcare policy. Just as notable has been the ongoing revelation of just how "captured" the so-called independent press has been in its "off the record" discussions with John Podesta which got the head Politico correspondent, Glenn Thrush, to admit he is a "hack" for allowing Podesta to dictate the content of his article.

The release comes on the day of the third and final presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and as a result we are confident it will be scrutinized especially carefully for any last minute clues that would allow Trump to lob a much needed Hail Mary to boost his standing in the polls.

As there is a total of 50,000 emails, Wikileaks will keep the media busy over the next three weeks until the elections with another 30,000 emails still expected to be released.

* * *

Among the initial emails to stand out is this extensive exchange showing just how intimiately the narrative of Hillary's server had been coached. The following September 2015 email exchange between Podesta and Nick Merrill, framed the "core language" to be used in response to questions Clinton could be asked about her email server, and the decision to "bleach" emails from it. The emails contain long and short versions of responses for Clinton.

"Because the government already had everything that was work-related, and my personal emails were just that – personal – I didn't see a reason to keep them so I asked that they be deleted, and that's what the company that managed my server did. And we notified Congress of that back in March"

She was then presented with the following hypothetical scenario:

* "Why won't you say whether you wiped it?"

"After we went through the process to determine what was work related and what was not and provided the work related emails to State, I decided not to keep the personal ones."

"We saved the work-related ones on a thumb drive that is now with the Department of Justice. And as I said in March, I chose not to keep the personal ones. I asked that they be deleted, how that happened was up to the company that managed the server. And they are cooperating fully with anyone that has questions."

* * *

Another notable email reveals the close relationship between the Clinton Foundation and Ukraine billionaire Victor Pinchuk, a prominent donor to the Clinton Foundation , in which we see the latter's attempt to get a meeting with Bill Clinton to show support for Ukraine:

From: Tina Flournoy < [email protected] >
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:58:55 AM
To: Amitabh Desai
Cc: Jon Davidson; Margaret Steenburg; Jake Sullivan; Dan Schwerin; Huma Abedin; John Podesta
Subject: Re: Victor Pinchuk

Team HRC - we'll get back to you on this

> On Mar 30, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Amitabh Desai < [email protected] > wrote:
>
> Victor Pinchuk is relentlessly following up (including this morning) about a meeting with WJC in London or anywhere in Europe. Ideally he wants to bring together a few western leaders to show support for Ukraine, with WJC probably their most important participant. If that's not palatable for us, then he'd like a bilat with WJC.
>
> If it's not next week, that's fine, but he wants a date. I keep saying we have no Europe plans, although we do have those events in London in June. Are folks comfortable offering Victor a private meeting on one of those dates? At this point I get the impression that although I keep saying WJC cares about Ukraine, Pinchuk feels like WJC hasn't taken enough action to demonstrate that, particularly during this existential moment for the county and for him.
>
> I sense this is so important because Pinchuk is under Putin's heel right now, feeling a great degree of pressure and pain for his many years of nurturing stronger ties with the West.
>
> I get all the downsides and share the concerns. I am happy to go back and say no. It would just be good to know what WJC (and HRC and you all) would like to do, because this will likely impact the future of this relationship, and slow walking our reply will only reinforce his growing angst.
>
> Thanks, and sorry for the glum note on a Monday morning...

* * *

We find more evidence of media coordination with Politico's Glenn Thrush who has an off the record question to make sure he is not "fucking anything up":

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2015-04-30 17:06
Subject: Re: sorry to bother...

Sure. Sorry for the delay I was on a plane.
On Apr 30, 2015 9:44 AM, "Glenn Thrush" < [email protected] > wrote:

> Can I send u a couple of grafs, OTR, to make sure I'm not fucking
> anything up?

* * *

Another notable moment emerges in the emails, involving Hillary Clinton's selective memory. Clinton's description of herself as a moderate Democrat at a September 2015 event in Ohio caused an uproar amongst her team. In a mail from Clinton advisor Neera Tanden to Podesta in the days following the comment she asks why she said this.

"I pushed her on this on Sunday night. She claims she didn't remember saying it. Not sure I believe her," Podesta replies. Tanden insists that the comment has made her job more difficult after "telling every reporter I know she's actually progressive". " It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment ," she adds.

* * *

We also get additional insight into Clinton courting the Latino minority. A November 2008 email from Federico Peña , who was on the Obama-Biden transition team, called for a "Latino media person" to be added to the list of staff to appeal to Latino voters. Federico de Jesus or Vince Casillas are seen as ideal candidates, both of whom were working in the Chicago operations.

"More importantly, it would helpful (sic) to Barack to do pro-active outreach to Latino media across the country to get our positive message out before people start spreading negative rumors," Peña writes.

* * *

Another email between Clinton's foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan and Tanden from March 2016 discussed how it was "REALLY dicey territory" for Clinton to comment on strengthening "bribery laws to ensure that politicians don't change legislation for political donations." Tanden agrees with Sullivan:

" She may be so tainted she's really vulnerable - if so, maybe a message of I've seen how this sausage is made, it needs to stop, I'm going to stop it will actually work."

* * *

One email suggested, sarcastically, to kneecap bernie Sanders : Clinton's team issued advise regarding her tactics for the "make or break" Democratic presidential debate with Sanders in Milwaukee on February 11, 2016. The mail to Podesta came from Philip Munger, a Democratic Party donor. He sent the mail using an encrypted anonymous email service.

"She's going to have to kneecap him. She is going to have to take him down from his morally superior perch. She has done so tentatively. She must go further," he says.

Clearly, the desire to get Sanders' supporters was a key imperative for the Clinton campaign. In a September 2015 email to Podesta , Hill columnist Brent Budowsky criticized the campaign for allegedly giving Clinton surrogates talking points to attack Bernie Sanders. "I cannot think of anything more stupid and self-destructive for a campaign to do," he says. "Especially for a candidate who has dangerously low levels of public trust," and in light of Sanders' campaign being based on "cleaning up politics."

Budowsky warns voters would be "disgusted" by attacks against Sanders and says he wouldn't discourage Podesta from sharing the note with Clinton because "if she wants to become president she needs to understand the point I am making with crystal clarity."

"Make love to Bernie and his idealistic supporters, and co-opt as many of his progressive issues as possible."

Budowsky then adds that he was at a Washington university where " not one student gave enough of a damn for Hillary to open a booth, or even wear a Hillary button. "

* * *

One email focused on how to address with the topic of the TPP. National Policy Director for Hillary for America Amanda Renteria explains, "The goal here was to minimize our vulnerability to the authenticity attack and not piss off the WH any more than necessary."

Democratic pollster Joel Benenson says, "the reality is HRC is more pro trade than anti and trying to turn her into something she is not could reinforce our negative [sic] around authenticity. This is an agreement that she pushed for and largely advocated for."

* * *

While claiming she is part of the people, an email exposes Hillary as being " part of the system ." Clinton's team acknowledges she is "part of the system" in an email regarding her strategies. As Stan Greenberg told Podesta:

" We are also going to test some messages that include acknowledgement of being part of the system, and know how much has to change ,"

* * *

Some more on the topic of Hillary being extensively coached and all her words rehearsed, we find an email which reveals that Clinton's words have to be tightly managed by her team who are wary of what she might say. After the Iowa Democratic Party's presidential debate in November 2015 adviser Ron Klain mails Podesta to say, "If she says something three times as an aside during practice (Wall Street supports me due to 9/11), we need to assume she will say it in the debate, and tell her not to do so." Klain's mail reveals Sanders was their biggest fear in the debate. "The only thing that would have been awful – a Sanders break out – didn't happen. So all in all, we were fine," he says.

The mail also reveals Klain's role in securing his daughter Hannah a position on Clinton's team. "I'm not asking anyone to make a job, or put her in some place where she isn't wanted – it just needs a nudge over the finish line," Klain says. Hannah Klain worked on Clinton's Surrogates team for nine months commencing in the month after her father's mail to Podesta, according to her Linkedin.
CuttingEdge X_in_Sweden Oct 19, 2016 9:18 AM

Is Podesta authorised to be privy to confidential information?

Only Hillary sends him a 9-point assessment of the ME with this at the top:

Note: Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.

I would assume Intelligence Services intel based assessments would be a bit confidential, Mr Comey? Given their source? Nothing to see here, you say?

Fuck Me.

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18917

Bubba Rum Das samjam7 Oct 19, 2016 9:02 AM
I love this...Assange is incommunicado, yet the data dumps keep coming!
Horse face looks like such a fool to the world as a result; & due to John Kerry's stupidity which is drawing major attention to the whole matter; Americans are finally beginning to wake up & pay attention to this shit!

Looks like the Hitlery for Prez ship is starting to take on MASSIVE amounts of water!

I believe they are beyond the point where any more news of 'pussy grabbing' will save them from themselves (and Mr. Assange)!

Oh, yeah...-And THANK YOU, MR. O'KEEFE!

css1971 Oct 19, 2016 9:04 AM

Dems!! Dems!! Where are you. You need 2 more bimbos to accuse Trump of looking at them!!

You have more paedophile charges to lay on Assange.

You have violence to cause at Trump, Stein and Johnson rallys.

You have mass vote rigging campaigns to orchestrate!!!

DEMS you need to get that nose to the grindstone!!

Hobbleknee GunnerySgtHartman Oct 19, 2016 8:48 AM

Fox is controlled opposition. They dropped the interview with O'Keefe after he released the latest undercover report on Democrat voter fraud.

JackMeOff Oct 19, 2016 10:16 AM

Wonder what "docs" they are referring?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/17978

monad Oct 19, 2016 1:14 PM The FBI had no difficulty convicting Obugger's crony Rod Blagegovitch.

The new lowered expectations federal government just expects to get lucre + bennies for sitting on their asses and holding the door for gangsters. Traitors. Spies. Enemies foreign and domestic. Amphisbaegenic pot boiling.

california chrome Oct 19, 2016 11:03 AM

With Creamer's tricks effective in Obama's re-election, it now makes sense why Obama was so confident when he said Trump would never be president.

Trump is still ahead in the only poll I track. But i conduct my own personal poll on a daily basis and loads of Trump supporters are in the closet and won't come out until they pull the lever for Trump on election day.

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
whatamaroon Oct 19, 2016 1:04 PM https://pageshot.net/qLjtSLje2gBJ1Mlp/twitter.com ,
This supposedly directly implicates Podesta and voter fraud. If it will open here

[Oct 18, 2016] Dear Clinton Team We Noticed You Might Need Some Email Security Tips

Notable quotes:

"... Well-crafted spear-phishing emails can be incredibly hard to spot, but if you ever end up on a website asking you for a password, you should be skeptical. Check the URL and make sure you're at a legitimate login page before typing in your password, or navigate to the login page directly. ..."

theintercept.com

Here are some easy ways the Clinton team could have avoided getting hacked and might prevent it in the future.

There is probably no one more acutely aware of the importance of good cybersecurity right now than Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta, whose emails have been laid bare by WikiLeaks, are being mined for news by journalists (including at The Intercept), and are available for anyone with internet access to read.
So as a public service to Podesta and everyone else on Clinton's staff, here are some email security tips that could have saved you from getting hacked, and might help you in the future.
Use a strong password

There's a method for coming up with passwords that are mathematically unfeasible for anyone to ever guess by brute force, but that are still possible for you to memorize. I've written about it before, in detail, including an explanation of the math behind it.
But in short: You start with a long list of words and then randomly select one (by rolling dice), then another, and so on, until you end up with something like: "slinging gusty bunny chill gift." Using this method, called Diceware, there is a one in 28 quintillion (that is, 28 with 18 zeros at the end) chance of guessing this exact password.
For online services that prevent attackers from making very many guesses - including Gmail - a five-word Diceware password is much stronger than you'll ever need. To make it super easy, use this wordlist from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

.... ... ...

Use a unique password for each application

The same day that WikiLeaks published Podesta's email, his Twitter account got hacked as well. How do you think that happened? I have a guess: He reused a password that was exposed in his email, and someone tried it on his Twitter account.

... ... ...

Turn on two-factor authentication

Last year, when I asked National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden what ordinary people could do to improve their computer security, one of the first pieces of advice he gave was to use two-factor authentication. If Podesta had enabled it on his Gmail account, you probably wouldn't be reading his email today.
Google calls it "2-Step Verification" and has an excellent website explaining why you need it, how it works, and how it protects you. In short: When you log in to your account, after you type in your password you'll need one more piece of information before Google will allow you to proceed. Depending on how you set it up you might receive this uniquely generated information in a text message, a voice call, or a mobile app, or you could plug in a special security key into your USB port.
Once you start using it, hackers who manage to trick you into giving up your password still won't be able to log in to your account - at least not without successfully executing a separate attack against your phone or physically stealing your security key.

Watch out for phishers

... ... ...

Well-crafted spear-phishing emails can be incredibly hard to spot, but if you ever end up on a website asking you for a password, you should be skeptical. Check the URL and make sure you're at a legitimate login page before typing in your password, or navigate to the login page directly.

Encrypt your email

.... ... ...
To get started, check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Surveillance Self-Defense guide for using email encryption for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux. If enough people in your organization use encrypted email, consider using our newly released tool GPG Sync to make it somewhat simpler.

Don't listen to the wrong people

... ... ...

[Oct 15, 2016] FBI Dump Reveals Obama's Pseudonym Use, Private Email Traffic with Hillary's Private Email

Notable quotes:

"... The Federal Bureau of Investigation [sic] revealed Friday that President Barack Obama used a private email address and pseudonym to communicate with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary R. Clinton and her own private email account as early as June 2012. ..."

Oct 15, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
breitbart.com
The Federal Bureau of Investigation [sic] revealed Friday that President Barack Obama used a private email address and pseudonym to communicate with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary R. Clinton and her own private email account as early as June 2012.
Posted at the FBI's Vault site, the revelation was part of a 189-page document dump of interview notes from conversations its agents conducted about how Clinton handled classified electronic correspondence, other documents, and her private email scheme during her tenure as secretary of State. Obama told CBS News March 7, 2015 that he did not know about Clinton's private email while she was his secretary of state from Jan. 21, 2009 to Feb. 1, 2013.
Q: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?
Obama: The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.

[Oct 15, 2016] Where Is Sidney Blumenthal's 16th Missing Email Zero Hedge

Oct 15, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

In one of the more interesting threads to emerge from today's latest, seventh Wikileaks dump of Podesta emails, we read a detailed exchange between Clinton press secretaries Brian Fallon and Nick Merrill, in which we learn how on June 24, 2015 the Clinton Campaign was preparing for the upcoming news release in which the State Department, and the mainstream press, would acknowledge for the first time that Hillary Clinton had deleted a certain number of Sid Blumenthal emails from the 55k pages of material produced by Hillary Clinton from her personal server.
By way of background, this is what Fallon wrote in preparation for the official and unofficial response the Clinton campaign would provide to the State Department:

Q: The State Department says that at least 16 of the emails that Sid Blumenthal turned over to the Benghazi Select Committee were not included in the 55,000 pages of materials produced by Hillary Clinton. Doesn't this prove that Hillary Clinton deleted certain emails at some point before producing them to the Department?

ON-THE-RECORD RESPONSE FROM SPOKESMAN NICK MERRILL:

"Hillary Clinton has turned over 55,000 pages of materials to the State Department, including all emails in her possession from Mr. Blumenthal."

ADDITIONAL POINTS ON BACKGROUND FROM CLINTON AIDE:

Not only did Clinton turn over all emails that she has from Blumenthal, she actually turned over more than a dozen emails that were not included in what Mr. Blumenthal handed over to the House committee.

We do not have a record of other correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Blumenthal beyond that which was turned over to the State Department. In terms of the documents provided by Mr. Blumenthal to the House committee, we do not recognize many of those materials and cannot speak to their origin.

OFF RECORD, if pressed on whether we are essentially admitting the possibility that she deleted some emails:

Look, we do not know what these materials are, or where they came from. Just take a look at them: many of the documents are not even formatted as emails.

For all we know, it could be that, in the course of reproducing his emails after his account was hacked, Sid misremembered which memos he actually forwarded to her and which he did not.

And hey, even if Sid is right and some of these documents were at some point sent to Clinton, this is unremarkable anyway for two key reasons:

One, she would have been under no obligation to preserve them since Blumenthal wasn't a government employee.

Two, there is nothing in any of these emails that is remotely new or interesting. Indeed, none of these 16 emails are qualtitatively different than the dozens of others that Hillary already produced to the State Department . So it is completely ridiculous to suggest that there might have been any nefarious basis for her to want to delete any of Sid's correspondence .

After one turn of comments he revised his "Off the Record" statement to omit the "Sid misremembered" part to end up with the following:

OFF RECORD, if pressed on whether we are essentially admitting the possibility that she deleted some emails:

Look, we do not know what these materials are, or where they came from. Just take a look at them: many of the documents are not even formatted as emails.

But even if Sid is right and some of these documents were at some point sent to Clinton, there is nothing in any of these emails that is remotely new or interesting. Indeed, none of these 16 emails are qualitatively different than the dozens of others that Hillary already produced to the State Department. So it is completely ridiculous to suggest that there might have been any nefarious basis for her to want to delete any of Sid's correspondence.

The revision took place after Nick Merrill confirmed - yet again - that there had been collusion between the State Department and the Clinton campaign when he said that " Just spoke to State a little more about this. " He then noted the following updates:

1. The plan at the moment is for them to do this tomorrow, first thing in the morning.

2. What that means specifically is that they are going to turn over all the Blumenthal emails to the Committee that they hav along with some other HRC emails that include a slightly broader set of search terms than the original batch. That of course includes the emails Sid turned over that HRC didn't, which will make clear to them that she didn't have them in the first place, deleted them, or didn't turn them over . It also includes emails that HRC had that Sid didn't, as Brian noted.

Then, providing further evidence of ongoing collusion not just between Hillary's campaign and the State Department, but also the press, Merrill then adds the following note to explain how the State Department hoped to use the Associated Press to product a piece that "lays this out" before the "committee has a chance to realize what they have.":

3. They do not plan to release anything publicly, so no posting online or anything public-facing, just to the committee . That said, they are considering placing a story with a friendly at the AP (Matt Lee or Bradley Klapper ), that would lay this out before the majority on the committee has a chance to realize what they have and distort it .

On that last piece, we think it would make sense to work with State and the AP to deploy the below. So assuming everyone is in agreement we'll proceed. It would be good to frame this a little, and frankly to have it break tomorrow when we'll likely be close to or in the midst of a SCOTUS decision taking over the news hyenas.

But what is the most interesing part of this exchange is not what is in the email, but what may have been discussed offline, for one reason: a curious discrepancy emerges just one day later, when the AP wrote an article, as expected by the "friendly" AP reporters Bradley Klapper and Matt Lee, which laid out the narrative precisely as the Clinton campaign wanted it. While we are confident many readers recall it from when it first appeared last June, from AP :

WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department cannot find in its records all or part of 15 work-related emails from Hillary Rodham Clinton's private server that were released this week by a House panel investigating the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, officials said Thursday.

The emails all predate the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. diplomatic facility and include scant words written by Clinton herself, the officials said. They consist of more in a series of would-be intelligence reports passed to her by longtime political confidant Sidney Blumenthal, the officials said.

Nevertheless, the fact that the State Department says it can't find them among emails she provided surely will raise new questions about Clinton's use of a personal email account and server while secretary of state and whether she has provided the agency all of her work-related correspondence, as she claims.

Here is CNN's take on the same issue , in an article that came out virtually at the same time:

The State Department has not been able to find emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private server in its archives, State Department officials said Thursday.

The officials said the State Department is missing all or part of 15 emails from longtime confidant Sidney Blumenthal released this week by a House panel investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. Blumenthal provided the Select Committee on Benghazi with the emails.

Here is NBC :

The State Department cannot find in its records all or part of 15 work-related emails from Hillary Rodham Clinton's private server that were released this week by a House panel investigating the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, officials said Thursday.

Here is NYT :

The State Department said on Thursday that 15 emails sent or received by Hillary Rodham Clinton were missing from records that she has turned over, raising new questions about whether she deleted work-related emails from the private account she used exclusively while in office.

And here is CBS :

The State Department cannot find in its records all or part of 15 work-related emails from Hillary Rodham Clinton's private server that were released this week by a House panel investigating the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, officials said Thursday.

And so on, but notice something similar: every press reports note 15 emails from Blumenthal were missing .

Why is " 15 " strange? Because recall what the Clinton campaign was discussing just one day prior in the preparation of its talking points to the State Department:

... the State Department may acknowledge as soon as today that there were 16 Sid emails missing from the 55k pages of material produced by HRC...

... none of these 16 emails are qualitatively different than the dozens of others that Hillary already produced to the State Department...

... The State Department says that at least 16 of the emails that Sid Blumenthal turned over to the Benghazi Select Committee were not included in the 55,000 pages of materials produced by Hillary Clinton...

We have just one question: how - and why - in the span of 24 hours, did a confirmed sample of 16 deleted Sidney Blumenthal emails, as discussed off the record within the Clinton campaign, become 15 deleted emails overnight when the State Depratment unveiled its "official", and massaged especially for the press, version of what Hillary had stated she had done with the Blumenthal's emails.

Was the publicly announced "embarrassing" deletion of 15 Blumenthal emails merely a smokescreen to cover up the real malfeasance: the elimination of just one Blumenthal email which the State Department, in collusion with Hillary, deemed would be too damaging to even disclose had been produced?

And if so, who at the State Department lied and why ?

Actually we have another question: what was in the missing , and (twice?) deleted 16th , email?

Alas, since one of the many pathways of undisputed coordinated, and collusion, exposed thanks to this latest Wikileaks release is that between the government, the mainstream press, and Hillary Clinton, we are confident we will never find out, and are even more confident this question will never emerge.

Source

[Oct 13, 2016] WikiLeaks pumps out Clinton emails by Katie Bo Williams and Julian Hattem

Notable quotes:

"... Clinton talked of the need to have "both a public and a private position" on controversial issues. The former first lady also said her family's wealth had made her "kind of far removed" from the problems facing the middle class. ..."

"... one of the leaked Podesta emails appeared to show that the Clinton campaign had been in contact with the Justice Department during an open records court case in which it was not a party. The Trump campaign said the email "shows a level of collusion which calls into question the entire investigation into her private server." ..."

"... Trump has also seized on an email that revealed Clinton in one speech said that terrorism is "not a threat to us as a nation," clarifying, "it is not going to endanger our economy or our society, but it is a real threat." ..."

"... In "a speech made behind closed doors, crooked Hillary Clinton said that terrorism was not a threat - quote, 'not a threat to the nation,' " Trump said during a rally on Monday evening in Pennsylvania. ..."

Oct 12, 2016 | TheHill

Emails released on Friday appeared to contain excerpts from the paid speeches Clinton gave to Wall Street banks - speeches that Bernie Sanders Bernie Sanders Sanders, Dem senators press Obama to halt ND pipeline Top Trump aide: Fire Clinton staffers over 'anti-Catholic' remarks 5 takeaways from WikiLeaks emails MORE had demanded she release during their primary battle. In one of the speeches, Clinton talked of the need to have "both a public and a private position" on controversial issues. The former first lady also said her family's wealth had made her "kind of far removed" from the problems facing the middle class.

On Tuesday, one of the leaked Podesta emails appeared to show that the Clinton campaign had been in contact with the Justice Department during an open records court case in which it was not a party. The Trump campaign said the email "shows a level of collusion which calls into question the entire investigation into her private server."

Trump has also seized on an email that revealed Clinton in one speech said that terrorism is "not a threat to us as a nation," clarifying, "it is not going to endanger our economy or our society, but it is a real threat."

In "a speech made behind closed doors, crooked Hillary Clinton said that terrorism was not a threat - quote, 'not a threat to the nation,' " Trump said during a rally on Monday evening in Pennsylvania.

"During one of the secret speeches - amazing how nothing is secret today when you talk about the internet - Hillary admitted that ISIS could infiltrate with the refugees," he added, referring to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. "Then why is she letting so many people into our country?"

Some of the emails released have no bearing on the campaign at all.

In one message, Podesta offers advice for cooking risotto (don't add the water all at once). In others, the former guitarist for pop-punk band Blink-182, Tom DeLonge, suggests that Podesta meet with a variety of individuals, seemingly to discuss UFOs.

The release comes at a time when the intelligence community is casting doubt on WikiLeaks and its motives.

[Oct 12, 2016] Very Damaging News Regarding Hillary Clinton's Emails

Notable quotes:

"... it's obvious why Hillary Clinton's campaign and her supporters in the media would want to ignore bad news from hacked emails in favor of decade-old comments Donald Trump made about women. ..."

"... On Friday we learned that the Obama administration actively worked to crush stories relating to Clinton's emails after the story broke in early 2015. In one email, White House Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri emailed her counterpart at the State Department: "between us on the shows… think we can get this done so he is not asked about email." Palmieri was trying to make sure Secretary of State John Kerry would not be asked about the email scandal on his Face the Nation ..."

"... The New York Times ..."

"... This is exactly what Sanders warned about during the primary -- that Clinton took money from Wall Street but was not adopting his position against the banks because it was politically popular. It was hard to believe that Clinton would be just as harsh against the banks privately as she was publicly. ..."

"... Clinton awkwardly defended this comment at the debate on Sunday by speaking at length about Lincoln. But it certainly plays into the notion of Clinton's corruption; that she will say anything to anyone to get elected. It also begs the question: Who is being told the truth? Is her private position the one that she will institute in the Oval Office or will she stick with the public position? How can we trust anything she says? ..."

"... Other hacked emails revealed Clinton's campaign privately insulting journalists who didn't praise the Democratic nominee. In one email, campaign Press Secretary Nick Merrill called New York Times ..."

"... Merrill also said he had tried "to shame" the Intercept's Emily Kopp's "lousy reporting" on Clinton using her campaign account as a slush fund. ..."

"... More emails were released on Monday, and they were just as bad. In one email , former Bill Clinton aide Doug Band called Hillary's daughter Chelsea "a spoiled brat kid." ..."

"... Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media. ..."

Oct 10, 2016 | observer.com
The Left must stop pretending this is a nonstory • 10/10/16
We're just a month away from the election, so it's obvious why Hillary Clinton's campaign and her supporters in the media would want to ignore bad news from hacked emails in favor of decade-old comments Donald Trump made about women.

But the story isn't going away-especially if Clinton becomes president.

On Friday we learned that the Obama administration actively worked to crush stories relating to Clinton's emails after the story broke in early 2015. In one email, White House Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri emailed her counterpart at the State Department: "between us on the shows… think we can get this done so he is not asked about email." Palmieri was trying to make sure Secretary of State John Kerry would not be asked about the email scandal on his Face the Nation appearance that occurred three days later.

The next day, State Department Communications Director Jennifer Psaki responded: "Good to go on killing CBS idea." And guess what? Kerry wasn't asked about the emails.

Also on Friday, leaked transcripts from Clinton's Wall Street speeches were revealed by Wikileaks. The New York Times reported that "The tone and language of the excerpts clash with the fiery liberal approach she used later in her bitter primary battle with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and could have undermined her candidacy had they become public."

Ouch.

Clinton said in the transcripts that she dreamed of "open trade and open borders." She also spoke about how Abraham Lincoln twisted arms behind the scenes to get things done, and said it was important to have "both a public and a private position."

This is exactly what Sanders warned about during the primary -- that Clinton took money from Wall Street but was not adopting his position against the banks because it was politically popular. It was hard to believe that Clinton would be just as harsh against the banks privately as she was publicly.

Clinton awkwardly defended this comment at the debate on Sunday by speaking at length about Lincoln. But it certainly plays into the notion of Clinton's corruption; that she will say anything to anyone to get elected. It also begs the question: Who is being told the truth? Is her private position the one that she will institute in the Oval Office or will she stick with the public position? How can we trust anything she says?

While Trump's comments predictably dominated the news cycle over the weekend, more damaging information was linked about Clinton.

Other hacked emails revealed Clinton's campaign privately insulting journalists who didn't praise the Democratic nominee. In one email, campaign Press Secretary Nick Merrill called New York Times reporter Amy Chozick an "idiot" for writing an article about supporters becoming wary of Campaign Manager Robby Mook after Clinton narrowly eked out a win against Sanders.

Merrill also said he had tried "to shame" the Intercept's Emily Kopp's "lousy reporting" on Clinton using her campaign account as a slush fund.

More emails were released on Monday, and they were just as bad. In one email , former Bill Clinton aide Doug Band called Hillary's daughter Chelsea "a spoiled brat kid."

"I don't deserve this from her and deserve a tad more respect or at least a direct dialogue for me to explain these things," Band wrote in response to a dispute with Chelsea over the Clinton Foundation. "She is acting like a spoiled brat kid who has nothing else to do but create issues to justify what she's doing."

Band founded Teneo Strategies, which for a brief time employed Clinton aide Huma Abedin while she was also working for the State Department.

Perhaps most damaging of all, it appears Team Clinton was " petrified " of any GOP presidential nominee except Trump.

"Right now I am petrified that Hillary is almost totally dependent on Republicans nominating Trump," wrote Brent Budowsky, a former Capitol Hill staffer (and Observer columnist ). "She has huge endemic political weaknesses that she would be wise to rectify … even a clown like Ted Cruz would be an even money bet to beat and this scares the hell of out me."

Clinton's own campaign knew she wasn't a strong candidate and that the email scandal was damaging-that's why they worked behind the scenes to crush stories about the emails and disparaged reporters who didn't fall in line. They also worked to make Trump the GOP nominee because anyone else would have run away with the election against such a flawed candidate.

The Left's response is always the same: Either this is a nonstory or it's "old news." The more they make such proclamations, the more it's clear that they just want the story to go away because they know how bad it is for Clinton. Voters care about this issue; it's part of why Clinton is routinely described as "untrustworthy."

The Left wouldn't be calling this a nonstory if the Secretary of State in question were Condoleeza Rice (and to be fair, Republicans would then be the ones claiming it was a non-story).

Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.

[Oct 12, 2016] A majority of Americans believed Hillary should have been prosecuted for her handling of the emails

Notable quotes:

"... Yes, on all points, especially this: "I don't know whether this obfuscation is due to the journalists themselves believing that Clinton is a crook and therefore shouting "Thief, thief!" to distract attention from this, or whether they're just being opportunistic and throwing raw meat to the rubes. But it's not a good sign for the future of American civil society either way." I say both . The donor class 1% that own the media, especially the new media, are solidly behind Hillary to an extent that I wonder whether we can call any of the media 'liberal.' Trump correctly noted that to even refer to the 33,000 documents she destroyed after receiving a federal subpoena as 'email' clouds the key facts: the FBI and government inspectors had to have access to all the documents to determine their status. ..."

"... In the short term, it's all upside. They won't be fighting in any of Hillary's wars. They aren't going to be drafted and they aren't going to be bombed. The are almost all staunchly and proudly anti-Republican and that's the sole metric by which actions are judged both morally and legally. ..."

"... When the elephant starts to take heat for the crap effect of donor class policies, the donor class simply pour money into donkey coffers to ensure the continuation of the donor class crap policies. ..."

"... Politically-motivated prosecutions of former presidents would obviously not be good, but prosecutions motivated by their legitimately criminal actions would be a welcome change. ..."

"... It's equally clear that you're quite comfortable with Clinton Inc. taking de facto control of the Democratic party so that Hillary did not have to face the kind of opposition she did in 2008. ..."

"... You're obviously equally cool with her 7 in a row coin toss escapade that 'won' her the Iowa primary, and the numerous cases of collusion between the Hillary campaign and the DNC, you know – the ones that forced Wasserman-Schultz to run fleeing from the podium during the train wreck called the Democratic Convention. ..."

"... Then there are the wars, none of which Hillary is responsible for. We came, we saw, he died has the character and the temperament to be in the oval office because she wouldn't say shit when she obviously has more than a mouthful, but a guy who engages in lewd locker room talk can credibly be compared to Hitler. ..."

"... She wants to confront Russia over control of Syrian airspace, an act that could well put America on a collision course with both Russia and Iran. Speaking of which, you can learn a little bit more of the kinds of geopolitical changes Bush-Clinton-Obama and their doofus allies have wrought in the ME. ..."

"... Her corruption is the corruption of the 1%, whom she serves. Her wars are the wars of the 1%. Her supporters are the elite 1%. The recent leaks confirm collusion between the Hillary campaign and the DNC to tilt the primary in favor of Hillary. The most recent leaks confirm the Obama WH and the Kerry State department worked to suppress evidence and FOI requests. ..."

"... Let's not dismiss this as ancient history. Do you know who else is being charged under the Espionage Acts of 1917? Snowden. This is still very much living U.S. law, ..."

"... "They were emailed to her personal server, for her own personal use." Wrong. The government owned emails were mailed to her government-purposed (at least in part) server for her professional use as an employee of the federal government. ..."

"... The entire exercise is, of course, absurd. As we've learned, US and UK politicians lie routinely to investigators over starting wars, torturing people, targeting dissidents for special treatment, punishing whistle-blowers, lying to the public, etc. with complete impunity. ..."

"... The mere suggestion that Ted Kennedy, or George Bush, or Hillary Clinton would ever be charged with any crime is laughable. Punishments and trials are for 'ordinary' citizens. ..."

"... Everyone knows that. Which is why Trump will win. ..."

Oct 12, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

kidneystones 10.11.16 at 4:34 am 9

@5 MFB Yes, on all points, especially this: "I don't know whether this obfuscation is due to the journalists themselves believing that Clinton is a crook and therefore shouting "Thief, thief!" to distract attention from this, or whether they're just being opportunistic and throwing raw meat to the rubes. But it's not a good sign for the future of American civil society either way."
I say both . The donor class 1% that own the media, especially the new media, are solidly behind Hillary to an extent that I wonder whether we can call any of the media 'liberal.' Trump correctly noted that to even refer to the 33,000 documents she destroyed after receiving a federal subpoena as 'email' clouds the key facts: the FBI and government inspectors had to have access to all the documents to determine their status.

The press understands all this, of course. They are neither forgetful, or entirely stupid. They, however, quite blind to the damage they are doing to institutions they claim to care about.

In the short term, it's all upside. They won't be fighting in any of Hillary's wars. They aren't going to be drafted and they aren't going to be bombed. The are almost all staunchly and proudly anti-Republican and that's the sole metric by which actions are judged both morally and legally.

Which makes them the perfect dupes of the donor class.

When the elephant starts to take heat for the crap effect of donor class policies, the donor class simply pour money into donkey coffers to ensure the continuation of the donor class crap policies.

Ezra and Ryan and their ilk are all aspiring VSPs. They'll get their 'one-on-one' interviews to boost clicks and Hillary will simply forget to schedule more than one actual press conference per year.

Liberals will clap and high five each other over the goofus they helped remove.

Kresling 10.11.16 at 5:35 am 11
Politically-motivated prosecutions of former presidents would obviously not be good, but prosecutions motivated by their legitimately criminal actions would be a welcome change. Everyone knows that elite politicians (Bushes, Clintons) are basically immune from serious legal consequences, and fury regarding the unfairness of our two-tiered justice system is part of what fuels the current populism.
kidneystones 10.11.16 at 8:22 am 16
I wouldn't ordinarily link to the NR, but on the topic of banana republics, this piece is quite good.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440917/donald-trump-special-prosecutor-hillary-clinton-debate

kidneystones 10.11.16 at 10:53 am 25
@19 Your legal expertise consists of exactly what? I have none but I know how to read and the reading makes it quite clear that Hillary's use of the private server for State business was not sanctioned, that mixing Foundation documents with government documents did not give her the authority to destroy documents on the server after she received the subpoena, she was certainly not entitled to destroy devices with a hammer, bleach her hard drives and otherwise do everything possible to obstruct the FBI and justice department investigation.
Most tellingly, as the linked piece above at the NRO makes clear, Trump did not threaten to put Hillary in jail. Unlike Obama, who used one arm of his administration, his own Justice department, to investigate another arm of his own administration, the Secretary of State, Trump stipulated clearly that he would distance himself and his administration from any investigation by appointing a special prosecutor. His explicit remark re: jail was a counter-factual.

Had he been President, Hillary would have been in jail.

But you're clever enough (I hope) to know and understand all this. It's equally clear that you're quite comfortable with Clinton Inc. taking de facto control of the Democratic party so that Hillary did not have to face the kind of opposition she did in 2008.

You're obviously equally cool with her 7 in a row coin toss escapade that 'won' her the Iowa primary, and the numerous cases of collusion between the Hillary campaign and the DNC, you know – the ones that forced Wasserman-Schultz to run fleeing from the podium during the train wreck called the Democratic Convention.

Down the memory hole go the empty seats, the chain link fences, and emails suggesting Hillary's only obstacle to power then was 'possibly' an agnostic, or a Jew. She gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop to give secret speeches to bankers and her daughter collected three six-figure salaries, one from NBC the folks who sat on the tape until just the right moment.

If she and Bill hadn't harassed Jones et al, why then was she so shocked and rattled to see them up close? No desire for reconciliation? A healing hug? Bill banged a few of them, of that there's no doubt and one credibly claimed he raped while serving as state attorney general.

Then there are the wars, none of which Hillary is responsible for. We came, we saw, he died has the character and the temperament to be in the oval office because she wouldn't say shit when she obviously has more than a mouthful, but a guy who engages in lewd locker room talk can credibly be compared to Hitler.

Lee above says that Donald 'loomed' over Hillary. Ooooh. Well, she was sitting down half the time and he six-foot.

I suppose Trump could have just stretched out on the floor staring at the ceiling microphone in hand. That would have been the gentlemanly thing to do.

She wants to confront Russia over control of Syrian airspace, an act that could well put America on a collision course with both Russia and Iran. Speaking of which, you can learn a little bit more of the kinds of geopolitical changes Bush-Clinton-Obama and their doofus allies have wrought in the ME.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/08/iran-iraq-syria-isis-land-corridor

kidneystones 10.11.16 at 1:54 pm 51
@44 . Must be racists and women-haters.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-disapproves-decision-charge-clinton-emails-poll/story?id=40445344

One set of laws for the ruling class, and another for the rest of us. The FBI director stipulated that any other suspected felon could not expect the same exceptional treatment.

Had she been charged and facing trial she would have been out of the race right now.

You're defending the theft of the election.

stevenjohnson 10.11.16 at 3:07 pm 58

kidneystones @48 People in authority, which includes law enforcement, knew while Clinton was Secretary of State she was taking emails on a private server. They had to know, because the address for the emails had to be available or they couldn't have emailed her. If it wasn't a problem then, it isn't a problem now.

That's true, even if a corrupt police bureaucrat like Comey wants to pretend his political opinions are anything but an improper intervention. Unsafe to use a private server? After Snowden, Manning and the entire career of wikileaks, not to mention the allegations about Russian and north Korean cyberwarfare, Comey needs to explain how using a government server is safe! It's not even unprecedented. Powell did the same, even if dumbasses want to excuse this as being somehow slipping in before some regs.

No, sorry to say that buying into email scandal as anything but business as usual, especially by people who vocally approve the American way of exceptional profits, is nothing but…sorry, no way to be properly forceful but to correctly call it "dumbfuckery." This is probably why people are looking for things like chauvinism or internalizing the decades of insane attacks by mad dog reactionaries as the causes of such flagrant stupidity.

And yes, political prosecutions are legal, but highly destructive to any system that permits such nonsense. I mean, really, it was the threat of a political prosecution that "forced" Caesar to cross the Rubicon. The effects are rarely helpful. Consider for example one of the most notorious political prosecutions in recent times, the impeachment of Bill Clinton. (Isn't the glee over the Trump tape exactly like the glee over the blue dress? And just as likely to lead to anything worthwhile?) Prof. Robin has either forgotten, or for some inexplicable reason things deems it a good thing.

As for the election being over, the polls for Brexit or the polls for the FARC peace treaty show that it's not over til the votes are counted, or not, as intimidation and fraud may (or may not) determine. There isn't the slightest reason to be sure the down ballot Republican Party is going to be dragged down by the candidate the party has resisted from the beginning.

It all depends on turnout. The relentless assault on Clinton will probably have its desired effect of suppressing turnout. The humane feelings of the population at large have always suggested the majority will endorse Clinton, who passes for human much better than Trump. But the US political system is designed for minority rule. It's still too possible for Trump to win the electoral college. Although CT and its commentariat unhesitatingly support the same viciously reactionary policies in action under Obama (even as they pretend on occasion to oppose them as they predict Clinton's future,) those same fundamentally incompetent policies leave Trump hope for a disaster that seemingly vindicates him.

Last and least, the question of Trump's precedents is irrelevant when the gravity of Trump's precedents are falsified. Trump's closest precedent is Nixon. The historical revisionism where Nixon was just another conservative implicitly tells us Watergate was an unjust power grab by malign liberal media. This is part and parcel of the increasing move towards reaction.

kidneystones 10.11.16 at 3:18 pm 59
53@ The majority of Americans wanted her charged for her actions.
You're welcome to believe that her use of the private server (in direct violation of State department guidelines, but useful when avoiding FOI requests), mishandling of classified materials, and destruction of evidence merit no charges, or even investigation, as long as you understand most Americans wanted her charged for her actions.

Her corruption is the corruption of the 1%, whom she serves. Her wars are the wars of the 1%. Her supporters are the elite 1%. The recent leaks confirm collusion between the Hillary campaign and the DNC to tilt the primary in favor of Hillary. The most recent leaks confirm the Obama WH and the Kerry State department worked to suppress evidence and FOI requests.

I don't dispute that parts of the Trump campaign are about 'revenge' or at least replying in kind. The attacks on Bill's predatory sexual behavior is certainly that. The email case is simply an illustrative example of elite corruption involving various branches of government, the media, the Clinton foundation and a global list of grifters.

Some partisans suggest that Clinton was never going to be charged because the WH has known from day 1 that charging Clinton would also mean charging Obama, who knew of the server from day 1, and well aware how insecure the system for handling State documents actually was. Hard as it may be to imagine (and it is hard to imagine at this juncture) Clinton might not be the only one indicted should Trump win and get his special prosecutor.

The world will certainly look very different should he pull this out. Hard to imagine.

kidneystones 10.11.16 at 3:26 pm 60
@ 55 stevenjohnson. I have no problem with much of this, or most of your comments. You're quite right to draw our attention to the grave insecurities in America's cyber defenses. I'm certainly not one who sees the outcome as certain. The health of the Republicans at the state level is very good already, in many cases, and the revulsion for the corruption in the media and government that is fueling Trump_vs_deep_state and support for Bernie is unlikely to decline should Trump be defeated.
Rich Puchalsky 10.11.16 at 5:08 pm 69
marcel proust: "Furthermore, he was not singled out for prosecution & jailing; many others (thousands?) who actively opposed US participation in WW1 also went to jail: socialists and other pacifists including religious objectors, as well as many of German (and perhaps Irish) ancestry."
Which is how the U.S. government broke the IWW: they had had an anti-war position for as long as they existed, but backed down on doing any actual, coordinated resistance in favor of preserving their ability to organize workers. But that wasn't enough and they were broken anyways.

Let's not dismiss this as ancient history. Do you know who else is being charged under the Espionage Acts of 1917? Snowden. This is still very much living U.S. law, and the people who say that we must elect HRC at all costs are generally the same people who don't care that Obama is using it.

Lupita 10.11.16 at 6:54 pm 76
This election also can be seen in a more general, global context of how forces have been accommodating to the end of the cold war. Perhaps a detour into the history of some 3rd world banana republics, those that many Americans deem as deplorable as a Trump supporter, can shed some light.
Starting in the 50's, and with the expressed goal of modernizing their countries (meaning an accelerated capitalist development with the US as its model and as the only possible model) military and terror regimes took over South America (Paraguay: 1954-1991, Chile: 1973-1990, Argentina: 1976-1982, Uruguay: 1966- 1985). For the most part, before being forced out of power, these military regimes declared amnesty for themselves. Enter truth commissions, whose purpose is to investigate the causes of violence and human rights violations and to establish judicial responsibility.

Back in the US, those responsible for human rights violations around the world, such as torture, extra-judicial assassinations, and renditions, have never been brought to justice and the mere mention of Clinton (a politician!) facing jail for a very minor infraction is considered in undemocratic bad taste.

Conclusion: perhaps more than a special prosecutor, a commission of truth is in order, but not at the moment, after the US crumbles as the USSR did. Only then can 3rd worlders hope to see Kissinger, Bush, Blair, Aznar, Obama, and all their enablers brought to justice. For the moment, we have to put up with the spectacle of some Americans, in an intent at preemptive amnesty, outraged at the mere thought that their presumptive tin-pot, global Caesar is not above suspicion and that they themselves are better than 3rd worlders.

likbez 10.11.16 at 7:16 pm 80
stevenjohnson ,

kidneystones @48 People in authority, which includes law enforcement, knew while Clinton was Secretary of State she was taking emails on a private server. They had to know, because the address for the emails had to be available or they couldn't have emailed her. If it wasn't a problem then, it isn't a problem now.

This is technically incorrect. SMTP mail is very old and pretty convoluted protocol.
Existance of private address means only that the email server exists but it does not determine where the mailbox is located (multiple layers of redirection are possible).

the level of incompetence and malevolence that Clinton and her associated demonstrated is simple staggering for any specialist or lawyer. Which aspects of it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt is an interesting theoretical question, but for any specialist it is clear that Hillary not only cut corners and but also had driven on red light. As simple as that.

The essence of emailgate is not existence of email server per se. the strongest part of evidence against her is the saga of destroying "non-essential" emails while being under investigation and indirectly instructing technical personnel to use special technical means which make deleted emails unrecoverable. You might wish to look at

http://www.thompsontimeline.com/the-hidden-smoking-gun-the-combetta-cover-up/

for more detailed information

Based on the amount of evidence collected my personal opinion is that this might well be a provable offence.

That means that Hillary risks impeachment if elected. So the idea of assigning special prosecutor is baked in the case independently of who wins in November.

The other, less important, but still pretty damning part of emailgate is that Hillary essentially created and maintained their own shadow IT within the State Department. This view was suggested in
http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocons/Hillary/hillary_clinton_email_scandal.shtml

This connects emailgate with Clinton Foundation making the latter a criminal enterprise under RICO statute.

Layman 10.11.16 at 7:30 pm 84
likbez: "Based on the amount of evidence collected my personal opinion is that this might well be a provable offence."
Another armchair prosecutor. Can you please articulate the offense, and cite the statute?

likbez 10.11.16 at 8:56 pm 87
@81
18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). This offense carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment.
Executive Order 13526 "The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security." , Sec. 1.1(4)(d) (for violations committed after December 29, 2009)
44 U.S. Code § 3106 – Unlawful removal, destruction of records

likbez 10.11.16 at 9:17 pm 90
@83
If prosecutor really wants a long jail term he can try 18 U.S.C. § 1519
likbez 10.11.16 at 10:54 pm 100
Hi Another Nick,
@93

A very simple question to you: Is not the notion of a "note relating to the national defense" include emails, for example, emails related to the targets of drone strikes, which were present in the steam?

As for "proper place of custody" this argument is not applicable to the deletion of emails when a person is under federal or Congressional investigation. In this case the act of deletion itself constitute the violation of the statute independently of the "proper place of custody" and sensitivity of information in the email.

I would recommend to read (or re-read) URLs that were provided above. They contain wealth of information and arguments both pro and contra. The one about 'shadow It" created by Hillary is slightly outdated, but still useful. And they might help to answer your next questions :-)

I tend to view Hillary Clinton as a person, who escaped prosecution due to Obama pardon delivered via Comey (probably under pressure from Bill Clinton via Loretta Lynch). Essentially putting herself above the law, by the fact of belonging to "ruling neoliberal elite", the 0.01%. Your mileage can vary.

kidneystones 10.12.16 at 1:23 am 105
Back to the OP. There's a bumper crop of new email on the topic of the press and debate moderators colluding with the Hillary campaign to: screw Sanders (Boston Herald – also on board for anti-Trump), minimize damage from the email fallout, and best of all (for me) John Harwood (neutral debate moderator) providing written evidence that even that venue was tilted to damage Trump and protect Hillary.
It's never the crime, always the cover-up.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/nytcnbcs-john-harwood-advises-clinton-campaign-gloats-about-provoking-trump-at-debate/

kidneystones 10.12.16 at 1:51 am 109
"They were emailed to her personal server, for her own personal use." Wrong. The government owned emails were mailed to her government-purposed (at least in part) server for her professional use as an employee of the federal government.
As an employee of the federal government she is bound by all (not some) federal laws respecting government property, and by all (not some) State Department regulations regarding the handling of government documents and electronic devices.

And whether she 'removed' the documents from their proper place for the purpose of espionage, or not, the fact that we're now reading these emails, we are told by the Clinton campaign, thanks to the insecurity of her private unsecured system – she's wide open to charges of gross negligence in the handling of government documents, especially when State department regulations demand that those with any kind of security clearance understand how government documents are to be handled and fully comply with all protective measures.

Comey called her handling of sensitive documents 'extremely careless.'

That alone provides solid grounds for charges and a trial.

kidneystones 10.12.16 at 3:16 am 113
@112 Thanks for the clarity – you agree that she acted well outside the law. You agree there are grounds to charge her and to proceed with a trial. Good.
I'm quite comfortable leaving charges and the trial to a special prosecutor, as Trump promises. The majority of Americans certainly held the view that charges and a trial are warranted.

If you're of the opinion that she shouldn't be charged for possible crimes until after the election, go ahead and make that case.

kidneystones 10.12.16 at 9:41 am 120
@119 Determining guilt, or innocence is not the job of the FBI. The job of the FBI is to determine if there are grounds for charges to be laid.
"I said it appeared plausible she might have obstructed justice."

Let's first provide Hillary with a trial in order to determine if she actually committed any crime. That's normally how it works. Then after the verdict if she's found guilty, you're welcome to suggest appropriate punishment.

Still waiting for an answer: put Hillary on trial now, or after the election.

kidneystones 10.12.16 at 9:48 am 121
The entire exercise is, of course, absurd. As we've learned, US and UK politicians lie routinely to investigators over starting wars, torturing people, targeting dissidents for special treatment, punishing whistle-blowers, lying to the public, etc. with complete impunity.
The mere suggestion that Ted Kennedy, or George Bush, or Hillary Clinton would ever be charged with any crime is laughable. Punishments and trials are for 'ordinary' citizens.

Everyone knows that. Which is why Trump will win.

[Oct 12, 2016] More Evidence Reveals Obama Influenced Clinton's FBI Investigation by Michael Sainato

Notable quotes:

"... The Wall Street Journal ..."

"... The New York Times ..."

Oct 12, 2016 | observer.com

Obama called Sanders a 'shiny new object' while praising Clinton for overcoming adversity • 10/10/16 2:30pm

In an interview with Fox News this past April, President Obama asserted that he did not put pressure on the FBI's criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server . "I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI-not just in this case but in any case," he said. There is now mounting evidence suggesting Obama's claim was false.

"Newly disclosed emails show top Obama Administration officials were in close contact with Hillary Clinton 's nascent presidential campaign in early 2015 about the potential fallout from revelations that the former secretary of state used a private email server," reported Bryon Tau for The Wall Street Journal on October 7. The emails were obtained by the Republican National Committee through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit requesting those records.

A few months before White House Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri went to work for her campaign, emails show her in damage control for Clinton as early as 2015, when news first broke that Clinton's private server existed. In one chain of emails between Palmieri and State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki, Palmieri asked Psaki to ensure that Secretary of State John Kerry wasn't asked about Clinton's private email server during an upcoming CBS interview. "Good to go on killing CBS idea," Psaki responded back to Palmieri, according to the Journal , adding, "going to hold on any other TV options just given the swirl of crap out there."

In March 2015, The New York Times reported that Obama said he didn't know Clinton was using a private email address. That turned out to be false, as the second FBI report on their investigation into Clinton's private server revealed that the president used a pseudonym in email communications with her. "How is this not classified?" Clinton aide Huma Abedin asked the FBI during their interview. Obama's use of a pseudonym suggests he not only was aware of Clinton's private server, but he knew it wasn't secured to communicate with Clinton , as there were no security officers to mark the correspondence as classified.

Obama's administration has intervened to delay several FOIA requests until after Election Day to shield Clinton from further scrutiny.

In October 2015, the White House stopped the release of emails between Clinton and Obama, citing the need to keep presidential communications confidential.

In June, the Obama administration stepped in to delay the State Department fulfilling an FOIA request from International Business Times for emails regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership until 2017. "The delay was issued in the same week the Obama administration filed a court motion to try to kill a lawsuit aimed at forcing the federal government to more quickly comply with open records requests for Clinton -era State Department documents," reported David Sirota.

President Obama has also repeatedly defended Clinton when questioned about her private server , blaming the controversy on politics. But while the FBI was conducting an investigation, Obama should have refrained from making his own judgment on the case.

This was the consensus among the Democratic Party establishment: provide Clinton with impunity. No presidential candidate has ever won their party's nomination while under a FBI investigation, yet the Democratic Party , with the president's support, protected Clinton throughout the private email server controversy. Though Obama waited until after the end of the Democratic primaries to formally endorse Clinton , his support and praise throughout the primaries favored her. In October 2015, CNN reported a top Obama strategist said he would support Clinton . In a January interview with Politico, Obama denigrated Sen. Bernie Sanders' support, calling him a "shiny new object" while praising Clinton for overcoming adversity.

The State Department Inspector General and FBI Director James Comey issued severe criticisms in their reports on Hillary Clinton's use of a private server . But to merit an indictment, the FBI would have been forced to be even more aggressive in their investigation than usual. The investigation had already been polarized politically, while Clinton's staff were granted immunity and a team of lawyers guided Clinton every step of the way throughout the investigation. For similar reasons to why big bankers don't get indicted anymore, Clinton managed to avoid the FBI recommending an indictment. The political climate in which all Democratic Party leaders stood behind Clinton , that Obama affirmed repeatedly, made it virtually impossible for Clinton to be held accountable.

[Oct 12, 2016] James Comey and Loretta Lynch Should Be Impeached for Whitewashing Clintons Crimes

Notable quotes:

"... Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice ..."

"... Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. ..."

"... Wall Street Journal ..."

"... Washington Post ..."

"... Sidney Powell worked in the Department of Justice for 10 years, in three federal districts under nine United States Attorneys from both political parties. She was lead counsel in more than 500 federal appeals. She is the author of Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice -a legal thriller that tells the inside story of high-profile prosecutions. ..."

"... Face the Nation ..."

"... The New York Times ..."

"... Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media. ..."

"... The New York Times ..."

"... The New York Times ..."

"... The Wall Street Journal ..."

"... The New York Times ..."

"... Many Americans, you once told students at the University of New Hampshire, "don't seem to appreciate the link between what happens abroad and what happens here at home." Can you think of ways to strengthen that weak link? ..."

"... Name three people aside from yourself that Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton should pick as the next Secretary of State? ..."

"... So forgive and forget? ..."

"... This interview was edited and condensed ..."

"... Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media. ..."

"... City & State ..."

"... City & State ..."

"... The New Republic ..."

"... International Business Times ..."

"... Los Angeles Times ..."

"... Los Angeles Times ..."

"... Social Science and Medicine ..."

"... Health Psychology ..."

"... John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Ga. He can be reached at ..."

"... [email protected] ..."

"... This story has been updated to clarify that the state's plan to rebuild the its transportation system includes federal funds and other sources. ..."

Oct 11, 2016 | observer.com
Former federal prosecutor says that Hillary obstructed justice and destroyed evidence-with the support of the president himself • 10/11/16 8:30am Just when one thinks the cavalier cabal of Clinton and her cronies has exhausted all manner of corruption, yet another outrage surfaces, implicating even more people.
The bombshell this week is that Loretta Lynch and James Comey not only gave immunity to Hillary's closest co-conspirators Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson-who, despite being attorneys, destroyed evidence right and left-but, in a secret side deal, agreed to limit the FBI's review of the Clinton team laptops to pre-January 2015 and to destroy the laptops when the FBI review was complete.

Congress and every law-abiding citizen in this country should be outraged. This blatant destruction of evidence is obstruction of justice itself.

We no longer have a Department of Justice: We have a Department of Obstructing and Corrupting Justice to protect the power elite of the chosen side.

It's easy to see now why Lynch secretly met Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac on June 27. Only a few days later, the FBI had its little chat with Hillary-neither under oath nor with a rights warning-in the presence of her coconspirators. Then, Hillary announced she would keep Lynch as Attorney General if she is elected president. Surely by coincidence, the very next day Comey does his song and dance ending the "investigation."

Comey's "investigation" was a farce . Any former prosecutor worth a flip would have convened a grand jury, issued subpoenas, gotten search warrants, seized computers, run wire taps, indicted the Clinton cabal, and squeezed the underlings to plead guilty and cooperate. This business of friendly chats, immunity agreements handed out like party favors, and side deals that include the Attorney General approving the destruction of evidence to keep it from Congress doesn't happen for others targeted by the feds.

Just ask any number of Wall Street executives who for various reasons found themselves on the opposite side of the Department of "Justice." In fact, my former client, Jim Brown, served a year in prison convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for testifying about his personal understanding of a telephone call to which he was not even a party. Yes, you read that correctly. Read Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice . It becomes more relevant every day.

How did we get here?

Thanks to the work of Judicial Watch and others, we learned over a year ago now that Hillary Clinton ran the most important and confidential of world affairs and the United States Department of State through an unsecured computer server assembled by her minions and ensconced in the basement of her New York home. She did so despite repeated warnings of security risks, against protocol, and contrary to her own memo to all of her underlings. That posed no problem simply because the rules don't apply to Clinton .

Conveniently, her server also handled Clinton Foundation correspondence that facilitated the personal enrichment of Hillary and Bill by hundreds of millions of dollars. That money came from Bill's remarkable " speaking fees " at hundreds of events around the world-each of which was quickly approved as requested by Clinton crony Cheryl Mills at the State Department-as if there were no conflict of interest . Simultaneously, foreign entities made "donations" of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation to obtain the immediate attention of and curry favor with the secretary of state-and it worked.

The conflict of interest inherent in that entire scenario is palpable. It's the Clintonian equivalent of the scheme former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow conceived that destroyed Enron-a large side-slush fund that operated as his own piggy bank. The Clintons boldly went where no one has gone before: They privatized the State Department for their massive personal gain , creating a net worth for each of over $100 million dollars in a few short years. Ironically enough, lead counsel for the Clinton Foundation now was President Obama's longest-serving White House counsel . A former prosecutor on the Enron Task Force, Kathryn Ruemmler was implicated in various forms of prosecutorial misconduct and its cover-up.

The personal home server allowed Hillary Clinton to send and receive all of her emails and run the State Department free from protected, secure, and required government channels. It was established deliberately to circumvent the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act-both of which applied to her work-related correspondence.

That was no problem for Clinton however, as she simply "didn't know how to use a computer," apparently was incapable of learning to do so (unlike most toddlers in the country), and she liked her Blackberry-which was reason enough for her highness to ignore the national security interests of the entire country.

One of our favorite Clinton lies is: 'My staff and I will cooperate completely with the investigation.'

Clinton's insistence on operating outside the government security protocols demonstrated at best deliberate disregard for the law and national security-and, at worst, conduct that was treasonous. That is why 18 USC 793 (d) and (f) make it a crime punishable by imprisonment for 10 years to even move any information relating to the national defense from secure conditions or to fail to return it upon demand. Clinton did both-repeatedly.

The unsecure server also facilitated the clearly conflicting roles of Clinton confidant and protégé Huma Abedin, who was paid simultaneously by the Clinton Foundation and the taxpayers through the State Department. That made it easier for the double-dipping Abedin to schedule meetings quickly for Clinton with those who had paid to play-substantial donors to the Foundation, such as the Crown Prince of Bahrain, who had been denied a face-to-face through those pesky State Department protocols in place for mere mortals. His millions in contributions to the Foundation got him an appointment with Clinton through Abedin in a matter of hours.

We wrote more than a year ago-as soon as we heard one Clinton server was "wiped"-about the Countless Crimes of Hillary Clinton . We foresaw the need for a special prosecutor and predicted that if emails could be found, they would likely implicate high ranking people across the government, including the president.

Lo and behold, President Obama, who told the country he heard of Clinton's private email from news reports, was in reality emailing her at Clintonemail.com and using an alias. He must have forgotten. But, wait-just this week, we get more emails, and there's now evidence that the White House and the State Department coordinated an attempt to minimize the problem.

Now we have a candidate for president of the United States who has committed lie after lie, obstructed justice, and destroyed evidence with the support of the president himself-conduct for which many people are in prison. Sometimes it's called False Statements to federal officials, punishable by up to five years in prison under 18 USC 1001 . Under other circumstances, such as in sworn statements to federal judges or testimony to Congress, it can be perjury under 18 USC 1621 or 1623.

And let's not forget obstruction of justice under 18 USC 1519. That statute was tailor-made to fit the facts of the Clinton cabal's destruction of evidence. It reads:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Remember the man relentlessly prosecuted by the feds for throwing a few fish overboard? That case had to go all the way to the Supreme Court for them to decide that fish weren't the kind of tangible objects/evidence to which Congress intended the new obstruction statute to apply. But emails, computers, and servers are. Senator Clinton voted for that new statute-but it doesn't apply to her. Well, it would, but Loretta Lynch and James Comey just agreed to destroy evidence of it themselves.

These false statement and obstruction offenses are so easy to prove that prosecutors often tack them on to already multi-count indictments just for good measure when they want to hammer Wall Street bankers or other citizens and business people who actually work for a living.

How many of these federal criminal offenses are established by the limited evidence that has been pried out of the Clintons' hands or resurrected from unsuccessful although mighty attempts to destroy it? They are truly countless, as each email would be a separate charge but, for the sake of brevity, we'll just pick three or four-that don't even include all the conspiracy charge options routinely used by "reasonable" prosecutors.

First, Clinton testified to Congress that she "turned over all of her work-related emails." Second, she "only wanted to use one device." Later, she chose her words carefully, claiming "nothing was marked classified when it was sent or received." That sounds good to people who are not lawyers, but it's Clintonese and not the law.

She "turned over all her work emails"?

First, her friend Sidney Blumenthal found a number of emails he exchanged with her about confidential matters of State that she didn't produce. Next, that pesky Pentagon found over 1,000 emails between Hillary and General Petraeus alone. Most recently, the FBI found roughly 15,000 Clinton thought had been erased completely when she had her servers "wiped" professionally with BleachBit. We'll never know how many were deliberately destroyed to protect her incompetence and corruption. Mills, Samuelson, and others at Platte River Networks destroyed whatever they wanted.

As both secretary of state and an attorney who had long been paid by the taxpayers, Clinton should know that information "relating to the national defense" is what is protected under 18 USC 793(f). It doesn't have to be "classified"-marked or unmarked-even though much of it was.

Sure, let's give her the presidency and the nuclear codes and access to every national secret-ISIS can just hack her and use our own missiles to destroy us. They won't have to worry about trying to bring nukes into the country.

In any event, according to the FBI's perfunctory investigation, more than 2,000 of the emails available are classified as Confidential or Secret or higher.

Clinton may have only wanted "one device," but the truth is that she had 13 "personal mobile devices that were lost, discarded, or destroyed." Reporter Sharyl Attkisson has an excellent timeline of irrefutable, no-spin facts derived from the part of the FBI's file that has been made public. The timeline of events alone is damning.

Not surprisingly, Attkisson reports that "[a]fter the State Dept. notified Hillary Clinton her records would be sought by the House Benghazi Committee, copies of her email on the laptops of her attorneys Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were wiped with Bleachbit, and the FBI couldn't review them. After her emails were subpoenaed, Hillary Clinton's email archive was also permanently deleted from her then-server 'PRN' with BleachBit, and the FBI couldn't review it."

One of our favorite Clinton lies is: "My staff and I will cooperate completely with the investigation."

I guess that's why they invoked their Fifth Amendment privileges against self-incrimination, had hard-drives wiped, destroyed devices with hammers, put the selected emails in the hands of her attorney and refused to produce them for weeks, while her staff all refused to speak without grants of immunity or took the Fifth. I guess it just depends on how you define "cooperation."

Enter stage left James Comey, Director of the FBI, who fills himself with righteous indignation to tell Congress what a great job the FBI did in this "investigation." As Congressman Trey Gowdy said , and I concur, "This isn't the FBI I used to work with."

Clinton ran her shenanigans without an Inspector General in the State Department. An Inspector General is appointed by the President, but his or her job is to serve as a watchdog on behalf of the taxpayers. As The Wall Street Journal reported, Clinton declined to allow an Inspector General at the State Department during her entire tenure-so there was no internal oversight, and President Obama allowed that. More than a year ago, the Inspector Generals for State and for the Intelligence Community conducted a limited review of only 40 of Clinton's emails. They quickly found several containing classified information which they immediately reported to the executive branch and advised Congress. They wrote : "This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system."

Remember Richard Nixon? Remember Attorney General John Mitchell? Remember White House Counsel John Dean? Nixon White House cronies Haldeman and Erlichman? They all went to prison .

It's not just the private server. It's not about personal emails or even a few business emails sent from a personal account.

It is about the fair administration of justice and trust in our justice system. It is about the accountability of our highest officials. It is about destroying evidence in the face of a serious investigation. It is about national security breaches of the highest order, and it's about the privatization and sale of our State Department for personal enrichment. The conduct of the Clintons, their cronies, their Foundation, and now our highest law enforcement officials make the entire Watergate scandal look like an insignificant computer hack.

Where is the Congress? Where are what used to be our great newspapers? The sounds of silence are terrifying indicators of how government-controlled our mainstream media has become. I guess that's why Reporters Without Borders has dropped our Freedom of Press rank to 46 ^thworld-wide.

FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch should be impeached for their roles in whitewashing Clinton's crimes and their own participation in the destruction of evidence . They facilitated and participated in the obstruction of justice-spitting in the face of the Congressional investigation. Congress should be able to name a special prosecutor when the Attorney General has a clear conflict-such as meeting secretly with Bill Clinton during the "investigation" and receiving a promise of continuing as Attorney General if Hillary is elected President. The timeline of events and their conduct reek of corruption.

Stay tuned. Clinton's answers under oath to D.C. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan are due October 13. Remember, he's the judge who appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the Department of Justice following the Bush administration's corrupted prosecution of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. And it was Judge John Sirica-combined with what was then the great Washington Post -who exposed the Nixon corruption.

With more and more government intrusion in every aspect of our individual businesses and lives, we are quickly losing the land of the free, and we now must wonder if any of the brave are home. Who has the chutzpah to stand up to the Clintons? Where are the real Americans? Hopefully, on election day, they will pour out in droves and resoundingly demand real change. The election and Judge Sullivan are our only chances for justice at all.

Sidney Powell worked in the Department of Justice for 10 years, in three federal districts under nine United States Attorneys from both political parties. She was lead counsel in more than 500 federal appeals. She is the author of Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice -a legal thriller that tells the inside story of high-profile prosecutions.

[Oct 10, 2016] Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to weigh in. It smacks of acting above the law

Notable quotes:

"... Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to weigh in. It smacks of acting above the law ..."

"... That sums up the Clintons right there: It smacks of acting above the law ..."

"... I've been browsing through #PodestaEmails2 and jeezus, there are some pretty incriminating docs there. Of course the MSM are doing their best to ignore them, but it looks like a real firestorm to me. ..."

"... time for comey to the rescue. ..."

Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

reslez October 10, 2016 at 3:36 pm

More wikileaks, some interesting detail on Hill's emails I hadn't run across before:

why the "twisted truth" (not my words) on why – with the two problematic areas being (a) emails to bill (when they were to bill's staff) and (b) i only used one device - BB, when 2 weeks earlier, it was an iphone, BB and ipad. As Ann and I discussed, hopefully that's a timing issue and whilst in state, she only used one. :)

While we all know of the occasional use of personal email addresses for business, none of my friends circle can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to weigh in. It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I've either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.

My emphasis

From Erika Rottenberg (former Linked In General Counsel)
To Stephanie Hannon (CTO of Hillary For America), Ann O'Leary (senior policy advisor)
CC Lindsay Roitman
Fwded to Podesta

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4099

Pavel October 10, 2016 at 4:35 pm

That sums up the Clintons right there: It smacks of acting above the law

I've been browsing through #PodestaEmails2 and jeezus, there are some pretty incriminating docs there. Of course the MSM are doing their best to ignore them, but it looks like a real firestorm to me.

pretzelattack October 10, 2016 at 4:48 pm

time for comey to the rescue.

polecat October 10, 2016 at 5:07 pm

'We comeyed some folks …..'

Pavel October 10, 2016 at 5:44 pm

More like, "We immunised some folks!"

polecat October 10, 2016 at 5:50 pm

same diff --

fresno dan October 10, 2016 at 6:20 pm

Pavel
October 10, 2016 at 5:44 pm

"Comeyed" is better, cause it sounds dirtier…..

[Oct 09, 2016] Contradicting FBI view, Clintons leaked speeches portray her as computer savvy

Notable quotes:

"... Contradicting FBI view, Clinton's leaked speeches portray her as computer savvy McClatchy ..."

"... charged with a computer facilitated crime – computer illiterate ..."

"... charged with generating funds from Silicon valley financiers – computer savvy… ..."

"... Public position, private position, Dan. She has been completely forthright about this. ;-) ..."

"... Similar to choosing Clinton for President despite her record of leading from behind on good things and disastrously wrong choices in financial policy and oversight, Foreign Policy and civil rights, choosing to listen to one thing Richard Rubin says after decades of evidence that he couldn't find his hands in front of his face on a sunny day… Oh wait these are only failures and disasters if you aren't part of the in crowd. ..."

"... there is a ton of material both in those emails AND from the hurricane where Clinton is extremely vulnerable. Attack her on the record of her actions and of the Foundation in Haiti and tie her to the dead from the hurricane (justified). Point out what her statements regarding the trade deals, Social Security, Medicare. even sending your kids to war. He has an opportunity and material, but can he or will he use it? ..."

Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:00 am

Contradicting FBI view, Clinton's leaked speeches portray her as computer savvy McClatchy

Pretty simple
charged with a computer facilitated crime – computer illiterate
charged with generating funds from Silicon valley financiers – computer savvy…

Jim Haygood October 9, 2016 at 10:30 am

Public position, private position, Dan. She has been completely forthright about this. ;-)

Pat October 9, 2016 at 10:06 am

Similar to choosing Clinton for President despite her record of leading from behind on good things and disastrously wrong choices in financial policy and oversight, Foreign Policy and civil rights, choosing to listen to one thing Richard Rubin says after decades of evidence that he couldn't find his hands in front of his face on a sunny day… Oh wait these are only failures and disasters if you aren't part of the in crowd.

I believe we will know how serious Trump is if he manages to shift the conversation tonight to Clinton's own quotes and what they mean. He will have to say his prepared piece in answer to the planted questions and refuse to let them get under his skin, ignore the bait to attack back on that. Who knows if he can.

But there is a ton of material both in those emails AND from the hurricane where Clinton is extremely vulnerable. Attack her on the record of her actions and of the Foundation in Haiti and tie her to the dead from the hurricane (justified). Point out what her statements regarding the trade deals, Social Security, Medicare. even sending your kids to war. He has an opportunity and material, but can he or will he use it?

[Oct 08, 2016] WikiLeaks makes it official, Obama knew about Hilary's email, of course he knew. So a bald-faced lie from the president of the United States to millions of Americans:

Oct 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 7, 2016 at 7:34 pm

And WikiLeaks makes it official, Obama knew about Hilary's email, of course he knew. So a bald-faced lie from the president of the United States to millions of Americans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCqAVW8CpLg

The body language is the tell, when asked directly he says "No" but his head bobs up and down "Yes".

Seems to me a candidate could win simply by saying "I will not lie to you".

[Oct 06, 2016] Hacker Releases Emails From Clinton State Department Insider

Notable quotes:

"... Marshall's central importance to the Clintons' political operations was realized earlier this year by Citizens United. The conservative watchdog group filed a federal lawsuit for Marshall's State Department emails. ..."

"... At State, Marshall served as chief of protocol from 2009 to 2013. In that role, she helped the State Department and White House manage issues related to diplomatic protocol. ..."

"... The emails, which appear to be from Marshall's Gmail account, span the period from March 2015 through June 2016. ..."

Oct 06, 2016 | dailycaller.com

... ... ...

Marshall's central importance to the Clintons' political operations was realized earlier this year by Citizens United. The conservative watchdog group filed a federal lawsuit for Marshall's State Department emails.

At State, Marshall served as chief of protocol from 2009 to 2013. In that role, she helped the State Department and White House manage issues related to diplomatic protocol.

She entered the Clinton sphere during Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, working as a special assistant to Hillary Clinton. She later worked on Clinton's senatorial and presidential campaigns, helping lead fundraising efforts.

The DC Leaks emails appear to be authentic.

The emails, which appear to be from Marshall's Gmail account, span the period from March 2015 through June 2016.

[Oct 05, 2016] EMAIL RELEASE: Citizens United Releases 198 Pages Of Emails Between State Department And Clinton Foundation

Oct 05, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

SamEyeAm Oct 5, 2016 10:21 PM

http://www.citizensunited.org/press-releases.aspx?article=10655

Press Releases

EMAIL RELEASE: Citizens United Releases 198 Pages Of Emails Between State Department And Clinton Foundation

10/05/2016

Today Citizens United is releasing 198 pages of emails between the State Department and Clinton Foundation on a host of issues.

43 of the pages have to do with the creation of the "Friends of the Clinton Centre" 501c3, its connection to an official State Department trip to Ireland, and a dinner that Secretary Clinton attended that doesn't appear on her schedule.

Other topics include China, Haiti, Iran, Cuba, Mexico, and more.

The specter of foreign influence and the appearance of conflicts of interest are critically important issues. We will continue to release emails such as these in the weeks and months to come.

In these emails, you'll find the following:

• "Is this accurate?"

• "Following Secretary Clinton's lecture at Dublin City University…Patrick McDermott will provide a room for us for a brief discussion on the Friends of the Clinton Centre 501…"

• "And what does Megan Rodham have to do with this"

• "…asked wjc to help avoid currency legislation b/c it'll mean lots of Chinese businesses collapsing…"

• "When HRC visited Sarajevo, she proposed a program to train Bosnian entrepreneurs through the Clinton Foundation(?)"

• "Oh come on…you can make this happen…"

• "Jake - unfortunately, like a bad penny, I'll keep turning up one way or another."

• "Kicking DS off"

• "Greetings from Jet Li"

• "[REDACTED] wants barbados"

• "I think it should be okay. We have interacted with this guy."

Emails Part I: https://www.scribd.com/document/326510237/State-Department-Clinton-Found...

Emails Part II: https://www.scribd.com/document/326510449/State-Department-Clinton-Found...

These documents were produced by the State Department as a result of FOIA requests and litigation.

Our next email production from the State Department is due on October 10.

Big Ben Oct 5, 2016 10:52 PM
Sadly, this is just business as usual for the FBI. Hoover accepted valuable gifts from wealthy friends and refused to acknowledge the existence of the mob, much less prosecute them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBqvYETksyI

gregga777 Oct 5, 2016 10:55 PM
Hillary's emails Political Theater
The entire hearings and so-called investigations surrounding Hillary's emails are a theatrical production designed to make it appear as though the US Feral gangster government actually cares about enforcing the Rule of Law. Nothing could be further from the truth. Everyone of the posturing DemonRat–ReplutoRat Party political parasites have been bribed to NOT enforce the Law against other political parasites, the banking gangsters, Con Street swindlers, criminal crony capitalist conporations and filthy Oligarchs.

Not one single current or former KKK (Klinton Krime Klan) gangster will ever be charged with a crime by our corrupt US Department of Corruption, Injustice & Persecution. Not one single current or former KKK (Klinton Krime Klan) gangster will ever be prosecuted for their violations of any US Federal criminal statutes. Not one single current or former KKK (Klinton Krime Klan) gangster will ever see the inside of a prison cell regarding the innumerable Federal felonies committed by the KKK (Klinton Krime Klan).

The investigations and hearings are all smoke and mirrors political theater. Enjoy it for the sick display of utter corruption and indifference on display by the political parasites and government gangster thugs (FBi). Remember it well when these criminals are begging for mercy at the gallows and guillotines. Don't be swayed by their protestations of innocence at that time. They are all very corrupt, very willing participants in the looting of America and the destruction of the Rule of Law. They all richly deserve their eventual dates at the gallows and guillotines.

[Oct 05, 2016] Chaffetz Blasts DOJ On Side Agreements That Effectively Prohibited FBI From Proving Intent

Notable quotes:

"... Today, Jason Chaffetz, Chair of the House Oversight Committee, sent a follow-up letter requesting additional information and blasting the investigative process in which the "FBI inexplicably agreed to destroy the laptops knowing that the contents were the subject of Congressional subpoenas and preservation letters." ..."

"... But, perhaps the most startling takeaway from the Chaffetz letter is that limitations imposed by "side agreements" with Mills and Samuelson strictly prohibited the FBI from investigating the "intent" of Hillary's staff to obstruct justice and/or destroy evidence subject to a Congressional subpoena . ..."

"... Even more disturbing, Chaffetz points out that the FBI agreed to the "side agreements" in June 2016 at which point they were already aware that Combetta deleted Hillary's emails using Bleachbit on 3/31/15 after a conference call with Cheryl Mills and Hillary attorney, David Kendall. That said, the restrictions imposed by the "side agreements" strictly prohibited the FBI from reviewing Mills' emails during that period which could have spoken to her intent to destroy evidence. ..."

Oct 05, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
Two days ago the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia), wrote a letter to AG Lynch that, for the first time, revealed that the FBI apparently struck "side agreements" with both Cheryl Mills an Heather Samuelson to, among other things, "destroy" their "laptops after concluding their search" (see " FBI Allowed 2 Hillary Aides To "Destroy" Their Laptops In Newly Exposed 'Side Agreements' ").
Today, Jason Chaffetz, Chair of the House Oversight Committee, sent a follow-up letter requesting additional information and blasting the investigative process in which the "FBI inexplicably agreed to destroy the laptops knowing that the contents were the subject of Congressional subpoenas and preservation letters."

But, perhaps the most startling takeaway from the Chaffetz letter is that limitations imposed by "side agreements" with Mills and Samuelson strictly prohibited the FBI from investigating the "intent" of Hillary's staff to obstruct justice and/or destroy evidence subject to a Congressional subpoena . As pointed out by Chaffetz, the "side agreements" allowed the FBI to only review emails between 6/1/14 through 2/1/15 and only those sent/received by one of Clinton's four email addresses used during her tenure as Secretary of State .

Even more disturbing, Chaffetz points out that the FBI agreed to the "side agreements" in June 2016 at which point they were already aware that Combetta deleted Hillary's emails using Bleachbit on 3/31/15 after a conference call with Cheryl Mills and Hillary attorney, David Kendall. That said, the restrictions imposed by the "side agreements" strictly prohibited the FBI from reviewing Mills' emails during that period which could have spoken to her intent to destroy evidence.

But, as always, we're sure the DOJ and FBI will promptly clarify all of these new questions in a completely open and transparent way.

Link to letter here.
Chris Dakota -> venturen Oct 5, 2016 10:26 PM
She is going to lose.
But she will still be sick and Trump will prosecute her, Bill and Chelsea.

Her running was the can opener to the Clinton Foundation.

She has nothing to look forward too.

"At this point what difference does it make!"

Manthong -> Chris Dakota Oct 5, 2016 10:38 PM

"prohibited the FBI from investigating the "intent" of Hillary's staff to obstruct justice and/or destroy evidence subject to a Congressional subpoena"

Um… yeah, that was the whole purpose of the exercise..

People should be impeached here.

Start with Loretta for her tarmac golf and grandkid discussions with Bill and supervision of the Hillary/FBI travesty.

thinkmoretalkless -> Manthong Oct 5, 2016 11:05 PM
Their hubris is what is shocking and frightening. Like a blitz they are trying to overwhelm the rule of law. Like rabid dogs they are willing to take some hits if they can make it to the throats of the system. Conspiracy theories of sleeper cells and fifth columns have nothing on the pervasive nature of the threat we face.
While this election may be the last chance it is only the start since to root out this threat to the Republic makes cancer look like a mild cold. These people are insidious and liberty loving people better be prepared to stand on Election Day and beyond.

SoDamnMad -> Chris Dakota Oct 5, 2016 11:09 PM
The Clinton Dynasty might be seeing what is happening and buying "no extradition agreement" with some foreign countries and the getting the money "out of Dodge" before she loses. Every American should read this and linked followups of this:
https://extranewsfeed.com/putting-the-clinton-foundation-in-context-corruption-plain-on-the-face-of-it-257e54fe7a41#.dh5ofrkyu

Goldilocks -> venturen Oct 5, 2016 10:35 PM
(The Manchurian Candidate (2004)) RAYMOND: The weasel is a weasel.
GUS100CORRINA -> venturen Oct 5, 2016 10:39 PM
I am having a real problem with the word "Honorable" being used in letter to the AG! Nothing the AG has done to date is honorable.
AMERICA IS SO ABSOLUTELY, UTTERLY CORRUPT!!!

[Sep 28, 2016] Yahoo email capture FT Alphaville

Sep 28, 2016 | ftalphaville.ft.com

Izabella Kaminska joined FT Alphaville in October 2008. Before that she worked as a producer at CNBC, a natural gas reporter at Platts and an associate editor of BP's internal magazine.
If your email provider suffered a security breach would you:

a) prefer to be informed about it as soon as possible so as to take evasive action?

or

b) prefer not to be informed until years later, by which time any evasive actions may have become pointless?

On the basis you chose the first option and a security breach happened, would you:

a) appreciate the warning and the password reset nudge, dismiss the incident to a Smeg happens scenario and continue using the service provider because at least they're vigilant about security?

or

b) Recoil in disgust at the very idea your email provider's security systems were lax enough to allow this to happen and immediately defect to a rival provider?

On the basis you would have chosen the first option and then the first option again (and then a security breach happened), how would you then react if your email provider determined that a) it was better to keep you in the dark about it and b) this was because they anticipated you would defect?

To wit, here's a nice insight from Nicole Perlroth and Vindu Goel at the New York Times for the legacy loyal yahoo email users still out there (h/t @melaniehannah):

Mr. Stamos, who departed Yahoo for Facebook last year, declined to comment. But during his tenure, Ms. Mayer also rejected the most basic security measure of all: an automatic reset of all user passwords, a step security experts consider standard after a breach. Employees say the move was rejected by Ms. Mayer's team for fear that even something as simple as a password change would drive Yahoo's shrinking email users to other services.

Two points on the back of that.

As a yahoo email user, I can testify to the fact that being continuously told by friends and family that: "Hey there, I think your email may have been hacked" is incentive enough to defect to an alternative provider.

Second, when I tried to download our complete email history so as to shutter the account formally, we found that this was in fact impossible unless we had the time and temperament to forward up to 20 years worth of email individually to a new account.

To date I am yet to get a reply from the Yahoo service team with respect to how I might get my hands on my own data in a more practical manner.

Speaking of frictions, here's another relevant snippet from the article:

The "Paranoids," the internal name for Yahoo's security team, often clashed with other parts of the business over security costs. And their requests were often overridden because of concerns that the inconvenience of added protection would make people stop using the company's products.

All of which suggests the crux of Mayer's Yahoo strategy was focused on maximising the security/access paradox to her own benefit. Namely, maximising access to the detriment of user security if it helped to bolster Yahoo's user numbers, but minimising user access to their own data if it helped to maximise the security of yahoo's own stock valuation.

Nice. This entry was posted by Izabella Kaminska on Wednesday September 28th, 2016 17:02 . Tagged with cyber security , yahoo .

Terra_Desolata 5pts Featured 5 hours ago

The choice between security and ease of access is a difficult one, and shouldn't be trivialized. Password policies are a good example - overly loose, and hackers will be able to guess users' passwords; overly strict (e.g., requiring a password change every month), and users will resort to passwords on sticky notes stuck to their monitors. If you make things too difficult for users, they will find ways to ease the burden, and some of those ways will actually make security significantly worse.

That's not to say that Yahoo made the right decision, but it is to say that it isn't as easy as assuming that more security is always better.

Patience 5pts Featured 8 hours ago

I have managed to use the web for 20 years without ever visiting yahoo.com - by intention. I got the impression that they try to imprison their users rather than empower them.

I assume their e-mail service was 'free'. If so their users got exactly what they paid for.

In an ideal world each e-mail would cost the sender a cent. This would solve the problem of spam, and generate funds to develop and promote better web security.

Simple Simon 5pts Featured 8 hours ago

Oooh, you had a Yahoo email account? You've just lost a big chunk of credibility.

I mean I have a Yahoo account (as well as a Netscape account and a Hotmail, sorry, whatever they call it) plus one or two others. Every time a new email provider has popped up I check their tech credentials and migrate to the provider that seems to hire the best techies. They get the sensitive mail. I keep the old accounts and use them for spam-associated registrations and whatnot.

Presently Google and Proton are my principal providers. Anyone who carried on with Yahoo for sensitive mail has nobody to blame other than him/herself.

blocker 5pts Featured 5 hours ago

@ Simple Simon

Settle down. Changing email accounts is a hassle, particularly for one's contacts.

OBA 5pts Featured 9 hours ago

@izabellakaminska - setup up your yahoo account and your new email account on an email client like mac mail or microsoft outlook- make sure they are both setup as an IMAP account. Wait for all the yahoo email to download and then simply select all messages and drag them across to your new account.

Steven in DC 5pts Featured

7 hours ago

@ OBA Better yet, just leave the digital past...proud achievements and baggage alike...and step into the future with a clean slate.

Terra_Desolata 5pts Featured 5 hours ago

@ OBA Thank you, this is a great suggestion. I've been trying to figure out how to backup my Yahoo! account - I only use it for signing up for things where I might get spam, but still wanted an easy way to back it up. I already used an e-mail client to get e-mails for one of my other accounts, I don't know why it never occurred to me to do the same for Yahoo!.

[Sep 28, 2016] James Comey, FBI director, rejects calls to reopen Clinton email case

Notable quotes:

"... He said he wasn't aware one of Mrs. Clinton 's tech staffers called the deletion of her emails a "coverup operation," but said none of the other information made public about grants of immunity or efforts to delete the messages has changed his mind. ..."

"... Mr. Comey also said he couldn't remember another instance where the subject of an investigation - Mrs. Clinton 's former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, sat in on the FBI 's interview with another subject, in this case Mrs. Clinton . ..."

Sep 28, 2016 | www.washingtontimes.com
He said he wasn't aware one of Mrs. Clinton 's tech staffers called the deletion of her emails a "coverup operation," but said none of the other information made public about grants of immunity or efforts to delete the messages has changed his mind.
Mr. Comey also said he couldn't remember another instance where the subject of an investigation - Mrs. Clinton 's former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, sat in on the FBI 's interview with another subject, in this case Mrs. Clinton .

[Sep 27, 2016] Whos protecting Hillary Clinton

Sep 27, 2016 | www.voltairenet.org

While the Press celebrates the Democratic Party victory of the first female billionaire in history, a somber legal battle is going on in the shadows.

The State Department report on Hillary Clinton's emails, and the different legal proceedings which followed, establish that she is guilty of :

Obstruction of Justice by Mrs. Clinton and her advisors (Section 1410) ;

Obstruction of Criminal Enquiries (Section 1511) ;

Obstruction of the application of local and Federal laws (Section 1411) ;

Federal crime of negligence with classified information and documents (Section 1924) ;

Detention in her computer, at home and on a non-secure server, of 1,200 secret documents (Section 1924)

Felony – Mrs. Clinton declared under oath to a Federal judge that she had given all her emails to the State Department. However, the Inspector General of the State Department declared this week that this was a lie (Section 798) ;

Moreover, she declared under oath that the State Department had authorised her to use her personal computer to work at home. The Inspector General of the State Department declared this week that this was a lie (Section 798) ;

Mrs. Clinton did not alert the authorities, nor even her own Department, that her personal computer had been hacked several times. Yet she had asked her system administrator to try to protect her computer.

Misappropriation and Concealment. The Clinton Foundation and Mrs. Clinton were corrupted so that the State Department would close their eyes to various practices (Rico Law and Section 1503).

In principle, and since the facts and their gravity have been established by the FBI, the State Departement, and a Federal judge, Hillary Clinton should have been arrested this week.

Bernie Sanders, the other candidate for the Democratic nomination, was counting on Mrs. Clinton's arrest before their party's convention. He therefore decided to stay in the running, although he does not have enough delegates. But he was summoned to the White House, and informed that President Barack Obama would prevent his administration from applying the law. Obama then followed through by publicly announcing his support for the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton.

Translation
Pete Kimberley

[Sep 26, 2016] So Obama sent Emails to Clintons private Email address that contained classified information. Was his handle BBC ? Truly funny!

Notable quotes:

"... So Obama sent Emails to Clinton's private Email address that contained classified information. Was his handle "BBC"? Truly funny! ..."

"... I find this revelation to be particularly galling, how richly this entire crew deserves ankle bracelets at a very minimum for perjury. When the president and the SoS lie and break the law and nothing happens…um precisely where do we go from there? ..."

Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Clinton E-mail Tar Baby Huge Scandal: Obama Used Pseudonym in Secret Memos on Hillary's Private Server Sputnik News (Chuck L).
"Huge scandal" is overwrought, but this does not look good.

Tom Stone September 25, 2016 at 10:07 am

So Obama sent Emails to Clinton's private Email address that contained classified information. Was his handle "BBC"? Truly funny!

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 25, 2016 at 2:17 pm

I find this revelation to be particularly galling, how richly this entire crew deserves ankle bracelets at a very minimum for perjury. When the president and the SoS lie and break the law and nothing happens…um precisely where do we go from there?

[Sep 24, 2016] Hillary Clinton in painfully awkward 'Between Two Ferns' interview -- 'I really regret doing this' - Washington Times

www.washingtontimes.com

Mr. Galifianakis then briefly interrupted the interview to play a campaign commercial for Mr. Trump, claiming the billionaire businessman was the show's top sponsor. He then wrapped up the exchange by telling Mrs. Clinton the two should stay in touch.
"What's the best way to reach you? Email?" he said.

[Sep 24, 2016] State Department reveals FBI uncovered 2,800 emails Clinton never turned over - Washington Times

www.washingtontimes.com

The State Department said Friday it likely has more than 2,800 new emails former Secretary Hillary Clinton never turned over but were recovered by the FBI, and will begin releasing them in batches beginning next month.

But only a small percentage will be processed before the election, the department said in court, arguing its resources are stretched too thin to get them done.

All told, the FBI turned over 15,171 emails it recovered that involved Mrs. Clinton, and of those about 60 percent have been deemed purely personal. That leaves some 5,600 that are work-related, but based on a sample of data, nearly half of those are duplicates, leaving the 2,800 or so that are new.

[Sep 24, 2016] Obama used pseudonym in emails with Hillary Clinton FBI

Does that mean that he knewq that he is sending email to an unsecure private server?

Notable quotes:

"... The president's previously unreported use of a pen name is referenced in notes from federal investigators' April 5, 2016 interview with Huma Abedin ..."

www.washingtontimes.com

Washington Times

President Obama emailed Hillary Clinton using a pseudonym while she served as his secretary of state, according to FBI documents released Friday.
The president's previously unreported use of a pen name is referenced in notes from federal investigators' April 5, 2016 interview with Huma Abedin, one of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides, contained within 189 pages of records released late Friday afternoon by the FBI concerning its review of the Democratic presidential nominee's use of a private email server while in office.

During that interview, investigators showed the aide an email exchange dated June 28, 2012 with the subject "Re: Congratulations!"

"Abedin did not recognize the name of the sender. Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be a pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed 'How is this not classified?'" according to the FBI's summary of the interview.

"Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."

The FBI's revelation quickly spurred questions about the president's past claims concerning his knowledge of Mrs. Clinton's private email server. Mrs. Clinton's non-governmental email address was first revealed in 2013 when a Romanian computer hacker breached the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton confidant, and subsequently leaked messages to the media that were sent to an account operated by Mrs. Clinton's outside of the .gov realm.

[Sep 20, 2016] Neoliberal media attempt to suppress emailgate failed by FRANK NEWPORT

Notable quotes:

"... "emails" has been the most frequently recalled word in Americans' reports of news about Mrs. Clinton - the exceptions being the week of the Democratic convention, when emails fell to second place, and this past week when "pneumonia" and "health" eclipsed emails. ..."

"... the research shows that the relevance of Mrs. Clinton's emails is very real in the minds of average Americans. ..."

"... Americans are certainly not ignoring the election and they appear to be closely following what constitutes the campaign as it unfolds. As a result, the public may be learning about the candidates' temperament, character, personality and health issues, but from what they tell us, Americans aren't getting much in the way of real substance. ..."

Sep 19, 2016 | The New York Times

From: What We Are Hearing About Clinton and Trump -

Since July we have asked more than 30,000 Americans to say exactly what it was they read, saw or heard about the two major party candidates over the past several days. The type of information getting through to Americans varies significantly depending on whether the candidate in question is Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton. Americans' daily reports about Mr. Trump are directly tied to what he is doing and saying. If Mr. Trump talks about Muslim parents and their son who was killed in action, that's what the public remembers. If he goes to Mexico or Louisiana, that's what they recall reading or hearing about him. If Mr. Trump calls President Obama the founder of the Islamic State, "ISIS" moves to the top of the list of what Americans tell us they are hearing about the Republican candidate.

What Americans recall hearing about Mrs. Clinton is significantly less varied. Specifically - and to an extraordinary degree - Americans have consistently told us that they are reading and hearing about her handling of emails while she was secretary of state during President Obama's first term. In eight of the past 10 weeks, "emails" has been the most frequently recalled word in Americans' reports of news about Mrs. Clinton - the exceptions being the week of the Democratic convention, when emails fell to second place, and this past week when "pneumonia" and "health" eclipsed emails.

When Matt Lauer of NBC News questioned Clinton about her emails for a third of the allotted time during the commander-in-chief forum on MSNBC earlier this month, he was criticized for focusing on an irrelevant issue. But the research shows that the relevance of Mrs. Clinton's emails is very real in the minds of average Americans.

... ... ...

For as long as I have been involved in election year research, the absence of serious discussion of issues and policies by the candidates has been a source of disgruntlement with the campaign process. So far, it doesn't look like 2016 is providing an exception. Americans are certainly not ignoring the election and they appear to be closely following what constitutes the campaign as it unfolds. As a result, the public may be learning about the candidates' temperament, character, personality and health issues, but from what they tell us, Americans aren't getting much in the way of real substance.

The moderators of the coming series of debates will most likely focus directly on the candidates' positions on issues. This may shift what Americans tell us they are learning about the candidates, and if so, it could signal a significant upgrade in the way the process is working.

But that also means that a lot still depends on the candidates themselves and how they end up shaping the contours of the debates.

[Sep 18, 2016] DNC Emails Possibly Exposed By Hillarys Private Server

Notable quotes:

"... Rooster coming home to roost! I would wager the reason the DNC email server was compromised was due to the lack of security on Clinton's "personal" (read political) email server. HRC left the IT Security door open and that exposed everyone she was in contact with – government, DNC and friends! ..."

Jul 26, 2016 | strata-sphere.com

OK, be patient why I delve into my inner geek.

Everyone is proposing those toxic DNC emails that roiled the Democrat National Convention this weekend were hacked by Russia. Which I actually do not doubt.

But please understand, to hack into a system someone needs to be sloppy and "invite" the hackers in! So how is it that HRC emails and DNC emails were both exposed to the voters during this election year?

Well, … l et's begin with Hillary's "personal" server and known incidents:

Clinton's server was configured to allow users to connect openly from the Internet and control it remotely using Microsoft's Remote Desktop Services. ^[64]It is known that hackers in Russia were aware of Clinton's non-public email address as early as 2011 . ^[71]It is also known that Secretary Clinton and her staff were aware of hacking attempts in 2011, and were worried about them. ^[72]

In 2012, according to server records, a hacker in Serbia scanned Clinton's Chappaqua server at least twice , in August and in December 2012. It was unclear whether the hacker knew the server belonged to Clinton, although it did identify itself as providing email services for clintonemail.com . ^[64]During 2014, Clinton's server was the target of repeated intrusions originating in Germany, China, and South Korea. Threat monitoring software on the server blocked at least five such attempts. The software was installed in October 2013, and for three months prior to that, no such software had been installed.

Now we know for a fact the "personal" side of Clinton's electronic communication was to pave the way for her second run at the presidential election. In fact, the server originated in 2008 to support her first run. Clinton would not want "Personal Political" emails to become public – for many reasons! (especially to hide any nexus between Bill's speaking fees and State Department Policy decisions ).

Everyone knows Politicians set up one account for "official business" and one for political business – a separation required by federal law. So if HRC was in communication with politicians and the DNC, it was through her personal server!

Then, there is the straight up admission by the FBI Director that Clinton's email server was hacked because people in communication with her were hacked as well:

We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account . We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account.

Rooster coming home to roost! I would wager the reason the DNC email server was compromised was due to the lack of security on Clinton's "personal" (read political) email server. HRC left the IT Security door open and that exposed everyone she was in contact with – government, DNC and friends!

Oh the irony – It Berns!!!

[Sep 16, 2016] Clinton's First Email Server Was a Power Mac Tower

Sep 16, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
(arstechnica.com) 223 Posted by BeauHD on Friday September 02, 2016 @08:10PM from the data-capturing-devices dept. An anonymous reader shares with us an excerpt from a report via Ars Technica: As she was being confirmed as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton contacted Colin Powell to ask him about his use of a Blackberry while in the same role. According to a Federal Bureau of Investigations memorandum published today (PDF), Powell warned Clinton that if it became public that she was using a Blackberry to "do business," her e-mails would be treated as "official" record and be subject to the law. "Be very careful," Powell said according to the FBI. "I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data."
Perhaps Clinton's troubles began when she switched from a Blackberry-hosted e-mail account to an account on her Clintonemail.com domain -- a domain hosted on an Apple Power Mac "G4 or G5" tower running in the Clintons' Chappaqua, New York residence. The switch to the Power Mac as a server occurred the same month she exchanged messages with Powell.

The Power Mac, originally purchased in 2007 by former President Clinton's aide Justin Cooper, had acted as the server for presidentclinton.com and wjcoffice.com. Cooper managed most of the technology support for Bill Clinton and took charge of setting up Hillary Clinton's new personal mail system on the Power Mac, which sat alongside a firewall and network switching hardware in the basement of the Clintons' home.

But the Power Mac was having difficulty handling the additional load created by Blackberry usage from Secretary Clinton and her staff, so a decision was made quickly to upgrade the server hardware. Secretary Clinton's deputy chief of staff at the State Department, Huma Abedin, connected Cooper with Brian Pagliano, who had worked in IT for the secretary's 2008 presidential campaign. Cooper inquired with Pagliano about getting some of the campaign's computer hardware as a replacement for the Power Mac, and Pagliano was in the process of selling the equipment off. by quantaman ( 517394 ) writes: on Saturday September 03, 2016 @03:20AM ( #52820193 )
Re: Clinton should be in jail!!! ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

Again, lots of hypothetical examples without any actual incidents.

Your ignorance [navytimes.com]
A sailor going and photographing classified sections of a submarine over a period of months. Basically looking like he was engaged in active espionage.

So no, not a comparable incident.

subject [washingtonpost.com]

Petraeus deliberately shared highly classified materials with his mistress and biographer.

Not a remotely comparable incident.

not [thepoliticalinsider.com] our problem.

Oooh, "10 people were actually punished for similar or lesser offenses than what Mrs. Clinton got away with yesterday".

This should be good for a laugh.

1. "pleaded guilty in 2005 to illegally sneaking classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his office and lied about it."

Nope, he was deliberately removed classified documents and they proved he lied about it.

2. "Peter Van Buren, a foreign service officer for Hillary's State Department, was fired and his security clearance revoked for quoting a Wikileaks document AFTER publishing a book critical of Clinton. In fact, the Washington Post reported that one of his firing infractions was "showing 'bad judgement' by criticizing Clinton and then-Rep. Michele Bachmann on his blog."

Sounds more like someone being punished for writing a book critical of their employer.

3. Was a CIA director storing classified info at home. This is the most comparable though the CIA director was dealing with more sensitive information, should have been more aware than Hillary, and it sounds like he knew he had mishandled classified intel.

So a little worse than Hillary though roughly comparable. He also got pardoned by Bill Clinton before he even finished the plea deal. So that actually kinda sets a no jail-time incident.

4. "A Navy intelligence specialist admitted Thursday that he smuggled classified documents out of Fort Bragg in folders and his pants pockets, then sold them for $11,500 to a man he believed was a Chinese agent."

Wow, #4 and they're already claiming a guy trying to sell classified intelligence to the Chinese was a lesser offence than Hillary?

I seriously checked all of the examples and even read the links on a few that looked promising.

This one was actually hilarious:

Lab Tech Steals Data from Nuclear Facility. Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to "knowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year."

Talk about misrepresenting the facts. She was charged because she was running a meth lab!!

Still I learned something, don't believe a damn thing you read on "The Political Insider".
by hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) writes: on Friday September 02, 2016 @10:51PM ( #52819465 )
Re:It was unequivocally a criminal offense ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
Intent is not necessary to violate 18 U.S. Code 793
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer-
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

tl;dr - she didn't have to know it was wrong, she simply had to be "extremely careless" (aka, "grossly negligent")
by DaHat ( 247651 ) writes: on Saturday September 03, 2016 @03:57AM ( #52820273 ) Homepage
Re:It was unequivocally a criminal offense ( Score: 2 )

tl;dr - she didn't have to know it was wrong, she simply had to be "extremely careless" (aka, "grossly negligent")

And despite the fact the FBI director used the phrase "extreme carelessness" wrt the handling of sensitive info, somehow the defenders of lawlessness still admit to the fact that she very clearly committed multiple crimes.
by DaHat ( 247651 ) writes: on Saturday September 03, 2016 @03:29PM ( #52822043 ) Homepage
Re:It was unequivocally a criminal offense ( Score: 2 )
I know you paid shills like to try to sway people to your side with a good bit of cherry picking, you really should pick your targets better.
And did that "extreme carelessness" result in confidential information being destroyed or delivered to people in violation of trust?

Interesting how you removed half a clause from your copy & paste from above, specifically:

through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody

Was Clinton's email server a proper place of custody? If not, then she violated that statute through gross negligence at minimum.

One, we don't know what/if anything was stolen, we just know that there was at least one successful login to the server via Tor on a user account where the owner claimed no knowledge of the software: http://www.politico.com/story/... [politico.com]
Two, Clinton did not do the reasonable thing in the setting up of the server, nor recognizing classified information, nor allowing her aids to re-handle the information in rather careless ways, so by your very own logic, she should be held criminally responsible for her actions.

[Sep 14, 2016] Judge Napolitano FBI Tricked Hillary

Notable quotes:

"... He said they took an innocuous email that she had received from one of her underlings and put the markings on it that indicated it was an email classified as SECRET. They asked Hillary if she had ever seen the email before, she said, "No." ..."

"... The FBI by marking the email with the markings that indicated that it was SECRET was only attempting to get Hillary to indicate that she understood what the markings meant and she did. ..."

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

The FBI set up a trap for Hillary Clinton during their questioning of her and she fell right into it, according to Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Judge Napolitano appeared yesterday morning on the Don Imus Show on WABC radio and told Imus that at one point early in their questioning of her they lied to her. He said that, under law, they are allowed to do so and did so to set a trap.
He said they took an innocuous email that she had received from one of her underlings and put the markings on it that indicated it was an email classified as SECRET. They asked Hillary if she had ever seen the email before, she said, "No."
But upon reading the email, she went on to say, "I don't know why this is marked secret. There is nothing classified in it." Bam, she fell into the trap.
The FBI by marking the email with the markings that indicated that it was SECRET was only attempting to get Hillary to indicate that she understood what the markings meant and she did.
Judge Napolitano also told Imus that there will be more negative news coming out about the Clintons, especially the Clinton Foundation, He did not provide details.

[Sep 09, 2016] Platte river networks: Clinton e-mail server was never in Denver

Notable quotes:

"... "There never was, at any time, data belonging to the Clintons stored in Denver. Ever," said Dovetail Solutions CEO Andy Boian, who added that Clinton's server was always in a New Jersey data center. "We do not store data in any bathrooms." ..."

"... Private e-mail servers are unusual because they carry greater risks of getting hacked, said Scott W. Burt, president and CEO of Integro, a Denver e-mail management company. ..."

"... Platte River, which submitted a bid for the e-mail job, stepped in four months after Clinton left the secretary job on Feb. 1, 2013, and three months after Sidney Blumenthal , a former Clinton White House staffer, reported that his e-mail account had been hacked, exposing messages sent to Clinton. ..."

"... "We were literally hired in June 2013," Boian said, "and because we use industry best practices, we had (Clinton's) server moved to a data center in New Jersey. It remained in that spot until last week," when the FBI picked it up Aug. 12. ..."

"... "The role of Platte River Networks was to upgrade, secure and manage the e-mail server for both the Clintons and their staff beginning June 2013. Platte River Networks is not under investigation. We were never under investigation. And we will fully comply with the FBI," he said. ..."

"... Platte River Networks opened in September 2002, offering information technology services to small businesses. Services included computer maintenance, virus and malware control, and emergency technical support, according to an archive of its old website. ..."

"... Two years later, the company moved into a condo owned by company co-founder Treve Suazo at Ajax Lofts, 2955 Inca St., a few blocks from the South Platte River. ..."

"... A year later, the company began offering cloud-based services, which makes company data available online so employees can access software and services from any device. ..."

"... Platte River continues to win awards and has grown. Last week, it was named, for the fourth consecutive year, to CRN's Next-Gen 250 . The list highlights companies that are " ahead of the curve " in their IT offerings. ..."

Aug 19, 2015 | denverpost.com

And when Platte River became the latest name to emerge in the Clinton e-mail controversy, the company maintained its silence - until last week, when it hired a crisis-communications expert to defend against political innuendo, death threats and allegations that it stored her e-mail in the bathroom of a downtown Denver loft.

"There never was, at any time, data belonging to the Clintons stored in Denver. Ever," said Dovetail Solutions CEO Andy Boian, who added that Clinton's server was always in a New Jersey data center. "We do not store data in any bathrooms."

Platte River Networks had no prior relationship with Hillary Clinton, said Boian, whose online biography says he served on Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential transition team.

Hillary Clinton's decision to have an employee set up a private e-mail server in her New York home in 2008 has plagued the former secretary of state's presidential campaign.

The FBI is investigating whether any of her private e-mails contained sensitive information and should have been classified - and not stored on a computer inside her house.

Private e-mail servers are unusual because they carry greater risks of getting hacked, said Scott W. Burt, president and CEO of Integro, a Denver e-mail management company.

"There are a lot of people you could hire, and they would set up (an e-mail server) and run it. That's not hard. But there's no real reason to do that," Burt said. "The main motivator is you're nervous about what is in your e-mail. It's a control thing."

Boian said Platte River had nothing to do with Clinton's private home server.

Platte River, which submitted a bid for the e-mail job, stepped in four months after Clinton left the secretary job on Feb. 1, 2013, and three months after Sidney Blumenthal, a former Clinton White House staffer, reported that his e-mail account had been hacked, exposing messages sent to Clinton.

"We were literally hired in June 2013," Boian said, "and because we use industry best practices, we had (Clinton's) server moved to a data center in New Jersey. It remained in that spot until last week," when the FBI picked it up Aug. 12.

Platte River also is not in possession of any Clinton e-mail backups, he said.

"The role of Platte River Networks was to upgrade, secure and manage the e-mail server for both the Clintons and their staff beginning June 2013. Platte River Networks is not under investigation. We were never under investigation. And we will fully comply with the FBI," he said.

Clinton did not respond to requests for comment, but she has publicly expressed regrets for using a private e-mail server for her work as secretary of state. She has handed a portion of the e-mails to the State Department but deleted others. Asked about it this week by reporters in Las Vegas, Clinton responded, "Nobody talks to me about it other than you guys," she said.

Who are they?

Platte River Networks opened in September 2002, offering information technology services to small businesses. Services included computer maintenance, virus and malware control, and emergency technical support, according to an archive of its old website.

Two years later, the company moved into a condo owned by company co-founder Treve Suazo at Ajax Lofts, 2955 Inca St., a few blocks from the South Platte River.

A year later, the company began offering cloud-based services, which makes company data available online so employees can access software and services from any device.

Today, Platte touts itself as a full-service IT management firm.

It also lists Suazo, its CEO, and Brent Allshouse, its chief financial officer, as co-founders. According to industry publication CRN, Platte River expected to grow to $6 million in sales in 2014, from $4.7 million a year earlier.

But as early as 2006, Tom Welch was listed as a partner, the same title given to Suazo and Allshouse.

Welch, who now runs Colorado Cloud Consulting, declined to comment. But he told the United Kingdom's Daily Mail that Platte River Networks had retrofitted a bathroom in the loft to be the server room.

Fast growth

Before the Clinton scandal blew up, Platte River Networks welcomed attention. David DeCamillis joined the company in 2008 and, as its director of business development, became its public face, using news releases to promote industry awards and appearing on Fox31 Denver's "Good Day Colorado" as a tech expert.

In 2012, Platte River was named Ingram Micro's Rainmaker of the Western Region, an honor that California technology distributor gives its fastest-growing business partners based on revenue, peer-to-peer leadership and use of Ingram Micro's cloud services.

That same year, the company won the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce's Small Business of the Year award. The award is vetted by the chamber and independent judges, said Abram Sloss, executive director of the chamber's small-business development center.

"We really look for companies that have a good chance for a strong uptick and have solid growth," Sloss said. While the chamber can offer advice to members who suddenly are thrown into the media spotlight - for good or bad - Sloss said he has not heard from the company.

"Gosh, if I was the company who the Clintons hired, it'd be hard not to say, 'We are a trusted provider that one of the influential families in the United States hired,' " Sloss said.

Platte River continues to win awards and has grown. Last week, it was named, for the fourth consecutive year, to CRN's Next-Gen 250 . The list highlights companies that are " ahead of the curve" in their IT offerings.

In June, it moved to a 12,000-square-foot building at 5700 Washington St. A photo on Platte River's blog shows 30 people posing in the new building.

Platte River did not make DeCamillis, now its vice president of sales and marketing, available for comment.

But DeCamillis told The Washington Post that no one at the company had expected this kind of attention, which he said included death threats that caused the company to pull employee information from its website.

If they had, he said, "we would never have taken it on."

Platte River Networks timeline

2002: Platte River Networks founded

2004: Moves to 2955 Inca St., Unit 2K

Feb. 1, 2013: Hillary Clinton's last day as secretary of state

June 2013: Hired to manage Clinton-family e-mail server, which is moved from their Chappaqua, N.Y., home to a secure data center in New Jersey

June 18, 2015: Hosts open house for new headquarters at 4700 Washington St.

Aug. 11, 2015: FBI asks for Clinton's e-mail server

Aug. 12, 2015: Delivers Clinton's server to the FBI from New Jersey

Aug. 13, 2015: Hires crisis-communications expert

[Sep 09, 2016] Hillary Clinton Used BleachBit To Wipe Emails - Slashdot

Notable quotes:

"... Which means she broke the law. Being "cleared to see it" doesn't mean you can see it anywhere you want, any time you want. There are requirements for handling the information. And a server in her basement that did not use encrypted connections for months, and then had the default VPN keys on the VPN appliance once they started using encryption, and an Internet-connected printer on the same network is nowhere near close to meeting those requirements. ..."

"... His journalist girlfriend had a clearance. According to your gross misunderstanding of our classification system, what crime did Petraeus commit? He had a clearance, and his girlfriend had a clearance. If "had a clearance" is good enough to excuse Clinton, then why was it not good enough to excuse Patraeus? ..."

"... Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they were requested from the House as part of an official investigation. She chose to print out everything she claimed was relevant (probably to avoid giving away metadata in headers, etc.) ..."

"... Being that Clinton didn't give a damn about securing the physical server and didn't give a damn about securing the messages sent through the server, it seems strange that she suddenly cares about security practices when deleting e-mail messages about yoga classes. ..."

"... Oh, did I mention that deleting the e-mail messages would be considered an obstruction of justice if it were done by a typical citizen? ..."

Sep 05, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:30PM ( #52777655 )
Re:Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
All indications are she wasn't very careful while actively using the server. However, once she started getting requests to produce data from it, then she suddenly got very careful. Even if she did do nothing wrong, that is a very stark change in behavior that just happened to coincide with legal requests to hand over data.

kenai_alpenglow ( 2709587 ) writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @07:33PM ( #52778465 )
Re:Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
The FBI found the "key piece(s)". Comey then said "No prosecutor would pursue this case" and dropped it. He was probably right--but only because of her last name. If I did that, I might get out after 5 years or so. Heck, one of my counterparts got in trouble for a single line in a controlled document which had the same info in the public domain. I'm sick of these "Nothing to see here" claims--just look at any security briefing and it's spelled out. We just had another one, and according to it I would be required to report her if she was in my office.

jeff4747 ( 256583 ) writes: on Saturday August 27, 2016 @02:05PM ( #52781529 )
Re:Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 4 , Insightful)
That whole 'we little people would be in prison if we did this' meme is such bullshit.

You used the wrong tense. It's not "would be". It's "are". There are "little people" currently in prison for negligent handling of classified. Right now. Actually in prison.

She didn't do anything, beyond send and receive stuff she was cleared to see.

Which means she broke the law. Being "cleared to see it" doesn't mean you can see it anywhere you want, any time you want. There are requirements for handling the information. And a server in her basement that did not use encrypted connections for months, and then had the default VPN keys on the VPN appliance once they started using encryption, and an Internet-connected printer on the same network is nowhere near close to meeting those requirements.

Petreus is brought up endlessly. Y'know, the guy who gave classified stuff to his journalist girlfriend

His journalist girlfriend had a clearance. According to your gross misunderstanding of our classification system, what crime did Petraeus commit? He had a clearance, and his girlfriend had a clearance. If "had a clearance" is good enough to excuse Clinton, then why was it not good enough to excuse Patraeus?

but you ought to at least acknowledge that it was a tiny percentage of the traffic

Please cite where the statute states the percentage of allowable leaks.

and that stuff probably would've been sent on the unclassified DOS server had she been using that

First, government servers are regularly scanned for classified, so it would have been caught long before there were thousands of classified in her email. Second, the unclassified DoS server is far, far, far more secure than her basement server. For example, they don't have default VPN keys installed.

What we have here is a witch hunt for something - anything - about Benghazi that could paint Clinton in a politically unfavorable light.

No, this has absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi. But shouting "Benghazi!!!!" does a great job getting people like you to turn off their critical thinking and accept this week's excuse.

Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @06:31PM ( #52778125 )
Lies ( Score: 4 , Insightful)
Yes it does, read the laws. There is a Navy person who facing 20 years to life for disposing of a phone which had his picture while inside the sub. That is one of the more extreme cases, but it's literally a Web Search to prove you are wrong (shill?) Intent comes in to play _only_ for the penalty.

bongey ( 974911 ) writes: on Saturday August 27, 2016 @12:01AM ( #52779455 )
Re:Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 4 , Informative)
Except ALL 22 MILLION Bush administrative emails were recovered from tape backups. Clinton wiped the data AFTER the FOIA request. I don't know of a single person that has decided one day to delete ALL their personal emails, except Clinton. https://www.wired.com/2009/12/... [wired.com] another source http://www.npr.org/templates/s... [npr.org] , another http://www.npr.org/templates/s... [npr.org] . Yep you're idiot.

RoccamOccam ( 953524 ) writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @10:16PM ( #52779171 )
Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 5 , Interesting)
Comey spent hours in front of Congress explaining, very patiently, over and over, that the reason he could not recommend prosecution against Clinton is because all of the suspected crimes required proof of intent, which the FBI did not have.

Transcript of Gowdy questioning Comey. Lots of context, but note the bolded section :

Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?

Comey : There was classified information emailed.

Gowdy : Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?

Comey : She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.

Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

Comey : No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.

Comey : That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in - on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey : No.

Gowdy : Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements are used for what?

Comey : Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Gowdy : Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

Comey : That is right?

Gowdy : Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve. You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also - intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.' It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.

Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:50PM ( #52777831 )
Powell is not the prototype -- ( Score: 5 , Informative)
Powell used an aol account. He did NOT put a private server in his house!

Same for Rice. Powell used it for non-state NON-classified business.

Hillary has lied so many times about this server, is is clear to any hones observer that she was hiding activities of corruption with the Clinton foundation and did not want FOIA to discover her activities.

Hillary was supposed to have government archivists sort through the mails, not her personal attorneys. That was a violation of the federal records act.

She had classified information on the server, despite assertions that she did not- caught in another lie. She said all work related mails were turned over. Another lie- the FBI found thousands of work related mails not turned over, including classified.

cahuenga ( 3493791 ) writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:51PM ( #52777843 )
Re:Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
Sure, Clinton sucks, but the big knock against her and her email server was that she wasn't secure enough with it.

My quibble was the blatant arrogance of the act. That private server was clearly a move to preserve final editing rights of her tenure at the State Department and evade any future FOIA requests that may crop up during her next run for the presidency; and was there ever any doubt that she would run again? The fact that she thought she could get away with it after experiencing the fallout from the exact same move by members of the Bush administration while she was a sitting Senator in Washington reinforces the feeling that her arrogance knows no bounds. She took a page out of the neocon playbook and figured she would show them how it's done.

Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @08:13PM ( #52778643 )
You're being willfully ignorant ( Score: 5 , Informative)
1. She put classified info on a private unsecured server where it was vulnerable, contrary to the law which she was fully advised of upon taking office.
2. She did all her work through that server, hiding it from all 3 government branches (congressional oversight, executive oversight, and the courts) and public FOIA requests.
3. When the material was sought by the courts and congress, she and the state department people lied under oath claiming the material did not exist (perhaps Nixon cronies should have all lied about tapes existing).
4. After her people knew the material was being sought, the server's files were transferred (by private IT people w/o clearances) to her lawyers (no clearances).
5. She and her lawyers deleted over 30000 e-mails, claiming they were only about yoga and her daughter's wedding dress (Nixon cut a few minutes of tape).
6. They then wiped the files with bit bleach (a step not needed for yoga or wedding dress e-mails). (Nixon did not degauss all his tapes)
7. They handed the wiped server to the FBI, and hillary publicly played ignorant with her "with a CLOTH?" comment (absolute iin-you-face arrogance against the rule of law) (Nixon did not hand tape recorders with erased tapes to the FBI)
Prove you are sincere, and not a total unprincipled partisan hack:
Are you a Nixon supporter?
Would you accept this behavior from Donald Trump or Dick Cheney?

Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @08:24PM ( #52778703 )
Backup appliance and server have all emails ( Score: 4 , Interesting)
Hillary Clinton's IT guy purchased an MS Exchange hosting contract from Platte River. The standard package came with a periodic backup to a Datto appliance, which takes snapshots of the Windows disk image several times a day. The appliance copies the snapshot to Datto's data center in real time. You can erase or even destroy the Windows machine drives and still use the snapshots to restore the disks to the snapshot of the time and date of your chosing.

The FBI confiscated the appliance from Platte River and seized the server from Datto. They have all the emails she sent and received since the start of her State Department tenure.

zerofoo ( 262795 ) writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:39PM ( #52777719 )
Not responsible - it's a crime. ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
Hillary Clinton co-mingled personal and official government communications on her private email server. All of those communications are subject to the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

Her personal emails ceased to be personal when she co-mingled them with official government communications. HRC and her lawyers were not authorized to decide what is relevant to FRA and FOIA and what is not.

HRC and her lawyers deleted 30,000 or so emails that are not recoverable - therefore she is in violation of both the FRA and FOIA.

HRC should be, at the very least, in front of a jury to answer for her actions.

AthanasiusKircher ( 1333179 ) writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @11:44PM ( #52779421 )
Re:More political redirection ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
I guess the people that are making accusations over that are either ignorant, or disingenuous.

Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they were requested from the House as part of an official investigation. She chose to print out everything she claimed was relevant (probably to avoid giving away metadata in headers, etc.) and then effectively "burned" the server, including (by her lawyer's own admission) tens of thousands of messages.

FBI investigations have now come up with thousands of emails which were NOT turned over in that paper dump. How many could have been part of those that were deleted and then lost when the server was wiped? We'll never know. Many of them were likely deleted in error, with her lawyers not realizing which ones should have been retained as they were going through tens of thousands of documents. But were ALL of these official state department emails recovered by the FBI (now 15,000+) deleted "in error"?

That's what's troubling about all of this. We have no way of knowing whether there may have been significant spoliation of evidence here (that's the legal term for intentionally, recklessly, or negligently destroying evidence). If this were a corporation who had been issued a subpoena and they acted in this manner, and it was later proven that they "lost" over ten thousand relevant documents in the process of their destruction of "irrelevant" documents, they would likely face significant legal sanctions, perhaps even criminal charges.

Legally, the safe course in this instance would have been to put the server in a secure location with legal supervision by Clinton's counsel until the matter could be resolved. Clinton's use of BleachBit is not surprising here -- not because it's proper protocol to delete secure information, but because it's the only reasonable way to delete potentially incriminating evidence of spoliation (even if most of it was accidental or whatever). If they hadn't used a very secure deletion protocol, then Clinton's attorneys would have been doing a VERY poor job at protecting her legally.

Personally, I'm not sure it's likely there was any "evil memo" buried among the State Department correspondence that could prove anything. (And if there were, I'm not convinced Clinton realized it.) On the other hand, I'm sure she had a bunch of private email dealings that she wouldn't want to get out -- if for nothing else then for bad public relations. Hence the destruction of everything on the server -- it's in line with the privacy paranoia that likely caused her to set up the server in the first place. But could there have been worse stuff there too? Maybe. Doesn't seem like we'll ever know, though, does it?

mysidia ( 191772 ) writes: on Saturday August 27, 2016 @09:28AM ( #52780637 )
Re:More political redirection ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they were requested from the House as part of an official investigation. She chose to print out everything she claimed was relevant (probably to avoid giving away metadata in headers, etc.)

In other words, she willingly destroyed information she was required to hand over.

The full Headers and all Metadata are part of the Record and part of the E-mail; If you are requested to hand over the e-mails: you have no right to exclude or remove headers, even if your standard e-mail software does not normally display the headers when you are reading the message.

Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @09:10PM ( #52778941 )
Re:More political redirection ( Score: 4 , Insightful)
A: "But anyone could hack in and see her emails, it's totally unsecure!"
B: "She used BleachBit."
A: "That proves she had something to hide!"

Being that Clinton didn't give a damn about securing the physical server and didn't give a damn about securing the messages sent through the server, it seems strange that she suddenly cares about security practices when deleting e-mail messages about yoga classes.

Oh, did I mention that deleting the e-mail messages would be considered an obstruction of justice if it were done by a typical citizen?

[Sep 09, 2016] Quite panic in Hillary camp over transfer of FBI documents to Congress

Congress committees have a couple really tough prosecutors as chairs and that created a ground for Hillary impeachment if she is elected. Also "August break" due to Hillary deteriorating health creates a problem for Hillary campaign as the candidate now is considered by many voters as too frail to hold a POTUS position. This negative impression is supported now by so many facts that it can 't be changed by rabid attacks on Trump. Some Clinton actions in "bathroom server" scandal now can be attributed to her senility.

Notable quotes:

"... Campaign spokesman Brian Fallon is calling the FBI's move to give the notes to Congress "an extraordinarily rare step that was sought solely by Republicans for the purposes of further second-guessing the career professionals at the FBI." ..."

Aug 16, 2016 | www.washingtonpost.com

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign says it wants FBI documents on the investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server to be shared publicly and not just with members of Congress.

Campaign spokesman Brian Fallon is calling the FBI's move to give the notes to Congress "an extraordinarily rare step that was sought solely by Republicans for the purposes of further second-guessing the career professionals at the FBI."

Fallon says if the material is going to be shared outside the Justice Department, it "should be released widely so that the public can see them for themselves." He says Republicans should not be allowed to "mischaracterize" the information "through selective, partisan leaks."

A Republican-led House oversight panel is reviewing the documents that have been classified as secret.

[Sep 09, 2016] Hillary Clinton lied about not receiving email subpoena, Benghazi chair claims

According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them."

Notable quotes:

"... According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them." ..."

"... Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. The Republicans chant while Rome burns. How about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.... ..."

"... Did Clinton say she's never had a subpoena? Yes. Did a subpoena get issued? Yes. Was the whole interview at that point discussing a point in time months before the subpoena got issued? Yes. ..."

"... Karl Rove has so often said that it is who DOES NOT vote that determines the outcome, and now we have the Tea Party. ..."

"... The Clintons ARE very close personal family friends with the entire Bush clan. When the TV cameras are off and the reporters are gone, they are a very tight group who see the world thru like greedy eyes. Check this out. ..."

"... Having someone who is the brother of one former president and the son of another run against the wife of still another former president would be sweetly illustrative of all sorts of degraded and illusory aspects of American life, from meritocracy to class mobility. ..."

"... Wall Street has long been unable to contain its collective glee over a likely Hillary Clinton presidency. ..."

"... the matriarch of the Bush family (former First Lady Barbara) has described the Clinton patriarch (former President Bill) as a virtual family member, noting that her son, George W., affectionately calls his predecessor "my brother by another mother." ..."

"... If this happens, the 2016 election would vividly underscore how the American political class functions: by dynasty, plutocracy, fundamental alignment of interests masquerading as deep ideological divisions, and political power translating into vast private wealth and back again. ..."

"... Most of our presidents were horn dogs. Their wives know about it in many cases, but they knew that it was part of the package. The only difference was that before Clinton, the press would never think of reporting about sexual dalliances. ..."

"... Clinton is not materially different to many GOP candidates outside the loons. ..."

"... She has stiff competition: Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power, Carly Fiorina, etc. She might win the title, though. ..."

"... So after years of trying to turn Benghazi into a scandal, the email thing is mostly meaningless to Democrats. So congratulations Republicans, you blew your chance. ..."

Jul 09, 2015 | The Guardian

In a statement on Wednesday, Republican congressman Trey Gowdy accused the former secretary of state of making an "inaccurate claim" during an interview on Tuesday. Responding to a question about the controversy surrounding her email server while at the US state department, Clinton had told CNN: "I've never had a subpoena."

But Gowdy said: "The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not sought to make them public. I would not make this one public now, but after Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy."

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told the Guardian that Gowdy's accusation itself was inaccurate, insisting that the congressman had not issued a subpoena until March.

"She was asked about her decision to not to retain her personal emails after providing all those that were work-related, and the suggestion was made that a subpoena was pending at that time. That was not accurate," Merrill wrote in an email.

Gowdy also posted a copy of the subpoena on the Benghazi committee's website.

According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them."

Lester Smithson 9 Jul 2015 16:00

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. The Republicans chant while Rome burns. How about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq....

kattw 9 Jul 2015 12:41

Gotta love when people say they have no choice but to do something absurd, then choose to do something absurd rather than not.

Did Clinton say she's never had a subpoena? Yes. Did a subpoena get issued? Yes. Was the whole interview at that point discussing a point in time months before the subpoena got issued? Yes.

Yes, Mr. Legislator: you DID subpoena Clinton. Several months AFTER she did the thing in question, which the interviewer wanted to know why she did in light of subpoenas. And really, what was she thinking? After all, a subpoena had already been issued, ummm, 3 months into the future! Why was she not psychic? Why did she not alter her actions based on something that congress would do eventually? How DARE she not know what the fates had decried!

Mr. Legislator, you were given the opportunity to not spin this as a political issue, and to be honest about the committee's actions. You chose to do otherwise. Nobody forced you to do so. You had plenty of choices - you made one. Don't try to shift that onto a lie Clinton never told. She's got plenty of lies in her closet, many stupidly obvious - calling one of her truths a lie just shows how much of an ideological buffoon you really are.

ExcaliburDefender -> Dan Wipper 8 Jul 2015 23:47

Whatever. Dick Cheney should have been tried in the Hague and incarcerated for 50 lifetimes. Most voters have decided to vote party lines, the next 16 months is for the 10% undecided and a few that can be swayed.

Karl Rove has so often said that it is who DOES NOT vote that determines the outcome, and now we have the Tea Party.

Plenty of time for outrage, faux or real. We haven't had a single debate yet. Still get to hear from Chafee on the metric system and whether evolution is real or not from the GOP.

Jill Stein for President <-------|) Paid for by David Koch and Friends

Herr_Settembrini 8 Jul 2015 23:25

Quite frankly, I've long since passed the point of caring about Benghazi, and the reason why is extremely simple: this has been a nakedly partisan investigation, stretching on for years now, that has tried to manufacture a scandal and fake outrage in order to deny Obama re-election in 2012, and now (since that didn't work) to deny Clinton the election in 2016.

The GOP doesn't have one shred of credibility left about this issue-- to the point that if they were able to produce photographs of Obama and Clinton personally storming the embassy, America would collectively shrug (except of course for the AM talk radio crowd, who are perpetually angry anyway, so nobody would notice).

TET68HUE -> StevePrimus 8 Jul 2015 23:08

The Clintons ARE very close personal family friends with the entire Bush clan. When the TV cameras are off and the reporters are gone, they are a very tight group who see the world thru like greedy eyes. Check this out.

JEB BUSH V. HILLARY CLINTON: THE PERFECTLY ILLUSTRATIVE ELECTION
BY GLENN GREENWALD

@ggreenwald
12/17/2014

Jeb Bush yesterday strongly suggested he was running for President in 2016. If he wins the GOP nomination, it is highly likely that his opponent for the presidency would be Hillary Clinton. Having someone who is the brother of one former president and the son of another run against the wife of still another former president would be sweetly illustrative of all sorts of degraded and illusory aspects of American life, from meritocracy to class mobility. That one of those two families exploited its vast wealth to obtain political power, while the other exploited its political power to obtain vast wealth, makes it more illustrative still: of the virtually complete merger between political and economic power, of the fundamentally oligarchical framework that drives American political life.

Then there are their similar constituencies: what Politico termed "money men" instantly celebrated Jeb Bush's likely candidacy, while the same publication noted just last month how Wall Street has long been unable to contain its collective glee over a likely Hillary Clinton presidency. The two ruling families have, unsurprisingly, developed a movingly warm relationship befitting their position: the matriarch of the Bush family (former First Lady Barbara) has described the Clinton patriarch (former President Bill) as a virtual family member, noting that her son, George W., affectionately calls his predecessor "my brother by another mother."

If this happens, the 2016 election would vividly underscore how the American political class functions: by dynasty, plutocracy, fundamental alignment of interests masquerading as deep ideological divisions, and political power translating into vast private wealth and back again. The educative value would be undeniable: somewhat like how the torture report did, it would rub everyone's noses in exactly those truths they are most eager to avoid acknowledge. Email the author: [email protected]

StevePrimus 8 Jul 2015 22:33

Clinton's nomination as a democratic candidate for president is a fait accompli, as is Bush's nomination on the GOP card. The amusing side show with Rubio, Trump, Sanders, Paul, Walker, Perry, Cruz, et al can be entertaining, but note that Clinton and Bush seem much closer aligned with each other than either sueems to be to Sanders on the left and Graham on the right.

MtnClimber -> CitizenCarrier 8 Jul 2015 20:41

Read some history books and learn.

Most of our presidents were horn dogs. Their wives know about it in many cases, but they knew that it was part of the package. The only difference was that before Clinton, the press would never think of reporting about sexual dalliances.

Among those that cheated are:

Washington
Jefferson
Lincoln
Harding
FDR
Eisenhower
JFK
LBJ
Clinton

Not bad company, but they all cheated. It seems like greater sexual drive is part of the package for people that choose to be president.

RossBest 8 Jul 2015 20:24

There is an obvious possible explanation here. She was talking about things in the past and ineptly shifted in effect into the "historical present" or "dramatic present" and didn't realize she was creating an ambiguity.

That is, she was talking about the times when she set up the email system and used it and later deleted personal emails and she intended to deny having received any relevant subpoenas AT THOSE TIMES.

I'm not a Clinton supporter but this seems plausible. But inept.

zchabj6 8 Jul 2015 20:10

The state of US politics...

Clinton is not materially different to many GOP candidates outside the loons.

CitizenCarrier -> Carambaman 8 Jul 2015 17:54

My personal favorite was when as 1st Lady during a trip to New Zealand she told reporters she'd been named in honor of Sir Edmund Hillary.

She was born before he climbed Everest. He was at that time an obscure chicken farmer.

BorninUkraine -> duncandunnit 8 Jul 2015 17:44

You mean, she lies, like Bill? But as snakes go, she is a lot more dangerous than him.

BorninUkraine -> Barry_Seal 8 Jul 2015 17:40

She has stiff competition: Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power, Carly Fiorina, etc. She might win the title, though.

Dennis Myers 8 Jul 2015 16:30

This sort of thing is exactly why anything they throw at her won't stick. Like the boy who cried wolf, when the wolf actually came, no one was listening anymore. So after years of trying to turn Benghazi into a scandal, the email thing is mostly meaningless to Democrats. So congratulations Republicans, you blew your chance.

[Sep 09, 2016] Hillary Clintons email system was insecure for two months

Notable quotes:

"... Guciffer found top secret E-mail on Blumenthal's (I think that is the guy) account according to the agents who studied Guciffer's computer. ..."

"... The legality of her choice has yet to be determined and will likely hinge on the degree to which classified government documents were exposed or disseminated. It was - and still is - against the rules published by the State Department. ..."

"... It is also an amazingly arrogant act by a politician who often attacked previous administrations for their use of "private emails" and overall lack of transparency. ..."

"... Hillary Clinton has been insecure for years and for many reasons. ..."

"... A person is insecure, a network is unsecured. No? ..."

"... I saw a video where Alabama State troopers are talking about how Hillary and Bill used to swap women. She also apparently has a big affinity for cocaine..though I guess in all fairness that's most of Hollywood and liberal Washington. ..."

Mar 11, 2015 | computerworld.com

JoeDoll4

Guciffer found top secret E-mail on Blumenthal's (I think that is the guy) account according to the agents who studied Guciffer's computer. You can always tell when a politician lies; their lips are moving.

DLivesInTexas

"The arrangement, while it appears unusual, was and is acceptable and legal, according to the State Department."

The legality of her choice has yet to be determined and will likely hinge on the degree to which classified government documents were exposed or disseminated. It was - and still is - against the rules published by the State Department.

It is also an amazingly arrogant act by a politician who often attacked previous administrations for their use of "private emails" and overall lack of transparency.

Genny G

Hillary Clinton has been insecure for years and for many reasons.

StrongHarm

A person is insecure, a network is unsecured. No? Author should correct title.

I saw a video where Alabama State troopers are talking about how Hillary and Bill used to swap women. She also apparently has a big affinity for cocaine..though I guess in all fairness that's most of Hollywood and liberal Washington. As a conservative myself, what I detest about the woman most is not how she affects republicans, but how she affects her own supporters. She claims to be 'looking out for the little guy' and minorities so she can get votes, but when the cameras aren't rolling, she's doing business with corrupt corporations and trying to live like a queen. A lot of politicians are dishonest, but she really takes the cake.

[Sep 06, 2016] After Bush II administration it is generally unclear what should be the level of crime committed to be arrested.

Notable quotes:

"... But potentially opening an important view on the US diplomatic correspondence for four years to any state with the desire to read it is something really special. A unique achievement of Secretary Clinton. ..."

"... for any specialist with even superficial knowledge of computer security the level of incompetence and arrogance demonstrated is simply unreal. Especially after the latest FBI documents. ..."

Sep 05, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Drom: Paul Krugman Hillary Clinton Gets Gored
Pres coverage of the campaigns has been "bizarre":

Hillary Clinton Gets Gored, by Paul Krugman, NY Times :
... ... ...

And here's a pro tip: the best ways to judge a candidate's character are to look at what he or she has actually done, and what policies he or she is proposing.
... ... ...

In other words, focus on the facts. America and the world can't afford another election tipped by innuendo.

likbez -> pgl... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 06:10 PM

You have a valid point.
After Bush II administration it is generally unclear what should be the level of crime committed to be arrested.

But potentially opening an important view on the US diplomatic correspondence for four years to any state with the desire to read it is something really special. A unique achievement of Secretary Clinton.

Now I am not so sure that the level of incompetence of Hillary and her aides in this sordid saga is less it was for the key figures of Bush II administration (who also used a private email server for a while with impunity, although not for State Department activities).

But for any specialist with even superficial knowledge of computer security the level of incompetence and arrogance demonstrated is simply unreal. Especially after the latest FBI documents.

Can you imagine that they have no technical knowledge of how to create the archive of emails in Windows Server directly and used Apple laptop and then Gmail account and then intermediaries to achieve the necessary result. This is something so stupid and reckless that there is no words for it.

Also wiping out this "bathroom" mail server with BleachKit is a very suspicious activity for any person under investigation.

== quote ==
https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/08/26/1954241/hillary-clinton-used-bleachbit-to-wipe-emails

All indications are she wasn't very careful while actively using the server. However, once she started getting requests to produce data from it, then she suddenly got very careful. Even if she did do nothing wrong, that is a very stark change in behavior that just happened to coincide with legal requests to hand over data.

...The FBI found the "key piece(s)". Comey then said "No prosecutor would pursue this case" and dropped it. He was probably right--but only because of her last name. If I did that, I might get out after 5 years or so. Heck, one of my counterparts got in trouble for a single line in a controlled document which had the same info in the public domain. I'm sick of these "Nothing to see here" claims--just look at any security briefing and it's spelled out. We just had another one, and according to it I would be required to report her if she was in my office.

...Yes it does, read the laws. There is a Navy person who facing 20 years to life for disposing of a phone which had his picture while inside the sub. That is one of the more extreme cases, but it's literally a Web Search to prove you are wrong (shill?) Intent comes in to play _only_ for the penalty.

...I like how the argument has devolved here to "If Bush did it, then it's ok". PopeRatzo, is Dubya really your moral compass? Your guiding light?

...Except ALL 22 MILLION Bush administrative emails were recovered from tape backups. Clinton wiped the data AFTER the FOIA request. I don't know of a single person that has decided one day to delete ALL their personal emails, except Clinton. https://www.wired.com/2009/12/... [wired.com] another source http://www.npr.org/templates/s... [npr.org] , another http://www.npr.org/templates/s... [npr.org] . Yep you're idiot.

...My quibble was the blatant arrogance of the act. That private server was clearly a move to preserve final editing rights of her tenure at the State Department and evade any future FOIA requests that may crop up during her next run for the presidency; and was there ever any doubt that she would run again? The fact that she thought she could get away with it after experiencing the fallout from the exact same move by members of the Bush administration while she was a sitting Senator in Washington reinforces the feeling that her arrogance knows no bounds. She took a page out of the neocon playbook and figured she would show them how it's done.

...1. She put classified info on a private unsecured server where it was vulnerable, contrary to the law which she was fully advised of upon taking office.

2. She did all her work through that server, hiding it from all 3 government branches (congressional oversight, executive oversight, and the courts) and public FOIA requests.

3. When the material was sought by the courts and congress, she and the state department people lied under oath claiming the material did not exist (perhaps Nixon cronies should have all lied about tapes existing).

4. After her people knew the material was being sought, the server's files were transferred (by private IT people w/o clearances) to her lawyers (no clearances).

5. She and her lawyers deleted over 30000 e-mails, claiming they were only about yoga and her daughter's wedding dress (Nixon cut a few minutes of tape).

6. They then wiped the files with bit bleach (a step not needed for yoga or wedding dress e-mails). (Nixon did not degauss all his tapes)

7. They handed the wiped server to the FBI, and hillary publicly played ignorant with her "with a CLOTH?" comment (absolute iin-you-face arrogance against the rule of law) (Nixon did not hand tape recorders with erased tapes to the FBI)

Prove you are sincere, and not a total unprincipled partisan hack: Are you a Nixon supporter? Would you accept this behavior from Donald Trump or Dick Cheney?

[Sep 06, 2016] Paul Krugman Hillary Clinton Gets Gored

Notable quotes:

"... Clintons crimes with national security leaks and destruction of federal records investigators got no prosecution. The democrat camp has no convictions. The curve Hillary is on is the same one any tin pot dictator enjoys. ..."

"... False equivalence. The world was different in 2008-2012 , Powell had far fewer hackers when he was lying about Iraq. The tech world was much less threatening. Powell learned from his training, knew better than to go past secure networks for sensitive information. He also knew about federal records act and penalties. ..."

"... Clinton crimes are called scandals. She got no convictions. ..."

"... Should Trump take the brass ring, let us hope he isn't really as brash or inept as Bush Jr, but that's asking a LOT ..."

"... And if Hillary does win (as expected), let's look forward to having that charming rogue in the White House at her side. Let's manage to bring the wars to an end & have peace rule the planet, mostly. ..."

"... That last sentence is certainly something we can and should hope for. However, given her somewhat hawkish disposition and likely need to demonstrate that she has the balls to be commander in Chief, I would not preclude the possibility of a little fighting somewhere. However, the consolation is that she did not ask the generals "if we have nukes why don't we use them"? Turns out there are worser things than bad. ..."

"... As someone who has been involved in the national security system for more than four decades, I can't help but nearly vomit when I read Hillary's answers to the FBI's questions. Had I or any other cleared employee of lesser stature given the same answers, we would have been fired if not prosecuted for our behavior. Here irresponsible behavior was dangerous to our security and disgusting. ..."

"... You think Clinton is going to turn out to be bolder and more progressive than her elite and plutocratic backers suspect. Maybe. Time will tell. But I'm just saying that if part of the Democrats' goal was to generate the kind of electoral groundswell that would sweep a whole new progressive House into power, you don't get that kind of result by nominating party royalty and an old guard representative of the national establishment and the administrations of the last century. ..."

"... Not once has an indictment, no arrests, how do people keep holding on to some belief that there must be something to it? I know people will say the euphemism, where there is smoke there is fire, but come on. Mind you the secrecy the Clintons exhibit does their cause no good, but just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you! ..."

"... If any of the scandals went to a jury instead of being swept under the rug, we might have judgements. If I did what Clinton did with information security I would be in jail. If I did that with federal records I would do time as well! ..."

Sep 05, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Pres coverage of the campaigns has been "bizarre":
Hillary Clinton Gets Gored, by Paul Krugman, NY Times :
... ... ...

And here's a pro tip: the best ways to judge a candidate's character are to look at what he or she has actually done, and what policies he or she is proposing.
... ... ...

In other words, focus on the facts. America and the world can't afford another election tipped by innuendo.

pgl : , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 11:11 AM
"True, there aren't many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon of honesty. But it's hard to escape the impression that he's being graded on a curve."
Trump supporters would have you believe his immigration policy is the same as that of Jeb! and little Marco. Never mind what he told that white audience. They would also have you believe he is all for equal rights for black people. Never mind what he told that white audience.

Krugman is saying that Bush was the most dishonest candidate ever in 2000. Well - that was so 16 years ago. Romney 2012 was much worse. And Trump 2016 is reminding me of Romney 2012.

ilsm -> pgl... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 12:01 PM
A curve! while Clintons crimes with national security leaks and destruction of federal records investigators got no prosecution. The democrat camp has no convictions. The curve Hillary is on is the same one any tin pot dictator enjoys.
sanjait -> ilsm... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 01:11 PM
It's actually the same one Colin Powell enjoyed, except Hillary's private email system was far more secured and, unlike Powell's janky use of an AOL account that got hacked, there's no evidence HRC's was compromised.
ilsm -> sanjait... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 04:34 PM
False equivalence. The world was different in 2008-2012 , Powell had far fewer hackers when he was lying about Iraq. The tech world was much less threatening. Powell learned from his training, knew better than to go past secure networks for sensitive information. He also knew about federal records act and penalties.
pgl -> ilsm... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 01:46 PM
Yes, yes Donald. Now sit down with Ben Carson and pretend you are praying.
ilsm -> pgl... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 04:35 PM
Retired neuro-surgeons lead prayer?
DeDude : , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 11:57 AM
Yes isn't it remarkable how Trump can say opposite things within the same month, week or even in the same speech - and just be considered to have "evolved" rather than being chastised for trying to pander to all sides. Again if he were judged by a standard even half as critical as a Clinton he would have evaporated long time ago.
ilsm -> DeDude... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 12:01 PM
Clinton crimes are called scandals. She got no convictions.
ilsm -> pgl... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 04:36 PM
I hope your day job does not challenge you with logic.
ilsm : , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 12:02 PM
poor pk.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 12:38 PM
Poor us. Poor US. Well in a couple of months it will all be over except for the crying. That never ends.
Fred C. Dobbs : , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 12:14 PM
George Bush Jr (particularly with 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and the financial crash) was a spectacularly inept president and considered one of the worst ever.
His predecessor was a largely successful yet quite 'colorful' president, who had great economic success with the internet boom, which VP Al Gore did have a minor legislative hand in dontchaknow. Barely fought a war. Got impeached.

Both fellows were loved or hated by a lot of people, who don't talk to one another much.

It has now come to pass that a guy who reminds us of the former is running against the spouse of the latter. Complications ensue. Go figure.

Should Trump take the brass ring, let us hope he isn't really as brash or inept as Bush Jr, but that's asking a LOT, so don't chance it, please.

And if Hillary does win (as expected), let's look forward to having that charming rogue in the White House at her side. Let's manage to bring the wars to an end & have peace rule the planet, mostly.

DeDude -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 12:25 PM
That last sentence is certainly something we can and should hope for. However, given her somewhat hawkish disposition and likely need to demonstrate that she has the balls to be commander in Chief, I would not preclude the possibility of a little fighting somewhere. However, the consolation is that she did not ask the generals "if we have nukes why don't we use them"? Turns out there are worser things than bad.
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 12:35 PM
"Barely" is exaggeration, the Kagan advised Nuland Clintons' peace movement is like Obama's and Hillary's.....
pk poor pk says Trump gets away with misstating fallacious facts.

And which Clinton robots are running around like tailgunner Joe screaming that Putin is trying to out do AIPAC?

The democrat peace movement steps aside for spreading organized murder from expensive weapons system to do "civilian protective operations" and the Saudi's bidding against Shiites.

Keep the money flowing and the drones causing justifiable at lest to Lockheed and Boeing shareholders "militarily proportional collateral damage".

"Barely fought a war." Bill's little wars in the Balkans rubber the Tsar's nose in it, broke up a several small countries, bombed the Chinese embassy at great profit from a B-2 (it did not rain that day) and US still pays NATO for a huge military base there.

Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 12:47 PM
You bring up Clinton's skirmishes as if they bear any kind of comparison to what Bush Jr wrought. Seriously?
Because, after all, to quote George Jr, 'Saddam went after my dad!', he had no choice at all.

ilsm -> pgl... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 04:44 PM
My nuclear warrior pension is enough for rent, nice car, fishing, hunting, etc. The voices say another ad hominem and not so creative at that!
anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 01:54 PM
"Saddam went after my dad!"
[ There is no such quote on the internet. There can never be a valid reason for inventing a quote, since that distorts history. ]

Alex Tolley -> anne... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 02:17 PM
This is the actual quote according to ABC News: "There's no doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90764&page=1

pgl -> anne... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 02:39 PM
So why did President Bush invade Iraq in 2003? So many excuses, so many lost lives.
ilsm -> pgl... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 04:45 PM
W listened to Powell like Hillary claims on E Mails.
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 04:43 PM
Obama and Hill Clinton are Saudi tools same as W. Keeping AUMF going the past 8 years lets W off a lot of the Iraq/WMD and Afghanistan hooks!
Bill's adventures included firing a general for commenting on the craziness of losing people over Serbia.

Bill's evolutionary adventures in the Balkans are anti Russian neocon trials. Their exceptionalism pushed Russia around and moved NATO eastward reneging on deals Bush Sr. had with the Russians.

Hillary, extending Bill's neocon meme* over Ukraine and Libya are nearing W level insanity.

Nuland (married to the neocon Kagan family) came with Strobe Talbot in 1993.

likbez -> ilsm... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 08:24 PM
Bravo ilsm !!!
We really facing a vote for a person who would probably be convicted by Nuremberg tribunal. All those factors that are often discussed like Supreme court nominations, estate tax, etc, are of secondary importance to the cardinal question -- "war vs peace" question.

A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never have a war she did not like. They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized coverage from MSM.

Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal. "Trump this and Trump that" blabbing can't hide this important consideration.

Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals. They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower.

Moreover, after Bush II there is a consensus that are very few people in the USA who are unqualified to the run the country. From this point of view Trump is extremely qualified (and actually managed to master English language unlike Bush II with his famous Bushisms ).

But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmonger and all bets might be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem)

pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 01:49 PM
Bush declared he got things done. He did - very bad things.
ilsm -> pgl... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 04:52 PM
W been out for over 7 years and the body bag strategy is the same. Obama ran on ending Iraq and he did NOT vote for AUMF!
I suggest the collateral damage caused by Obama and Clinton is surging past W, who had only 6 years to do it.

Clinton and Obama will be at it 8 years and for Libya and Syria are [related to percent of population] past Iraq. Syria has military appropriate collateral damage more than Iraq since 1993.

You cannot call someone nut so you can ignore facts.

likbez -> ilsm... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 08:25 PM
That's correct.
Lilguy : , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 01:03 PM
As someone who has been involved in the national security system for more than four decades, I can't help but nearly vomit when I read Hillary's answers to the FBI's questions. Had I or any other cleared employee of lesser stature given the same answers, we would have been fired if not prosecuted for our behavior. Here irresponsible behavior was dangerous to our security and disgusting.
Hillary is every bit as honest as her husband was when he answered "I have not had sex with that woman." The two of them deserve each other. The rest of the country deserves neither of them.

sanjait -> Lilguy... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 01:14 PM
As someone who also knows a little about network security and the umpteen bazillion ways most people violate stated policies, including Secretaries Rice and Powell who established the precedent at State for Hillary's use of a private email system ...
I think you're overreacting, and myopic, and possibly concern trolling.

ilsm -> sanjait... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 04:57 PM
The devil made Clinton aggressively inept! Sanjait, come on man!
Watermelonpunch -> sanjait... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 05:16 PM
I agree the 2nd trolly paragraph the commenter paints himself as a kook still luridly fascinated with Bill Clinton's sex life. haha
But I think it's worth pointing out that people who work or have worked for the government in less illustrious (non political) positions are subject to a lot of what seems like nit-picky draconian rules, under threat of having one's work life made miserable, at least for a time, for breaking any little one of them.
It's just the nature of the beast of that type of govt employment. It's a lot of stress. And politically appointed & elected government workers at least seem to get away with a lot comparatively.

So I think it's worth acknowledging, when seen from that position, the attitude, and feelings, are understandable, even if you don't agree with it.

I'd rate that comment just 5% trolly. ;)

Watermelonpunch -> Lilguy... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 05:05 PM
I would drop the 2nd paragraph in future if you want to be heard. Because otherwise people don't think about what you said before it because you've just come across as one of those kind of people who were telling lame old tired monica jokes a decade after the fact. *sigh*
Peter K. : , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 01:16 PM
I think Trump is going to lose badly. Hopefully the Republicans lose the Senate and House as well.
Then the Republicans and alt right cult will have a meltdown.

likbez -> Peter K.... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 08:29 PM
The key question is whether that will be better or worse for the country. I think Hillary is a more dangerous war criminal, then just corrupt businessman like Trump. Trump university is less important then the vote for Iraq war, IMHO.

Dan Kervick -> pgl... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 04:21 PM
You think Clinton is going to turn out to be bolder and more progressive than her elite and plutocratic backers suspect. Maybe. Time will tell. But I'm just saying that if part of the Democrats' goal was to generate the kind of electoral groundswell that would sweep a whole new progressive House into power, you don't get that kind of result by nominating party royalty and an old guard representative of the national establishment and the administrations of the last century.
ilsm -> Dan Kervick... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 05:00 PM
While a lot of those new dem senators will be red dogs with the machine. A blue senate might [SOTUS apt] keep gay marriage, not much else.
Fred C. Dobbs -> Dan Kervick... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 08:14 PM
That would be more (arguably) true if Hillary weren't drawing votes from such Republicans. Which naturally concerns progressive Dems. This is perhaps a wave that alters the GOP for a long time.
sanjait : , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 01:20 PM
It's called "the Clinton Rules."
According to the Clinton Rules, the appearance of the possibility of impropriety, no matter how trivial or technical in nature, is to be deemed prima facie as credible evidence of guilt, and any and all innuendo brought forth is to be treated as serious.

Thus, Whitewater. And Vince Foster. And Benghazi. And "Wall Street speeches." And everything related to the word "emails." And State Dept "access". And whatever else is the manufact-roversy of the day.

Meanwhile, the media and the public widely regard both Hillary and Trump as "dishonest", as if there were any semblance of equivalence.

It's clear why this happens ... there is a confluence of interest, among Republicans, Bernie Busters, and the media, in manufacturing controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton. The GOP wants to weaken her. The Busters resent her. And the media desperately wants a horse race and to be able to create "both sides do it" equivalence in order to bolster their own reputations for objectivity. The sad thing is that so many Americans are gullible enough to buy it.

Paine -> sanjait... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 04:59 PM
"the media desperately wants a horse race"
True

".... and ....create "both sides do it" equivalence in order to bolster their own reputations for objectivity."

Nonsense

ilsm -> sanjait... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 05:01 PM
fantastic. controversy? when the DOJ was called off no one in the media blinked?
M. Gamble : , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 01:31 PM
This whole thing is amazing. For thirty years, the republicans discover a scandal on average about twice a year, starting I think with White Water. Oh sure all official and all, Congressional Hearings, investigators and in the end nada. Not once has an indictment, no arrests, how do people keep holding on to some belief that there must be something to it? I know people will say the euphemism, where there is smoke there is fire, but come on. Mind you the secrecy the Clintons exhibit does their cause no good, but just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you!
pgl -> M. Gamble... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 01:53 PM

"Not once has an indictment, no arrests, how do people keep holding on to some belief that there must be something to it?"

Part of this is due to Faux News. A large part of this is due to the NY Times trying to be Faux News. Competition can be a bad thing at times.

ilsm -> pgl... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 05:03 PM
Crooked Obama administration.
likbez -> pgl... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 06:10 PM
You have a valid point.
After Bush II administration it is generally unclear what should be the level of crime committed to be arrested.

But potentially opening an important view on the US diplomatic correspondence for four years to any state with the desire to read it is something really special. A unique achievement of Secretary Hillary.

Now I am not so sure that the level of incompetence of Hillary and her aides in this sordid saga is less it was for the key figures of Bush II administration (who also used a private email server for a while with impunity, although not for State Department activities).

But for any specialist with even superficial knowledge of computer security the level of incompetence and arrogance demonstrated is simply unreal. Especially after the latest FBI documents.

Can you imagine that they have no technical knowledge of how to create the archive of emails in Windows Server directly and used Apple laptop and then Gmail account and intermediaries to achieve the necessary result. This is something so stupid and reckless that there is no words for it.

Also wiping out this "bathroom" mail server with BleachKit is a very suspicious activity for any person under investigation.

== quote ==
https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/08/26/1954241/hillary-clinton-used-bleachbit-to-wipe-emails

All indications are she wasn't very careful while actively using the server. However, once she started getting requests to produce data from it, then she suddenly got very careful. Even if she did do nothing wrong, that is a very stark change in behavior that just happened to coincide with legal requests to hand over data.

...The FBI found the "key piece(s)". Comey then said "No prosecutor would pursue this case" and dropped it. He was probably right--but only because of her last name. If I did that, I might get out after 5 years or so. Heck, one of my counterparts got in trouble for a single line in a controlled document which had the same info in the public domain. I'm sick of these "Nothing to see here" claims--just look at any security briefing and it's spelled out. We just had another one, and according to it I would be required to report her if she was in my office.

...Yes it does, read the laws. There is a Navy person who facing 20 years to life for disposing of a phone which had his picture while inside the sub. That is one of the more extreme cases, but it's literally a Web Search to prove you are wrong (shill?) Intent comes in to play _only_ for the penalty.

...I like how the argument has devolved here to "If Bush did it, then it's ok". PopeRatzo, is Dubya really your moral compass? Your guiding light?

...Except ALL 22 MILLION Bush administrative emails were recovered from tape backups. Clinton wiped the data AFTER the FOIA request. I don't know of a single person that has decided one day to delete ALL their personal emails, except Clinton. https://www.wired.com/2009/12/... [wired.com] another source http://www.npr.org/templates/s... [npr.org] , another http://www.npr.org/templates/s... [npr.org] . Yep you're idiot.

...My quibble was the blatant arrogance of the act. That private server was clearly a move to preserve final editing rights of her tenure at the State Department and evade any future FOIA requests that may crop up during her next run for the presidency; and was there ever any doubt that she would run again? The fact that she thought she could get away with it after experiencing the fallout from the exact same move by members of the Bush administration while she was a sitting Senator in Washington reinforces the feeling that her arrogance knows no bounds. She took a page out of the neocon playbook and figured she would show them how it's done.

...1. She put classified info on a private unsecured server where it was vulnerable, contrary to the law which she was fully advised of upon taking office.
2. She did all her work through that server, hiding it from all 3 government branches (congressional oversight, executive oversight, and the courts) and public FOIA requests.
3. When the material was sought by the courts and congress, she and the state department people lied under oath claiming the material did not exist (perhaps Nixon cronies should have all lied about tapes existing).
4. After her people knew the material was being sought, the server's files were transferred (by private IT people w/o clearances) to her lawyers (no clearances).
5. She and her lawyers deleted over 30000 e-mails, claiming they were only about yoga and her daughter's wedding dress (Nixon cut a few minutes of tape).
6. They then wiped the files with bit bleach (a step not needed for yoga or wedding dress e-mails). (Nixon did not degauss all his tapes)
7. They handed the wiped server to the FBI, and hillary publicly played ignorant with her "with a CLOTH?" comment (absolute iin-you-face arrogance against the rule of law) (Nixon did not hand tape recorders with erased tapes to the FBI)
Prove you are sincere, and not a total unprincipled partisan hack:
Are you a Nixon supporter?
Would you accept this behavior from Donald Trump or Dick Cheney?

ilsm -> M. Gamble... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 05:06 PM
One law for the king another for me. If any of the scandals went to a jury instead of being swept under the rug, we might have judgements. If I did what Clinton did with information security I would be in jail. If I did that with federal records I would do time as well!

[Sep 04, 2016] The FBIs Fake Investigation of Hillarys Emails

Notable quotes:

"... "the prosecutor has all the power. The Supreme Court's suggestion that a plea bargain is a fair and voluntary contractual arrangement between two relatively equal parties is a total myth… What really puts the prosecutor in the driver's seat is the fact that he - because of mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines (which, though no longer mandatory in the federal system, are still widely followed by most judges), and simply his ability to shape whatever charges are brought - can effectively dictate the sentence by how he publicly describes the offense". ..."

"... Prosecutorial discretion is now practically unlimited in the United States. This discretion is an essential feature of any dictatorship . It's the essence of any system that separates people into aristocrats, who are above the law, versus the public, upon whom their 'law' is enforced. It's the essence of "a nation of men, not of laws". ..."

"... Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system" ..."

"... Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically. Clinton stated a 'nonpaper' was a document with no official heading, or identifying marks of any kind, that can not be attributed to the US Government. Clinton thought a 'nonpaper' was a way to convey the unofficial stance of the US Government to a foreign government and believed this practice went back '200 years.' When viewing the displayed email, Clinton believed she was asking Sullivan to remove the State letterhead and provide unclassified talking points. Clinton stated she had no intention to remove classification markings" ..."

"... issues sending secure fax" ..."

"... They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it" ..."

"... "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure". So: she knew that it was classified information but wanted to receive it so that she would be able to say, "I didn't know that it was classified information". ..."

"... The FBI avoided using the standard means to investigate a suspect higher-up ..."

"... That alone proves the Obama Administration's 'investigation' of Clinton's email system to have been a farce ..."

"... the prosecutor in Hillary's case (the Obama Administration) clearly didn't want her in the big house; they wanted her in the White House. ..."

Sep 03, 2016 | www.strategic-culture.org

1: The FBI chose to 'investigate' the most difficult-to-prove charges, not the easiest-to-prove ones (which are the six laws that she clearly violated , simply by her privatization and destruction of State Department records, and which collectively would entail a maximum prison sentence of 73 years ).

The famous judge Jed Rakoff has accurately and succinctly said that, in the American criminal 'justice' system, since 1980 and especially after 2000, and most especially after 2010, "the prosecutor has all the power. The Supreme Court's suggestion that a plea bargain is a fair and voluntary contractual arrangement between two relatively equal parties is a total myth… What really puts the prosecutor in the driver's seat is the fact that he - because of mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines (which, though no longer mandatory in the federal system, are still widely followed by most judges), and simply his ability to shape whatever charges are brought - can effectively dictate the sentence by how he publicly describes the offense".

If an Administration wants to be merely pretending an 'investigation', it's easy: identify, as the topic for the alleged 'investigation', not the criminal laws that indisputably describe what the suspect can clearly be proven to have done, but instead criminal laws that don't. Prosecutorial discretion is now practically unlimited in the United States. This discretion is an essential feature of any dictatorship . It's the essence of any system that separates people into aristocrats, who are above the law, versus the public, upon whom their 'law' is enforced. It's the essence of "a nation of men, not of laws".

But, different people focus on different aspects of it. Conservatives notice it in Clinton's case because she was not prosecuted. Progressives notice it in Clinton's case because other people (ones without the clout) who did what she did (but only less of it), have been prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced for it. The result, either way, is dictatorship , regardless of anyone's particular perspective on the matter. Calling a nation like that a 'democracy' is to strip "democracy" of its basic meaning - it is foolishness. Such a nation is an aristocracy, otherwise called an "oligarchy". That's the opposite of a democracy (even if it's set up so as to pretend to be a democracy).

2: The FBI chose to believe her allegations, instead of to investigate or challenge them. For example: On page 4 of the FBI's record of their interview with Hillary dated 2 July 2016 , they noted: " Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system" . But they already had seen this email . So, they asked her about that specific one: " Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically. Clinton stated a 'nonpaper' was a document with no official heading, or identifying marks of any kind, that can not be attributed to the US Government. Clinton thought a 'nonpaper' was a way to convey the unofficial stance of the US Government to a foreign government and believed this practice went back '200 years.' When viewing the displayed email, Clinton believed she was asking Sullivan to remove the State letterhead and provide unclassified talking points. Clinton stated she had no intention to remove classification markings" .

Look at the email : is her statement about it - that " issues sending secure fax" had nothing to do with the illegality of sending classified U.S. Government information over a non-secured, even privatized, system - even credible? Is the implication by Clinton's remark, that changing the letterhead and removing the document'a classified stamp, would solve the problem that Jake Sullivan - a highly skilled attorney himself - had brought to her attention, even credible? Well, if so, then wouldn't the FBI have asked Sullivan what he was referring to when his email to Clinton said " They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it" .

The FBI provided no indication that there was any such follow-up, at all. They could have plea-bargained with Sullivan, to get him to testify first, so that his testimony could be used in questioning of her, but they seem not to have been interested in doing any such thing. They believed what she said (even though it made no sense as a response to the problem that Sullivan had just brought to her attention: the problem that emailing to her this information would violate several federal criminal statutes.

Clinton, in other words, didn't really care about the legality. And, apparently, neither did the FBI. Her email in response to Sullivan's said simply: "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure". So: she knew that it was classified information but wanted to receive it so that she would be able to say, "I didn't know that it was classified information". In other words: she was instructing her advisor: hide the fact that it's classified information, so that when I receive it, there will be no indication on it that what was sent to me is classified information.

3: The FBI avoided using the standard means to investigate a suspect higher-up: obtaining plea-deals with subordinates, requiring them to cooperate, answer questions and not to plead the Fifth Amendment (not to refuse to answer) . (In Hillary's case, the Obama Administration actually did plea-deals in which they allowed the person who was supposed to answer all questions, to plea the Fifth Amendment to all questions instead. This is allowed only when the government doesn't want to prosecute the higher-up - which in this case was Clinton. That alone proves the Obama Administration's 'investigation' of Clinton's email system to have been a farce.)

A plea-deal isn't a Constitutional process: Jed Rakoff's article explained why it's not. The process is informal, but nowadays it's used in more than 97% of cases in which charges are brought, and in more than 99% of all cases (including the 92% of cases that are simply dropped without any charges being brought). That's the main reason why nowadays "the prosecutor has all the power". Well, the prosecutor in Hillary's case (the Obama Administration) clearly didn't want her in the big house; they wanted her in the White House.

[Sep 03, 2016] Hillary Clinton Incompetent, Or Criminal

The lost in mail laptop and disappear thumb drive with archived emails story is incredibly fishy. The whole story in incredible. Both Hillary and her close aides (especially Huma ) come out as completely incompetent idiots, who can't be trusted any sensitive information. This level of incompetence combined with recklessness is pretty typical for female sociopath

Notable quotes:

"... The Donald Trump campaign has already called for Clinton to be "locked up" for her carelessness handling sensitive information. The missing laptop and thumb drive raise a new possibility that Clinton's emails could have been obtained by people for whom they weren't intended. ..."

"... The archives on the laptop and thumbdrive were constructed by Clinton aides in 2013, using a convoluted process, before her emails were turned over to State Department officials and later scrubbed to determine which ones had classified information and should either be withheld from public view or could be released with redactions. The archive of messages would contain none of those safeguards, potentially exposing classified information if it were ever opened and its contents read. ..."

"... The archive was created nearly a year before the State Department contacted former secretaries of state and asked them to turn over any emails that they had sent using private accounts that pertained to official business. A senior Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, told the FBI that the archive on the laptop and thumb drive were meant to be "a reference for the future production of a book," according to the FBI report. ..."

"... Whatever the rationale, the transfer of Clinton's emails onto two new storage devices, one of which was shipped twice, created new opportunities for messages to be lost or exposed to people who weren't authorized to see them, according to the FBI report. (The Clinton campaign didn't immediately respond to a request to comment for this story.) ..."

"... The disappearing laptop and thumb drive story is incredibly fishy. Either Team Hillary is lying about it, or they are spectacularly incompetent and reckless with national security information. ..."

"... Hillary Clinton: Incompetent, Or Criminal? Both. ..."

"... Dear God, from the Daily Beast article, apparently they were using one of the laptops as a way to transfer the emails to a contractor they had hired. Since no one knew how to do it, they effected the transfer by sending the entire archive to a personal gmail account, then transfering it again to the contractor. So we have a massive store containing quite classified information going to a major tech company, entirely over the internet with only ssl protection I can only presume, because they could not figure out how to transfer a file system. The incompetence here is astonishing. Even a Google employee who forwards sensitive information to a personal gmail account would risk being fired. ..."

"... Of course the most important detail to come out of this is the use of BleachBit. You don't use that software to delete emails about yoga classes. ..."

"... The employee "transferred all of the Clinton e-mail content to a personal Google e-mail (Gmail) address he created," the FBI found. From that Gmail address, he downloaded the emails into a mailbox named "HRC Archive" on the Platte River server. ..."

"... Honestly, Rod you should highlight this. I can assure you that if something this mindbogglingly reckless were ever done at a major tech company the employee would either be fired or told to find work elsewhere but never enter the office again (because severance is expensive and bad pr). I assume the same is true of the government as well. ..."

The American Conservative

Why, exactly, did the FBI wait until Labor Day Weekend to dump this startling news about Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal? Hard to believe it was a coincidence that official Washington wanted this story to have the best chance of going away. From the Daily Beast:

A laptop containing a copy, or "archive," of the emails on Hillary Clinton's private server was apparently lost-in the postal mail-according to an FBI report released Friday. Along with it, a thumb drive that also contained an archive of Clinton's emails has been lost and is not in the FBI's possession.

The Donald Trump campaign has already called for Clinton to be "locked up" for her carelessness handling sensitive information. The missing laptop and thumb drive raise a new possibility that Clinton's emails could have been obtained by people for whom they weren't intended. The FBI director has already said it's possible Clinton's email system could have been remotely accessed by foreign hackers.

The revelation of the two archives is contained in a detailed report about the FBI's investigation of Clinton's private email account. The report contained new information about how the archives were handled, as well as how a private company deleted emails in its possession, at the same time that congressional investigators were demanding copies.

More:

The archives on the laptop and thumbdrive were constructed by Clinton aides in 2013, using a convoluted process, before her emails were turned over to State Department officials and later scrubbed to determine which ones had classified information and should either be withheld from public view or could be released with redactions. The archive of messages would contain none of those safeguards, potentially exposing classified information if it were ever opened and its contents read.

The FBI has found that Clinton's emails contained classified information, including information derived from U.S. intelligence. Her campaign has disputed the classification of some of the emails.

The archive was created nearly a year before the State Department contacted former secretaries of state and asked them to turn over any emails that they had sent using private accounts that pertained to official business. A senior Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, told the FBI that the archive on the laptop and thumb drive were meant to be "a reference for the future production of a book," according to the FBI report. Another aide, however, said that the archive was set up after the email account of a Clinton confidante and longtime adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, was compromised by a Romanian hacker.

Whatever the rationale, the transfer of Clinton's emails onto two new storage devices, one of which was shipped twice, created new opportunities for messages to be lost or exposed to people who weren't authorized to see them, according to the FBI report. (The Clinton campaign didn't immediately respond to a request to comment for this story.)

Read it all. The disappearing laptop and thumb drive story is incredibly fishy. Either Team Hillary is lying about it, or they are spectacularly incompetent and reckless with national security information.
Clint says: September 3, 2016 at 12:00 pm
The Clintons have gotten away repeatedly by not playing by the rules that others must play by or get punished for breeching.
It's incrementally being exposed and Americans see that The Clintons act as if they're too big to jail.

Noah172 , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:08 pm
KevinS wrote:
It is like going through a red light because you weren't paying close enough attention as opposed to consciously choosing to run a red light

Lousy analogy. Running a red is a momentary lapse, not a years-long, well-thought-out conspiracy, with considerable effort given to covering tracks (BleachBit).

Sebastien Cole , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:09 pm
No one in the media wants to say it, but this report almost entirely exonerates Clinton. Yes, she's lawyerly and is inclined to walk too close to the line, but no – she didn't do anything immoral or unethical. If at some point it turns out that she's actually done something wrong then we revisit, but the obsession with this 'crimeless coverup' prevents us from stating the obvious – Clinton is a solid candidate for President, intelligent, diligent and serious enough to guide the nation through difficult times. Trump is uncontroversially not.
The moral equivalence games the media plays with the two candidates amounts to a cancer in our civic fiber that allows us not to put away our childish things.

mongoose , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:15 pm
…like choosing a hangover…rather than a heroin overdose
Buckeye reader , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:22 pm
You're insulting Nixon.
We could have had Carly Fiorina dealing with the challenge of cyber warfare in the 21st century. Voters are choosing a woman who put an insecure server containing national security communications in her basement, and sold our intention and opportunities to do good in the world to rich people for her own financial gain.
(I lean toward voting for Trump. My issue is the immense paperwork drag on health care delivery and the increase in cost caused by the "affordable" care act. I expect more of the same with Clinton. )

Abelard Lindsey , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:37 pm
Hillary Clinton: Incompetent, Or Criminal? Both.
Michael Guarino, says: September 3, 2016 at 12:51 pm
Dear God, from the Daily Beast article, apparently they were using one of the laptops as a way to transfer the emails to a contractor they had hired. Since no one knew how to do it, they effected the transfer by sending the entire archive to a personal gmail account, then transfering it again to the contractor. So we have a massive store containing quite classified information going to a major tech company, entirely over the internet with only ssl protection I can only presume, because they could not figure out how to transfer a file system. The incompetence here is astonishing. Even a Google employee who forwards sensitive information to a personal gmail account would risk being fired.
This sort of astonishing incompetence is exactly why I originally thought this was a big deal. The reason you don't want HRC running her own server is because she plainly doesn't know how to manage, or even hire for, all the inane details of information security.

Of course the most important detail to come out of this is the use of BleachBit. You don't use that software to delete emails about yoga classes.

Will Harrington , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:52 pm
Jay, or, and hear me out, like the other Bill, there has to come a point in time where the shear amount of claims of criminal behavior has to be considered. The other Bill got away with rape for years, maybe its time to consider that this Bill and his wife lack credibility in the face of accusers that HRC has denigrated and called Bimbos.
Leftists make me sick in this. They will cry that we should always believe the victim unless one of their political leaders are accused. You want to take out a conservative? Give credible evidence that he is guilty of rape or sexual harassment. We quit voting for them. Your side, deny, deny, deny….and ultimately demand we move on, just like a previous poster's five stages of a Clinton scandal.

The only exception to this I can think of is Weiner, not because he did something that is horrible. No, you guys abandoned him because he was pathetic and embarrassing.

Michael Guarino, says: September 3, 2016 at 1:08 pm
This is the direct quote from the Daily Beast article:

After trying unsuccessfully to remotely transfer the emails to a Platte River server, Hanley shipped the laptop to the employee's home in February 2014. He then "migrated Clinton's emails" from the laptop to a Platte River server.

That task was hardly straightforward, however, and ended up exposing the email archive yet again, this time to another commercial email service.

The employee "transferred all of the Clinton e-mail content to a personal Google e-mail (Gmail) address he created," the FBI found. From that Gmail address, he downloaded the emails into a mailbox named "HRC Archive" on the Platte River server.

Honestly, Rod you should highlight this. I can assure you that if something this mindbogglingly reckless were ever done at a major tech company the employee would either be fired or told to find work elsewhere but never enter the office again (because severance is expensive and bad pr). I assume the same is true of the government as well.

It really makes the Nixon comparisons seem apt, except she has an out for her supporters in simply claiming that she is a bumbling idiot.

Andrew E. , says: September 3, 2016 at 1:23 pm
The good liberals here who are starting the writing on the wall with Crooked Hillary should begin considering the fact that Trump isn't that bad and is actually pretty good in many ways. Come on over, you will be welcomed warmly.

[Sep 03, 2016] Sounds like Hillary used burner phones like a drug dealer

Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

dcblogger , September 3, 2016 at 11:46 am

A note sent to all State Department employees on Clinton's behalf warned them against the risks of using personal email addresses for official business.
none , September 3, 2016 at 11:56 am

13 mobile devices? Destroying them with a hammer?

I gotta think there were a lot more than 13. Sounds like she used burner phones like a drug dealer.

Jess , September 3, 2016 at 3:19 pm

Yeah. the first image I got when I read that headline was the scene in Breaking Bad when a phone rings, Walter opens a drawer and has to look through about a dozen phones to find the one that is ringing.

[Sep 03, 2016] Hillary Clintons Team Lost a Laptop Full of Her Emails in the Actual Mail

Notable quotes:

"... lost-in-the-mail ..."

Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

JSM , September 3, 2016 at 9:10 am

This story 'Hillary Clinton's Team Lost a Laptop Full of Her Emails in the Actual Mail' ( http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/02/hillary-clinton-s-team-lost-a-laptop-full-of-her-emails-in-the-actual-mail.html ) is an absolutely preposterous concoction. What purpose it's supposed to serve is at the moment unclear. Likely it will become clear when it becomes necessary to hide the truth from Americans, a project that is increasingly, though not always, stillborn.

The most significant thing we learn is that "The employee "transferred all of the Clinton e-mail content to a personal Google e-mail (Gmail) address he created," the FBI found. From that Gmail address, he downloaded the emails into a mailbox named "HRC Archive" on the Platte River server."

Americans must be (or are at least expected to be) the most schizophrenic of all people on the earth. They are not only supposed to believe that the FBI/NSA (the former Marcy Wheeler, I believe, thinks is also spying on Americans' emails) cannot locate a copy of the deleted emails, but that the FBI can't get a warrant to get the 'deleted' emails from Google. Who on earth, on any other day, or in reference to anything else, actually believes that an email deleted from a Gmail account is simultaneously deleted from Google's servers & archives?

Tom , September 3, 2016 at 10:07 am

Even the Hardy Boys would have conducted a harder hitting investigation. What ever happened to the vaunted tough-as-nails FBI? Talk about pulling your punches. Yeesh!

Ivy , September 3, 2016 at 10:58 am

The lost-in-the-mail excuse earned a place in the Lies pantheon.
Another favorite may be "I'm Hillary Clinton and I'm here to help you".

Arizona Slim , September 3, 2016 at 12:39 pm

Wait a minute. I am to believe that this crew sent a laptop through the mail?

And that their boss deserves to be President of the United States?

pretzelattack , September 3, 2016 at 12:43 pm

it was in a big padded envelope, and it was clearly marked "fragile" and "top secret".

[Sep 03, 2016] Clinton emails wiped clean after NYT story

Notable quotes:

"... The deletion took place between March 25 and March 31, the FBI learned in a May 3 interview. The name of the person who deleted the emails was redacted from the FBI's notes. ..."

"... The Times story was published on March 2. ..."

"... I am unsympathetic to any person involved in such a discussion that circumvents state secrets protocol because they don't have access to a secure computer. That is an excuse not acceptable. That is saying "I didn't know any better" to folks who are sitting at the highest levels of state secrets! That is plain B.S. in my opinion. ..."

"... A urinating contest between State and CIA operatives who really didn't need State permission to pull the trigger on drone strikes is not an excuse for Hillary to have 22-SAP running loose on her email un-secure un-authorized servers/storage units. I remain unsympathetic to Hillary or anyone else who compromises state secrets at that level because it is inconvenient to find a secure means to communicate. ..."

Sep 02, 2016 | TheHill

The deletion took place between March 25 and March 31, the FBI learned in a May 3 interview. The name of the person who deleted the emails was redacted from the FBI's notes.

"In a follow-up FBI interview on May 3, 2016, ------ Indicated he believed he had an 'oh s--t' moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from PRN server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton;s e-mails," the FBI notes released on Friday stated.

Chris CillizzaVerified account ‏@TheFix 22h22 hours ago
This is crazy. 3 weeks after NYT publish Clinton email server story, there was a big wipe of her emails conducted

BleachBit is a special computer software that is designed to "prevent recovery" of files so that, as House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said last week, "even God can't read them."

After the conclusion of the investigation in July, the FBI Director James Comey recommended no charges against Clinton but added that the Democratic presidential nominee was "extremely careless" in handling classified material.

The Times story was published on March 2.
Fred_Shrinka Winfield • 21 hours ago
"Completely asinine to think a normal rational person would believe that junk."
NEVER FEAR -- We are talking about HiLIARy voters here!

Bill Fred_Shrinka • 20 hours ago
The fact that the FBI had this info but excluded it from their deliberations on whether or not to indict, then did a Labor Day weekend dump when most Americans won't be paying attention, is pretty conclusive evidence that the FBI under Comey & Lynch is actively working to shield Clinton.
Paul Bill • 20 hours ago
Quick, corporate media, find something Donald Trump said and make it a 5 day story so you don't have to report on HiLlARy's crimes!
Garbage Tears Paul • 20 hours ago
The press is a total joke. It is painful to watch,
Teddi Garbage Tears • 20 hours ago
They have been exposed by the Trump movement, and yes, its painful to realize...
pablosodahead Teddi • 20 hours ago
..painfull to realize we have all be played for years by the democrats and yes republicans and large corporate businesses. Time to take back our control of ourselves and choices, real choices, and not sell our votes for a freaking free cell phone or promises of free this, free that.....
Rick20112 pablosodahead • 16 hours ago
Or 13 separate Blackberry cell phones ...
Poor62 Rick20112 • 29 minutes ago
To go with her THREE servers.

Ed pablosodahead • 7 hours ago
Let's stay focused. The DNC and DemocRATs are the ones with the dirty email issues and obvious party wide corruption.
Sure there are Republicans who have done bad things but it's not the core of the party, like it is with the DNC.

usaok59 Ed • 4 hours ago
Actually if you dig deeper you will find that both parties are VERY corrupt. The only way to get things done is to make deals and cover for each other. Our political system has totally gone amuck.
Ed usaok59 • 3 hours ago
Again... it's the DNC. The RNC isn't renown for voter fraud and corruption. Because the core of the party doesn't partake. The DNC does...
http://americanlookout.com/dem...

Ed usaok59 • 3 hours ago
Actually, I have... and the RNC is fairly clean. The party learned a lesson with Nixon. Sure people may not have liked the Bush's, but at least they were fairly honest. And Reagan was an awesome President.
Also, Trump can't be bought and is a political outsider.

The DNC and DemocRATs, haven't learned their lesson yet... Slick Willy was almost fully impeached (House not Senate impeached)... but DemocRATs played party politics and let him go. We ALL know he was guilty and repeatedly lied under oath (perjury and obstruction)... something you or I would go to prison for.

ThatsWhatRosieSays usaok59 • 3 hours ago
Well said. And it fact, as someone commented above, this entire political process & "election" is little more than a charade. (A bad one at that.)
...Don't be too surprised if/when, sometime in the few weeks, some sort of (manufactured/contrived) 'national emergency' develops, necessitating the 'temporary suspension' of: a) the election process; b) the Bill of Rights; or c) the entire US Constitution -- and imposition of martial law -- 'Just until Order can be Restored.' (Or some such bunch of gibberish.)
Given what we've seen over the last 7+ years, it's darn near predictable: Americans should anticipate an "October Surprise" the likes of which the world has never seen.

Even so, come Lord Jesus!

Ed ThatsWhatRosieSays • 3 hours ago
That's why Trump is perfect right now. He can't be bought and is an outsider. It's actually just what our country needs right now.
lisamanv . Paul Kersey • 18 hours ago
Lauer is not a moderator.
nancync lisamanv . • 15 hours ago
Yes, first debate. How nice for Hillary since he was listed as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative at one time. No bias there LOL
lisamanv . nancync • 24 minutes ago
No, Lester Holt is the first moderator.
Paul Kersey lisamanv . • 17 hours ago
http://debates.org/index.php?m...
sickpuppy70454 Thrill22cl • 11 hours ago
I can't speak for anyone else, but I, personally, am in a RAGE over the Lame Stream Media.
iRon Madden Paul • 20 hours ago
IMPORTANT: when writing "HiLlARy" be sure to use a lowercase L (l), not an uppercase i (I), so it appears as "hillary" to internet search engines and won't be censored. All corporate media, including Google, Facebook, and Twitter are filtering the unique word "hiliary." You must spell "hillary" correctly, so that means using a lowercase L in place of the uppercase i in HiLlARy.
MuddShark alpha • 19 hours ago
I wonder about who "PRN" is?
The twitter screen cap clearly shows, "PRN held a conference call with President Clinton's staff"??

Then, the person who's name is redacted, who was evidently interviewed by the FBI, "deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server...

... and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton's e-mails"

Kind of unclear, since the conference call was with PRESIDENT Clinton's staff, is this PRESIDENT Clinton's archive mailbox, on the PRN server containing PRESIDENT Clinton's emails???

Tellthewholetruth MuddShark • 19 hours ago
Colorado-based Platte River Networks (PRN), which had managed her primary server since June 2013.
MuddShark Tellthewholetruth • 18 hours ago
Thanks, so in Dec of 2014, Cheryl Mills told 'him' to make changes to email retention setting for Clinton's emails, and after the PRN conference call, 3/25/15, 'he' realized that 'he' didn't do what Cheryl told 'him' to do in Dec of 2014, so 'he' did what Cheryl told 'him' to do, 3+ months late, and wiped 'his' butt with BleachBit on some exported .PST files 'he' created??
Somehow it doesn't look very much like the headline of this story makes it out to be??

Tellthewholetruth MuddShark • 16 hours ago
Oh and there is the small minor point that on Nov. 26, 2014 President Obama signs into law an updated Federal Records Act requiring public officials to forward all work-related email to their government address. Then comes the Cheryl Mills directive to change retention settings. THEN he/she remembers didn't follow orders ("the Oh S***" moment) so deletes all pst files plus back ups. NOTHING TO SEE HERE!!!! /sarcasm
Clark Kent Tellthewholetruth • 16 hours ago
But Hillary and Cheryl ended their public term in Feb of '13, right? So Obama's signing, Nov of '14, didn't really affect them, did it?
Paul R. Jones MuddShark • 17 hours ago
A reminder, the data this firm had in its possession had state secrets including 22-Top Secret-Special Access Programs. None of these firms had clearance for such. Wonder if everyone whose fingerprints were on these files got vetted by the FBI and or Intel to determine if they read what they had in their hands if for no other reason than curiosity?
Clark Kent Paul R. Jones • 16 hours ago
We are assuming that the server in PRN's management had 'all' Hillary's emails on it, but has there been proof shown to the public that the server in New Jersey had 'all' Hillary's emails?
The 7 email chains, with 22 TS/SAP information containing emails seem to be from 2011 and 2012, with the 2012 very likely being the New Years Holliday.

Back in June, WSJ reported that the majority seemed to be discussions about a planned CIA drone strike in Pakistan, that did not end up happening, and it started because the CIA let the US diplomat in Islamabad know, a day or so before Christmas, so State could weigh in.

Paul R. Jones Clark Kent • 16 hours ago
Well said. We, the People, may very well never know the details on this batch of state secrets...nothing new about the Intel folks being tight-lipped. Nothing I've read on-line has given any info on what the SAP email contained...but, T.S./SAP is the most rigidly controlled/guarded state secret and I doubt any will become public knowledge. Any way this Hillary state secrets compromise is sliced, it is a violation of state secrets protocol in my opinion. From the gist of the FBI notes provided so far, there was little or no effort by the FBI personnel to 'dig' into 'intent,' thus glossing over a specific state secret statutes. Nor did the FBI team devote much time to 'chasing' the means by which these 22-T.S./SAP jumped the gap from State's closed-loop secure email system to Hillary's rogue system...why not?
Lastly, I wonder if anyone from the Intel folks sat-in and or participated in Hillary's 'walk-in-the-park soft-ball' not under oath chat with the FBI...the Intel folks got 'hurt' badly with Hillary's compromise of the 22 SAP in my opinion.

MuddShark Paul R. Jones • 15 hours ago
Many of today's cable news talking heads are mentioning the planned Pakistan drone strike discussions as if it is now a forgone conclusion. Those of us who don't pay WSJ can read the story from other sources...
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

"Some of those emails were then sent by Clinton's aides to her personal email account, officials told the Journal.

The vaguely worded messages didn't mention the "CIA," "drones" or details about the targets, the Journal reported.

The emails were written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger, officials told the newspaper. The still-secret emails are still a part of the ongoing FBI investigation.

One exchange reported by the Journal came before Christmas in 2011 when the U.S. ambassador sent a note about a planned strike that sparked an email chain between Clinton's senior advisers. Officials said the exchange was clear those involved in the email were having discussions because they were away from their offices and didn't have access to a classified computer."

Paul R. Jones MuddShark • 15 hours ago
I am unsympathetic to any person involved in such a discussion that circumvents state secrets protocol because they don't have access to a secure computer. That is an excuse not acceptable. That is saying "I didn't know any better" to folks who are sitting at the highest levels of state secrets! That is plain B.S. in my opinion.
And, yet, Hillary's fawning faithful followers are buying the ruse. Such rationalization of compromising state secrets infuriates men and women in the field who can die (Amb. Stevens and the men who rushed to their own deaths to help protect Stevens) because of such bureaucratic idiocy in my opinion beginning with Hillary and her immediate minions merits the wrath of We, the People not admiration...some of whom questioned Hillary's email mess early-on such as Amadin who believed Hillary's email stuff was 'outrageous!"

"Outrageous" is an understatement on steroids in my opinion that would get anyone else prison time.

Paul R. Jones megajess • 4 hours ago
Thanks
Clark Kent Paul R. Jones • 14 hours ago
Our Amb. to Pakistan initiated these 'chains', because CIA 'requested input'; those requests seems to have been off the secure system. The drone operators were not in danger.
If the CIA had pulled the trigger, it would have before State gave the input CIA asked for, if they traveled to secure lines.

This is one of the reasons the CIA is dropping out of drone strikes; moving forwards the Defense Dept. will pull the trigger.

The argument between State and CIA over these discussions does not seem to have started because of Hillary, and it doesn't seem to have ended because of Hillary. It is only because of the FOIA disclosures that we know they seem to have agreed to disagree on this subject.

Paul R. Jones Clark Kent • 13 hours ago
A urinating contest between State and CIA operatives who really didn't need State permission to pull the trigger on drone strikes is not an excuse for Hillary to have 22-SAP running loose on her email un-secure un-authorized servers/storage units. I remain unsympathetic to Hillary or anyone else who compromises state secrets at that level because it is inconvenient to find a secure means to communicate.
Clark Kent Paul R. Jones • 11 hours ago
Did you read the ViceNews article about the Vaughn Index they received on the 7 'chains' that contain the 22 emails? You do realize that in at least one chain, a news agency article link, and possible quote, is being forwarded, and the article is likely the source of the TS/SAP information, don't you? Even after it is leaked to someone like the NYT or Guardian, a TS/SAP document is still considered TS/SAP by the NSA, right? Even after everyone on the planet who is interested has read the information, discussing it on the non-secure system is considered against procedures, right?
https://news.vice.com/article/...

"A large number of emails at the center of the Clinton FBI probe appear to have been between U.S. diplomats in Pakistan and the State Department in Washington D.C. discussing planned drone strikes." http://www.inquisitr.com/31881... ... "The emails were sent in 2011 and 2012 through a private server and contained information that allowed the State Department input into a potential drone strike, where they had the opportunity to voice either opposition or support for the planned strike."

Based on the The Inquisitor article, and the ViceNews article, 8 emails seem to be regarding the CIA drone strike, and one of the remaining 3 chains was about the news article.

Paul R. Jones Clark Kent • 3 hours ago
I still remain unsympathetic to anyone caught-up in this compromise of state secrets. Too many lessor mortals have been severely punished for a lot less and the powerful escape any consequences for Hillary's mess. The RULE OF LAW is being 'shaded' if not outright lost in this mess!

William Card > iRon Madden

Hillary is a walking psyop. NOTHING about her is real.

Chez Kiva > Chez Kiva • 20 hours ago

A memory lapse? I don't think so. Careless? Yes, careless to a fault. People died. Agents were outed.
And, the entire thing is a ruse to keep we the Americans from discussing the real infraction, which is that these CIA players were involved in destroying Libya and simultaneously causing the Syrian civil war. It wasn't an 'embassy' it was a safe house for all the lettered covert operatives and arms dealers. That's why she believes here role as 'guardian of State secrets' is safe.
Mark this "Classified:" We are deliberately involved in destroying 7 countries mid-east in a row. Iran (read nuclear) comes next!- General Wesley Clark.

CheeseEatingSurrenderMonkey > Fred_Shrinka

"Accidently" used BLEACHBIT "guaranteed unrecoverable" Secure Data Erase program?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahah.

[Sep 03, 2016] Were headers of Hillary emails from her private server manipulated to hide her address?

Hillary lied again claiming that the existence of her bathroom mail server was a common knoleadge. Some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were unaware of the server

Notable quotes:

"... some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email address ..."

"... The F.B.I. said that some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were aware she used a private email address but did not know she had set up a private server. The aides said they were "unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at State or when it became public knowledge." ..."

nytimes.com

From: 6 Things We Learned in the F.B.I. Clinton Email Investigation

Mrs. Clinton said in her interview it was "common knowledge" that she had a private email address because it was "displayed to anyone with whom she exchanged emails." But the F.B.I. said in a summary of its findings that "some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email address."

The F.B.I. said that some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were aware she used a private email address but did not know she had set up a private server. The aides said they were "unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at State or when it became public knowledge."

From: Links-9-3-2016 naked capitalism
temporal September 3, 2016 at 7:40 am

re: 6 Things We Learned

"some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email address." I have no idea what kind of email client would hide the contents of the from/reply-to field. How does their spam filter work if it doesn't reveal who sent it? Why do they read stuff when they don't have any idea who sent it? Did the F.B.I. really simply accept these statements as facts? Maybe they all just use cell phones and could care less who else is in the loop.

"Three weeks later, a Platte River employee realized he had not deleted the emails as instructed. The employee said he then used a special program called BleachBit to delete the files." He was told to delete files that any nitwit knows shouldn't be deleted and delete only means delete if they can't be found again but now it turns out he was supposed to shred them after removing the staples.

The clear signal is that if you are going to break laws, hide information from future legal discovery and generally stonewall investigators with easily disproven statements be very certain that it at the behest of your liege lord. Laws are for the peasants. Justice is blind for the elite because no one dares look.

fresno dan September 3, 2016 at 7:52 am

Now we find out a laptop was "lost" in the mail.
Damn, this is gonna be really bad….for the post office.
Of course, it will be hard to spin when it turns out it was addressed to Putin in Hillary's handwriting…

Bunk McNulty, September 3, 2016 at 9:57 am
"The sh!t has hit the fan."
Higgs Boson September 3, 2016 at 10:32 am

What sh!t? What fan? Remember, the FBI gave HRC a pass. Nothing to see. It was all a big "nothingburger". The only people that keep harping on this are right-wing rubes who get their marching orders from Putin's army of hackers. It's been assimilated into the Clinton Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy mythos.

Now go vote for Her, because "love [of what, they don't specify] Trumps hate."

That is all.

winstonsmith September 3, 2016 at 10:48 am

Here are the FBI summary file and interview notes in a single searchable PDF and some highlights from a reddit thread:

Handling of Confidential Information

"During [Sysadmin's] December 22, 2015 FBI interview, Pagliano recalled a conversation with [Redacted] at the beginning of Clinton's tenure, in which [Redacted] advised he would not be surprised if classified information was being transmitted to Clinton's personal server." (Page 28)

Clinton could not give an example of how the classification of a document was determined; rather she stated there was a process in place at State before her tenure, and she relied on career foreign service professionals to appropriately mark and handle classified information. Clinton believed information should be classified when it relates to [Redacted] the use of sensitive sources, or sensitive deliberations." (Page 26)

She relied on State officials to use their judgment when e-mailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her e-mail address. The FBI provided Clinton with copies of her classified e-mails ranging from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET/SAP and Clinton said she did not believe the e-mails contained classified information." (Page 26)

"State employees interviewed by the FBI explained that emails from Clinton only contained the letter "H" in the sender field and did not display their e-mail address. The majority of the State employees interviewed by the FBI who were in e-mail contact with Clinton indicated they had no knowledge of the private server in her Chappaqua residence. Clinton's immediate aides, to include Mills, Abedin, Jacob Sullivan, and [Redacted] told the FBI they were unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at the State or when it became public knowledge.

Possible Censorship

There were no e-mails provided by Williams & Connolly to State or the FBI dated from January 21, 2009 to March 18, 2009. FBI investigation identified an additional 18 days where Clinton did not provide State any responsive e-mail. FBI investigation determined 14 of the 18 days where Clinton did not provide State any responsive e-mail correspond with e-mail outages affecting Clinton's personal server systems as a result of both Hurricane Irene and Hurricane Sandy. FBI investigation indicated other explanations for gaps in Clinton's e-mail production could include user deletion prior to PRN's transfer of Clinton's e-mails for review…" (Page 27)

Security Threats

"Forensic analysis noted that on January 5, 2013, three IP addresses matching known Tor exit nodes were observed accessing a user e-mail account on the Pagliano Server believe to belong to President Clinton staffer [Redacted] FBI investigation indicated the Tor user logged in to [Redacted] email account and browsed e-mail folders and attachments. When asked during her interview, [Redacted] stated to the FBI she is not familiar with nor has she ever used Tor Software" (Page 29)

"The FBI does not have in its possession any of Clinton's 13 mobile devices which potentially were used to send e-mails using Clinton's clintonemail.com e-mail addresses. As a result, the FBI could not make a determination as to whether any of the devices were subject to compromise. Similarly, the FBI does not have in its possession two of the five iPad devices which potentially were used by Clinton to send and receive e-mails during her tenure… (Page 30)

"Investigation identified multiple occurrences of phishing and/or spear-phishing e-mails sent to Clinton's account during her tenure as Secretary of State. [Paragraph Redacted]…

Clinton received another phishing e-mail, purportedly sent from the personal e-mail account of State official [Redacted]. The email contained a potentially malicious link. Clinton replied to the email [Redacted] stating, "Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!" … Open source information indicated, if opened the targeted user's device may have been infected, and information would have been sent to at least three computers overseas, including one in Russia." (page 31)

Pages 33 – 47 are redacted. About one third of the entire review is redacted.

Lambert Strether September 3, 2016 at 2:03 pm

Thanks very much for this handy compendium!

Roger Smith September 3, 2016 at 12:51 pm

However email tag data works, her name appears as "H" because she isn't using her typical address. The address I have seen H appear in is [email protected]. Something about the contact data shows her as H.

There is an exchange between her and mega donor Ms. Rothschild that I saw this in. In the email Clinton apologizes for inconveniencing her and literally says, "Let me know what penance I owe you."

https://twitter.com/d_seaman/status/771569083695239168
hunkerdown, September 3, 2016 at 1:54 pm

I have no idea what kind of email client would hide the contents of the from/reply-to field.
"Friendly" ones, like, say, Outlook. Some people just don't care for all that gobbledygook, and Microsoft aims to please. Of course, the sender can put whatever they want in the comment field.
From: "H"
is a perfectly valid email From: line.
>

[Sep 03, 2016] In December 2014, while Hillary was under investigation, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton told the company that housed her server to delete an archive of emails from her account

If this is not obstruction of justice then what is: " ...Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah and the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that the deletion of the emails violated an order his committee issued to Mrs. Clinton in 2012 and a subpoena issued by the Benghazi committee in 2015."

Notable quotes:

"... These were not Hillary Clinton's emails - they were government records, and this was potentially one of the largest security breaches at the State Department because they had all these years of security records that just went out the door, ..."

"... Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, called the F.B.I. documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency."\ ..."

Sep 02, 2016 |

From: 6 Things We Learned in the F.B.I. Clinton Email Investigation - The New York Times

According to the F.B.I., in December 2014 a top aide to Mrs. Clinton told the company that housed her server to delete an archive of emails from her account. The company, Platte River Networks, apparently never followed those instructions. On March 2, 2015, The New York Times reported that Mrs. Clinton had exclusively used a personal email account when she was secretary of state. Two days later, the congressional committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, and Mrs. Clinton's response to them, told the technology firms associated with the email account that they had to retain "all relevant documents" related to its inquiry.
Three weeks later, a Platte River employee realized he had not deleted the emails as instructed. The employee said he then used a special program called BleachBit to delete the files. The F.B.I. said Mrs. Clinton was unaware of the deletions.
The F.B.I. said it was later able to find some of the emails, but did not say how many emails were deleted, or whether they were included in the 60,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton said she sent and received while secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

From: F.B.I. Papers Offer Closer Look at Hillary Clinton Email Inquiry - The New York Times

But Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah and the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that the deletion of the emails violated an order his committee issued to Mrs. Clinton in 2012 and a subpoena issued by the Benghazi committee in 2015.
He said he planned to seek answers from Mrs. Clinton about the deletions. "These were not Hillary Clinton's emails - they were government records, and this was potentially one of the largest security breaches at the State Department because they had all these years of security records that just went out the door," Mr. Chaffetz said. "It's a very black-and-white order. There's no wiggle room."

Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, called the F.B.I. documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency."\

The F.B.I. released only small portions of its thick files on the Clinton investigation, and Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who leads the Senate Judiciary Committee, accused the F.B.I. of withholding key documents - including many unclassified ones - from public view.
The selective release, he said, produced "an incomplete and possibly misleading picture of the facts without the other unclassified information that is still locked away from the public and even most congressional staff."

[Sep 02, 2016] Longtime Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who was not Department of State employee, managed Hillary Blackberries, synching them to the server

That means that Justin Cooper has full access to all Hillary email information, which is illegal.

Notable quotes:

"... Longtime Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who helped set up the private email account that Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state, was the person "usually responsible" for setting up her new devices and syncing them to the server. ..."

"... another person whose name is redacted, also helped Clinton set up her BlackBerry. ..."

Sep 02, 2016 | www.politico.com
3. Breaking and smashing
Longtime Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who helped set up the private email account that Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state, was the person "usually responsible" for setting up her new devices and syncing them to the server. Top aides Huma Abedin and Monica Hanley, as well as another person whose name is redacted, also helped Clinton set up her BlackBerry.

According to Abedin and Hanley, Clinton's old devices would often disappear to parts "unknown once she transitioned to a new device."

Cooper, according to the report, "did recall two instances where he destroyed Clinton's old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer."

[Sep 02, 2016] Looks like Pagiano was an amateur: low quality or no spam filter on "bathroom" server

www.politico.com

The suspicious porn email
The FBI said it uncovered multiple instances of phishing or spear-phishing emails sent to Clinton's account, including one that appeared to be sent from another State official's account. Clinton responded to the email by trying to confirm that the person actually sent it, adding, "I was worried about opening it!"

But in another incident, the FBI noted that Abedin emailed someone (whose name is redacted) conveying Clinton's concern that "someone [was] hacking into her email" after receiving an email from a "known [redacted] associate containing a link to a website with pornographic material."

"There is no additional information as to why Clinton was concerned about someone hacking into her e-mail account, or if the specific link referenced by Abedin was used as a vector to infect Clinton's device," the FBI's report states, and after roughly two lines of redacted text goes on to note that "open source information indicated, if opened, the targeted user's device may have been infected, and information would have been sent to at least three computers overseas, including one in Russia."

[Sep 02, 2016] Bathroom email server was actually a series of three servers but the main Windows server administered by Pagiano was in use from 2009 till 2013

Notable quotes:

"... That server was replaced in 2009 with a server installed by a former IT specialist for Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign ..."

www.politico.com

The former secretary of state's email server was in fact a series of three servers used over a period of time from approximately 2007 to 2015, beginning with an Apple server installed by a former aide to her husband.

That server was replaced in 2009 with a server installed by a former IT specialist for Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, which was then supplanted in 2013 by a server installed by a vendor, Denver-based Platte River Networks.

That server, housed in a data center in New Jersey, was voluntarily handed over to the FBI in 2015.

[Sep 02, 2016] 13 Blackberries and 5 iPads

www.politico.com
The report said there was "no additional information" about the email or more about why Clinton was concerned about the hack, or whether the link Abedin referred to in her email was "used as a vector to infect Clinton's device."
Following roughly two lines of redacted text, the report states, "Open source information indicated, if opened, the targeted user's device may have been infected, and information would have been sent to at least three computers overseas, including one in Russia."

In its investigation, the FBI turned up 13 total mobile devices connected to two different phone numbers that had potentially been used to send emails from Clinton's personal account, including eight email-capable BlackBerrys that she used during her tenure as secretary of state. Lawyers for Clinton said in late February of 2016 that they were unable to find any of the 13 devices identified by the bureau.

The FBI also identified five iPads "associated with Clinton" that were potentially used to send emails from Clinton's private system. The bureau managed to obtain three of those iPads, none of which contained any potentially classified information.

As she transitioned between mobile devices, two people interviewed by the FBI said the whereabouts of Clinton's previous devices would "frequently become unknown." One aide to former President Bill Clinton who also helped the family set up the initial personal email server in their Chappaqua, New York, home said that on two occasions he "destroyed Clinton's old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer."

[Sep 02, 2016] The art of bleaching the bathroom email server to delete traces of potencially compromizing Hillary Clinton emails

Notable quotes:

"... The unnamed staffer deleted the files after remembering an earlier request from longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that changed "email retention policies" for Clinton's server. ..."

www.politico.com

But weeks after the Times published its story, the FBI's investigation found that an individual, whose name was redacted, used an online program called BleachBit to delete a file on the server containing Clinton's emails.

The unnamed staffer deleted the files after remembering an earlier request from longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that changed "email retention policies" for Clinton's server.

[Sep 02, 2016] Emails destruction and bleaching the server were a deliberate act of sabotage of FOIA

Using BleachBit clearly shows the criminal intent, which FBI did not found in the whole Clinton emailgate saga...

Notable quotes:

"... used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton's e-mails." ..."

www.politico.com

Speaking to the FBI on May 3, 2016, "[redacted] indicated he believed he had an 'oh shit' moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton's e-mails."

[Sep 02, 2016] FBI Hillary Clinton Lost Cell Phones with Classified Emails

Notable quotes:

"... Hillary Clinton lost several mobile telephones carrying e-mails from her private server during her time in office ..."

"... "[Huma] Abedin and [former Clinton aide Monica] Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's [mobile] devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device," one report indicates. ..."

Sep 02, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost several mobile telephones carrying e-mails from her private server during her time in office, according to newly-released FBI documents on the investigation into her mishandling of classified information.
"[Huma] Abedin and [former Clinton aide Monica] Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's [mobile] devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device," one report indicates.

On other occasions, a staffer would destroy Clinton's old mobile phones "by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer," the FBI documents reveal.

[Sep 02, 2016] Clinton allowed handling of her classified emails by a loyalist without any security clearance

www.politico.com

When reviewing an email from October of 2012, for example, Clinton said that while she did not recall the message specifically, she described an individual involved with the communication as "someone who was well acquainted with handling classified information" and "described him as someone she held in high regard."
She said she "relied on" the individual, whose name is redacted in the FBI notes, and she had "no concern over his judgement and ability to handle classified information."

[Sep 02, 2016] So what I said, not what I do

Notable quotes:

"... In addition, Clinton said she did not remember a State email going out in late June 2011 informing employees of the importance of securing their personal email accounts in correlation with the upgrading of her clintonemail.com server. ..."

www.politico.com
Clinton "did recall the frustration over State's information technology systems," the FBI said in its notes from the interview.
In addition, Clinton said she did not remember a State email going out in late June 2011 informing employees of the importance of securing their personal email accounts in correlation with the upgrading of her clintonemail.com server.

Clinton said she did not consider switching over to a State.gov account, as she, according to the report, "understood the email system used by her husband's personal staff had an excellent track record with respect to security and had never been breached."

[Sep 02, 2016] Pathological liar Hillary Clinton pretended to be ignorant with FBI investigators; that was a silly defense strategy, but it worked probably beacuse of Obama meddling in the investigation

Any reasonable investigator would instantly understand that she is trying to sell him the Brooklyn bridge. In no way with her career she can be unaware of such things.

www.politico.com

The meaning of (C)
Clinton told the FBI that she did not know what the "(C)" portion markings on an email chain signified, explaining that she thought it meant the paragraphs were marked in alphabetical order.

As far as her knowledge of the various classification levels of U.S. government information, Clinton responded that she took all classified material seriously regardless of the "level," be it "TOP SECRET," "SECRET" or "CONFIDENTIAL."

[Sep 02, 2016] Clinton was not part of the decision to move from the Apple server managed by Cooper to a [windows] server built by Bryan Pagliano

Notable quotes:

"... Clinton "had no knowledge of the reasons for selecting it to install it in the basement" of her Chappaqua, New York, home. ..."

"... Clinton also denied using the server to avoid the Federal Records Act, and did not have any conversations about using the server to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, according to the FBI's investigation notes. ..."

www.politico.com

Clinton was not part of the decision to move from the Apple server managed by Cooper to a [windows] server built by Bryan Pagliano, according to the report, which stated that Clinton "had no knowledge of the reasons for selecting it to install it in the basement" of her Chappaqua, New York, home.

Clinton also denied using the server to avoid the Federal Records Act, and did not have any conversations about using the server to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, according to the FBI's investigation notes.

[Sep 02, 2016] F.B.I. Papers Offer Closer Look at Hillary Clinton Email Inquiry

NYT comments are just overflowing from neoliberal supported of this neocon warmonger Hillary. Amazing !!!

Notable quotes:

"... The fact that Hillary or any senior elected official can operate outside of a secure system without automated detection/correction is the real issue here. I expect many more govt' officials are doing the same, but in a less politically charged atmosphere. No investigations in their cases as there is no trophy at the end. ..."

"... So who is minding the computer farm? Government computer systems/policies need to be reviewed, training reinforced, and automatic incident tracking of activity to and from undocumented server IP addresses. Automated systems should prevent government officials through their lack of knowledge from using systems that do not comply. ..."

"... There is something fishy about her desire to maintain a private email server at her home at the same time she is working as a public official in the role of secretary of state. There is also the perceived conflict of interest between this role as the nation's top diplomat and her connection with the Clinton foundation. ..."

"... If she exchanged favors for contributions to the foundation, which many suspect she did, the smoking guns have probably been deleted by now. She was given plenty of time to sort through her emails to cover her tracks before turning them over to investigators. ..."

"... Her evasiveness and attempt to avoid FOIA requests have certainly earned her the nickname crooked Hillary. ..."

"... The fact that so many people support Clinton, in the face of her egregious and arguably criminal behavior, speaks to the fact that a large number of people vote strictly party line. ..."

"... The bottom line is that we are a very partisan nation whose voters support their candidate no matter how flawed is that person. ..."

"... IF HRC played by the rules like everyone must, and simply used the State Department email, all of this could have been avoided. Yet she refused to use her State email even though it was offered to her. ..."

"... ultimately, this shows the incompetence of the IT people in the government agencies handling her communications. ..."

"... Hillary Clinton is ultimately responsible for making sure her classified communications are secure, and she should have been asking people questions to make sure this was the case. I am a Democrat but I have grave misgivings regarding her judgement and handling of this matter. ..."

"... The most important finding is that the federal government is woefully incompetent in designing, implementing, and maintaining large information systems. ..."

"... These are plainly false statements to the FBI, and so crimes. She did not do it "out of convenience" but to avoid public records act, and to get more privacy. Huma admitted that much, as have others. She got repeated warnings. We've heard that from those who warned her, who were told not to say it again. "I don't recall" any of them is just not credible. She is supposed to recall being warned. ..."

"... She did not think those things were classified? She's Sec of State. She knows which subjects are classified, and many of those were. She knew that. She got the most classified stuff there is, because she was Sec of State. ..."

"... The biggest concern of all is that she did this in deliberate defiance of the requirements of law, the public records requirements, for the express purpose of violating that law. The FBI just decided that it was not investigating THAT law, and so ignored it. Yet those are felonies, not just little things. ..."

"... I am not concerned by Hillary's emails. I am very upset by the refusal of the media and politicians to address the real issues of our classification system. We have known since at least the Pentagon Papers, and probably earlier, that the purpose of classifying information is to keep it from the American people more than from our adversaries. ..."

"... "But Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, which has used the email issue as one of its main weapons against Mrs. Clinton, called the documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency." ..."

"... Clinton apparently didn't know an email server from a jar of mayonnaise. I can understand that -- not sure I would either. ..."

"... But if I were starting out on a 4-year stint as US Secretary of State, it would occur to me that I'd probably send or receive a sensitive email or two somewhere along the way, and I'd wonder whether sending and receiving those emails over a private server located in my home might be a good idea. ..."

"... Lame very lame Hillary excuses . But the problem comes from both sides Democrat or Republican and there lame excuses . From the deficit from the Trickle down economy , deregulation to Trade-deal and the lost of jobs . Tax cut to tax inversion .. If we want change , Then why are voter still voting in Incumbents . The ones that made the problems we have . Shame us who do.. Vote the incumbents out of office .. ..."

"... With over 75% of the country stating Hillary cannot be trusted, it's important to also consider the severe lack of accountability and level of arrogance displayed. If she's willing to take the lowest road possible, voting her into office will be a huge mistake. ..."

"... You gotta be kidding me. All we get each day, all day is more breathless Trump 'News'. On the front page no less. Each smirk and foible is covered ad nauseum as if it were actually new worthy. You rarely hear about the other candidate. No policy comparisons for pete's sake. Until today. ..."

Sep 02, 2016 | The New York Times

Among the other key findings in the F.B.I. documents:
■ Mrs. Clinton regarded emails containing classified discussions about planned drone strikes as "routine."

■ She said she was either unaware of or misunderstood some classification procedures.
■ Colin L. Powell, a former secretary of state, had advised her to "be very careful" in how she used email.

Scot, Seattle 7 hours ago

Until I hear crowds chanting "lock him up" in relation to George Bush or Dick Cheney and the Iraq war, I'm going to have a hard time taking this gross witch hunt seriously. The contrast between Clinton's email administration screw-up and the unbroken daisy-chain of once-in-a-century global catastrophes committed by the Bush administration is so huge as to be hard to grasp.

Paul, Canada 6 hours ago

Sorry folks, but time to point out what has been missed by everyone as they attempt to make this a political election issue.
There is no way Hillary or any elected official should be given the opportunity to use a private email server. Any technology org worth its salt will have its systems and computer usage policies locked down tight.
Any action by a user that falls outside these policies must be automatically detected and investigated by the systems teams. Wrongs identified, computer users advised on proper usage, and corrective action taken to prevent reoccurrence.
The fact that Hillary or any senior elected official can operate outside of a secure system without automated detection/correction is the real issue here. I expect many more govt' officials are doing the same, but in a less politically charged atmosphere. No investigations in their cases as there is no trophy at the end.
So who is minding the computer farm? Government computer systems/policies need to be reviewed, training reinforced, and automatic incident tracking of activity to and from undocumented server IP addresses. Automated systems should prevent government officials through their lack of knowledge from using systems that do not comply.
Hillary nor other officials are computer experts. They should not be expected to be responsible for this. I would say there is a greater risk in how these systems are being currently managed.

Peter, New York 6 hours ago

Sadly this supports the Donald's charge about Hillary's questionable judgment. There is something fishy about her desire to maintain a private email server at her home at the same time she is working as a public official in the role of secretary of state. There is also the perceived conflict of interest between this role as the nation's top diplomat and her connection with the Clinton foundation.

If she exchanged favors for contributions to the foundation, which many suspect she did, the smoking guns have probably been deleted by now. She was given plenty of time to sort through her emails to cover her tracks before turning them over to investigators.

Her evasiveness and attempt to avoid FOIA requests have certainly earned her the nickname crooked Hillary. Even if you don't like Trump, it is very difficult to make the case that Clinton is a better alternative.

Lois Brenneman, New Milford, PA 3 hours ago

The fact that so many people support Clinton, in the face of her egregious and arguably criminal behavior, speaks to the fact that a large number of people vote strictly party line. In their view, no matter what Clinton has done, she is still better than having a Republican in the White House and, most esp, better than Donald Trump. I am hardly one who can complain, however, as I basically do the same thing. I'd probably vote for my dog before I would a Democrat even if it means voting for a flawed candidate. I find Clinton to be the very pits of all possible candidates, much like the Dems view of Trump.

The bottom line is that we are a very partisan nation whose voters support their candidate no matter how flawed is that person. If anyone else was heading the Dem ticket, I suspect that person would win by a landslide in 2016. With Clinton heading up the party, Trump just may win. Choosing her as the candidate was arguably the stupidest thing the Dems could have possibly done

Wally Wolf, Texas 6 hours ago

ENOUGH!! Compared to what G.W. Bush did (the facts are known to all) while president and what Donald Trump did as a business man (Trump University, numerous bankruptcies, tax evasion and/or avoidance, questionable modeling agency practices, and on and on), Hillary Clinton's emails are small potatoes. If people allow this ridiculous email situation to cripple Hillary and allow Trump to become president then they will have to live with the fallout and, believe me, it will be disastrous.

Joseph, NYC 4 hours ago

IF HRC played by the rules like everyone must, and simply used the State Department email, all of this could have been avoided. Yet she refused to use her State email even though it was offered to her.
If she did not do this to cover up her activities then she really bad judgement, and if she did it to cover up her activities, why did she do so? Either way, she is not a person to be entrusted with the Presidency. This is what is causing the nightmare Trump to still be competitive and to be catching up with her in the polls. If he wins HRC and the DNC have noone to blame but themselves.

gary, Washington state 6 hours ago

Congress asked Bush-Cheney in 2007 for emails surrounding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. AG Gonzales could not produce the email because it was sent on a non-government email server, gwb43.com, which was run by the RNC. No smoking gun--sorry about that.
Over time it was revealed that 22 White House officials including Karl Rove used private RNC email accounts for government business. In April 2007, Dana Perino admitted that approximately 5 million messages may have been deleted from that server. In 2009, watchdog groups announced that technicians had recovered 22 million emails that were deleted somehow from gwb43.com. Many of these messages were recovered from other government email servers.
Clearly gwb43.com was under the legal obligations of the Presidential Records Act, which each of these 22 million deletions violated. Republican leaders (like Chris Christie, Karl Rove, etc.) who are now enraged by Hillary Clinton's email server were then uncritical of the Bush administration and its behavior.
Is this American exceptionalism--hypocrisy, political pretense, and selective enforcement of laws?

Sam Crow, SF Bay Area 3 hours ago

ultimately, this shows the incompetence of the IT people in the government agencies handling her communications. As the Secretary of State, how can they not have procedures in place which would prevent this from happening? Hillary Clinton is ultimately responsible for making sure her classified communications are secure, and she should have been asking people questions to make sure this was the case. I am a Democrat but I have grave misgivings regarding her judgement and handling of this matter.

Thomas MacLachlan, Highland Moors, Scotland 5 hours ago

Having read through these 58 pages, it's clear that all they say is that Hillary is not a savvy technologist. She made her decision to use a private email system without understanding the implications of it regarding security, access control, data integrity, or retention. Also, none of her staff was competent in the technology involved, either. At a low level, perhaps. But not at a high level, where the architecture defines how all these pieces of the system work together. It was that area that fell apart and has caused her the myriad of political problems she now faces with this.
The most important finding is that the federal government is woefully incompetent in designing, implementing, and maintaining large information systems. At State back then, the system was full of holes and was very hackable. By comparison, Hillary's system was more secure, though unauthorized. But you can't have a parade of different administrators or consultants go stomping through the implementation and expect it to hold together, either.
The government needs to get their act together to provide systems which are actually secure and globally available. This isn't just a technology statement. The workflows involved and usage processes need to be well defined, and users need to be trained on them. And the technical staff needs to show some leadership so that they can help guide senior staff to the right solutions.
The buck stops with Hillary, but she is certainly not the guilty party in this.

Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 8 hours ago

These are plainly false statements to the FBI, and so crimes. She did not do it "out of convenience" but to avoid public records act, and to get more privacy. Huma admitted that much, as have others. She got repeated warnings. We've heard that from those who warned her, who were told not to say it again. "I don't recall" any of them is just not credible. She is supposed to recall being warned.
She did not think those things were classified? She's Sec of State. She knows which subjects are classified, and many of those were. She knew that. She got the most classified stuff there is, because she was Sec of State.
The biggest concern of all is that she did this in deliberate defiance of the requirements of law, the public records requirements, for the express purpose of violating that law. The FBI just decided that it was not investigating THAT law, and so ignored it. Yet those are felonies, not just little things.

This is an outrage. It has grown far beyond just a few emails.

EdBx, Bronx, NY 7 hours ago

I am not concerned by Hillary's emails. I am very upset by the refusal of the media and politicians to address the real issues of our classification system. We have known since at least the Pentagon Papers, and probably earlier, that the purpose of classifying information is to keep it from the American people more than from our adversaries.

There is no conclusive evidence that our nation has been harmed by the classified information released by Daniel Ellsburg, Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden. On the other hand it is certainly known that great harm was done by the misuse and abuse of classified information by duly authorized government officials in getting us into the war in Iraq. The lesson is that it is more important who we choose as president than how they maintained their email accounts several years ago.

Also, while we may not have known it in 2008, we should know now that government officials should operate under the assumption that anything on a computer is subject to hacking, no matter how secure we think the system is.

chichimax, albany, ny 7 hours ago

It is amazing how much scrutiny this and the Clinton Foundation have gotten and how little George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and the "torture memos" got. Not to mention the whole sum of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo episodes. Scrutiny of Hillary Clinton, thy name is petty. Lack of scrutiny of the entire Bush Administration's misdeeds, thy name is HUGE.

DCC, NYC 4 hours ago

"But Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, which has used the email issue as one of its main weapons against Mrs. Clinton, called the documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency."
Wow, the head of the RNC finds that Hillary has a lack of judgment and honesty and is incompetent. And we value his assessment because he..........helped.............nominate......... Trump. Yep, his opinion really matters!

MyThreeCents, San Francisco 4 hours ago

Clinton apparently didn't know an email server from a jar of mayonnaise. I can understand that -- not sure I would either.

But if I were starting out on a 4-year stint as US Secretary of State, it would occur to me that I'd probably send or receive a sensitive email or two somewhere along the way, and I'd wonder whether sending and receiving those emails over a private server located in my home might be a good idea.

I'd probably conclude that it was advisable to get myself a State Department email address, and use it every now and then. True, US enemies reportedly hacked the State Department server, along with the personal emails of several top Clinton aides, which may make one think it's pointless even to try to keep one's emails secure. But it's much easier to hack a private server located in someone's home than it is to hack a State Department email server.

A bored 14-year old kid probably could have hacked Clinton's private server in 15 minutes.

Kathryn Horvat, Salt Lake City 57 minutes ago

More and more I find myself upset with the poor judgment of the leaders of the Democratic Party, who allowed and encouraged her to run for president. She already was encumbered by a lot of baggage, not to mention her loss to Obama in 2008. I also wonder about the judgment of the New York Times , which engaged in the most openly biased reporting and opinion pieces I have ever seen.

How could so many seasoned politicians have been so blind?

David Howell, 33541 57 minutes ago

Lame very lame Hillary excuses . But the problem comes from both sides Democrat or Republican and there lame excuses . From the deficit from the Trickle down economy , deregulation to Trade-deal and the lost of jobs . Tax cut to tax inversion .. If we want change , Then why are voter still voting in Incumbents . The ones that made the problems we have . Shame us who do.. Vote the incumbents out of office ..

fmofcali, orange county 1 hour ago

With over 75% of the country stating Hillary cannot be trusted, it's important to also consider the severe lack of accountability and level of arrogance displayed. If she's willing to take the lowest road possible, voting her into office will be a huge mistake. How can you have a commander in chief that refuses to simply take accountability and always blames her staff for the issues she clearly creates?!

moviebuff, Los Angeles 1 hour ago

If this were Nixon - a man I detested, mind you - we'd have empowered Senate and House committees to look into disqualifying him as a candidate. Did those who still support Hillary Milhous Clinton even read the article on which they're commenting? Sending the emails privately, the order to delete, the use of Bleach bit after she was ordered to preserve the emails, throwing her aides under the bus… her behavior makes RMN look like Abe Lincoln.

J.D., USA 1 hour ago

I've worked as a tech consultant for years and I've seen this same ignorance from so many people, that it's not surprising. E-mail is something most people use, but it's not something most people understand, so they don't really get how unsecured it is. Was it a potentially dangerous mistake to make? Yes. Was it surprising? Absolutely not. But, more because most people don't understand e-mail, than because of any lapse in reasoning or malicious intent on her part.

... ... ..

Malebranchem, Ontario, NY 1 hour ago

You gotta be kidding me. All we get each day, all day is more breathless Trump 'News'. On the front page no less. Each smirk and foible is covered ad nauseum as if it were actually new worthy. You rarely hear about the other candidate. No policy comparisons for pete's sake. Until today.

"The newly disclosed documents, while largely reinforcing what had already been known about the F.B.I. investigation, provided a number of new details about Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email system, which has shadowed her presidential campaign for more than a year."

As another commenter said, "There's no there there." It is the NYT that is casting a shadow over Secretary Clinton's campaign. Wake me when you actually start covering this Presidential race.

[Sep 02, 2016] FBI Releases Documents Related To Its Clinton Email Investigation

Notable quotes:

"... The FBI that conducted a criminal investigation into Clinton's email server is serving under a Democratic administration. The director, appointed by Barack Obama, said Clinton was "Extremely careless" in handling classified material. The State Dept's Inspector General found that Clinton lied when she said she had permission to use a private server. ..."

"... she definitely had poor email practice. but so did 3 of her four immediate predecessors at state, who used private email; at least 2 of their inboxes also contained material later classified. so did Karl Rove, who used private servers while running two wars as presidential chief of staff. 3 million of the last administration's emails are missing, rather tnan 30,000. so yes, she continued past poor email practices, but nothing that was illegal or even unusual. So why is only her email under investigation. ..."

"... Anybody remember Valerie Plame? You want to talk about compromising national security? How about the Bush Administration revealing the secret identity of a covert CIA operative working on Iran's Nuclear Program capabilities?? ..."

"... After she gets elected they will start the impeachment process along with a complete cold shoulder to all her attempts at getting anything accomplished. We could have had Bernie. ..."

"... So, she's in great health for opening pickle jars, but not so great when it comes to her memory. And on top of her failing memory, Colin Powell essentially went public to say her camp is lying and using him as a defense for using a private server. ..."

"... She didn't recall "all the briefings she received on handling gov documents"? Well maybe she wasn't fit for the job of handling gov documents then. ..."

"... It's called mishandling classified documents, and it is a crime. She's not facing consequences because of who she is and the influence she has. Had it been random Jane Doe however, there'd be serious repercussions. ..."

"... I am stunned by reading the responses to this article. It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues ..."

"... Hillary could drive through a soccer field in a drunken stupor, killing dozens of kids and you sheep would blame the car or the booze! ..."

"... The fact that not a single person who originated any of these emails, nor anyone else who were on the email distribution lists, have ever received so much as an administrative rebuke about any of these, and Comey testified that there were no plans at all to investigate ANYONE who were responsible for actually writing and sending these emails. ..."

"... James Constantino What do you not comprehend about "classified at the time" you just proved Tom Johnson correct when he stated " It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues" ..."

"... She set up a private server in her house, used that server to exchange classified materials and then claims a loss of memory of briefings to safeguard those materials after her term was over at State to explain the erasure of thousands of emails. I'm no Trump fan but this is just as bad as Nixon's white house tapes. This is why I voted for Bernie. ..."

"... So Hillary couldn't remember security briefings she received in 2009 because of a concussion she received in 2012? This doesn't pass the laugh test. Nothing is every her responsibility and she has never ever done anything wrong. Is the concussion still impacting her memory? ..."

"... If the globalist media wasn't bought, they would have such information in a few days from deciding to find such information which should be available. I have worked for government departments before not only are policies and procedures issued to you and/or read out to you, you are also required to sign on the dotted line that you have understood them. Whats happening around HRC is just a shameful cover-up and surely the people know it by now? ..."

"... Yes, this is someone we want to be President. Someone who can't rememeber security breifings. "The extraordinary disclosure was made as the FBI published details of its agents' interview with the former secretary of state which was conducted days before the agency's director ruled out any charges against her. ..."

"... Queue health rumors again(Re: concussion). Also, I like how the I don't recall defense worked just fine for regean and Iran contra, but republicans don't apply the same standard when concerning Clinton ..."

"... Awww. I see.. She's in perfect health but when it is convenient she will use her illnesses to her advantage. Got it. ..."

"... Our records show that Clinton sent & received thousands of cables with "(C)" paragraph classification markings. The FBI report, although not fatal for Democratic loyalists but I think it is devastating to average Americans. ..."

"... So, what about the bit where she claimed she turned over ALL work-related e-mails, yet we keep finding ones that weren't turned over, and even more that were deleted with specialty wiping software? ..."

"... Wow! this is so damaging! cant' remember anything , lost so many phones and didn't know how to read a classified documents! She is unfit to run a lemonde stand! With all her handlers and executive assistance and Huma for 24/7, you would think she will know more! ..."

"... You can all sleep good tonight. Once all your children die in the wars she wants to continue she will say, "in hindsight, I regretted using bombs on all those innocent kids while president." Kudos DNC. ..."

"... Hillary's new defense: If you've had a FALL you can't RECALL ..."

"... Holy crap, - Clinton was also asked about the (C) markings within several documents that FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress represented classified information. Clinton told the FBI she was unaware of what the marking meant. "Clinton stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the interview notes stated. Hillary Clinton told the FBI she did not recall all of the briefings she received due to a concussion she suffered in 2012. This woman is unfit period. http://www.cnn.com/.../hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/ ..."

"... Kat Hathaway - Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she lacked recollection of key events. She said she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information," according to the FBI's notes of their July 2 interview with Clinton. The notes revealed that Clinton relied heavily on her staff and aides determining what was classified information and how it should be handled. ..."

"... So bringing up her health issues us an "unfounded attack" but then she uses those very same health issues to cover her ass? ..."

"... We invaded Iraq in 2003 GWB was reelected in 2004, this peanuts compared to that. ..."

www.huffingtonpost.com
Clinton told investigators she could not recall getting any briefings on how to handle classified information or comply with laws governing the preservation of federal records, the summary of her interview shows.
"However, in December of 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot," the FBI's summary said. "Based on her doctor's advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received."

A Clinton campaign aide said Clinton only referenced her concussion to explain she was not at work but for a few hours a day at that time, not that she did not remember things from that period.

The concussion was widely reported then, and Republicans have since used it to attack the 68-year-old candidate's health in a way her staff have said is unfounded.

The FBI report, which does not quote Clinton directly, is ambiguous about whether it was her concussion that affected her ability to recall briefings.

- SEPTEMBER 02 2016 -

DONALD J. TRUMP
STATEMENT ON FBI
RELEASING CLINTON
INTERVIEW NOTES

★ ★ ★

"Hillary Clinton's answers to the FBI about
her private email server defy belief. I was
absolutely shocked to see that her answers
to the FBI stood in direct contradiction to
what she told the American people. After
reading these documents, I really don't
understand how she was able to get away
from prosecution." - Donald J. Trump

Anthony Zenkus, TED talker at TED
The FBI that conducted a criminal investigation into Clinton's email server is serving under a Democratic administration. The director, appointed by Barack Obama, said Clinton was "Extremely careless" in handling classified material. The State Dept's Inspector General found that Clinton lied when she said she had permission to use a private server.
These are departments in a Democratic administration, not a vast right wing conspiracy. The fact that Republicans try to make hay out of the facts in this case do not change the fact that Clinton, according to a Democrat's STate Dept and FBI, acted carelessly and was less than truthful.

Ron Prichard, Seattle, Washington

Anthony Zenkus she definitely had poor email practice. but so did 3 of her four immediate predecessors at state, who used private email; at least 2 of their inboxes also contained material later classified. so did Karl Rove, who used private servers while running two wars as presidential chief of staff. 3 million of the last administration's emails are missing, rather tnan 30,000. so yes, she continued past poor email practices, but nothing that was illegal or even unusual. So why is only her email under investigation.

Bruce Hunter, Capitola, California

Anybody remember Valerie Plame? You want to talk about compromising national security? How about the Bush Administration revealing the secret identity of a covert CIA operative working on Iran's Nuclear Program capabilities??
How about Bush commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby who obstructed and derailed the investigation??

How about the way Republicans attacked Plame who was a loyal employee of the CIA for over 20 years??

Republicans are the true threats to our national security,not Hillary Clinton.

Chris Caldwell, Owner at Master Vision

The attacks on Hillary will only get worse over the next month, then they break out the big one, the October surprise. Everyone that chose her over Bernie should have seen this. After she gets elected they will start the impeachment process along with a complete cold shoulder to all her attempts at getting anything accomplished. We could have had Bernie.
Michelle Becker, Newfield High School
He lost by 3,000,000 + votes. There was no choice.

James Simon, Emerson College

Michelle Becker Wrong. The Stamford Study shows without question that the states without paper trails had her way outperforming the exit polls where it wasn't statistically possible without some kind of tampering. Add to that the placebo ballots in California, the voter purge in AZ, IL, NY, and it would have been a much different result. Could she have won legitimately? We'll never know thanks to the DNC leaks of collusion with the HRC camp, the media, and others. But hey, enjoy the status quo, your fracking, your endless wars, your corporate influence in Congress. This is what you wanted. Knock yourself out. USA. USA.
JL Torres, DeWitt Clinton High School
So, she's in great health for opening pickle jars, but not so great when it comes to her memory. And on top of her failing memory, Colin Powell essentially went public to say her camp is lying and using him as a defense for using a private server. I simply don't know how establishment Dems keep trying to cover this obviously nagging problem they have with their candidate. What a horrible choice between these two awful major party nominees.

Anthony Zenkus, TED talker at TED

She didn't recall "all the briefings she received on handling gov documents"? Well maybe she wasn't fit for the job of handling gov documents then.

Edward Schillenger

It's called mishandling classified documents, and it is a crime. She's not facing consequences because of who she is and the influence she has. Had it been random Jane Doe however, there'd be serious repercussions.
Gary Stern, University of Baltimore
Here is a question for all the angry white male Trump supporters.
Republicans control the Senate and the House. Republicans control 31 states as governors including the rust belt states. So if republicans are in control why haven't they created high wage jobs that you whine about? Why has the economy slowed with republicans running government? Why haven't they fixed the immigration problem? The republican congress can pass a bill tomorrow to build Trump's wall and hire a deportation force. The republican congress can pass a balanced budget anytime the want? Taxes too high? Republicans can cut the tax rate to zero if they want. My point is why do republicans want to blame the president and Hillary for every problem known to man while their republican leaders sit on their butts doing nothing to solve a single problem. Maybe you need to tell congress to stop investigating and pass a Jobs Bill.

Tom Johnson, Executive Chef at Breezy Point Resort

I am stunned by reading the responses to this article. It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues. The article clearly states:
The FBI has concluded Clinton was wrong: At least 81 email threads contained information that was classified at the time, although the final number may be more than 2,000, the report says. Some of the emails appear to include discussion of planned future attacks by unmanned US Military drones, the FBI report says.

Hillary could drive through a soccer field in a drunken stupor, killing dozens of kids and you sheep would blame the car or the booze!

James Constantino, Plasma Etch Engineer at Northrup Grumman

Here's the thing... all 81 email chains that the FBI claims were "classified" didn't originate with Clinton. All were sent to her... none were marked as classified... and no one who actually composed and sent these emails thought that they should have been classified at the time.
The fact that not a single person who originated any of these emails, nor anyone else who were on the email distribution lists, have ever received so much as an administrative rebuke about any of these, and Comey testified that there were no plans at all to investigate ANYONE who were responsible for actually writing and sending these emails.

If you really expect me to take this seriously as anything other than a republican fever dream, please show me ANY wrongdoing on Clinton's part that involves more than being copied on someone else's email chain... because as evil master plans go, that's kind of reaching.

Chuck Drake, University of Toledo

James Constantino What do you not comprehend about "classified at the time" you just proved Tom Johnson correct when he stated " It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues"

Meesta Naturale, Resident Mystic Guru at Tranquille Sanatorium

She set up a private server in her house, used that server to exchange classified materials and then claims a loss of memory of briefings to safeguard those materials after her term was over at State to explain the erasure of thousands of emails. I'm no Trump fan but this is just as bad as Nixon's white house tapes. This is why I voted for Bernie.

Karin Eckvall, UC Davis

So Hillary couldn't remember security briefings she received in 2009 because of a concussion she received in 2012? This doesn't pass the laugh test. Nothing is every her responsibility and she has never ever done anything wrong. Is the concussion still impacting her memory?
Time for Democrats to write in Joe Biden.

Zelda Rosenberg

Since I'm sure you won't believe me from over in your fact free world, here is the exact quote from the Reuter's article: "Clinton said she received no instructions or direction regarding the preservation or production of records from (the) State (Department) during the transition out of her role as Secretary of State in 2013.
"However, in December of 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot (in her head). Based on her doctor's advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received," the report said.

Karin Eckvall, UC Davis

Zelda Rosenberg Coming or going, it still doesn't pass the laugh test.

Jess Manuel

Okay. Obviously the media is painting these two candidates as deeply flawed. Here's a solution. Obama, 4 more years !!!!! :)

Living Wild Photography

That's about as much a solution as Titanic backing up and them ramming the iceberg again would be a solution to its problem from the first impact.

John McCormack, Cairo University

Whether she intended to use a private server and/or was briefed about the Department's policies and procedures is one thing. Surely the State Department has records of whether HRC was briefed or not and the main question is whether she then decided not to comply.
If the globalist media wasn't bought, they would have such information in a few days from deciding to find such information which should be available. I have worked for government departments before not only are policies and procedures issued to you and/or read out to you, you are also required to sign on the dotted line that you have understood them. Whats happening around HRC is just a shameful cover-up and surely the people know it by now?

Chuck Drake, University of Toledo

Actually she should have been briefed when she was the FIrst Lady..and then again when she was a senator..and then again when she was secretary of state.
Sam Thornton, Fort Worth, Texas
Yes, this is someone we want to be President. Someone who can't rememeber security breifings. "The extraordinary disclosure was made as the FBI published details of its agents' interview with the former secretary of state which was conducted days before the agency's director ruled out any charges against her.
Agents noted that Clinton could not recall being trained to handle classified materials as secretary of state, and had no memory of anyone raising concerns about the sensitive information she received at her private address.

The Democratic presidential nominee also 'did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system,' the FBI's report declared.

She did not recall all of the briefings she received on handling sensitive information as she made the transition from her post as secretary of state, due to a concussion she suffered in 2012."

Nodens Caedmon

"Couldn't recall all briefings on preserving documents."
Who needs to remember security briefings definitely not someone running for president.

David Hennessey, University of Minnesota Duluth

Why even mention the concussion? She can't remember more than 10% of her briefings even if she is far above average, she would have to review the notes to jog her memory for even partial recall as everyone must do when asked to testify about events like this.
With the number of briefings and variety of subjects, her memory is the least useful way to recreate those meetings, with or without a concussion, if ten people at the meetings recounted their memories, it would sound like ten different meetings, the notes and minutes are the only reliable sources.

For some important decisions, she might remember quite a bit but there are natural limits to memory that are quite severe unless you have unique innate skills.

Alan Davidson, IT Technician at Geeks on Site
Queue health rumors again(Re: concussion). Also, I like how the I don't recall defense worked just fine for regean and Iran contra, but republicans don't apply the same standard when concerning Clinton

Nancy Gilbert

Awww. I see.. She's in perfect health but when it is convenient she will use her illnesses to her advantage. Got it.
Obviously the powers that be want Hillary. That's why we've got a choice between her and trump. As bad as she is, she looks like a saint next that madman. Ha! For now on I will be sitting next to the overweight peeps. That way I will look slim.

Charlotte Scot, Victoria College of Art - University Canada West

From Wikileaks: Note on Clinton FBI report: Our records show that Clinton sent & received thousands of cables with "(C)" paragraph classification markings.
The FBI report, although not fatal for Democratic loyalists but I think it is devastating to average Americans.

Living Wild Photography

So, what about the bit where she claimed she turned over ALL work-related e-mails, yet we keep finding ones that weren't turned over, and even more that were deleted with specialty wiping software?

Mani Rand

Wow! this is so damaging! cant' remember anything , lost so many phones and didn't know how to read a classified documents! She is unfit to run a lemonde stand! With all her handlers and executive assistance and Huma for 24/7, you would think she will know more!
Wenai Prantamporn, Las Vegas, Nevada
Below is the list of things Clinton could not recall in the FBI interview:

When she received security clearance

Being briefed on how to handle classified material

How many times she used her authority to designate items classified

Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret "Special Access Program" material

How to select a target for a drone strike

How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices

The number of times her staff was given a secure phone

Why she didn't get a secure Blackberry

Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system

Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account

Getting guidance from state on email policy

Who had access to her Blackberry account

The process for deleting her emails

Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full

Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server

Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked

Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts

Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server

Using an iPad mini

An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal

Jacob Sullivan using personal email

State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports

Every briefing she received after suffering concussions

Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012

Being read out of her clearance

Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRCoffice.com account

Kevin Potts
Now let's watch all the Libs quantify all of this LOL. She could run naked through Times Square and the Huffpos would somehow justify her actions as bold and showing off her leadership capabilities
Dean Smith, Inventory Consultant at Paramount Coffee Company
You can all sleep good tonight. Once all your children die in the wars she wants to continue she will say, "in hindsight, I regretted using bombs on all those innocent kids while president." Kudos DNC.

Jessica Mantoani, School of Bob Dylan

Hillary's new defense: If you've had a FALL you can't RECALL. Where is Johnny Cohran when you need him? LOL-
Jan Kaczmarczyk, University of Maryland
Holy crap, - Clinton was also asked about the (C) markings within several documents that FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress represented classified information. Clinton told the FBI she was unaware of what the marking meant. "Clinton stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the interview notes stated. Hillary Clinton told the FBI she did not recall all of the briefings she received due to a concussion she suffered in 2012. This woman is unfit period. http://www.cnn.com/.../hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/
Jan Kaczmarczyk, University of Maryland
Kat Hathaway - Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she lacked recollection of key events. She said she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information," according to the FBI's notes of their July 2 interview with Clinton. The notes revealed that Clinton relied heavily on her staff and aides determining what was classified information and how it should be handled.
http://www.cnn.com/.../hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/

What was your question?

Robert Thompson

So bringing up her health issues us an "unfounded attack" but then she uses those very same health issues to cover her ass?

Felix Diaz, The City College of New York

We invaded Iraq in 2003 GWB was reelected in 2004, this peanuts compared to that.

[Sep 02, 2016] Clinton Email Hairball

Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

"We are also reminded that Clinton repeatedly vowed she'd surrendered every single government business-related email upon the State Department's request" [ New York Post ].

This was an extraordinary lie: She hoarded and attempted to destroy thousands of emails which, like the one The Post describes, involved government business - some of it highly sensitive and significant (such as the 30 emails related to the Benghazi massacre that the FBI recovered but the State Department has yet to disclose). Converting government records to one's own use and destroying them are serious crimes, even if no classified information is involved.

I rarely find myself agreeing with a National Review columnist writing in the New York Post, but "converting government records to one's own use and destroying them": Yes, exactly .

[Sep 02, 2016] Looks like Clinton did nt recall some really important things. So this detail-oriented policy wonk think that it is somebody else's fault if classified information was handled improperly.

Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

voteforno6 , September 2, 2016 at 2:35 pm

FBI Releases Documents Related To Its Clinton Email Investigation

Just scanned through the report – there's a whole lot that Clinton didn't recall. She also said that she relied on the judgment of the people that sent her emails, when it came to the proper handling of classified material. So, in other words, this detail-oriented policy wonk couldn't remember anything about this and besides, it's somebody else's fault if classified information was handled improperly.

I still have a hard time understanding why people find her dishonest.

Jim Haygood , September 2, 2016 at 2:55 pm

Excerpt [page 5 of 11]:

CLINTON was not involved in the decision to move from the Apple server managed by JUSTIN COOPER to a server built by BRYAN PAGLIANO. Therefore, CLINTON had no knowledge of the reasons for selecting to install it in the basement of CLINTON's New York residence.

When Clinton had technical issues with her email account, she contacted COOPER to resolve the issues. She could not recall ever contacting PAGLIANO for technical support.

Brazen, brazen lies. Compare:

Bryan Pagliano, the former State Department IT specialist who managed Hillary Clinton's private email server, was hired by the State Department as a political appointee. Pagliano had previously worked as an IT director for Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.

[Pagliano] was ultimately involved in setting up Clinton's email server at her home in Chappaqua, New York, and maintained it while working at the State Department. The Clinton campaign says he was paid separately by the Clintons for all work on the server during that time.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/bryan-pagliano-hillary-clinton-server-state-department/

Pagliano was a former Clinton campaign staffer, shoehorned into State as a Clinton political appointee, separately paid by the Clintons to set up a server in their house … but Hillary never even talked to him , so she claims. Here is a photo of Pagliano posing with Hillary, as she remained mute:

https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/capture2.jpg

Needless to say, given Pagliano's immunized testimony to the FBI, plenty of evidence is available to indict Hillary for lying to the FBI, totally aside from her premeditated federal records crimes.

Tom_Doak , September 2, 2016 at 5:21 pm

There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the picture of Pagliano and Clinton. He must have attended one of those $5,000 a plate dinners which entitles you to a quick photo in the reception line. You can't possibly expect her to remember all of the people who have anted up for one of those!

fresno dan , September 2, 2016 at 6:26 pm

voteforno6
September 2, 2016 at 2:35 pm

I just want to point out that the release of this on a Friday before a 3 day weekend is simply a coincidence and has absolutely nothing to do with trying to "throw shade" or diminish the impact of the release. I mean there are people who posit that things are released on Friday for news management purposes. Poppycock says I – PURE COINCIDENCE. When have the Clintoons ever done something like that????

I just do this because there are a lot of cynical people at NC who might ponder if the FBI is in cahoots with Hillary and does this to in some way to try and lessen the newsworthiness of this release, or simply out of a bureaucratic self protection instinct because it might show the investigation of the FBI was less than stellar…
I am so glad I'm not cynical…

[Sep 02, 2016] Someone using Tor breached email account on Clinton server

Notable quotes:

"... According to the bureau's review of server logs, someone accessed an email account on Jan. 5, 2013, using three IP addresses known to serve as Tor "exit nodes" - jumping-off points from the anonymity network to the public internet. ..."

www.politico.com
An unknown individual using the encrypted privacy tool Tor to hide their tracks accessed an email account on a Clinton family server, the FBI revealed Friday.
The incident appears to be the first confirmed intrusion into a piece of hardware associated with Hillary Clinton's private email system, which originated with a server established for her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

The FBI disclosed the event in its newly released report on the former secretary of state's handling of classified information.

According to the bureau's review of server logs, someone accessed an email account on Jan. 5, 2013, using three IP addresses known to serve as Tor "exit nodes" - jumping-off points from the anonymity network to the public internet.

The owner of the account, whose name is redacted in the report, said she was "not familiar with nor [had] she ever used Tor software."

[Aug 30, 2016] Mark Cuban Its Not Hillarys Fault Her Email Server Wasnt Set Up Right

Notable quotes:

"... the person who set up her email should have set up "filters and alerts that said any email that came with a classified header." ..."

"... You know, create an alert that says this shouldn't be on this system and deal with it so that you don't, you know, consume it in this way. But the administrator didn't do it and she didn't know to do it because the whole time she had a very specific process in place. If it is classified, print it out and let me deal with it in hard copy, which is why she had complete confidence to say, 'I never dealt with anything marked classified.'" ..."

Breitbart

Monday night on "CNN Tonight," supporter of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, billionaire Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, said Clinton did nothing wrong because the person who set up her email should have set up "filters and alerts that said any email that came with a classified header."

...
And so you go - look, I was in this business. My first career, my first company, all I did was install local area networks and messaging and email systems and I had my own personal server in my office until about 2010, and so I've been through this whole process. And so she talks to the admin who is responsible, she doesn't know any better, and takes his or her advice."
"I think it was a he," he continued. "And it just so happens that he was given immunity by the Justice Department so we haven't had a chance to hear any of this. But for that personal server, if that admin had done his job like I had done my job doing the same thing, I would have set up filters and alerts that said any email that came with a classified header or any of the determined classified markings like the little 'c' Director Comey mentioned, pop it out, right?

You know, create an alert that says this shouldn't be on this system and deal with it so that you don't, you know, consume it in this way. But the administrator didn't do it and she didn't know to do it because the whole time she had a very specific process in place. If it is classified, print it out and let me deal with it in hard copy, which is why she had complete confidence to say, 'I never dealt with anything marked classified.'"

[Aug 29, 2016] Is Huma still under the gun for emailgate scandal?

Notable quotes:

"... With Huma becoming a lightening rod of the whole access issue, the cynical part of me figures this is not an ill timed, but well timed family tragedy with a sympathetic hard working mistreated wife… ..."

"... It isn't that it happened. It is the timing. ..."

"... Oh for heaven's sake! Clearly the man is compulsive, he will never stop. And he is willing to risk job, career and family for his addiction. Kudos to Huma for putting the well-being of her child first and leaving him sort out his addiction by himself .! ..."

"... "I think it's a little – it's often a little more challenging when you're in politics because your private life, and I think everybody craves their own privacy, and so I think your private life is displayed to the world in a way that you otherwise wouldn't have to deal with if one spouse is a private person and the other person's in politics as was the case certainly in my marriage," Abedin said. ..."

"... "But I think it works if you fully support each other." During the podcast, she mentioned she is on out on the campaign trail a lot of the time and her husband helps to care for her son. " I have a four-year-old son and I don't think I could do this if I didn't have the support of a spouse who is willing to basically be a stay-at- home dad as much as he possibly can so I'm able to be on the road," Abedin said. ..."

"... "I miss my son but I don't worry about him because I know between this little village we've created between Anthony and my in-laws and my mom and our families and this wonderful woman who we have helping us I can go out and be the best professional woman that I can be because I have that support." ..."

Aug 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Pat , August 29, 2016 at 2:48 pm

With Huma becoming a lightening rod of the whole access issue, the cynical part of me figures this is not an ill timed, but well timed family tragedy with a sympathetic hard working mistreated wife…

I mean if the mayoral campaign blowup of his career comeback for the same issues… (done on camera no less).

Pat , August 29, 2016 at 6:29 pm

No, it isn't beyond credulity. I never said he didn't do it. But apparently this has been going on since last year with a woman he has never met. And unless I missed something, she leaked this. Why out this now? Other times he goofed and it was public, OR was done to upset his comeback weak though it might have been. But why now? At some point in the next few days some advantage for the woman may change my mind, but otherwise it is very convenient.

It isn't that it happened. It is the timing.

JTMcPhee , August 29, 2016 at 4:34 pm

Read the comments on the little Abedin story, and one has to conclude that our species is mostly Fokked. I particularly like this one:

Oh for heaven's sake! Clearly the man is compulsive, he will never stop. And he is willing to risk job, career and family for his addiction. Kudos to Huma for putting the well-being of her child first and leaving him sort out his addiction by himself .!

Which follows this text from the article:

"I think it's a little – it's often a little more challenging when you're in politics because your private life, and I think everybody craves their own privacy, and so I think your private life is displayed to the world in a way that you otherwise wouldn't have to deal with if one spouse is a private person and the other person's in politics as was the case certainly in my marriage," Abedin said.

"But I think it works if you fully support each other."

During the podcast, she mentioned she is on out on the campaign trail a lot of the time and her husband helps to care for her son.

" I have a four-year-old son and I don't think I could do this if I didn't have the support of a spouse who is willing to basically be a stay-at- home dad as much as he possibly can so I'm able to be on the road," Abedin said.

"I miss my son but I don't worry about him because I know between this little village we've created between Anthony and my in-laws and my mom and our families and this wonderful woman who we have helping us I can go out and be the best professional woman that I can be because I have that support."

Big Jim Thompson, former US Attorney in Chicago and former Governor of Illinois, got married to a former assistant US attorney and a child was somehow produced. Little Samantha was, like the marriage from the gossip I heard and pontificating in the papers, just popped out to scotch rumors about Thompson's polarity.

The salient part of the tale is that while Thompson was out campaigning with his spouse, with Baby Samantha in tow, neither parent noticed that the kid was, like, seriously sick, fever as I recall of over 104 degrees, and some brave campaign worker had to do the parenting thing and see the kid got medical attention.

Reported that Thompson et ux were irked that this threw the campaign schedule off. Did not keep him from getting elected… This guy was also on the "9/11 Commission," and has lots of other notable corruption connection credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Thompson

One claim to fame was obtaining conviction of former Governor Otto Kerner for public corruption, taking race track stock for helping the track owners get more racing dates. Chief witness was Marge Everett, attorney for the racetrack corporation. She got disbarred in IL, so Thompson flew her personally to CA and testified on her behalf before the "fitness committee" of the CA bar, that she was an upright moral person fit to be admitted to the CA bar. Shortly after, as I recall, ol' Marge got in trouble for peddling stock and other valuables to the CA officials who oversaw the doling out of racing dates (ka-ching!) to her new client, a CA racetrack corporation…

It never ends. Impossible to even try to keep up…

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 29, 2016 at 5:14 pm

"I have a four-year-old son and I don't think I could do this if I didn't have the support of a spouse who is willing to basically be a stay-at- home dad as much as he possibly can so I'm able to be on the road," Abedin said.

With Basic Income, maybe she can stay home as well…

[Aug 29, 2016] The emails – a self-inflicted tragedy of almost Shakespearean proportions – won't go away, and now they suggest a pattern of appointments with supporters of the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State that was, at best, inappropriate, at worst, illegal

Notable quotes:

"... Hillary Clinton, a neoliberal, neocon, corporatist PACster politician, is unlikely to inspire millennials or progressives ..."

"... Hillary Clinton is a sitting duck. And her vulnerability has nothing to do with the manufactured hype ..."

"... This on top of charges by the FBI that she was reckless, make her uniquely vulnerable ..."

"... Then there's her numerous "sniper fire in Bosnia" type gaffs, and a record of flip-flops on the issues that is virtually unprecedented in modern politics. And if the flip-flops in the primary weren't enough, her personnel appointments so far show she's going to try to go from corporate centrist to progressive to corporate centrist in the space of a year. You'd almost have to be an idiot to lose to her. ..."

www.commondreams.org

From: Clinton Wins in A Cakewalk Don't Bet the Ranch on It by John Atcheson

Hillary Clinton, a neoliberal, neocon, corporatist PACster politician, is unlikely to inspire millennials or progressives, and some version of 2014 could easily play out again. As I've said all along, Hillary Clinton is a sitting duck. And her vulnerability has nothing to do with the manufactured hype or the …er… trumped up charges Republicans have been ginning up for years now. In fact, in some strange way, they may help Clinton, by discrediting some of the legitimate issues that could yet dog her.

The emails – a self-inflicted tragedy of almost Shakespearean proportions – won't go away, and now they suggest a pattern of appointments with supporters of the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State that was, at best, inappropriate, at worst, illegal. This on top of charges by the FBI that she was reckless, make her uniquely vulnerable to attack ads.

Then there's her numerous "sniper fire in Bosnia" type gaffs, and a record of flip-flops on the issues that is virtually unprecedented in modern politics. And if the flip-flops in the primary weren't enough, her personnel appointments so far show she's going to try to go from corporate centrist to progressive to corporate centrist in the space of a year. You'd almost have to be an idiot to lose to her.

... ... ...

But if Trumps' new team manages to reel him in, and formulate a coherent attack on Clinton, all bets are off.

[Aug 28, 2016] Gowdy Says FBI Failed To Ask Clinton Right Questions About Email Server

Notable quotes:

"... America's Newsroom ..."

Aug 28, 2016 | www.westernjournalism.com

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., argued on Thursday that the FBI failed to asked Hillary Clinton the right questions during its interview last month, if it was truly trying to decide her intent in using a private, unsecured, unauthorized email server.
Appearing on Fox's America's Newsroom , Gowdy said he thoroughly reviewed the FBI's notes from the interview and was surprised there were no questions addressing the former secretary of state's intent.

"Remember [FBI director] James Comey said she was not indicted because he didn't have sufficient evidence on the issue of intent? I didn't see any questions on the issue of intent," the congressman said.

[Aug 27, 2016] Hillary Clinton Had Private Server To Hide Clinton Foundation Dealings

Notable quotes:

"... The issue we've always asked ourselves here is, why was she hiding this in the first place? Why did she have a private server? Obviously it was concealing, what was she concealing? And the most obvious possible answer was the [Clinton] Foundation. ..."

Aug 27, 2016 | www.westernjournalism.com

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, we've been speculating for a year about what the email scandal was all about and I think we were diverted for a year about the classification. It's a real issue, serious issue, but that was never the issue.

The issue we've always asked ourselves here is, why was she hiding this in the first place? Why did she have a private server? Obviously it was concealing, what was she concealing? And the most obvious possible answer was the [Clinton] Foundation.

[Aug 27, 2016] Gowdy: Clintons Method Of Deletion Proves Nature Of Her Emails

Notable quotes:

"... The clearest evidence that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had something to hide in her emails is the way she made sure their contents stayed hidden, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. said Thursday. ..."

"... Clinton famously laughed off a question about whether she had wiped her private email server. ..."

Aug 27, 2016 | www.westernjournalism.com

The clearest evidence that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had something to hide in her emails is the way she made sure their contents stayed hidden, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. said Thursday.

Clinton famously laughed off a question about whether she had wiped her private email server.

"What? Like with a cloth or something?" she asked. "I don't know how it works digitally at all."

[Aug 27, 2016] Clinton calendars wont be released until after election

Notable quotes:

"... The department has so far released about half of the schedules. Its lawyers said in a phone conference with the AP's lawyers that the department now expects to release the last of the detailed schedules around Dec. 30, weeks before the next president is inaugurated. ..."

Aug 27, 2016 | www.wnd.com
(Associated Press) Seven months after a federal judge ordered the State Department to begin releasing monthly batches of the detailed daily schedules showing meetings by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, the government told The Associated Press it won't finish the job before Election Day.
The department has so far released about half of the schedules. Its lawyers said in a phone conference with the AP's lawyers that the department now expects to release the last of the detailed schedules around Dec. 30, weeks before the next president is inaugurated.

The AP's lawyers late Friday formally asked the State Department to hasten that effort so that the department could provide all Clinton's minute-by-minute schedules by Oct. 15. The agency did not immediately respond.

[Aug 27, 2016] Clinton Emails On Film - Huma Abedin's Deposition

Aug 27, 2016 | www.youtube.com

YouTube
Published on Jul 6, 2016
Verbatim reenactment of highlights of the deposition transcript. For more information and to support this project, please go to www.ClintonEmailsOnFilm.com

[Aug 26, 2016] Clinton emails - Proof that the West had lost control of the situation in Libya already since 2011

Notable quotes:

"... A letter from Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going to wrong hands through the black market. ..."

"... (Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.) ..."

"... Yet, despite the absolute mess, the Western vultures are racing above the Libyan corpse to take as much as they can. ..."

"... Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not a top priority issue for them. ..."

Aug 23, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton.

The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016.

globinfo freexchange

A letter from Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going to wrong hands through the black market.

The Western clowns have failed, one more time, to bring stability and led another country to absolute chaos and destruction. Waves of desperate people are now trying to reach European shores to save themselves from the hell in Libya, as it happens in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.

Key parts:

During the early morning of May 2, 2011 sources with access to the leadership of the Libyan rebellion's ruling Transitional National Council (TNC) stated in confidence that they are concerned that the death of al Qa'ida leader Osama Bin Laden will inspire al Qa'ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) to use weapons they have obtained, which were originally intended for the rebels in Libya, to retaliate against the United States and its allies for this attack in Pakistan. These individuals fear that the use of the weapons in this manner will complicate the TNC's relationship with NATO and the United States, whose support is vital to them in their struggle with the forces of Muammar al Qaddafi.

These individuals note that the TNC officials are reacting to reports received during the week of April 25 from their own sources of information, the French General Directorate for External Security (DGSE), and British external intelligence service (MI-6), stating that AQIM has acquired about 10 SAM 7- Grail/Streela man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS or MPADS) from illegal weapons markets in Western Niger and Northern Mali. These weapons were originally intended for sale to the rebel forces in Libya, but AQIM operatives were able to meet secretly with these arms dealers and purchase the equipment. The acquisition of these sophisticated weapons creates a serious threat to air traffic in Southern Morocco, Algeria, Northern Mali, Western Niger, and Eastern Mauritania.

(Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.)

... Libyan rebel commanders are also concerned that the death of Bin Laden comes at a time when sensitive information indicates that the leaders of AQIM are planning to launch attacks across North Africa and Europe in an effort to reassert their relevance during the ongoing upheavals in Libya, as well as the rest of North Africa and the Middle East. They believe the first step in this campaign was the April 30 bombing of a café in Marrakesh, Morocco that is frequented by Western tourists.

Full letter:

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/13013

Yet, despite the absolute mess, the Western vultures are racing above the Libyan corpse to take as much as they can.

Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not a top priority issue for them.

[Aug 26, 2016] Rep. Gowdy Hillary Clinton is a 'habitual, serial liar'

Fox News Video

- 2:08 - Republican lawmaker questions absence of emails sent by secretary of state on foundation

[Aug 26, 2016] State Department "intent" to release the withheld emails only after the election met with a federal court order

Notable quotes:

"... FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To "Prevent Recovery" And "Hide Traces Of" Deleted Emails ..."

"... Assange: Clinton's Campaign is Full of 'Disturbing' Anti-Russia 'Hysteria' http://sputniknews.com/us/20160826/1044654512/assange-clinton-russia-hysteria.html ..."

Aug 25, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
likklemore | Aug 25, 2016 6:46:22 PM | 18

@ nmb 2

Huge blow to the Clinton Campaign.

State Department "intent" to release the withheld emails only after the election met with a federal court order:

Court Orders New Clinton Email Production by September 13
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/court-orders-new-clinton-email-production-september-13/

AUGUST 25, 2016
State Admits Benghazi Material in New Cache of Emails Clinton Failed to Produce

(Washington DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that a federal court has ordered the State Department to review newly found Clinton emails and turn over responsive records by September 13. And, in two other Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, the State Department is scheduled to release additional emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's non-state.gov email system beginning September 30. In a court filing this week, the State Department admitted it had found Benghazi-related documents among the 14,900 Clinton emails and attachments uncovered by the FBI that Mrs. Clinton deleted and withheld from the State Department.

~ ~ ~ ~
Why don't they just ask NSA?

FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To "Prevent Recovery" And "Hide Traces Of" Deleted Emails
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-25/fbi-admits-clinton-used-software-designed-prevent-recovery-and-hide-traces-deleted-e

~ ~ ~ ~
Is this not a reminder of the missing 18 minutes in the Nixon tapes that helped to put him down? 74 days ahead; so breathe normally. They could use the same route as those FBI Vince Foster investigation docs – vanished, disappeared from the National Archives.

Robz | Aug 26, 2016 4:36:42 AM | 45
China will provide Syrian military with 'medical training' http://presstv.com/Detail/2016/08/25/481632/China-military-support-Syria
Assange: Clinton's Campaign is Full of 'Disturbing' Anti-Russia 'Hysteria' http://sputniknews.com/us/20160826/1044654512/assange-clinton-russia-hysteria.html

metamars | Aug 26, 2016 8:54:56 AM | 51
Jill Stein's criticism of Hillary and TPP is censored on PBS
ProPeace | Aug 26, 2016 9:22:03 AM | 53
Wow, what an interesting coincidence! Just days after Dr. Drew Pinsky aired his concerns about Hillary's health and the health care she's receiving his show which was running for 5 years was just canceled!

[Aug 25, 2016] Judge orders State to begin releasing Clinton emails next month

Hillary Clinton has hit a rough patch at a critical time in the race for the White House.

Notable quotes:

"... As she faces increasing scrutiny, allies acknowledge it highlights the larger problem that looms over her campaign: Trust. ..."

Aug 25, 2016 | thehill.com

The State Department must start releasing the additional 15,000 emails uncovered during the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton 's private server starting on Sept. 13.

...

As she faces increasing scrutiny, allies acknowledge it highlights the larger problem that looms over her campaign: Trust.

...the foundation and email controversies are both problems for Clinton.

[Aug 25, 2016] FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To Prevent Recovery And Hide Traces Of Deleted Emails Zero Hedge

Aug 25, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

Pomkiwi GreatUncle Aug 25, 2016 7:02 PM As a matter of habit I run CC Cleaner after I close my browser. Imagine my surprise when I get a message 'Firefox is still running - needs to be closed to continue cleaning'. I click ok close it then get a message ' not closing would you like to force it to close?' That works - perhaps I should disconnect my router to be sure lol.

GreatUncle css1971 Aug 25, 2016 6:21 PM Got to admit I use CC cleaner and leave it to always destructively clean. Then by the time more data is overewritten hundreds of times you exceed the 20 layer or so limit of being able to peal bakc the layer.
Microsoft is lazy or more to the point it intentionally leaves you exposed for failing to do this as standard.

Makes the spooks job alot harder.

Dre4dwolf Aug 25, 2016 5:53 PM All the emails are out there on the internet, the server had no encryption, out there somewhere is some nerd with all of Hillary Clintons Emails hanging on his wall as a testament to his great conquest over " the server ".
Hillary Clintons emails are like pokemon, they are all over the place, you just gota "catch um all " by finding people willing to "trade".

Also, there are always two copies on an email chain

1 copy on Hillary Clintons Server

and

1 copy on the recipient/sending server, you need two servers to have a " back and forth" conversation on the internet between two different email domains.

So one way to get all the emails would be:

1) Compile a list of known email contacts from the pool of emails you already have

2) Get a judge to sign a warrant to force the domains / hosting companies of those email contacts to turn over their data

3) ? Profit as 90% of the missing emails are recovered?

There is a very small chance that the 30,000 emails missing were each from 30,000 unique people.

Most likeley its less than 1000 contacts and most of them will have benign emails associated with them that were not deleted (so they are in the contact list pool).

The NSA has all this data, everyone knows the NSA has all this data, thus far most of the leaked emails PROBABLY COME FROM NSA AGENTS who are concerned about the future of the country.

asierguti Aug 25, 2016 5:48 PM I worked for a big data recovery company, and there is more effective and easier way to destoy de data. Just take out the hard drive, open it and scratch every platter. That's it, the data is now gone forever, unless you (insert the NSA here) have a copy.

I rembeber we had a law enforcement agency coming with a hard drive from a guy they wanted to prosecute. That bastard opened the hard drive, scratched every platter, even bent them, and smashed every single chip.

Rubicon727 Aug 25, 2016 5:57 PM Here's what one website questioning WHO can call for and "Independent Counsels, Special Prosecutors, Special Counsels, and the Role of Congress
| By Jack Maskell | Legislative Attorney | June 20, 2013 |
.. Congress may also have a legislative role in designing a statutory mechanism for the appointment of "independent counsels" or "special prosecutors," as it did in title VI of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Under the provisions of that law relating to the appointment of "independent counsels" (called "special prosecutors" until 1983), the Attorney General was directed to petition a special three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals to name an independent counsel upon the receipt of credible allegations of criminal misconduct by certain high-level personnel in the executive branch of the federal government whose prosecution by the Administration might give rise to an appearance of a conflict of interest. In 1999, Congress allowed the "independent counsel" provisions of law to expire. Upon the expiration of the law in June of 1999, no new "independent counsels" or "special prosecutors" may be appointed by a three-judge panel upon the application of the Attorney General.

The Attorney General retains the general authority to designate or name individuals as "special counsels" to conduct investigations or prosecutions of particular matters or individuals on behalf of the United States. Under regulations issued by the Attorney General in 1999, the Attorney General may appoint a "special counsel" from outside of the Department of Justice who acts as a special employee of the Department of Justice under the direction of the Attorney General.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43112.pdf"

Kirk2NCC1701 Aug 25, 2016 6:02 PM I see what should be at least one obvious case of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
If Comey has any brains, balls or ethics left.

And this is from a guy who had Religious Studies at college.

Or do we need to wait for another tarmac encounter between Bill and Lowrenta? Dre4dwolf Aug 25, 2016 6:03 PM https://media.makeameme.org/created/i-cant-see-ftp6fy.jpg Neochrome Aug 25, 2016 6:06 PM no "intent" to hide or obfuscate any of the deleted emails
To be honest, her intent was to "suicide" that server, not just obfuscate the E-mails...

DuneCreature Aug 25, 2016 6:11 PM
The NSA has all of Killary's Emails in triplicate. .. If they were encrypted in transit they can have them cracked and broken in about 10 minutes apiece.

They can search them and have them and all metadata that goes with them in a few clicks of a mouse. .. They know what routers the Emails went through on their way to China and Soros.

Hackers, my ass, that's what the NSA does and it has a budget of billions and billions. ... What do people not understand about spying on the web?

Live Hard, If The FBI Wants Emails They Dial NSA-2001 And Ask For Alex, Die Free

~ DC v2.0

smacker Aug 25, 2016 6:20 PM I've had BleachBit running on my system for a fair while and never been that impressed with it, although all of these programs delete some stuff.
A far better one that actually works well to clean stuff up is:

" Nirsoft Clean After Me " 100% free, portable/non-install and small.

(Nirsoft have a huge range of small free progs for doing all sorts of things)

Still, if the Clintonista had BleachBit running, she had intent .

LN Aug 25, 2016 6:22 PM " FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To "Prevent Recovery" "
How does one spell CO-CONSPIRATORS ?

LN

Stan522 Aug 25, 2016 7:27 PM I looked up BleachBit and here's part of the description....

"Beyond simply deleting files, BleachBit includes advanced features such as shredding files to prevent recovery , wiping free disk space to hide traces of files deleted by other applications, and vacuuming Firefox to make it faster. Better than free, BleachBit is open source."

Besides for nefarious reasons, why else would someone use this type of software? And to top it off, this software is open source shareware... in her world that means free.....

[Aug 25, 2016] Clinton Criminal Emails Scandal will not go away anytime soon

It' sad that Trump campaign does not exploit this weakness of Hillary to the fullest extent... Actually the author is wrong about "Clinton, a verb, emails." more correct is "Clinton, a verb, to jail"

www.huffingtonpost.com

That headline is Hillary Clinton's biggest current problem. At this point, it has become akin to how Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign used to be described: "a noun, a verb, 9/11."

Clinton has entered similar linguistic territory, because any headline using the word "Clinton" and the word "emails" now triggers a consistent reaction from the public. Details, even fresh new ones, don't even really matter all that much at this point - all people are really hearing now is: "Clinton, a verb, emails."

[Aug 24, 2016] That is why she went to the extraordinary step of deleting everything the high-ranking source told The ENQUIRER

That's a wild rumor from yellow rag, but it tends to explain the extreme stupidity of Hillary behaviour with "bathroom" server... See also http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/hillary-clinton-lesbian/

Notable quotes:

"... Hillary made the huge mistake of mixing public and private messages while using her personalized email server – before risking a massive scandal by refusing to make the documents public. ..."

"... Hillary is particularly concerned about intimate emails to longtime aide Huma Abedin – who married U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner in a ceremony that many ridiculed as a political arrangement. ..."

Apr 15, 2015 | blindgossip.com

From [ National Enquirer ]

Hillary Clinton isn't just caught in a political scandal over her missing emails from her stint as secretary of state – she's also terrified of personal revelations about a secret lesbian lifestyle!

Now a world-exclusive investigation by The National ENQUIRER reveals that some of the presidential candidate's famously "deleted" emails are packed full of lesbian references and her lovers' names.

"I don't think she's so concerned about emails referring to her as secretly gay," said a Clinton insider. "That's been out for years – her real fear is that the names of some of her lovers would be made public!"

The ENQUIRER learned the list of Hillary's lesbian lovers includes a beauty in her early 30s who has often traveled with Hillary; a popular TV and movie star; the daughter of a top government official; and a stunning model who got a career boost after allegedly sleeping with Hillary. Hillary made the huge mistake of mixing public and private messages while using her personalized email server – before risking a massive scandal by refusing to make the documents public.

"That's clearly why she went to the extraordinary step of deleting everything," the high-ranking source told The ENQUIRER .

Hillary is particularly concerned about intimate emails to longtime aide Huma Abedin – who married U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner in a ceremony that many ridiculed as a political arrangement.

[Aug 23, 2016] Congress subpoenaed three technology companies involved in Clinton bathroom server setup and maintenance

Notable quotes:

"... congressional Republicans subpoenaed three technology companies involved in her unusual home server setup. ..."

"... The subpoenas were issued after the companies did not cooperate with a House committee's investigation into the issue, said House Science panel Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas. ..."

www.cnn.com

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill Monday, congressional Republicans subpoenaed three technology companies involved in her unusual home server setup.

The subpoenas were issued after the companies did not cooperate with a House committee's investigation into the issue, said House Science panel Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

[Aug 23, 2016] The FBI Is Hiding Something About Their Investigation Into Hillary Clinton

Notable quotes:

"... A congressional source confirmed to Fox News Tuesday that the House Government Oversight Committee had received a heavily redacted FBI summary of Hillary Clinton's session last month with FBI agents who interviewed her about her use of a private server for government business. The agents' notes were provided as well. ..."

"... Separately, the Republican chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee confirmed that even he does not have a high enough security clearance to read the documents in full. ..."

"... "As the chairman of the chief investigative body in the House, it is significant I can't even read these documents in their entirety," Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah told Fox News."This shows how dangerous it was to have this intelligence, highly classified to this day, on the former Secretary's unsecured personal server where it was vulnerable." ..."

"... The fact that portions of the FBI investigative file are heavily redacted and must be held and read by lawmakers in a secure facility on Capitol Hill shows how classified the material remains, despite claims made by the Clinton campaign. ..."

"... The campaign's call to release the FBI agents' notes appears suspect because the material is too highly classified to make public.The FBI told the committee that the documents cannot be released in part or in full without prior agency approval. ..."

"... "This information being highly classified according to the FBI is in direct conflict with what the State Department and Ms. Clinton have said is on the server. You could not have it both ways," former military intelligence officer Tony Shaffer said. "You cannot say one day this is unclassified 'nothing to see here' and the next day, only certain people can see this and you must not be able to take it outside of a secure facility." ..."

conservativerevival.com

Conservative Revival

Republicans in Congress demanded the FBI turn over their notes from the agency's interview with Hillary regarding her private email server.
The agency dragged their feet.

But when the documents were turned over, most of the information was hidden.

Hillary's emails contained so much classified information that the notes were heavily redacted.

Not even members of Congress possessed the appropriate security clearance to view the notes.

Fox News reports:

A congressional source confirmed to Fox News Tuesday that the House Government Oversight Committee had received a heavily redacted FBI summary of Hillary Clinton's session last month with FBI agents who interviewed her about her use of a private server for government business. The agents' notes were provided as well.

Separately, the Republican chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee confirmed that even he does not have a high enough security clearance to read the documents in full.

"As the chairman of the chief investigative body in the House, it is significant I can't even read these documents in their entirety," Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah told Fox News."This shows how dangerous it was to have this intelligence, highly classified to this day, on the former Secretary's unsecured personal server where it was vulnerable."

The fact that portions of the FBI investigative file are heavily redacted and must be held and read by lawmakers in a secure facility on Capitol Hill shows how classified the material remains, despite claims made by the Clinton campaign.

The campaign's call to release the FBI agents' notes appears suspect because the material is too highly classified to make public.The FBI told the committee that the documents cannot be released in part or in full without prior agency approval.

"This information being highly classified according to the FBI is in direct conflict with what the State Department and Ms. Clinton have said is on the server. You could not have it both ways," former military intelligence officer Tony Shaffer said. "You cannot say one day this is unclassified 'nothing to see here' and the next day, only certain people can see this and you must not be able to take it outside of a secure facility."

This just proves Hillary Clinton is a liar.

She claimed she never sent or received any information that was marked classified.

But the redacted notes - clearly hiding information that was so classified not even a committee chair could read it - indicate Hillary should have known classified intelligence was on her server.

The redacted notes also call into question FBI Director Comey's decision not to recommend criminal charges be brought against Hillary.

As more details emerge, critics are convinced Director Comey failed to recommend charges because Obama endorsed Hillary for President.

Announcing Hillary should be charged just weeks before she was to accept the Democrat Party's nomination for president would have thrown the race into chaos.

It also may have handed the nomination to Bernie Sanders, a candidate many believe because of his socialist views was too extreme to win a presidential election.

If Hillary was indicted and lost to Trump, Republicans could dismantle Obama's entire agenda.

Protecting his achievements - namely ObamaCare - is a central reason Obama endorsed Hillary and has fiercely attacked Donald Trump.

And many believe the FBI took a dive on the investigation because the Director got cold feet about involving the Bureau during a presidential election.

[Aug 22, 2016] Hillary Clinton is Blaming Colin Powell for her Private Email Problem - The Atlantic

Notable quotes:

"... "The truth is, she was using it for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did." (Powell added, "It doesn't bother me. But it's okay; I'm free.") ..."

"... The Clintons' blatantly dishonest attempts to cover-up and deny their scandals are almost always worse than the scandals themselves. They are shameless and believe they are above reproach ..."

"... Ha. You realize that the first time that Hillary Clinton used the term "vast right wing conspiracy" was regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal? How did the GOP force Bill to take advantage of a subordinate? ..."

www.theatlantic.com

When People spoke with Powell Sunday night in the Hamptons, he was blunter. "Her people have been trying to pin it on me," he said. "The truth is, she was using it for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did." (Powell added, "It doesn't bother me. But it's okay; I'm free.")

JerseyCowboy > xplosneer

The Clintons' blatantly dishonest attempts to cover-up and deny their scandals are almost always worse than the scandals themselves. They are shameless and believe they are above reproach.

spudwhisperer > JerseyCowboy

I disagree - I think the scandals would be disqualifying and liable for prosecution even if there were no cover-up.

mtbr1975 > xplosneer

I think a lot of that developed because of all the attempts to pin scandals on her... Can you really blame her? Look at all the garbage she's been accused of... Everything from murder to enabling Bill Clinton to cheat on her.

Uncle Luie > mtbr1975

100% true! From her lawyer billings in the early 80s, to Whitewater to Vince Foster, Travel-gate and on and on. The most accurate thing she ever said was about the "vast right wing conspiracy", also 100% true, just like Mconnell's plan to oppose and obstruct everything Obama tries to accomplish. These people are dirt

oracle > Uncle Luie

"The most accurate thing she ever said was about the "vast right wing conspiracy", also 100% true"
Ha. You realize that the first time that Hillary Clinton used the term "vast right wing conspiracy" was regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal? How did the GOP force Bill to take advantage of a subordinate?

Disqus 30 > qaz zaq

Don't forget she's the devil and founded ISIS. Those are the best ones.

Lexi > Disqus

It's true trolly. Proof is all over the place. Wow- you are defending her like she's a saint. Nobody is doing that. You seem full of morality (Not) to defend a serial liar who corrupted our country in the worst possible ways. Sad you.

bookish1 > mtbr1975

Sorry, but it was Hillary who decided to set up her own email server, send classified material, refuse to authorize a Benghazi rescue mission, make millions off the Russian uranium deal, and "mistakenly" delete 30,000 emails. If she wasn't so inept and corrupt, she wouldn't be hit with all these "scandals."
See how that works?

jar > xplosneer

This one is particularly mendacious as she has previously publicly stated that she chose the private server so she would only have to carry one device. Of what relevance is Powell's prior practice if this was her motivation? The fact is that she will throw up as many excuses and deflections as she can, without any regard for the consistency of her arguments. This is why over 60% of the American people find her dishonest and untrustworthy (or, as a recent poll indicated, only 11% of the public finds her honest and trustworthy).

Yoch Man > Lew

The world has NOT changed much in 25 years and being young has nothing to do with it. I have worked in IT for 26 years at a state level. If I had done what Clinton did back in 1989 I would have been fired and gone to jail for several reasons. aside from top secret or classified information. FERPA and the Federal records act are just two reasons. The Federal records act is as old as 1950. Every single document that is compiled on work computers OR work hours belongs to the state or Federal government. I also have an obligation to protect emails addresses, employees that I work with. I must keep their personal information confidential. Add on top of that a nations secrets.
In 1995 Bill Clinton passed legislation and clarified the Federal records act and classified information. See state department manual "5 FAM". It has been there for 21 years. Hillary Clinton is lying to you.

DB > Lew • 7 hours ago

Clinton hired her own IT boy. He was not in his 60s. You can make excuses for her age all you like..... but it doesn't work. Btw, I have friends in their 60s who run major IT depts. Being old yourself, you should know people can stay sharp barring some physical/cognitive issues.

Lew > bookish1

How would you grant control of 1/5 of Americas Uranium? You believe if you owned 20% of Berkshire Hathaway you'd start pushing Buffets buttons?
You think you'd be telling the board; I'll be taking home six tractor trailer loads of wrigley gum for my son's birthday party?
You think you'd be telling "fruit of the loom" how to put a better cheaper elastic on their underwear?...
This company will share in Corp. profit, little more...

Tyfereth > Admiral Nelson

Loathing Donald Trump and finding Hillary Clinton's serial mendaciousness and corruption upsetting are not mutually exclusive propositions. There is literally no one who Hillary Clinton won't blame to avoid personal responsibility for her actions, and while it may not matter to her supporters that she's throwing General Powell under the bus, its a sign that we are in for 8 years of Hillary Clinton making poor decisions, and deflecting blame onto others.

Raubüberfall

Hillary's reason for using a private email server was so she could control that source of information, which the public and other State Dept. officials would now have access to only through her. A shadow Secretary of State, that is, unaccountable to president, public, and law enforcement alike.

[Aug 22, 2016] Thousands of Missing Hillary Emails Could Go Public Just In Time for Election Day by Shane Harris

Aug 22, 2016 | www.thedailybeast.com

The State Department has announced that all work-related emails recovered from Hillary Clinton's private servers will be released. In response to a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch, State said it will disclose the FBI-recovered messages. Thousands will be released to the conservative watchdog group, which has routinely released documents obtained through open-records lawsuits. The department stated that it had "voluntarily agreed to produce non-exempt agency records responsive to plaintiff's [Freedom of Information Act] request."

The State Department has not set a timeline for releasing the emails, although Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, has implored the department to release the emails prior to the election in November. A court conference to discuss the case is scheduled for Aug. 22.

... the revelation that investigators found a cache of information perhaps half the size of what Clinton initially disclosed raised questions about how she and her lawyers determined which emails they wanted to disclose or keep private, and how extensive a search they mounted.

... ... ...

David Kendall, Clinton's attorney, didn't respond to a request for comment on the methodology, search terms, or other techniques that he and his colleagues used.
But in July, Comey gave some insight into the process, noting that unlike FBI investigators, Clinton's attorneys didn't actually read all her emails.

..."Is it possible because of what her lawyers did that they were erasing things that were incriminating, maybe involving items that you were not particularly investigating but these have now been destroyed forever?" Rep. Glenn Grothman asked the FBI director.

...In another matter related to Clinton's email server, Judicial Watch released a series of emails to and from top Clinton aide Huma Abedin that the group said showed Clinton had offered special favors and access to top donors to the Clinton Foundation.

The emails show that Abedin fielded requests for meetings with Clinton, which came from big donors via other intermediaries, including a top foundation official.

[Aug 22, 2016] The Missing Man at the Center of Hillary Clinton's Email Scandal

This article raises two interesting questions: "Did Pagliano committed a tax fraud by not reporting his income from Clinton foundation?" and "What information his yet unreleased emails to Clinton and her Huma Abedin contain? Also the article does not mention that there was a second sysadmin, which was not granted immunity from prosecution by FBI and who probably know even more the Pagliano about the setup of the server.

Notable quotes:

"... Pagliano also had an unusual employment arrangement. He was pulling down a six-figure salary at the State Department, which put him at the high-end of the pay scale for what appeared to be an ordinary tech support job. ..."

"... Paliano was also being paid on the side in cash by the Clinton family, something his immediate supervisors didn't know ..."

"... they were never clear on precisely what his job was and didn't know that during office hours, Pagliano was working for Clinton personally to maintain her private email system ..."

"... The only statement he has given on the record was to the FBI, which has never released a transcript of the interview. ..."

"... What started out as a dream job more than a decade ago has landed Pagliano a most unenviable role-a key witness in an election year scandal. ..."

"... Pagliano first came to work for Clinton in 2006, as part of her first presidential campaign, having worked as a systems engineer for a company that provides technical support and advice to nonprofits. ..."

"... Pagliano was responsible for the campaign headquarters' data center, oversight of other technology staff in the field, and working with contractors. ..."

"... Pagliano was paid, among other sources, by Clinton's Senate leadership PAC, according to campaign finance records. A leadership PAC is used for expenses that can't be paid out of campaign or committee funds. Clinton's was set up in part to help fund other Democratic races. But an investigation by The Intercept found that money from the PAC was used more to benefit Clinton's own campaign and her staff than other candidates. ..."

"... In the first four months of 2009-just before Pagliano took a job at the State Department working for the newly installed secretary-he was paid a total of $27,850 from the leadership PAC and two other campaign funds. ..."

"... In May 2009, Pagliano was hired at the State Department, as a "Schedule C" employee, a political appointee. ..."

"... Pagliano's job came with a handsome salary-around $140,000 per year, according to personnel information compiled by FedSmith, an analysis company. That put him on the very high end of State Department earners. For example, Pagliano was making about $13,000 more than the highest base salary allowed for Foreign Service employees, which includes career diplomats who serve in overseas posts, sometimes dangerous ones ..."

"... Hiring Pagliano, a technology specialist, was itself unusual since the department is filled with similarly skilled personnel. ..."

"... Pagliano was also hired at the highest "grade," 15, on the government pay scale. Career employees spend years climbing the pay ladder. ..."

"... What exactly Pagliano did at the department, however, wasn't clear to his bosses. And later, they would question whether his employment arrangement was above board. ..."

"... That's because while earning that hefty salary as a State Department employee, Pagliano was also being paid to perform "technology services for the Clinton family," ..."

"... Between 2009 and 2013, Pagliano was paid "by check or wire transfer in varying amounts and various times," the State IG found. He worked out of State Department headquarters but also made trips to New York to check on the server and maintain it. ..."

"... he top technology officials who oversaw Pagliano and wrote his performance evaluations-told investigators that during the four years Pagliano worked there, they didn't even know he was working on Clinton's email system ..."

"... What's more, Pagliano failed to list his outside income on a required personal financial disclosure that he filed each year, The Washington Post reported. ..."

"... The government gave Pagliano what's known as "use" immunity, which means that anything he told the FBI in the course of its investigation of Clinton's email system cannot be used to bring charges against him. (If evidence of a crime emerges from other sources, the government could still prosecute Pagliano.) ..."

"... "It's hard to believe that an IT staffer who set up Hillary Clinton's reckless email server never sent or received a single work-related email in the four years he worked at the State Department," Raj Shah, the deputy communications director for the RNC, told The Daily Beast at the time. ..."

"... For him, the biggest question of all may be, "How long can you stay quiet?" ..."

Jul 24, 2016 | The Daily Beast

...Of all the characters in the political drama of Hillary Clinton's private email server, none has been more mysterious-and potentially more important-than a 40-year-old technology specialist named Bryan Pagliano.

... ... ...

But Pagliano also had an unusual employment arrangement. He was pulling down a six-figure salary at the State Department, which put him at the high-end of the pay scale for what appeared to be an ordinary tech support job. But Paliano was also being paid on the side in cash by the Clinton family, something his immediate supervisors didn't know. In fact, they were never clear on precisely what his job was and didn't know that during office hours, Pagliano was working for Clinton personally to maintain her private email system.

...Congressional Republicans have seized on the FBI's findings of multiple devices as evidence that Clinton is lying, and they have now asked the bureau to investigate whether she perjured herself in testimony last year that touched on the email system.

... ... ...

... a federal judge in Washington is weighing whether Clinton should be deposed under oath by a conservative watchdog group that has been one of the Clinton family's tireless political foes.

... ... ...

...Pagliano has remained almost entirely silent in the face of his inquisitors. He has rebuffed congressional requests. When he was ordered to give a deposition to the conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, he declined to answer every question posed to him, invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself 125 times. The only statement he has given on the record was to the FBI, which has never released a transcript of the interview.

For Pagliano, working for Clinton was a major career booster, and personally enriching. But it has come at a cost. What started out as a dream job more than a decade ago has landed Pagliano a most unenviable role-a key witness in an election year scandal.

... ... ...

Pagliano first came to work for Clinton in 2006, as part of her first presidential campaign, having worked as a systems engineer for a company that provides technical support and advice to nonprofits. With Clinton, he started out as a kind of assistant, "providing technical engineering and support," but worked his way up to leading the campaign's information technology operations, according to his LinkedIn profile. The two were friendly. On his Facebook page, Pagliano posted photos of him posing with the secretary, as well as her husband. They have since been removed.

Pagliano was responsible for the campaign headquarters' data center, oversight of other technology staff in the field, and working with contractors. When Clinton accepted Barack Obama's nomination to become secretary of state, Pagliano set up the server in the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, New York. Bill Clinton had already been using a server for his emails, but it was deemed too small for the workload of a cabinet secretary.

Pagliano was paid, among other sources, by Clinton's Senate leadership PAC, according to campaign finance records. A leadership PAC is used for expenses that can't be paid out of campaign or committee funds. Clinton's was set up in part to help fund other Democratic races. But an investigation by The Intercept found that money from the PAC was used more to benefit Clinton's own campaign and her staff than other candidates.

Pagliano was well compensated. In the first four months of 2009-just before Pagliano took a job at the State Department working for the newly installed secretary-he was paid a total of $27,850 from the leadership PAC and two other campaign funds.

In May 2009, Pagliano was hired at the State Department, as a "Schedule C" employee, a political appointee. It's easier to hire and fire such employees than it is career government workers, but they're also subject to strict ethics rules. Pagliano's job came with a handsome salary-around $140,000 per year, according to personnel information compiled by FedSmith, an analysis company. That put him on the very high end of State Department earners. For example, Pagliano was making about $13,000 more than the highest base salary allowed for Foreign Service employees, which includes career diplomats who serve in overseas posts, sometimes dangerous ones.

Hiring Pagliano, a technology specialist, was itself unusual since the department is filled with similarly skilled personnel. But Schedule C employees also have a "confidential or policy-determining relationship to their supervisor and agency head," according to the Office of Personnel Management. The agency head in this case was Clinton. Schedule C authorities let a cabinet official hire whomever she thinks is best suited for the job, even if that person doesn't meet the on-paper requirements or is creating a redundant position.

Pagliano was also hired at the highest "grade," 15, on the government pay scale. Career employees spend years climbing the pay ladder. Pagliano had no prior government service. And while Schedule C employees may earn higher salaries than their career counterparts-indeed, the authorities are sometimes used to attract highly paid, skilled workers from the private sector-Pagliano appears to have been exceptionally well compensated for someone with his background, which aside from working for the non-profit was limited to being Clinton's technology director.

What exactly Pagliano did at the department, however, wasn't clear to his bosses. And later, they would question whether his employment arrangement was above board.

That's because while earning that hefty salary as a State Department employee, Pagliano was also being paid to perform "technology services for the Clinton family," Hillary Clinton's lawyer told the State Department inspector general (PDF), which issued a blistering report in May on Clinton's unorthodox use of a private email server-the one Pagliano installed and maintained for her while she was the secretary.

Between 2009 and 2013, Pagliano was paid "by check or wire transfer in varying amounts and various times," the State IG found. He worked out of State Department headquarters but also made trips to New York to check on the server and maintain it.

Pagliano's arrangement raised many questions for his direct supervisors at the department when it was revealed by the IG investigation. The State Department's chief information officer and the deputy chief information officer-the top technology officials who oversaw Pagliano and wrote his performance evaluations-told investigators that during the four years Pagliano worked there, they didn't even know he was working on Clinton's email system. The impression at Foggy Bottom was that Pagliano had been brought on to support "mobile computing issues across the entire department." His bosses thought he was at State to work for everyone, not exclusively for Clinton.

The officials told the IG that they "questioned whether [Pagliano] could support a private client during work hours, given his capacity as a full-time employee."

***

What's more, Pagliano failed to list his outside income on a required personal financial disclosure that he filed each year, The Washington Post reported. Government personnel rules don't prohibit a political appointee like Pagliano also earning a side income, but there are limits on how much he could earn, and the amounts must be disclosed. He would also have to report the income on his tax returns.

How much the Clintons paid Pagliano while he worked at the State Department is unclear. He declined to grant an interview to the State Department inspector general, as did Clinton and five of her top aides.

Neither his lawyer nor the FBI have said whether Pagliano's immunity agreement covers his employment arrangement and any violations that could have occurred as a result of his collecting outside income or failing to report it. But immunity agreements can be fashioned to cover any manner of subjects.

The government gave Pagliano what's known as "use" immunity, which means that anything he told the FBI in the course of its investigation of Clinton's email system cannot be used to bring charges against him. (If evidence of a crime emerges from other sources, the government could still prosecute Pagliano.)

The full details of the immunity deal haven't been revealed publicly. But some key aspects were revealed in a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch, which is seeking information on another unusual employment arrangement-that of Huma Abedin, Clinton's senior aide. She was allowed to hold multiple outside jobs, including for the Clinton Foundation, while also serving as Clinton's deputy chief of staff at the State Department.

"The mere fact that the government was willing to offer Pagliano 'use' immunity here in exchange for his testimony indicates that his fear of prosecution is more than fanciful or speculative," Pagliano's lawyer, Mark MacDougall, wrote in a legal filing with the court hearing Judicial Watch's case. The watchdog group also wanted to depose Pagliano. But his lawyer argued that would put him at risk.

"Mr. Pagliano's prospective deposition will inevitably cover matters that might 'furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute,'" MacDougall wrote. "The Court has authorized Judicial Watch to obtain discovery relating to 'the creation and operation of clintonemail.com for State Department business."

That subject was also the focus of the FBI investigation. So, Pagliano had reason to believe that what he might say to Judicial Watch could put him at risk for prosecution, MacDougall argued. As a result, Pagliano intended to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege and not answer any of Judicial Watch's questions. The group didn't try to force him. But they wanted to videotape the deposition. Pagliano would be captured on film, declining to answer dozens of questions about his old boss and her complicated, careless email system. The judge ultimately ruled the deposition would be recorded. He also required Pagliano to hand over a copy of his immunity agreement, which was placed under seal. Judicial Watch isn't the only Clinton adversary that has locked on Pagliano and what he knows.

Earlier this month, members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform questioned FBI Director James Comey about the findings of the bureau's investigation. Comey, who had by then already said that Clinton was "extremely careless," left little doubt that Pagliano was a key witness.

"What about Bryan Pagliano?… Do you know if he knew that she [Clinton] was not following proper protocol here?" asked Rep. Buddy Carter, a Republican from Georgia, in regards to using a private email system, which the inspector general had determined was at odds with department rules.

"He helped set it up," Comey replied.

"He helped set it up? So obviously he knew," Carter said.

"Yeah. Obviously he knew that," Comey said.

... Comey said that the FBI had spent "thousands of hours" figuring out the architecture of Clinton's email system, which was far more complex than the public had realized.

"Piecing all of that back together-to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal email was used for government work-has been a painstaking undertaking," Comey said, made harder by the complex way in which the system was maintained.

"For example, when one of Secretary Clinton's original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the email software was removed," Comey said. "Doing that didn't remove the email content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of email fragments end up unsorted in the server's unused-or 'slack'-space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together."

Clinton's emails weren't the only ones that have been hard to piece back together. Pagliano's have also been difficult to find.

***

In the many lawsuits brought under the Freedom of Information Act to force the release of Clinton's emails and those of her aides-including one filed by The Daily Beast-Pagliano's emails have been the hardest for State Department officials to locate. Initially, the State Department claimed that there were no Pagliano emails-at least none that its investigators could discover. A State Department official explained to The Daily Beast in May that the department had searched for copies of Pagliano's emails in a backup known as a .pst file, but that officials couldn't locate one for the period of time that covers Clinton's tenure as secretary. The Republican National Committee, which had filed a lawsuit seeking copies of Pagliano's emails, was incredulous. "It's hard to believe that an IT staffer who set up Hillary Clinton's reckless email server never sent or received a single work-related email in the four years he worked at the State Department," Raj Shah, the deputy communications director for the RNC, told The Daily Beast at the time.

Also curious was that while the department found no .pst file for Pagliano's work during Clinton's tenure, officials did find one for his work as a contractor-after Clinton had left office. In order to reconstruct Pagliano's email record, the State Department looked for emails of people who were likely to have corresponded with him or about him. (One such message actually turned up in a batch of Clinton's own emails, which have been released for months now on a rolling basis. Pagliano wrote to his boss to wish her a happy birthday. "To many more!" he wrote. Clinton forwarded the message to an aide with a request to "Pls respond.")

...just this month, State came back with new information. Somehow, it had managed to narrow down that giant universe of emails to just 1,300 that were either to or from Pagliano or "cc'd" to him. The department was now confident that it could locate Pagliano's emails and turn them over to the RNC. What may appear to some to be a willful effort to keep Pagliano's emails from the public could also be sheer incompetence in record keeping. The inspector general criticized the department's archiving system, and department officials have acknowledged that they need to do a better job keeping track of officials' emails. But Republicans have seized on the missing emails as an indication of a possible coverup, meant to protect the Democratic nominee. "Such records might shed light on [Pagliano's] role in setting up Clinton's server, and why he was granted immunity by the FBI," Shah told The Daily Beast. "But it seems that his emails were either destroyed or never turned over, adding yet another layer to the secrecy surrounding his role."

... Two technology employees told the inspector general that in late 2010 they "discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email account" with John Bentel, who was then the director of Information Resource Management in the office of the Executive Secretariat, where Pagliano worked.

"In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton's account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements," the IG found. "According to the staff member, the Director [Bentel] stated that the Secretary's personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further."

But that review didn't happen. Judicial Watch now wants to depose Bentel under oath, too. The judge hearing the case, Emmet Sullivan, said this month that he thought the deposition should proceed... ...Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson, respectively the powerful chairmen of the committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, have been after Pagliano since last year to testify about the email system. Given that he has a immunity protection, the senators have questioned why he won't speak.

... Refusing to answer questions doesn't constitute any admission of guilt on Pagliano's part. But his silence has only fanned the flames of intrigue surrounding his role in the email scandal and what more he may know about it.

...For him, the biggest question of all may be, "How long can you stay quiet?"

[Aug 21, 2016] The NSA Leak Is Real, Snowden Documents Confirm by Sam Biddle

Notable quotes:

"... The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE. ..."

Aug 19, 2016 | theintercept.com
On Monday, a hacking group calling itself the "ShadowBrokers" announced an auction for what it claimed were "cyber weapons" made by the NSA. Based on never-before-published documents provided by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, The Intercept can confirm that the arsenal contains authentic NSA software, part of a powerful constellation of tools used to covertly infect computers worldwide.
The provenance of the code has been a matter of heated debate this week among cybersecurity experts, and while it remains unclear how the software leaked, one thing is now beyond speculation: The malware is covered with the NSA's virtual fingerprints and clearly originates from the agency.

The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE.

SECONDDATE plays a specialized role inside a complex global system built by the U.S. government to infect and monitor what one document estimated to be millions of computers around the world. Its release by ShadowBrokers, alongside dozens of other malicious tools, marks the first time any full copies of the NSA's offensive software have been available to the public, providing a glimpse at how an elaborate system outlined in the Snowden documents looks when deployed in the real world, as well as concrete evidence that NSA hackers don't always have the last word when it comes to computer exploitation.

But malicious software of this sophistication doesn't just pose a threat to foreign governments, Johns Hopkins University cryptographer Matthew Green told The Intercept:

The danger of these exploits is that they can be used to target anyone who is using a vulnerable router. This is the equivalent of leaving lockpicking tools lying around a high school cafeteria. It's worse, in fact, because many of these exploits are not available through any other means, so they're just now coming to the attention of the firewall and router manufacturers that need to fix them, as well as the customers that are vulnerable.

So the risk is twofold: first, that the person or persons who stole this information might have used them against us. If this is indeed Russia, then one assumes that they probably have their own exploits, but there's no need to give them any more. And now that the exploits have been released, we run the risk that ordinary criminals will use them against corporate targets.

The NSA did not respond to questions concerning ShadowBrokers, the Snowden documents, or its malware.

A Memorable SECONDDATE

The offensive tools released by ShadowBrokers are organized under a litany of code names such as POLARSNEEZE and ELIGIBLE BOMBSHELL, and their exact purpose is still being assessed. But we do know more about one of the weapons: SECONDDATE.

SECONDDATE is a tool designed to intercept web requests and redirect browsers on target computers to an NSA web server. That server, in turn, is designed to infect them with malware. SECONDDATE's existence was first reported by The Intercept in 2014, as part of a look at a global computer exploitation effort code-named TURBINE. The malware server, known as FOXACID, has also been described in previously released Snowden documents.

Other documents released by The Intercept today not only tie SECONDDATE to the ShadowBrokers leak but also provide new detail on how it fits into the NSA's broader surveillance and infection network. They also show how SECONDDATE has been used, including to spy on Pakistan and a computer system in Lebanon.

The top-secret manual that authenticates the SECONDDATE found in the wild as the same one used within the NSA is a 31-page document titled "FOXACID SOP for Operational Management" and marked as a draft. It dates to no earlier than 2010. A section within the manual describes administrative tools for tracking how victims are funneled into FOXACID, including a set of tags used to catalogue servers. When such a tag is created in relation to a SECONDDATE-related infection, the document says, a certain distinctive identifier must be used:

The same SECONDDATE MSGID string appears in 14 different files throughout the ShadowBrokers leak, including in a file titled SecondDate-3021.exe. Viewed through a code-editing program (screenshot below), the NSA's secret number can be found hiding in plain sight:

All told, throughout many of the folders contained in the ShadowBrokers' package (screenshot below), there are 47 files with SECONDDATE-related names, including different versions of the raw code required to execute a SECONDDATE attack, instructions for how to use it, and other related files.

.

After viewing the code, Green told The Intercept the MSGID string's occurrence in both an NSA training document and this week's leak is "unlikely to be a coincidence." Computer security researcher Matt Suiche, founder of UAE-based cybersecurity startup Comae Technologies, who has been particularly vocal in his analysis of the ShadowBrokers this week, told The Intercept "there is no way" the MSGID string's appearance in both places is a coincidence.

Where SECONDDATE Fits In

This overview jibes with previously unpublished classified files provided by Snowden that illustrate how SECONDDATE is a component of BADDECISION, a broader NSA infiltration tool. SECONDDATE helps the NSA pull off a "man in the middle" attack against users on a wireless network, tricking them into thinking they're talking to a safe website when in reality they've been sent a malicious payload from an NSA server.

According to one December 2010 PowerPoint presentation titled "Introduction to BADDECISION," that tool is also designed to send users of a wireless network, sometimes referred to as an 802.11 network, to FOXACID malware servers. Or, as the presentation puts it, BADDECISION is an "802.11 CNE [computer network exploitation] tool that uses a true man-in-the-middle attack and a frame injection technique to redirect a target client to a FOXACID server." As another top-secret slide puts it, the attack homes in on "the greatest vulnerability to your computer: your web browser."

One slide points out that the attack works on users with an encrypted wireless connection to the internet.

That trick, it seems, often involves BADDECISION and SECONDDATE, with the latter described as a "component" for the former. A series of diagrams in the "Introduction to BADDECISION" presentation show how an NSA operator "uses SECONDDATE to inject a redirection payload at [a] Target Client," invisibly hijacking a user's web browser as the user attempts to visit a benign website (in the example given, it's CNN.com). Executed correctly, the file explains, a "Target Client continues normal webpage browsing, completely unaware," lands on a malware-filled NSA server, and becomes infected with as much of that malware as possible - or as the presentation puts it, the user will be left "WHACKED!" In the other top-secret presentations, it's put plainly: "How do we redirect the target to the FOXACID server without being noticed"? Simple: "Use NIGHTSTAND or BADDECISION."

The sheer number of interlocking tools available to crack a computer is dizzying. In the FOXACID manual, government hackers are told an NSA hacker ought to be familiar with using SECONDDATE along with similar man-in-the-middle wi-fi attacks code-named MAGIC SQUIRREL and MAGICBEAN. A top-secret presentation on FOXACID lists further ways to redirect targets to the malware server system.

To position themselves within range of a vulnerable wireless network, NSA operators can use a mobile antenna system running software code-named BLINDDATE, depicted in the field in what appears to be Kabul. The software can even be attached to a drone. BLINDDATE in turn can run BADDECISION, which allows for a SECONDDATE attack:

Elsewhere in these files, there are at least two documented cases of SECONDDATE being used to successfully infect computers overseas: An April 2013 presentation boasts of successful attacks against computer systems in both Pakistan and Lebanon. In the first, NSA hackers used SECONDDATE to breach "targets in Pakistan's National Telecommunications Corporation's (NTC) VIP Division," which contained documents pertaining to "the backbone of Pakistan's Green Line communications network" used by "civilian and military leadership."

In the latter, the NSA used SECONDDATE to pull off a man-in-the-middle attack in Lebanon "for the first time ever," infecting a Lebanese ISP to extract "100+ MB of Hizballah Unit 1800 data," a special subset of the terrorist group dedicated to aiding Palestinian militants.

SECONDDATE is just one method that the NSA uses to get its target's browser pointed at a FOXACID server. Other methods include sending spam that attempts to exploit bugs in popular web-based email providers or entices targets to click on malicious links that lead to a FOXACID server. One document, a newsletter for the NSA's Special Source Operations division, describes how NSA software other than SECONDDATE was used to repeatedly direct targets in Pakistan to FOXACID malware web servers, eventually infecting the targets' computers.

A Potentially Mundane Hack

Snowden, who worked for NSA contractors Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton, has offered some context and a relatively mundane possible explanation for the leak: that the NSA headquarters was not hacked, but rather one of the computers the agency uses to plan and execute attacks was compromised. In a series of tweets, he pointed out that the NSA often lurks on systems that are supposed to be controlled by others, and it's possible someone at the agency took control of a server and failed to clean up after themselves. A regime, hacker group, or intelligence agency could have seized the files and the opportunity to embarrass the agency.

Documents

Documents published with this story:

NSA Central Security Service: FOXACID SOP for Operational Management of FOXACID Infrastructure (Draft)

Wireless LAN / CNE Tool Training Course and Evaluation

Course introduction

Introduction to WLAN / 802.11 Active CNE Operations

Introduction to BADDECISION

NSA: Expeditionary Access Operations: NSA's Close Access Network Exploitation Program ("CNO Course – EAO")

NSA Remote Operations Center: FOXACID Overall Briefing

NSA SIGINT Development (SIGDEV): SIGINT Development Support II Program Management Review, 24 April 2013 (select slides)

[Aug 21, 2016] Hillary blames Colin Powell for email scandal by Matt Palumbo

Notable quotes:

"... Pressed by the F.B.I. about her email practices at the State Department, Hillary Clinton told investigators that former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had advised her to use a personal email account. ..."

"... Separately, in a 2009 email exchange that also emerged during the F.B.I. questioning, Mrs. Clinton, who had already decided to use private email, asked Mr. Powell about his email practices when he was the nation's top diplomat under George W. Bush, according to a person with direct knowledge of Mr. Powell's appearance in the documents, who would not speak for attribution. ..."

August 19, 2016 | AllenBWest.com

After months of "short circuiting" on her excuses for and defense of her use of a private email server, Hillary Clinton has finally "revealed" why she used one in the first place. ... ... ...
Now, it turns out Hillary's trying to push blame for the whole fiasco on someone else entirely: Colin Powell. As the New York Times writes:

Pressed by the F.B.I. about her email practices at the State Department, Hillary Clinton told investigators that former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had advised her to use a personal email account.
The account is included in the notes the Federal Bureau of Investigation handed over to Congress on Tuesday, relaying in detail the three-and-a-half-hour interview with Mrs. Clinton in early July that led to the decision by James B. Comey, the bureau's director, not to pursue criminal charges against her.

Separately, in a 2009 email exchange that also emerged during the F.B.I. questioning, Mrs. Clinton, who had already decided to use private email, asked Mr. Powell about his email practices when he was the nation's top diplomat under George W. Bush, according to a person with direct knowledge of Mr. Powell's appearance in the documents, who would not speak for attribution.

The journalist Joe Conason first reported the conversation between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Powell in his coming book about Bill Clinton's postpresidency, "Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton," which The Times received an advanced copy of.

... Powell's office released a statement Friday saying the former secretary "has no recollection of the dinner conversation." The statement did admit, however, that Powell "did write former Secretary Clinton an email memo describing his use of a personal AOL email account for unclassified messages and how it vastly improved communications within the State Department."

The statement emphasized, however, that "at the time, there was no equivalent system within the department." Also, Powell "used a secure state computer on his desk to manage classified information."

As Townhall's Guy Benson explained in February, there are two key distinctions: Powell did not set up a "recklessly unsecure private emails server" and conduct all official business on it, and Powell only received two emails which were retroactively classified (at the lowest level of classification!).

Clinton's email was not through a company like AOL, but on her own private server, which was likely hacked by foreign powers like the Russians and the Chinese, according to former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Even the Times admitted that "Powell did not have a server at his house or rely on outside contractors, as Mrs. Clinton did at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y."

[Aug 21, 2016] Clinton Finds New People To Blame For Email Scandal

Notable quotes:

"... Now the former first lady is refusing to even take blame for the use of the server, saying that the practice has been around for decades and that another former secretary of state. ..."

"... Hillary Clinton has been an expert at bobbing and weaving around controversy during this election cycle, but the sheer magnitude of her recent scandals may end up blindsiding her with excuses this sloppy. ..."

The Unofficial Megyn Kelly

Hillary Clinton has insisted from day one that her illegal use of a private email server was no big deal at all, even if it put many Americans' lives at risk.
Now the former first lady is refusing to even take blame for the use of the server, saying that the practice has been around for decades and that another former secretary of state.

"Now, it turns out Hillary's trying to push blame for the whole fiasco on someone else entirely: Colin Powell. As the New York Times writes: Pressed by the F.B.I.about her email practices at the State Department, Hillary Clinton told investigators that former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had advised her to use a personal email account."

Colin Powell has denied using a private email account for anything other than non-classified material.

"And as we know, Hillary did use that email server for sending and receiving classified information, while Powell did not. This is yet another case of Hillary trying to push her poor judgement onto someone else. Unfortunately for her, Colin Powell isn't willing to quietly take the fall for her."

Hillary Clinton has been an expert at bobbing and weaving around controversy during this election cycle, but the sheer magnitude of her recent scandals may end up blindsiding her with excuses this sloppy.

[Aug 20, 2016] Ouch Congressman Cries Hillary is Honest, She Only Perjured Herself Three Times

Notable quotes:

"... The host also criticized attempts by Hillary's campaign to downplay the damage wrought by FBI Director James Comey's detailed examination of Clinton's "homebrew" server that many intelligence professionals worry compromised US state secrets. "It's not like he gave her a stellar review and an A+" said Ruhle. ..."

"... only three of them had any markings whatsoever suggesting a possible classification, and I – there's a clip from that I wish you guys would run -." Ruhle jumped in and hammered the Congressman saying, "But only three is not zero… You either did it or you didn't do it. No?" ..."

sputniknews.com

Speaking on "MSNBC Live" Congressman Matt Cartwright (D-PA) was grilled by host Stephanie Ruhle who demanded the Clinton surrogate who was appealing to Hillary's trustworthiness explain how the former Secretary of State did not commit perjury.

... ... ...

Laying out a montage of Hillary Clinton's statements before the Benghazi Select Committee, host Stephanie Ruhle couldn't help but ask her guest, Clinton surrogate and Pennsylvania Congressman Matt Cartwright, "How is that not perjury?"

The host also criticized attempts by Hillary's campaign to downplay the damage wrought by FBI Director James Comey's detailed examination of Clinton's "homebrew" server that many intelligence professionals worry compromised US state secrets. "It's not like he gave her a stellar review and an A+" said Ruhle.

The Congressman responded, "Here's what we established, when I questioned Director Comey. The Question was, well, were there things marked classified that she sent or received? And out of tens of thousands of emails that they were reviewing, only three of them had any markings whatsoever suggesting a possible classification, and I – there's a clip from that I wish you guys would run -."

Ruhle jumped in and hammered the Congressman saying, "But only three is not zero… You either did it or you didn't do it. No?"

... ... ...

[Aug 17, 2016] FBI hands over Clinton email interview summary to Congress by Rachael Bade and Josh Gerstein

This is a huge danger for Hillary... Now all those materials got into the hand of hostile and very competent prosecutors.

Notable quotes:

"... "The FBI has turned over a 'number of documents' related to their investigation of former Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email server. Committee staff is currently reviewing the information that is classified SECRET. There are no further details at this time," a spokesperson for the House Oversight Committee said on Tuesday afternoon. ..."

"... The handover of the records all but guarantees the email issue will continue to dog Clinton this election cycle, although it is unclear what Republicans can do with them, given that they are classified materials. Still, her decision to set up a private server at the State Department, and the subsequent fallout, remains a sizable self-inflicted wound for Clinton, even as Donald Trump's various missteps have found him lagging behind the Democrat in national and battleground state polls. ..."

Aug 15, 2016 | POLITICO
The FBI on Tuesday handed over to Congress classified records from its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, the latest development in the scandal that the Democratic nominee just can't shake.
Among the materials turned over to Capitol Hill was an FBI summary of the 3½-hour interview Clinton submitted to at FBI headquarters early last month, according to the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff of California.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee also confirmed receiving a package of records from the FBI about the Clinton email probe.

"The FBI has turned over a 'number of documents' related to their investigation of former Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email server. Committee staff is currently reviewing the information that is classified SECRET. There are no further details at this time," a spokesperson for the House Oversight Committee said on Tuesday afternoon.

The handover of the records all but guarantees the email issue will continue to dog Clinton this election cycle, although it is unclear what Republicans can do with them, given that they are classified materials. Still, her decision to set up a private server at the State Department, and the subsequent fallout, remains a sizable self-inflicted wound for Clinton, even as Donald Trump's various missteps have found him lagging behind the Democrat in national and battleground state polls.

As it sent the materials up on Tuesday, the FBI warned publicly against leaking the documents.

"The material contains classified and other sensitive information and is being provided with the expectation it will not be disseminated or disclosed without FBI concurrence," an FBI spokesperson said in a statement.

But top Republicans are already pushing back, urging the FBI to publicly release of some of the information.

"On initial review, it seems that much of the material given to the Senate today, other than copies of the large number of emails on Secretary Clinton's server containing classified information, is marked 'unclassified/for official use.' The FBI should make as much of the material available as possible," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in a statement. "The public's business ought to be public, with few exceptions. The people's interest would be served in seeing the documents that are unclassified. The FBI has made public statements in describing its handling of the case, so sharing documents in support of those statements wherever appropriate would make sense."

[Aug 15, 2016] Hillary Clinton Short-Circuited

Notable quotes:

"... After Clinton recognized that even her strongest supporters doubted her statement, she attempted to walk it back. In doing so, she repeatedly lied again, but offered as an excuse a bizarre claim that she had "short-circuited" her answer. ..."

"... Who knows what that means? She claimed that she and Wallace were talking over each other and her answer had been misunderstood and misconstrued. Yet, Clinton said that Comey exonerated her as being "truthful" to the public when in fact he stated that she had been truthful during her three-hour, closed-door, unrecorded interview with the FBI. ..."

"... Could Clinton have legally received, opened, stored or sent a secret or top secret email without knowing it, as she has claimed? In a word: NO. ..."

"... That's because, on her first day in office, Clinton swore under oath that she recognized her legal obligation to recognize state secrets and treat them according to law - that is, to keep them in a secure government venue - whether they are marked as secrets or not. ..."

"... Last Sunday, Iran executed a scientist who sold Iranian nuclear secrets to the U.S. The secrets were eventually passed on to Secretary of State John Kerry for his use during the negotiations that led to the recent U.S.-Iran nuclear accord. But the sale of the secrets and the U.S.'s payments for them (several million dollars) were consummated under then-Secretary Clinton's watch. The scientist was lured back to Iran, fearing harm to his family. Upon his return, he was arrested, tried and convicted of treason. ..."

August 11, 2016 | The Unz Review
When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked last week if she has misled the American people on the issue of her failure to safeguard state secrets contained in her emails, she told my Fox News colleague, Chris Wallace, that the FBI had exonerated her. When pressed by Wallace, she argued that FBI Director James Comey said that her answers to the American people were truthful.
After Clinton recognized that even her strongest supporters doubted her statement, she attempted to walk it back. In doing so, she repeatedly lied again, but offered as an excuse a bizarre claim that she had "short-circuited" her answer.

Who knows what that means? She claimed that she and Wallace were talking over each other and her answer had been misunderstood and misconstrued. Yet, Clinton said that Comey exonerated her as being "truthful" to the public when in fact he stated that she had been truthful during her three-hour, closed-door, unrecorded interview with the FBI.

Clinton told a group of largely pro-Clinton journalists that she had short-circuited her remarks. Then, she acknowledged that Comey had only referred to whatever she told the FBI as being truthful. Then, she lied again, by insisting that she told the FBI the same things she has told the press and the public since this scandal erupted in March 2015.

But that cannot be so, because she has issued a litany of lies to the press and to the public, which the FBI would have caught. In her so-called clarifying remarks, she again told journalists her oft-stated lie about returning all work-related emails to the State Department. She could not have told that to the FBI because Director Comey revealed in July that the FBI found "thousands" of unreturned work-related emails on her servers, some of which she attempted to destroy.

On the state secrets issue, she has told the public countless times that she never sent or received anything marked classified. She could not have said that to the FBI, because even a novice FBI agent would have recognized such a statement as a trick answer. Nothing is marked "classified." The markings used by the federal government are "confidential" or "secret" or "top secret." When Director Comey announced last month that the FBI was recommending against indictment, he revealed nevertheless that his agents found 110 emails in 52 email threads containing materials that were confidential, secret or top secret.

The agents also found seven email chains on her servers that were select access privilege, or SAP. SAP emails cannot be received, opened or sent without knowing what they are, as a special alphanumeric code, one that changes continually, must be requested and employed in order to do so. SAP is so secret that the FBI agents investigating Clinton lacked access to the code.

Could Clinton have legally received, opened, stored or sent a secret or top secret email without knowing it, as she has claimed? In a word: NO.

That's because, on her first day in office, Clinton swore under oath that she recognized her legal obligation to recognize state secrets and treat them according to law - that is, to keep them in a secure government venue - whether they are marked as secrets or not.

This past weekend, we learned how deadly the consequences of Clinton's failure to secure secrets can be.

Last Sunday, Iran executed a scientist who sold Iranian nuclear secrets to the U.S. The secrets were eventually passed on to Secretary of State John Kerry for his use during the negotiations that led to the recent U.S.-Iran nuclear accord. But the sale of the secrets and the U.S.'s payments for them (several million dollars) were consummated under then-Secretary Clinton's watch. The scientist was lured back to Iran, fearing harm to his family. Upon his return, he was arrested, tried and convicted of treason.

One email sent to Clinton, from Richard Morningstar, a former State Department special envoy for Eurasian energy, referred to this scientist as "our friend." The fact that Clinton's aides referenced this spying scientist as "our friend" shows a conscious awareness of their duty to hide and secure state secrets - his name and what he had done for the U.S. Yet, at the same time, Clinton put these state secrets at risk by having them sent to her via her nonsecure home servers. This "our friend" email was a top-secret email, which Clinton failed to keep secure. It was either one of the 110 that the FBI found on her servers or one of the work-related emails she did surrender.
Could this email have been used as evidence in the treason trial of the now-executed scientist?

That is not an academic question. Most of the intelligence community seriously mistrusts Clinton, as her recklessness has jeopardized their work. Some feared that many of their undercover colleagues were compromised or even killed due to Clinton's emails.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has established a clear and unambiguous record of deception. Her deceptions are not about the time of day or the day of the week; they are about matters material to her former job as Secretary of State and material to national security.
Do you know any rational person who continues to trust her?
Copyright 2016 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

exiled off mainstreet says: Show Comment Next New Comment August 11, 2016 at 4:51 am GMT • 300 Words
If the lamestream media were not fully in the bag for the harpy, questions would be being asked about the mysterious death of the man whom Assange says was the leaker to wikileaks of the Democratic National Committee emails. Others have noted that several other people have died mysteriously during the last few weeks including a UN figure who died from a suspicous home weightlifting accident and an anti-Clinton researcher who unexpectedly committed "suicide."

The Libya thing is still on record as a war crime and the fact is indisputable that Clinton was the spearhead who convinced Obama, who has indicated it was against his better judgment, to carry through on the overthrow. Meanwhile, we have on record Clinton's barbaric gloat, "we came, we saw, he died" with a horror movie type cackle. Also on record is the fact that the jihadi element Clinton sponsored in the overthrow effort committed a crime against humanity, a mass liquidation of Sub-saharan Africans Khaddafi had settled in the city of Sirte in the wake of their seizure of that city. It has been documented again in an article in this week's blackagendareport by their regular reporter, Danny Haiphong.

Of course Trump is accused based on an ambiguous off-the-cuff comment he made about 2nd amendment rights that he suggested violence against the harpy. The media's cashing in on this issues makes relevant the harpy's own statement in July, 2008 when she had been beaten by Obama but before the convention which would confirm that defeat, that she was staying in the race in case a "Robert Kennedy" incident occurs. This is a much more unambiguous statement which could be construed as hoping for something favorable. Her status as a major party candidate is a disgrace, particularly now that the wikileaks disclosures have revealed the fraud engaged in to secure it. Sanders, meanwhile, appears craven in light of these new disclosures. If she triumphs, the last shreds of legitimacy will be gone from the yankee imperium.

Lawrence Fitton says: Show Comment Next New Comment August 11, 2016 at 4:20 pm GMT • 100 Words
state secrets – just the words give me the creeps. reminds of police states. state secrets keep the people, the employers of the united states government, in the dark. criminal regimes everywhere flourish without sunlight. states secrets are used as a cya tactic, as well. if the citizens don't know what their government does, they can't object. we, the people, are kept ignorant, which allows corruption to proliferate and produce people like bill & hillary clinton.
hillary lied to congress, didn't she? why isn't she prosecuted?
donald trump is a braggart who lies so often and so much, the mind reels. hillary clinton is a serial prevaricator, part-time criminal, thoroughly corrupt, massively entitled, political hack who should have been yesterday's news 25 years ago.
trump or clinton.
try not to cry.

[Aug 08, 2016] The subtext is that it was Clinton's carelessness with classified material which got him killed

marknesop.wordpress.com
Cortes , August 7, 2016 at 6:06 pm
The narrative for the opening chapter of WWIII beginneth like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/07/iran-executes-nuclear-scientist-shahram-amiri-returned-country-from-us

Persian nukes? Check

R2P? Check.

Crazy mullahs? Check.

Et cetera

marknesop , August 7, 2016 at 8:50 pm
The subtext is that it was Clinton's carelessness with classified material which got him killed. And the probability that the reason for his return to Tehran was that his minders had assessed it was now safe for him to go back and be Washington's ear in Tehran.

[Aug 04, 2016] Hillary Clintons own campaign is hacked: Dems were warned they were a target in March but REFUSED to help FBI probe

July 30, 2016

Source: Hillary Clinton's own campaign is hacked: Democrats were warned they were a target in March but REFUSED to help FBI probe into cyber attacks |29 July 2016

... leak also revealed anti-gay slurs, mocking African Americans and attempts to con reputable news outlets with fake Trump videos.

The computer network used by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign was hacked as part of a broad cyber attack on Democratic political organizations, people familiar with the matter told Reuters. The latest attack, which was disclosed to Reuters on Friday, follows reports of two other hacks on the Democratic National Committee and the party's fundraising committee for candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives.

The U.S. Department of Justice national security division is investigating whether cyber hacking attacks on Democratic political organizations threatened U.S. security, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.

[Aug 02, 2016] NSA Architect: Agency Has ALL of Clinton's Deleted Emails

A very important, informative interview. Outlines complexity of challenges of modern society and the real power of "alphabet agencies" in the modern societies (not only in the USA) pretty vividly. You need to listen to it several times to understand better the current environment.

Very sloppy security was the immanent feature both of Hillary "bathroom" server and DNC emails hacks. So there probably were multiple parties that has access to those data not a single one (anti Russian hysteria presumes that the only party are Russian and that's silly; what about China, Iran and Israel?). Russian government would not use a "known attack" as they would immediately be traced back.

Anything, any communications that goes over the network are totally. 100% exposed to NSA data collection infrastructure. Clinton email messages are not exception. NSA does have information on them, including all envelopes (the body of the message might be encrypted and that's slightly complicate the matter, but there is no signs that Clinton of DNC used encryption of them)

NSA has the technical capabilities to trace the data back and they most probably have most if not all of deleted mail. The "total surveillance", the total data mailing used by NSA definitely includes the mail envelopes which makes possible to enumerate all the missing mails.

Notable quotes:

"... The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday. ..."

"... Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists." ..."

"... "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."

"... Listen to the full interview here: ... ..."

"... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer ..."

www.breitbart.com
The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday.
Speaking as an analyst, Binney raised the possibility that the hack of the Democratic National Committee's server was done not by Russia but by a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker concerned about Clinton's compromise of national security secrets via her personal email use.

Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency.

He was speaking on this reporter's Sunday radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio," broadcast on New York's AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia's NewsTalk 990 AM.

Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."

Stated Binney:

"Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails."

"So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated of Clinton's emails as well as DNC emails.

Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.

"Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there."

Listen to the full interview here: ...

Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.

And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails.

The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:

GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).

Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

[Jul 23, 2016] Hillary Clinton: Electing a Foreign Spy for President? by James Petras

petras.lahaine.org
Many of Clinton's leading critics, among them two dozen former CIA agents, have presented a myth that Hillary's main offence is her 'carelessness in handling official documents and her deliberate deceptions and lies to the government.
These critics have trivialized, personalized and moralized what is really deliberate, highly politicized state behavior. Mme. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not 'careless in managing an insecure mail server'. If Clinton was engaged in political liaison with foreign officials she deliberately used a private email server to avoid political detection by security elements within the US government. She lied to the US government on the use and destruction of official state documents because the documents were political exchanges between a traitor and its host

The 22 top secret reports on 'Special Access Programs' which Clinton handled via her private computer provided foreign governments with the names and dates of US operatives and proxies; allowed for counterresponses inflicting losses of billions of dollars in program damages and possibly lost lives.

The Inspector General Report (IGP) deals only with the surface misdeeds. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has gone a step further in identifying the political linkages, but faces enormous obstacles from Hilary's domestic allies in pursuing a criminal investigation. The FBI, whose director is a political appointee, has suffered a series of defeats in its attempts to investigate and prosecute spying to Israel, including the AIPAC espionage case of Rosen and Weismann and in their long held opposition to the release of the notorious US-Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard. The power of the Zionists within the government halted their investigation of a dozen Israeli spies captured in the US right after the attacks of September 11,
2001.

Clinton's choice of conducting secret private communications, despite several years of State Department warnings to abide by their strict security regulations, is an indication of her Zionist power base, and not a mere reflection of her personal hubris or individual arrogance.

Clinton has circulated more vital top-secret documents and classified material than Jonathan Pollard.

[Jul 20, 2016] Hillary Clinton Email Scandal A Cancer on the Clinton Candidacy

Notable quotes:

"... Campaign manager Robbie Mook and communications director Jennifer Palmieri-who would later help coax the candidate into issuing an apology-agreed, according to people close to the situation. ..."

"... One thing was quite clear: Clinton was in no mood to apologize for, or even admit to, an error in judgment. She'd repeatedly tell her staff "I have done nothing wrong" and maintained she was simply following the example set by George W. Bush's first secretary of state, Colin Powell, who had transacted much of his own State Department business over private email. ..."

www.politico.com
March 2, 2015: Clinton's favorable/unfavorable rating: 48%/46%
Hillary Clinton is a hard woman to counsel during a crisis. She is at times warm, at times withering-when staffers offer excuses, her favorite rejoinder is "shoulda, woulda, coulda!"-and she's prone to fretting that her staff doesn't have her back.

For all the dysfunction on her famously infighting 2008 campaign, Clinton's team that year was made up of many old friends who knew how to navigate her moods and reassure her when things went sour. Facing the server scandal, Clinton headed into battle surrounded by people she hardly knew, and a staff so new that many weren't even officially on the payroll yet. The fact that she spent most of her time working out of a Manhattan office and seldom visited her cubicle-farm headquarters in seriously un-hip downtown Brooklyn didn't help either.

When the story splashed onto the New York Times website on the evening of March 2, Clinton was above all angry, and in the first strategy sessions-over the phone -- she defaulted to what old Clinton hands refer to as "pity party mode," dismissing the media frenzy over the emails as a whiffle-ball Whitewater while railing against the very real right-wing campaign amassed against her.

Podesta, often speaking on the road or from his home in Washington, counseled transparency and disclosure within the legal restrictions placed on him by Kendall. Clinton's new pollster and strategist, Joel Benenson-a longtime Obama adviser with no longstanding personal relationship with the candidate -- advised her to take responsibility for what had been, at the least, a political mistake. Campaign manager Robbie Mook and communications director Jennifer Palmieri-who would later help coax the candidate into issuing an apology-agreed, according to people close to the situation.

Even Mills, Clinton's most trusted and protective adviser-a lawyer who had been aware of the server setup as Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department-agreed on the politics. Nonetheless, Mills had a knack for expressing the advice in the most frightening terms possible: Air your linen, she'd say, but you'll pay a terrible personal price.

One thing was quite clear: Clinton was in no mood to apologize for, or even admit to, an error in judgment. She'd repeatedly tell her staff "I have done nothing wrong" and maintained she was simply following the example set by George W. Bush's first secretary of state, Colin Powell, who had transacted much of his own State Department business over private email.

[Jul 19, 2016] Hillary Clinton had right to delete personal emails, says US justice department

Guardian presstitutes are ready to defend even indefensible Hillary Clinton behaviour.

Notable quotes:

"... I think that the moment she mixed personal and work related or classified information, she loses the right to claim that any of the emails were personal. Hence, all emails become connected to her work as SOS, and none of the emails can be deleted. None of her emails can be treated as personal anymore, they have now become government property. She had no right to delete anything. ..."

"... In Hillary's case, I suspect "personal emails" is a euphemism for ANY correspondence she does not want exposed in official governmental records, including that which could be used against her politically in the future, i.e. backroom deals, dubious policies, nefarious schemes, etc. ..."

www.theguardian.com
makaio , 2015-09-12 04:26:16
This is disheartening and outrageous, with State and Justice skirting around the issues, and as one commenter said, covering for Hillary in a partisan way.
The departments have been largely silent on rules and legalities, and now they've evolved to tiptoeing. Pathetic.

The comparison of government server deletions versus private server deletions and wipes is inapt. Government employees and service members -- the millions who aren't as special as Hillary with private off-site servers for their work -- surely can delete any emails they choose, work or personal. But backup records are controlled by government IT departments, who ideally are following records-keeping regulations.

Not so with the queen's server and email setup. She's deplorable, as is this State and Justice mockery.

If the President continues to stand for this, I have no interest in voting. I haven't pulled him into my disgust with this topic until now ... Justice is full of crap.
Berkeley2013 , 2015-09-12 04:37:05
Many things are intriguing about this scandal.
1. The media covers it but not in a comprehensive or responsible way. The NY Times barely touches it. Same with The Economist. The Post pushes it to those vacuous bloggers, DM and CC. The New Yorker is hiding under a rock.

2. You would expect all to write "Calls to Action" of some kind.

3. Some kind of legal clarifications is order--several, actually. All the Title 18 items need to be clarified for the public. Do they apply?

4. Damage analysis. What possible damage could have been done?

5. Role of the administration? How did this situation last for four years?

6. Are the deleted e-mails going to surface?

7. Cost. Why should public pay for the legal and administrative chaos of a rogue SoS?
Berkeley2013 flatulenceodor67 , 2015-09-12 04:52:35
All these issues lead to more questions. In this case, who authorized the use? Who knew? Who responded to the existence of this rogue communications network? Who maintained? Which if any clearances did they have? Did they share any of what they knew with others? And this is just the most basic of this whole tsunami of needless problems. Just this avenue leads to millions of dollars of investigative hours. Many millions...
flatulenceodor67 ShinjiNoShinji , 2015-09-12 05:04:29
Well one federal Judge thinks so...
http://jonathanturley.org/2015/08/21/federal-judge-says-hillary-clinton-violated-government-policy-in-using-personal-server-while-secretary-of-state /
Berkeley2013 , 2015-09-12 05:03:58
The Guardian is being quite irresponsible here. You need to quote/date your sources and supply links to the full documents. Which case? When? Who? It looks to me as though you are just grabbing an article by a disreputable Metro DC publication that I am not going to dignify by naming.
Also, assuming that something like this story is accurate, why would DOJ do this?

Am not sure why you add a click-bait article to this complex topic--you should just stick with the tabloid, sports, Hollywood junk articles that fill your virtual space these days.
tropic2 makaio , 2015-09-12 07:11:52
She simply used a classified government email system, or more likely, approved hardcopy classified draft messages for a member of her staff to send with her approval.
No, she didn't use a government email system (classified or not). She used a private email system, completely outside the government.

And no, she didn't set up her own server for the purpose of having hard copies of message drafts. So far, she has suggested a range of different reasons:

- To have just one device for both her official and personal communications....which is a lie: she had two devices.

- She was "not thinking very much about it"... which is a lie: she had a private server installed in her house, a domain registered under a former aide's name, and key staffers conducting official government business on that server. And she paid $5000 to a former IT aide to set up the system. Report
makaio tropic2 , 2015-09-12 16:17:10
This conversation is pretty muddled.
In short, she wrongly used a private server and personal email address for the majority of her official work, which of course is not permissible for classified information, and questionable at best for unclassified content. And she has wrongly lied to the American public in response to related questions.

But just because she used her private account does not mean she did not have a largely inactive .gov address. And she also likely had a government address on a classified government system, which she or her staff likely used when receiving or sending marked classified information.
ga gamba , 2015-09-12 06:55:31
Of course she had the right to delete to personal emails - keep in mind that had she used a gov't-provided account like almost all other State Department employees she would have had to follow the rules governing personal use of tax payer-provided equipment and services.
Ms Clinton certainly did not have the right to process classified information on a personal computer system. That's illegal. You'd think the top executive would know such things.
zbrowne , 2015-09-12 07:34:35
I think that the moment she mixed personal and work related or classified information, she loses the right to claim that any of the emails were personal. Hence, all emails become connected to her work as SOS, and none of the emails can be deleted. None of her emails can be treated as personal anymore, they have now become government property. She had no right to delete anything.
Socraticus , 2015-09-12 07:39:55
In Hillary's case, I suspect "personal emails" is a euphemism for ANY correspondence she does not want exposed in official governmental records, including that which could be used against her politically in the future, i.e. backroom deals, dubious policies, nefarious schemes, etc.
Thirdparty Socraticus , 2015-09-12 07:59:31
How very cynical of you! If ever there was an opening for a 'Mr. Clean' named Joe Biden, this is it. Hillary is plummeting in the polls. Biden is not in the race, yet he polls 20%. After his appearance on Colbert on Thursday evening, I think that if he were to declare, his support would double, at least. At 40%, he would be ahead of Hillary. In addition to being thoroughly unethical, Hillary is not liked even by those who work with her.
ID9630461 , 2015-09-12 09:20:58
For many, Hillary's very existence is a crime, so no amount of exoneration by the Justice Dept... or indeed anyone else.... will change anything. The relentless attacks will continue, and many of us will continue to see them as a clear indication of how vulnerable the Republicans feel about their own Presidential prospects, with a campaign that's in complete disarray, and a front runner who seems determined to systematically alienate every single one of the demographic groups that the GOP had hoped to court this time around. Frankly, I'd be worried too if I were a Republican! Report
Tom Voloshen ID9630461 , 2015-09-12 10:04:36
The Justice Department run by a political democratic appointee says Hillary has "rights" I wonder.....Fast and Furious, NSA spying, Waco, refusal to disseminate information after numerous court orders as directed under freedom of information act etc etc.. So you say we we should stand behind whatever the justice department says....LOL. Seems they are even more guilt of lying and cover ups then she is.
Tom Voloshen , 2015-09-12 09:43:42
For almost all of us when using the company's equipment our emails become the property of the company. All mail on a company server is backed up for a period of time and it is the responsibility of the user to insure critical Emails are saved or archived properly to prevent them from being deleted thru periodic routine house keeping by the IT department. Being that all emails become company property and subject to review at any time by the company it seems quite obvious this was unacceptable to the Clinton's and could lead to problems similar to the Nixon fiasco on which Hillary cut her teeth just out of school. She as arrogant as she is decided she could ignore the the rules and keep all her communications to herself. She thinks if she says she did no wrong long enough people will give up. They usually do. While that still won't make her right it certainly makes her someone not to be trusted.
wavigaru , 2015-09-12 13:35:57
Here is the deal folks.... This person wants to be president and have the responsibilities that go along with the office. If she can't even be competent with the little data she was entrusted why should she be given more responsibility? Because she is a woman?
Why are we rewarding incompetence? Obama was re-elected despite the incredibly low labor usage, declining wage growth, and skyrocketing health care costs. He made it his mission to provide "affordable" care with the ACA, yet my rates doubled up to $500/month (compare this with my ever decreasing car insurance rates… only $25/month from Insurance Panda now). Yet we voted him in for 8 years? And we want to elect Hillary?

I am sorry but when you do a poor job at any job they don't promote you unless they just want to go out of business. Also what this woman did was a crime. Nixon was impeached for less, Edward Snowden did the same thing and is in hiding in Russia and the Government won't let him come home, and General Petraeus was forced to resign from his position in the CIA yet this woman is not facing any charges so far and is running for the highest office in the land. What is wrong with this picture?
chiefwiley andthensome , 2015-09-12 15:35:38
Read the entire section under 5 FAM 443.5. Nothing in the system is considered "personal" and there is no expectation of privacy expected or granted. Cherry picking or rephrasing a rule that anybody can read in two minutes is also no way to go about your day.
Every email has a sender and a receiver. Usually multiple servers are involved. Every email in the system is recorded at numerous points, even if deleted at the source or destination. A day or two with a talented engineer and a high speed search engine would recover just about all of it. No warrant would be required for anything with a government connection. -- only the will to do it or an order from the appropriate judge.
DracoFerret , 2015-09-12 14:53:31
a corrupt woman with such poor judgment and a Tory attitude toward the working class should not be president. No wonder Sanders is rising in the polls.
Let her go back to Arkansas
makaio Thebirdsareback , 2015-09-12 16:41:21
To Clinton's supporters ... here's a nice summary of everything she's done wrong on this subject, most of it intentional with no respect for most anyone.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2937114-155/lowry-how-hillary-can-really-come
makaio nolashea , 2015-09-12 21:16:25
She has purposely circumvented maintaining public records, dragged her feet in providing records as required, and botched public attempts to claim her actions have been aboveboard ... because they haven't been.
However legal or illegal, unbelievable gullibility is needed to assert she's done nothing wrong.

She's trying to play us, people of all political beliefs. And despite notable executive and media support, she's largely failing, as both public responses and her reactions have demonstrated.
Woodenarrow123 , 2015-09-12 17:46:59
Another biased article that fails to include the context of the allegations (that Clinton had the right to delete emails) and consequently it provides a misleading impression.
This is NO vindication for Hillary Clinton - it is a defence filing in a case where the Judge Emmet Sullivan has already decided at an earlier hearing that Clinton has violated Government Policy with regard to the handling of emails.

As a result of his decision he ordered the State Department to tell the FBI to go through all the emails (that are recovered - assuming they can be recovered), both business and personal, on her home brew server to see if Hillary deleted any emails she should have handed over to him as part of the FOI case.

Now Clinton's people are up in arms - Why? Is it because she deleted embarrassing emails regarding Benghazi? Is it because the FBI (having been instructed by a Federal Judge) might end up reading emails relating to dodgy dealings at the Clinton Foundation?

In the deeply Politicised US Civil Service both the State Department and the Justice Department are objecting to the Judge's decision and are attempting to limit the inquiry.

For those that naively (or perhaps because they support Hillary) believe this is simply a political attack by GOP opponents - It is worth remembering the FBI investigation was launch by the Inspector General and decision to have ALL emails examined was made by a member of the Judiciary (appointed ironically by Bill Clinton).

Both parties cited above are independent of the GOP.

Also for the record Hillary did NOT delete the emails at the time - She deleted them some 18 months after leaving office (according to her lawyer some time after October last year) and AFTER several investigations had been launched.

If Hillary Clinton deleted info relating to matters under investigation after an investigation was launched (destroying evidence) then that is a felony offence.

Hillary understood the seriousness of the question when asked did she wipe the server - That is why she replied along these lines: With a cloth or something.

Again this is no vindication of Clinton - Instead it is a lame defence to a serious charge to a Federal Judge who has already decided in the matter.
pattbaa , 2015-09-12 20:10:23
What do you Brits know about the "Fast and Furious" scandal in the Dept. of Justice ? ; to have a perspective of how outrageous this was , consider this hypothetical situation.
In Manhattan , a narcotics squad interdicts a gang of drug dealers , a "shoot-out" erupts, and one of the squad members is murdered. The firearm that was used to commit the murder is seized , and an investigation reveals the "Source" of the murder weapon was-- the Office of the District Attorney on New York County!! ( Manhattan)

The D- A's Office was supplying drug criminals with firearms?; would never happen you might say. But that's EXACTLY what happened in the "Fast and Furious" scandal when Eric Holder was Attorney-General; the ATF division of the U. S. Dept. of Justice was selling firearms to members of Mexican drug cartels , and a Border Agent was murdered by a weapon supplied by the ATF division of the Justice Dept.

So much for the Dept. of Justice under the current President. The present A-G , Loretta Lynch , is loyal to the President and the Democratic Party , but not loyal to "Justice". Report
sour_mash pattbaa , 2015-09-12 22:03:02
What do you know about Fast and Furious? Here is a good read for anyone that cares about facts or details:
http://fortune.com/2012/06/27/the-truth-about-the-fast-and-furious-scandal /
Ladislav Din , 2015-09-12 22:06:29
Hillary in her own words:
"I believe in an open, transparent government that is accountable to the people. Excessive government secrecy harms democratic governance and can weaken our system of checks and balances by shielding officials from oversight and inviting misconduct or error. ... To me, openness and accountability are not platitudes _ they are essential elements of our democracy."

-- Hillary Clinton, May 2008 in response to Sunshine Week survey of presidential candidates.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clinton-tells-sunshine-week-shes-committed-to-restoring-open-government-56932142.html
John Bluebeard , 2015-09-13 02:11:34
When are these extreme right wing terrorists like NPR going to stop saying that Clinton IS NOT exactly telling the truth? http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/11/439456567/fact-check-hillary-clintons-email-defense-is-a-mixed-bag
Perhaps it is time to cut off all gov't funding of NPR. We all know the obvious truth-- Clinton has told the truth. Report
Carl Stewart John Bluebeard , 2015-09-13 15:51:45
Well, it is refreshing to see someone with a sense of humor about this. Thanks, Mr Bluebeard
A_Cappella , 2015-09-13 14:44:10
Hillary just needs to lie the U.S. into a very costly war in terms of American and indigenous deaths, trillions of dollars and significant more destabilization in the Mideast.
That will mollify the Republicans.
CitizenCarrier , 2015-09-15 00:22:50
The State Department guidelines for emails had prohibited use of a private server since 2005.
Yet she still keeps saying that what she did was allowed.

Hillary's State Department fired U.S. Ambassador Scott Gration (Kenya) in part for using private emails to evade agency rules.

Hillary said the emails she deleted included private ones between her and her husband. Her husband's spokesman, within days, announced surprise at that, since Bill Clinton has only sent two emails in his entire life...and not to Hillary.

She is a liar. And a felon in violation of the Espionage Act.

[Jul 14, 2016] Hillary (while Sec. of State) forced the resignation, in June of 2012, of US Ambassador to Kenya J. Scott Gration for using unauthorized (personal) email account to conduct official government business

This is from comments

Notable quotes:

"... I guess the ' Queen ' is exempt. ..."

"... Source: Washington Post (hardly a conservative newspaper) June 29, 2012 ..."

"... even her dumbest, I mean most loyal followers know she is a living double standard ..."

"... 65% of americans (across the board) dont trust hillary........lmao ..."

"... neither do the rest but cannot admit it ..."

www.foxnews.com

Sanders supporters lash out following Clinton endorsement Fox News

GP Russell

* This is the topper, on the whole email server issue -

Interesting (and inconvenient) fact:

Hillary (while Sec. of State) forced the resignation, in June of 2012, of US Ambassador to Kenya J. Scott Gration , (get this) after the Inspector General found that he was using an unauthorized (personal) email account to conduct official government business … sound familiar?!?

I guess the ' Queen ' is exempt.

Source: Washington Post (hardly a conservative newspaper) June 29, 2012

viablanca

@GP Russell well yeah, even her dumbest, I mean most loyal followers know she is a living double standard

mryummie

65% of americans (across the board) dont trust hillary........lmao

viablanca

@mryummie neither do the rest but cannot admit it

[Jul 14, 2016] FBI investigation into Clinton email scandal damaged candidate's popularity – poll

Notable quotes:

"... The New York Times/CBS survey released on Thursday found that 67 percent of voters believe Clinton is not honest or trustworthy – up from 62 percent last month. The new figure represents the highest percentage in this election cycle. ..."

"... Only 28 percent of voters said they view the Democratic candidate as honest and the number of people saying she is prepared for the job of president dropped from last month. However, half of those polled still believe she's qualified. ..."

RT America

The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's email scandal has damaged the Democratic candidate's approval ratings, according to a new poll. The survey found that a majority of voters believe she cannot be trusted.
The New York Times/CBS survey released on Thursday found that 67 percent of voters believe Clinton is not honest or trustworthy – up from 62 percent last month. The new figure represents the highest percentage in this election cycle.
Only 28 percent of voters said they view the Democratic candidate as honest and the number of people saying she is prepared for the job of president dropped from last month. However, half of those polled still believe she's qualified.

Most voters said they believe Clinton did something wrong when she set up a personal server and email address for work when she served as secretary of state. Forty-six percent believe the move was illegal, up from 41 percent last month.

Unsurprisingly, most of those critical of Clinton's email practices are associated with the GOP. Some 78 percent of Republicans believe what she did was illegal, while half of independents expressed the same sentiment.

[Jul 12, 2016] DNI Clapper Denies Paul Ryan Request to Block Clinton From Classified Intel Briefings

Highly recommended!

www.nbcnews.com
Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan's request to block Hillary Clinton from receiving classified intelligence briefings was denied by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Monday.
In a letter to Ryan, Clapper wrote that he did "not intend to withhold briefings from any officially nominated, eligible candidate."

[Jul 12, 2016] Hillary lied about just one device : fact-checking Clinton's statements on email inquiry

Notable quotes:

"... "I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for personal emails instead of two." – 12 March 2015, New York ..."

"... Comey said that Clinton not only used multiple servers but also "used numerous mobile devices to view and send email" using her personal account, undercutting her justification. ..."

www.theguardian.com

"I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for personal emails instead of two." – 12 March 2015, New York

Comey said that Clinton not only used multiple servers but also "used numerous mobile devices to view and send email" using her personal account, undercutting her justification.

[Jul 12, 2016] Sellout: Bernie Sanders decided to help a war hawk get elected

Notable quotes:

"... There goes Trump's narrative that Hillary is a bad negotiator. She got everything from Sanders and paid with non binding promises. I think I have some of those lying around, maybe Sanders would like to give me his house in exchange for them. ..."

"... It matters little that Sanders "thinks" he has pushed the Dems to the left with policy. Without a mechanism to ensure that party policy hammered out at a convention or in a closed-door session becomes legislation to be voted upon...it's totally worthless. ..."

"... Who cares? If he endorses Hillary - and forget about her so-called platform concessions - he'll be endorsing a thug, one who breaks any rule that gets in her way. And then Bernie will be a partner in her chicanery...But he will able to hang on to his war chest - and a nice "take" it is for a few months work. ..."

"... Crooked Hillary. And now, Sellout Sanders. I'm done being a Democrat in America. ..."

"... "This party is done," wrote actor and Sanders surrogate Susan Sarandon after Clinton supporters blocked the proposed amendment. "[It has] warped into the party of the rich. No longer represents working people." ..."

"... Well I guess this was bound to happen. Sanders is just another politician ready to tow the line for the Democratic corporate establishment. Sad. ..."

"... Chris Hedges was right, Bernie is a traitor. He misled a lot of people into believing he was going to stand up for something different, now he is promoting the status quo, I'm pissed. ..."

"... I see Hillary as part of the problem not the solution. Sanders disappoints me. I didn't see him as part of the problem, but guess what he is now. ..."

"... Bernie was a joke from the moment he said " nobody cares about your damn emails." ..."

"... I did not think Sanders was so gullible to believe that Clinton will take action on anything in the democratic platform. From a mass movement demanding change to accepting a few non-binding policies at a democratic convention. I think Bernie lost his opportunity to make a difference when he refused to stand as an independent. Now people are stuck with Trump or Clinton which is not exactly a great choice. ..."

"... The Party Platform is meaningless and Sanders should know that. $hillary will do what ever she wants after the convention if she is nominated. The allegiance $hillary has is to Wall Street and a NEO-CON foreign policy. ..."

"... As much as I want to vote for HRC, the stench of neocon corporatism is too much, the thin layer of accumulated grime from years of ethical expediency too toxic, the opaque lack of transparency too dangerous, and the shifting sands of her amorphous policy too treacherous. ..."

"... As Jill Stein has said, "What We Fear from Donald Trump, We Have Already Seen from Hillary Clinton." ..."

"... I understand only about half of sanders supporters are willing to switch to clinton http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/bernie-or-bust-clinton/488276 / ..."

"... I'm afraid Bernie's endorsement of Clinton will not stop Trump. There is no room for a neo-liberal status quo candidate like Clinton in this race. The American economy is going to hell in a hand cart. 50 million Americans use food banks millions more are facing bankruptcy, joblessness and homelessness. They need a radical socialist candidate. Voting for more of the same for them is utterly pointless. Trump will beat Clinton. America needed Bernie if Trump was to be beaten. ..."

"... Pulling the party to the left is meaningless if the nominee is a neocon. It's just window dressing.(And Bernie, of course, definitely knows that.) ..."

www.theguardian.com
Comments from: Bernie Sanders set to endorse Clinton after Democratic platform negotiations by Dan Roberts in Washington and Lauren Gambino in New York
EnkiEridu
, 2016-07-12 01:26:22
Bernie was able to influence the Democratic Party platform, and his endorsement is part of the trade. I get it. I think its smart to close the deal on some gains.
localism -> EnkiEridu , 2016-07-12 01:53:52
not if it is helping a war hawk get elected.
Tommy Lobotomy -> EnkiEridu , 2016-07-12 02:44:20
Hillary Clinton said she was opposed to passage of the TPP trade agreement but 2 days ago her supporters made it part of her campaign platform. Hillary Clinton told Sanders some lies which it appears, unfortunately, that he believed. She is and will be forever a lying, corrupt, Wall Street-toadying warmonger.
ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-07-12 01:09:01
It is so funny to see so many people that once swore Bernie was the messiah now calling him a sellout. Hilarious. So much for a revolution. Usually during a revolution people dont give up so quickly.
raffine -> ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-07-12 01:12:03
There's a fair amount of blood-letting in every revolution. Mr Sanders is having his Robespierre moment.
ryanpatrick9192 -> raffine , 2016-07-12 01:17:51
Absolutely right. Every revolution has its roadblocks. However, Bernie supporters should realize that if Trump is elected the SC will move back to the right for 20+ years. This will kill their revolution for a long time to come. Bernie is doing the smart thing here and it is becoming really easy to see why Bernie lost. His supporters are not capable of seeing what the smart thing is.
raffine -> ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-07-12 01:21:55
Many of his supporters are young and new to politics. Hence, they lash out at him as a "sell out" for doing what every politician does: cut a deal.
funnynought , 2016-07-12 00:51:05
"people who got involved in the political process"
I first read that last phrase as "political princess" and had to go back to read what Bernie said. But either reading seems suitable.

I have a hard time picturing Bernie actually believes platforms mean anything. Maybe he's giving Hillary enough rope, as the saying goes? I'm sure he's conferred with his advisors. Hillary's leftward move is entirely illusory and temporary; once she quickly falls back into the neolib agenda, he'll have cause to bail, and there still might be time to take up Jill Stein on her ticket offer.

Boghaunter , 2016-07-12 00:47:44
Bernie is supposed to meet with Hillary tomorrow in Portsmouth, NH. I would like to be there, in front of the venue, cutting my Bernie campaign sign into little bitty bits....
Bernie's efforts will be for NOTHING once he endorses Hillary. Nothing.
PotholeKid , 2016-07-12 00:16:54
Make public those Wall street speech transcripts if you are serious about restoring credibility..All bets are off on any concessions a Clinton makes..
eastbayradical , 2016-07-12 00:05:45
Wall Street's Warmongering Madame is the perfect foil for Donald Trump's huckster-populism: a pseudo-progressive stooge whose contempt for the average person and their intelligence is palpable.
She's an arch-environmentalist who has worked tirelessly to spread fracking globally.

She supports fortifying Social Security but won't commit to raising the cap on taxes to do so.

She's a humanitarian who has supported every imperial slaughter the US has waged in the past 25 years.

She cares deeply about the plight of the Palestinians but supported the starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza and couldn't bother to mention them but in passing in a recent speech before AIPAC.

She's a stalwart civil libertarian, but voted for Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and believes Edward Snowden should be sent to federal prison for decades.

She stands with the working class but has supported virtually every international pact granting increased mobility and power to the corporate sector at its expense in the past 25 years.

She cares with all her heart about African-Americans but supports the objectively-racist death penalty and the private prison industry.

She will go to bat for the poor but supported gutting welfare in the '90s, making them easier prey to exploiters, many of whom supported her husband and her financially.

She worries about the conditions of the poor globally, but while Sec. of State actively campaigned against raising the minimum wage in Haiti to 60 cents an hour, thinking 31 cents an hour sounded better for the investor class whose interests are paramount to her.

She's not a bought-and-paid-for hack, oh no, no, no, but she won't ever release the Wall Street speeches for which she was paid so handsomely.

She's a true-blue progressive, just ask her most zealous supporters, who aren't.

Boghaunter -> eastbayradical , 2016-07-12 00:38:56
Just put quotation marks around the first claim in each sentence above and you've nailed it!
eastbayradical , 2016-07-12 00:05:04
Why hasn't Clinton released the transcripts of her highly-paid Wall Street speeches?
Could it be that there's stuff in them that would shock and embarrass her infinitely gullible "progressive" supporters?

localism -> eastbayradical , 2016-07-12 00:17:33
Oh well Sanders could have picked on this one instead.
Hillary at the GMO Association
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1AkrQaWwMc
Mihai Filip , 2016-07-11 23:59:17
There goes Trump's narrative that Hillary is a bad negotiator. She got everything from Sanders and paid with non binding promises. I think I have some of those lying around, maybe Sanders would like to give me his house in exchange for them.
eastbayradical -> tonygh , 2016-07-12 00:02:05
"Sanders promised from the start to support whoever the DP nominated. He is keeping his promise, and it would be extremely dangerous for him to do otherwise."
No it wouldn't. He could simply say that he's reconsidered and apologize for the confusion.

localism -> tonygh , 2016-07-12 00:04:51
it is a sure way to destroy your reputation associating with these people. To suggest that a candidate that needs "keeping the pressure" on them well it is good for a laugh.
burjay , 2016-07-11 23:48:56
It matters little that Sanders "thinks" he has pushed the Dems to the left with policy. Without a mechanism to ensure that party policy hammered out at a convention or in a closed-door session becomes legislation to be voted upon...it's totally worthless. We have the same situation here in Canada with the NDP. It's why Mulcair came in 3rd. Who needs 2 liberal parties?
nbk46zh , 2016-07-11 23:42:28
60% of people disagree with FBI's recommendation not to charge Clinton according to Washington post and ABC poll. No mention of that in corporate guardian
nicacio , 2016-07-11 23:35:31
Who cares? If he endorses Hillary - and forget about her so-called platform concessions - he'll be endorsing a thug, one who breaks any rule that gets in her way. And then Bernie will be a partner in her chicanery...But he will able to hang on to his war chest - and a nice "take" it is for a few months work.
eastbayradical , 2016-07-11 23:06:20
If Sanders had had the email scandal or something comparable to it hanging over his head, does anyone think Clinton wouldn't have used it against him?
nnedjo -> eastbayradical , 2016-07-11 23:25:50
You must be joking! While aiming at Bernie, Hillary even accused his Vermont for arming criminals in New York.
It must be that you remember that, it was not a long time ago.
eastbayradical -> nnedjo , 2016-07-11 23:42:06
Yes, my point was that Clinton would have used the scandal and exaggerated it as much as possible to gain political points.
fedback , 2016-07-11 22:59:24
According to Washington Post, the republican party has strong anti TPP language in their party platform, the very same thing the democratic party voted down.
Oh, the irony. People who are against TPP find it in the republican party yet Bernie is about to endorse Clinton
eastbayradical , 2016-07-11 22:58:07
The spittle-flecked Clinton surrogate Barney Frank just the other day declared contemptuously that party platforms are "irrelevant."
You know, party platforms--like the Democratic Party platform that's being larded with Sanders-friendly "policy goals" that Wall Street's Warmongering Madame will feel no obligation to fulfill if she's elected president.

With his coming endorsement, Sanders makes himself not simply useless to the fight against the capitalist status quo; no, he has become a direct impediment to it.

Whenever people on the left side of the political spectrum, whatever their reasoning, vote for servants of Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus, the political center of gravity moves another notch decisively to the right.

We're constantly told that if we don't vote for the latest pseudo-progressive stooge the Dems put forward that we're effectively voting for the Republicans.

In other words, if we don't vote for stooges who in many respects are indistinguishable from Republicans, that systematically cede the political initiative to Republicans, that it is we who might as well be Republicans!

Meanwhile, these same "progressives" are nowhere to be seen when a fight kicks off in the streets against imperial war or austerity or police brutality or lay-offs. No, of course not: they're too busy doing nothing waiting for the next opportunity to vote for another crop of corporate liberals who'll save us from the Republicans.

It's fair to ask what all this voting for corporate liberals has gotten us over the past 25 years. Here's a list of signature policies supported and/or enacted by the last two Democratic Party presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama:

--Deregulation of investment banks and telecommunications
--The Omnibus Crime Bill (mass incarceration)
--The destruction of welfare (which caused extreme poverty to double in the 15 years after its passage)
--The sanctions regime against Iraq (which killed 500,000 Iraqi children)
--NAFTA
--CAFTA
--TPP
--Fracking
--The objectively-racist death penalty
--The Defense of Marriage Act
--Historic levels of repression against whistle-blowers
--Preservation of Bush-era tax cuts on the rich
--Patriots Acts 1 and 2
--Massive expansion of NSA spying
--Years of foot-dragging on climate change
--Support for Israeli atrocities
--Support for the right-wing coup in Honduras
--Support for fraudulent election in Haiti
--Support for the Saudi dictatorship
--Support for a 31 cents/hour minimum wage in Haiti and against attempts to raise it
--Oil drilling on the Atlantic seaboard, Gulf of Mexico, and the Arctic
--A $1 trillion 20-year "modernization" of the US's nuclear weapons arsenal
--Historically high numbers of deportations
--Drone missile strikes that have killed large numbers of civilians and inflamed anti-US hatred
--Health care reform that has fortified the power of the insurance cartel not weakened or obliterated it
--Industry-approved bankruptcy "reform"
--The bail-out of Wall Street

guard35 -> eastbayradical , 2016-07-12 00:00:09
This is comprehensive list of what the Democrats are, and what Hillary Clinton is. I thought you were going to leave out drones, and Clinton's support for the military coup in Honduras over a democratically-elected president (partly due to President Zalaya's attempts to raise the Honduran minimum wage!), which resulted in five years (so far) of Honduras being the 'murder capital of the world', and its children the highest numbers of attempts to immigrate to the United States. This one fact alone -- her support for this coup, Zalaya kidnapped in his pajamas and taken to a U.S. military base, her and Bill's friend a high-priced consultant to the coup -- is one reason I know Clinton is not a democrat, not a believer in democracy.
I just posted my congratulations on getting the Democratic platform to a much better point than it would have been if Bernie Sanders had not hung in and appointed great people to the platform committee while holding them hostage while doing it. (While shaming the Clintonians for leaving out crucial anti-TPP, pro-minimum wage of $15, and no fracking stances on the platform.)

BUT I forgot until reading this post and being reminded, that each time I picture going to the polls and voting for Clinton I feel nauseated. I think I will vote for Jill Stein (who graciously and strategically offered to move out of her place on the Green ticket in favor of Sanders. I believe Bernie Sanders would have an equal chance to Clinton if he took her up on the offer. My sense of history and my self-respect makes me want to risk Trump.

(Berkeley Sheryll)

eastbayradical -> guard35 , 2016-07-12 00:46:06
Thanks Berkeley Sheryl.
Please don't vote for Clinton.

I'm going repost one paragraph of my initial comment that I think is its most important paragraph and which I believe is the best way in a few words to explain to "progressives" why they shouldn't vote for her.

Whenever people on the left side of the political spectrum, whatever their reasoning, vote for servants of Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus, the political center of gravity moves another notch decisively to the right.

nnedjo , 2016-07-11 22:33:52

"We have made enormous strides," said Sanders in a statement issued after a meeting in Orlando that swung the party in his direction on the minimum wage, climate change and marijuana though failed to make headway on fracking and trade.

So Bernie's political revolution will end up with the legalization of ganja?
OK, I get it! Bernie is in fact a "Rastafarian Socialist", and not a Democratic Socialist as it was thought until now.:-)))
eastbayradical -> DogsLivesMatter , 2016-07-11 23:17:43
People liked Sanders because on many matters he was unsparing in his condemnation of Wall Street's Warmongering Madame and the system she services.
It's hard to reconcile that with his namby-pamby "we can just get along" bullshit statement and pitch for the victims of the policies she supports to support Clinton Corp.

Ben Groetsch , 2016-07-11 21:52:08
Crooked Hillary. And now, Sellout Sanders. I'm done being a Democrat in America.
muttley79 -> Suga , 2016-07-11 22:17:05
Hillary Clinton is a right wing, neoliberal, warmongering, American exceptionalist.
nnedjo , 2016-07-11 21:39:56

Bernie Sanders set to endorse Clinton after Democratic platform negotiations

Yeah, as you can see here , everything is already prepared for their joint performance at tomorrow's rally in New Hampshire.
Interestingly, the UK rock band Status Quo had scheduled a concert in the same place for tomorrow, but at the last minute they canceled their performance with the message, "There is no need for us to come, Hillary and Bernie together are better 'Status Quo' than we are."
Just kidding, of course!:-)))

eastbayradical -> smalltownboy , 2016-07-11 23:30:01
"When they served together in the US Senate, Sanders and Clinton voted the same way 93% of the time."
Oh, not that "they're 93% alike" bullshit again.

That misleading factoid was put forward by Nate Silver (whose pro-Clinton bias is transparent) and picked up on and spread by Clinton supporters ad nauseaum.

It's based only on the two years in which Sanders and Clinton were in the Senate together and therefore doesn't, for example, take into account their opposing stances on the destruction of welfare, NAFTA, the Iraq War, the Libyan bombing campaign, TPP (which she now weakly claims to support), fracking, the Patriot Act, or TARP.

The 93% likeness is, in any case, an unscientific way of gleaning political similarity as many votes are basically formalities and not all are of equal significance.

That said, it's interesting to note that Clinton Corp. and her gullible liberal supporters like smalltownboy expend so much energy dishonestly claiming that she and Sanders are so much alike. Why is that? Could it be that tens of millions don't much like what Clinton actually stands for?

eastbayradical -> smalltownboy , 2016-07-11 23:37:39
Correction:
Once challenged from the left by Sanders, Clinton claimed to oppose TPP, but there's reason to believe her opposition is weak and if elected president she'll accept some superficial fix and proclaim her support for it. Pro-Clinton members of the platform committee have tipped her hand by voting down a plank opposing the TPP (a trade agreement that grants massive new powers to the capitalist class, the opposition to which smalltownboy dishonestly depicts as being about "nuances of free trade agreements).

Smalltownboy is a smart guy who isn't interested in engaging in an honest debate.

simulacra27 , 2016-07-11 21:17:02
So with Sanders falling into line we have a choice between tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber. Nothing progressive about that and it goes to show just how sleazy and corrupted the political system has become.
localism -> simulacra27 , 2016-07-11 21:25:07
You can vote for Jill Stein who has been exposing the abusive relationship of lesser evilism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxOxgk37Mo
TyroneBHorneigh , 2016-07-11 21:08:41
". . .'though failed to make headway on fracking and trade."
***Vote for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. THEIR platform eviscerates both: fracking AND trade deals that only enrich the duopoly elites.

". . .particularly over trade, where the Sanders camp failed to insert outright opposition to Barack Obama's controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership deal.

"This party is done," wrote actor and Sanders surrogate Susan Sarandon after Clinton supporters blocked the proposed amendment. "[It has] warped into the party of the rich. No longer represents working people."

See above, ***.

ndigocamel , 2016-07-11 20:32:54
Bernie, Bernie, Bernie. What a disappointment. Swinging the DNC platform in your direction is hardly what one could call a political revolution.
How can you seriously say you have pulled the platform significantly to the left regarding climate change when you have made no headway on fracking?

How can you say you have pulled the platform to the left regarding minimum wage when you cannot make headway on trade.

As for marijuana, you are doing nothing but acknowledging what is already taking place even without your meaningless platform.

Bernie, please do not take Jill Stein's offer to step aside for you. I want someone on the ballot for whom I can vote in good conscience.

Berned once, twice shy.

David Dougherty , 2016-07-11 20:24:16
Well I guess this was bound to happen. Sanders is just another politician ready to tow the line for the Democratic corporate establishment. Sad.
Maddog2020 , 2016-07-11 20:17:52
I can't vote for Hillary if she is pro-TPP.
This is what can happen under this trade pact. Foreign companies can sue the U.S. government outside of the U.S. courts.
This actually happened to Australia because of a law passed to reduce smoking.
In 20ll, the Aussies passed a plain packaging law banning tobacco packaging branding.
Two tobacco companies sued Australia. Then when the tobacco company lost, Phillip Morris, under a 1993 trade agreement, sued in international court.
Then Ukraine sued Australia, which does not sell tobacco to Australia. Tobacco companies covering legal costs.
A legal challenge against Uruguay followed, which didn't have the money to pay court costs.
Also against Togo, one of the poorest countries on earth.
Canada is suing the U.S. taxpayers for billions because the U.S. did not go through with the keystone pipeline.
HermeticSurveyor , 2016-07-11 20:09:57
Chris Hedges was right, Bernie is a traitor. He misled a lot of people into believing he was going to stand up for something different, now he is promoting the status quo, I'm pissed.
MonotonousLanguor , 2016-07-11 20:09:55
Supporters of Hillary Clinton successfully voted down amendments supporting a single payer healthcare system, a nationwide ban on fracking, as well as an amendment objecting to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and characterizing the settlements as illegal.
The losses stung progressives already dismayed by the committee's refusal to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal in the platform earlier that day, among other defeats. http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/10/pro-fracking-pro-colonialism-anti-single-payer-dem-platform-disappoints

Matthew Hartman , 2016-07-11 19:53:38
Sanders focused on the substantive issues to a literal fault, and it's going to cost him one way or another.
Though I feel disapointed if he endorses Hillary, I really believe Sanders believes he's acting on behalf of the issues that affect regular people. Whether the platform planks actually benefit the people in reality is another story.

Even if Sanders endorses Hillary, it doesn't mean you're bound to do the same. You are a free agent, Sanders unfortunately is not when he signed onto the Democratic platform.

I know through disapointment it will be hard to feel respect towards Sanders. We should strive to see his potential endorsement as a means to an end for this election cycle, working within the constraints of being the loser. But we should also strive to see that this election cycle isn't the end to Bernie Sanders all together nor his message.

I would have liked to see Bernie go all the way to the convention. A lot of people signed up and crowd funded to join him in Philly. It may be that the pressure just got to be too overwhelming and he was crossing into territory that would actually destroy him going forward. Sometimes you lose the battle to win the war.

360view -> Matthew Hartman , 2016-07-11 22:55:37
He already materially lost the battle. However, It is a contested convention by definition going in. Hillary niether lost or won anything until November.
It is way too early for Sanders to concede until the convention. This would not represent the best interests of those he has fought for his whole career.

rocjoc43rd -> Long_Shanks , 2016-07-11 20:26:25
The guy has no spine. The platform means nothing. In the end he caved and became a good little soldier. And with him goes my one chance to vote for a Democrat. I guess I will go with Trump.
Trump says some stupid things and the Media flays him for it. Could he be as bad as he appears? Seems unlikely.

On the other hand, Hillary is a true politician. I listened to an interview she gave to Wolf Blitzer. She answered like a politician, she didn't say a single thing that could be used against her. That is problem with professional politicians they never really tell you what they really think. Who knows what she really plans to try to do if she gets there. Can we say that Obama has brought the hope and change that he claimed? The world seems more dangerous than ever. Hillary had a part in that. I can't say the same about Trump. He didn't get a vote in the Senate when they voted to authorized action in Iraq. Hillary did. Trump didn't run the State Department for four years as the world became a more dangerous place. Hillary did. Trump didn't leaked classified government secrets recklessly. Hillary did.

I see Hillary as part of the problem not the solution. Sanders disappoints me. I didn't see him as part of the problem, but guess what he is now.

casta1139diva , 2016-07-11 19:37:01
I trust Hillary. I have always trusted Hillary and I will vote for Hillary in November.
onestupidperson -> casta1139diva , 2016-07-11 19:50:44
I trust Bill. I trusted Bill. I always trusted him!!! I always voted for him!!! They are so good together!!!!
Kikinaskald -> casta1139diva , 2016-07-11 20:08:16
Lawrence Davidson wrote about her:

So, what is to be said about Hillary Clinton's personality? In an essay by Audrey Immelman, published in 2001 by the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics of St. Johns University in Minnesota, a discussion of Clinton's dominant traits is taken up. Here are some of the conclusions: Hillary Clinton is an aggressive and controlling personality; when she makes up her mind about something, she loses interest in other people's points of view; she is often impatient; she lacks empathy and can act harshly to those seen as standing in her way; she has boundary problems due to her excessive level of self-confidence – that is, when she "knows" she is right, she doesn't like the idea that there are limits that she has to abide by.

Kommentator -> casta1139diva , 2016-07-11 20:10:17
Is that you Bill?
CornsilkSW , 2016-07-11 19:35:16

Bernie Sanders has cleared the way for an endorsement of Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, and declared a successful end to his campaign to pull their party to the left during weekend negotiations over the Democratic policy platform.

"We have made enormous strides," said Sanders in a statement issued after a meeting in Orlando that swung the party in his direction on the minimum wage, climate change and marijuana though failed to make headway on fracking and trade.

This "platform" they all stand up on during election years is just a stage to perform on for the crowd. Once the elections are over, the curtain comes down and they will be meeting their buddies from the business world to make the real legislation.

Anybody who believes this show is real is a fool.

Deeply disappointed in Sanders for using Revolution as a sales tactic and then supporting this public fraud. If he believes they will maintain their convictions for his ideals after an election, then he was a fool who didn't deserve the office.

johnjbeech , 2016-07-11 19:30:44
I'm a Republican reluctantly supporting Donald Trump. Had the Democrats nominated Senator Sanders I would have switch my allegiance. However, my disdain for Secretary Clinton means I'll vote for someone I don't like because I view the alternative as worse. How very sad.
amacd2 -> DogsLivesMatter , 2016-07-11 19:29:52
Dogs, Bernie did not say shit about the Disguised Global Capitalist Empire that is eating our environment, our children, our grand children, and our entire fragile little planet alive so that it can loot trillions via negative externality cost dumping.
It was said in the 19th century that "it took half the world to support the British Empire" --- but now it would take a dozen worlds to support this God damned Disguised Global Capitalist Empire only nominally HQed in, and merely 'posing' as, our former country.

"The U.S. state is a key point of condensation for pressures from dominant groups around the world to resolve problems of global capitalism and to
secure the legitimacy of the system overall. In this regard, "U.S." imperialism refers to the use by transnational elites of the U.S. state apparatus to continue to attempt to expand, defend, and stabilize the global capitalist system. We are witness less to a "U.S." imperialism per se than to a global capitalist imperialism. We face an EMPIRE OF GLOBAL CAPITAL, headquartered, for evident historical reasons, in Washington."

Robinson, William. 2014 "Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity". Cambridge University Press.

Dmanny , 2016-07-11 18:45:57
Bernie was a joke from the moment he said " nobody cares about your damn emails."
johnjbeech -> Dmanny , 2016-07-11 19:52:30
Good point. I wondered why he timidly refrained from attacking her, too. Cost him the nomination - and the Presidency - in my view. Thing is, he's a genuinely decent man who unfortunately forgot he was in the fight of his life. Worse, he acted like there were Marquis of Queensberry Rules for politics. Worse, in forgetting the old saw about 'nice guys finish last' he let down what he lived his entire life for. And now, in endorsing her he brings the futility of his life full circle. Is what it is. Heavy sigh.
HenryHughes , 2016-07-11 18:32:12
Okay all you Sanders supporters, especially the ones who INSISTED that he was somehow different from other Democratic Party candidates. Will you persist in this nonsense now that you see your man endorse more Clintonism?
You remember Clintonism, right? What you've been decrying for so long? Your man is going to give it his blessing. That's how U.S. politics works. You get pulled in by yet another patsy, and then you get TRASHED if you refuse to support the inevitable "centrist" (read: vetted by capital) nominee.

Still liking it? No? Then why participate in the first place when you already know the outcome?

And besides, Sanders is a capitalist. Sure, he'd be a better capitalist leader than the others, since he'd try to mitigate some of the worst aspects of same. But come on, you know better than to believe he would make structural changes.

Withdraw your consent to this horror. Get real. Stop imagining that people who have been in government for decades, voting for militarism and other vile policies, will change anything. Sanders is another apologist for capital. Period.

libertate , 2016-07-11 18:28:08
Hilarious.
So the cadaverous Comrade Bernie, the warmed-over Marxist-socialist, will be endorsing the Liberatress of Libya , the warmongering , sociopathic , corporatist Wall Street tool , Reichsführer Clinton.

In other words, our credulous, "high-information" progressive friends have been had.

Again .

One might think that after being hoodwinked by the Peace Prize-winning charlatan Drone Ranger , twice, that an iota of skepticism might have penetrated the leftist fog wafting about between their ears, but alas, one would be wrong.

And so there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, until the next silver-tongued mountebank appears, promising them all more free shit courtesy of their fellow citizens.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

the ninth territory , 2016-07-11 18:27:49
He will continue to campaign through August! http://map.berniesanders.com
eastbayradical , 2016-07-11 18:21:22
Wall Street's Warmongering Madame is the perfect foil for Donald Trump's huckster-populism: a pseudo-progressive stooge whose contempt for the average person and their intelligence is palpable.
She's an arch-environmentalist who has worked tirelessly to spread fracking globally.

She supports fortifying Social Security but won't commit to raising the cap on taxes to do so.

She's a humanitarian who has supported every imperial slaughter the US has waged in the past 25 years.

She cares deeply about the plight of the Palestinians but supported the starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza and couldn't bother to mention them but in passing in a recent speech before AIPAC.

She's a stalwart civil libertarian, but voted for Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and believes Edward Snowden should be sent to federal prison for decades.

She stands with the working class but has supported virtually every international pact granting increased mobility and power to the corporate sector at its expense in the past 25 years.

She cares with all her heart about African-Americans but supports the objectively-racist death penalty and the private prison industry.

She will go to bat for the poor but supported gutting welfare in the '90s, making them easier prey to exploiters, many of whom supported her husband and her financially.

She worries about the conditions of the poor globally, but while Sec. of State actively campaigned against raising the minimum wage in Haiti to 60 cents an hour, thinking 31 cents an hour sounded better for the investor class whose interests are paramount to her.

She's not a bought-and-paid-for hack, oh no, no, no, but she won't ever release the Wall Street speeches for which she was paid so handsomely.

She's a true-blue progressive, just ask her most zealous supporters, who aren't.

PaulJayone -> eastbayradical , 2016-07-11 18:24:15
I guess the same goes for Bernie now.
ButFactsAreSacred -> eastbayradical , 2016-07-11 19:11:32
But don't you realise that all these supposed defects make her an ideal President? It's the idealists who are the real threat to global stability and the survival of mankind.
eastbayradical -> ButFactsAreSacred , 2016-07-11 20:04:38
You are a joke.
You have no argument.

Cephalus44 , 2016-07-11 18:20:04
All these Bernie supporters saying they'll never vote Clinton...hehe say hello to President Trump...
localism -> Cephalus44 , 2016-07-11 18:24:20
hello trump
RecantedYank -> Cephalus44 , 2016-07-11 18:31:47
For myself, Clinton will never get my vote, nor Trump for that matter. And no, the argument that this is in effect a vote for Trump does not hold water. I am responsible ONLY for my vote, and can not be held responsible if there are enough idiots in the US elsewhere to be found to vote for either Clinton or Trump.
saneview , 2016-07-11 18:17:42
Some Sanders supporters appear to believe that Hillary Clinton is such a poor candidate that allowing Trump to be elected would be a palatable alternative.
Voring for any candidate involves a degree of compromise. It is effectively a deal between the subjective and the objective.
I have recently read a fair amount of biographical detail of Secretary Clinton, and also of Mr Trump. I see in Mrs Clinton a woman who has been driven by a notion of public service since an early age. She isn't beyond reproach and isn't a messiah. And yes, she accepted well-paid speaking engagements as well. I guess she likes having financial security.
In Mr Trump I see someone who inherited great wealth, who has textbook narcissistic personality disorder, who in unprincipled, who swindled the vulnerable out of their savings with a fraudulent "University" scheme, who takes terrible risks with the money of others, making skilful use of bankruptcy laws and junk bonds, who is a braggart, who flirts with white supremacists, who can take no consistent position. Trump has a thing for dictators and tyrants. He mocks the disabled. A draft-dodger himself, he seeks to ridicule a man who was captured (with three broken limbs) as insufficiently heroic for him.
Are you really prepared to assist this man to the Presidency, just to spite Hillary Clinton?
eastbayradical -> saneview , 2016-07-11 18:25:03
"I see in Mrs Clinton a woman who has been driven by a notion of public service since an early age."
You're referring back to when she supported the presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, who ran on a platform explicitly opposed to the Civil Rights Movement? That's an interesting definition of public service.

"She isn't beyond reproach and isn't a messiah."

Wow, what a concession to reality.

"And yes, she accepted well-paid speaking engagements as well. I guess she likes having financial security."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

You Clinton supporters are sooooo terrible at defending her!

Lafcadio1944 , 2016-07-11 17:40:47
Yes, as expected, Bernie Sanders, the great "liberal" hope is not "liberal" at all. The entrenched power of Neoliberalism subsumes all in its view. There are no "liberals" or progressives in US politics. Elizabeth Warren is no different, when the chips are down and it is time to stand up for anything that might be mildly progressive they surrender - each and every one kneels before their masters and support warmongering and sycophantism to Wall Street.
People should understand from the Obama - every day war and every day more hungry children - presidency that hope is a vanishing commodity and those who offer it in the US are in fact worse than the ones who don't bother.

Forward123 , 2016-07-11 17:33:14
Frankly don't see what Sanders gets out of this . Putting aside the fear-mongering by the Clinton loyalists, Sanders points on :
- TPP
- unions and decline of middle class
- education
- money in politics
- minimum wage 15 usd
- fair and transparent elections
- end of trickle down pseudo economics by the baby boomers
-climate change-fracking
All these have been left unaddressed or with so much wiggle room for Clinton , that you know that she will pivot to the right just after the convention and stay there for the rest of her administration.

And he doesn't even know who the VP will be.

Clinton and her crowd will throw his/our ideas away like a used condom as soon as convenient.

Just like they are doing with Liz Warren .

Pity but we always new that Bernie was too principled to win this event.

RecantedYank -> eileen1 , 2016-07-11 17:41:25
At the moment, he is an a catch-22 situation.
If he endorses Clinton, be to honor the promise he made before getting access to the Dem primaries..because to honor your promises is the honourable thing to do...he disappoints those who say the issues at stake are too important to be sacrificed on that particular altar.
If he does not endorse Hillary, but goes for the proffered Green ticket, the Hillary camp will be shouting "see, you can't trust him!..or "he is so self-serving" ( I know that is ironic since Hillary is the epitome of the "Queen of self-serve"). We his followers are not bound by such restrictions though. We did not promise anything and are free to follow our consciences.
jackayarcher , 2016-07-11 16:36:55
First, Guardian readers should know that quarrels about the Democratic Party's platform are typically instigated by the candidate who loses the nomination, if his or her ego requires such a palliative to compensate for the loss. Sanders' ego is a good example. Platforms mean next to nothing in any meaningful political sense. They bind no one, least of all the president or members of Congress. Clinton gave Sanders a bit of space to argue that he had "won" something. She allowed him to insert aspirational goals ($15 an hr minimum wage), but not opposition to trade deals, which might cause some difficulty once she approves trade deals.
Next, the statement that Clinton "narrowly escaped prosecution" is a blatant falsehood. The FBI's investigation found no grounds to charge that she violated any applicable federal law. I suppose if one thinks a person is guilty until proven innocent (which is the usual attitude of the media, apparently including the Guardian, toward Clinton), then the FBI Director's opinion that she had violated no law might be considered a narrow escape. His statement that she had received/sent several classified emails, which was one of the major justifications for saying that she and hundreds of State Dept. officials were "extremely careless" in handling classified info, was itself false, which the FBI Director was forced to acknowledge less than 24 hrs after his reckless charge! Amazing. He also claimed that Clinton's use of a Blackberry "might have been hacked" -- there is no proof that it was. He said she should have used the Dept's secure server/communications system. That would be a salient criticism, except for the fact that throughout Clinton's four years as Secretary of State, the Dept's "secure" communications system was hacked by the Russians, the Chinese and for all we know, you Brits too. Puts Clinton's use of her Blackberry in a somewhat different light, wouldn't you agree? No?

Finally, you may not know that the FBI Director's making a public statement in the way he did was entirely unprecedented in our history. He effectively made the prosecutorial decision himself, when the legal responsibility is and always has been with his superiors. He also went on to make clearly false statements about Clinton, which he had to retract. Worse he, a Republican, made these seemingly damning statements about one of the two candidates for president in an election year. Talk about extreme carelessness! In other times he would be fired.

Can't the Guardian entrust writing such a report to someone who actually understands American politics?

Kevin P Brown -> jackayarcher , 2016-07-11 18:56:04
"You need to pay closer attention"

I have paid very close attention. It seems you are not. He refers to classified emails NOT owned by Clinton, she has no right to change classification on data she receives or forwards. The fact is that some of these emails were obviously copy pasted from a SAP system into her email system.

What you are confused about is actual marking in some of the emails.

When you take for example a CIA or NSA email off their system and run it via a private email account, Microsoft Outlook is not the type of system to allow the assignment of classification headers. there were some emails that retained in the text section header, this is just a side show issue, it does not change that she received and sent high classified emails. The OIG later pointed out his staff had to get special clearances just to read the emails she had on her system.

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received . Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were "up-classified" to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."

Peter Lee , 2016-07-11 16:06:03
What I don't understand is the absence of an automatic knee jerk rejection of Clinton. The US fought the Revolutionary War (1775) by rejecting royalty and primogeniture. Run forwards two hundred and forty years and what do they vote? Kennedy I, almost Kennedy II, Bush I, Bush II, Clinton I, now Clinton II? The US is not there yet, but it certainly looks like they're reverting to type. It's almost as if they hunger for Bill, but can't have him so will settle for Hillary instead.
In any case Elizabeth Warren was by far the most able, the most intelligent, and less divisive Democratic candidate.

BennCarey , 2016-07-11 16:05:35
It would be a very difficult choice to pick a 'most depressing headline' award at the moment but this one for me would be a clear winner.
I find it truly astonishing that the career criminal and soul for hire Clinton has got this far without the past, or the present, catching up with her. Nothing could give further indication of how hopelessly brainwashed we are that out of a population of 300 million people they are left with a 'choice' of these two grotesque, vacuous and narcissistic wall street prostitutes.

These political parties are different tentacles of the same monster and if you haven't worked that out by now or If you are under the impression that Hillary would be a positive vote for females then I would recommend you pulling your head out of the sand and do some thinking for yourself instead of being force fed your 'news' through the mainstream.

Please feel free to peruse the following website for an exhaustive library of information documenting the many crimes of the criminally insane and corrupt Clintons.

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders". - George Carlin

Shanajackson , 2016-07-11 15:59:54
I did not think Sanders was so gullible to believe that Clinton will take action on anything in the democratic platform. From a mass movement demanding change to accepting a few non-binding policies at a democratic convention. I think Bernie lost his opportunity to make a difference when he refused to stand as an independent. Now people are stuck with Trump or Clinton which is not exactly a great choice.
mikehowleydcu -> OhReallyFFS , 2016-07-11 17:34:51
Positively Hillary?
You really have no idea about the character or deeds of Hillary Clinton and her husband and what lays in story but heres a sample

Imprisoning of black people en mass
Private prison system - largest increase in the nations history
Wall mart
Against 15$ minimum wage until this year
Destroyed Libya
Massive scandals with Clinton foundation
Ardent supporters of settlements
Biggest arms sales in US history while Clinton was Secretary of state.
Biggest health reform flop
Mysterious deaths when people close to Clintons were investigated.
Belligerent policy towards Russia - That is the biggest danger of all.
Syria - arming of rebels

ttowse , 2016-07-11 15:48:20
Bernie, endorsing Clinton is unworthy of him. Go green and have a fat lady singing on stage when you do please. It will show the Democratic Party, the party that has become Republican Lite, that life as they know it is OVER.
Thank Obama for hiring Paulson from Wall Street and Tim Geitner, from the Fed, which together assured that Wall Street CEOs could keep their millions, and their jobs, after forcing taxpayers to bail their ass out. SHAME on the White Collar Criminals and the WALL STREET WHITEHOUSE they Own. They have destroyed the planet with their greed.
The revolution continues. March on Main Street formerly for Bernie Sunday July 24, 2016. Feel The Burn vote for Trump he is the poison pill that will hit them where they live and decimate the Republican Party.

MonotonousLanguor , 2016-07-11 15:43:29
The Party Platform is meaningless and Sanders should know that. $hillary will do what ever she wants after the convention if she is nominated. The allegiance $hillary has is to Wall Street and a NEO-CON foreign policy.
Sanders can endorse $hillary if he wants, but I voted for Sanders because of his platform. I did not vote for Sanders so he could endorse Clinton. I will be voting for a Third Party Candidate, if it is Clinton vs Trump. Oh and do not give me the Ralph Nader Guilt Trip. The Gorebot lost to Bush the Younger on his own. The Gorebot could not carry his own state.

MarkThomason , 2016-07-11 15:37:56
Platforms mean nothing. They are routinely ignored even before the Convention is over.
If that is all Bernie got, then he got nothing. And he did not even get all of that.

NarodnayaVolya , 2016-07-11 15:33:48
It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- Eugene Victor Debs.
Debs polled over a million votes while doing some hard time in a federal prison for sedition: he dared oppose american entry in World War One. That man stood up for what he believed in, and was willing to pay any price. Bernie -- who reportedly has a portrait of Debs hanging over his desk -- should hang his head in shame for his cowardice in selling out so cheaply

MonotonousLanguor -> NarodnayaVolya , 2016-07-11 15:46:49
Debs also said > The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles.
Falanx , 2016-07-11 15:28:55
Bernie must know that a "plank" in the platform is nothing more than a sop. It is not binding.
Even the sops he got are chicken feed. The $15.00 minimum wage should have been a non negotiable default, not some trumpeted victory. The minimum wage in 1962 was worth $22.00 in today's dollars.

The vague "committment" on saving the environment would be laughable were its consequences not so tragic.

Trade Agreements (aka secret global corporate rule)? Zip
Single Payer Health Care? Zip
Free Higher Education? Zip
Expanded Social Security? Zip
Restraining Israel? Zip
De-militarization of police? Zip
Resumption of nuclear & arms control negotiations with Russia? Zip
Return to detente with Russia? Zip

The list of platform failures is about as long as the list of Hillary's corporate donors.

There were those (certainly not in the embedded press) who said from the start that Bernie was a stalking horse for Hillary -- an exercise in bait and switch.

If he was, he deserves an Oscar.

Hey! But we got weed!! Oh wow. Bong Hits. Yaaaaaay!!!!

Lester Smithson , 2016-07-11 15:21:47
As much as I want to vote for HRC, the stench of neocon corporatism is too much, the thin layer of accumulated grime from years of ethical expediency too toxic, the opaque lack of transparency too dangerous, and the shifting sands of her amorphous policy too treacherous.
A vote for HRC is: a vote for Palestinian kids growing up without a future; a vote for American kids subject to the Common Core; a vote for water polluted by fracking precipitates; a vote for drone strikes; a vote for kids locked up for a joint, a vote for lives ruined by corporate prisons, and a vote for bankers first, the people second.

Can't do it. Jill Stein. Let the chips fall where they do.

Americanwarcrimes , 2016-07-11 15:20:55
Is the lawsuit against Clinton still happening? Not for the deletion of 30,000 personal emails between herself and her husband, but for the campaign fraud and election fraud in Arizona? Or are we still pretending that America is a democracy and not the most corrupt and aggressive asylum in the history of mankind?
NarodnayaVolya -> Americanwarcrimes , 2016-07-11 15:27:37
This detailed legal dissection of last week's Comey hearing indicates there's plenty still to mine there, if Mr. Chump isn't merely shilling

5 Reasons The Comey Hearing Was The Worst Education In Criminal Justice The American Public Has Ever Had
What America Saw on July 7th in No Way Resembles Our Justice System

the fact remains that the non-indictment of Hillary Clinton is as much a stain on the fair and equal administration of justice as is the disparate treatment of poor black males at all stages of the criminal justice system. I witnessed the latter injustice close up, nearly every day, during my seven years working as a public defender; now America has seen the same thing, albeit on a very different stage, involving a defendant of a very different class and hue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5-reasons-the-comey-hearing-was-the-worst-education_us_577ee999e4b05b4c02fbdcd5

JackGC , 2016-07-11 15:17:22
Sanders just became irrelevant for the rest of his life. Not accepting Stein's offer was a chance to change American politics and make three parties viable instaed of just two.
Big mistake.

Endorsing Clinton by claiming Trump must be defeated ONLY holds up IF Sanders supporters are needed to defeat him. That certainly isn't the case. Hillary will easily defeat Trump with or without them.

0-50 in November.

Bernie missed his chance. His whole campaign was a wasted effort. His supporters must feel like fools.

SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 2016-07-11 15:04:54
The main problem is that she puts things now in the agenda to pretend she's bridging the gap between her and progressives, but once she starts ''negotiating'' with Republicans, she'll drop practically everything she added because of Bernie and claim she had to do it to achieve a compromise.
So actually Progressives once again will get nothing, especially on economics....might get some scraps off the table on social issues, but that's it. They'll all do the usual song and dance about these ''huge achievements'' and sing along...
Same story....no real change....might get a war though cause she's gagging for one
NarodnayaVolya -> whyohwhy1 , 2016-07-11 15:15:58
this charade will probably continue only until she has Bernie's endorsement fully and irrevocably in the bag - and not a second longer. While she paid lip service momentarily to opposing TPP, her operatives have ensured that in no way will the party platform oppose it.
see robert reich's facebook posting from earlier today:

https://m.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1254212547924672

markwill1980 , 2016-07-11 14:48:45
Make Hillary's Bank Balance Great Again.
fedback , 2016-07-11 14:41:50
So Bernie wins for the potheads. Is that supposed to be a triumph for the progressives... He is about to endorse the queen of Wall Street and give her a free pass on TPP, the two pillars of his candidacy. This talk about pulling Clinton to the left is crap.
Americanwarcrimes -> Royal66 , 2016-07-11 15:24:45
Anything America does is a disaster for the wider world.
nanciel -> simpledino , 2016-07-11 19:40:19
As Jill Stein has said, "What We Fear from Donald Trump, We Have Already Seen from Hillary Clinton."
So rant away about how voting Green will allow Trump in...it's the failed Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton that are really to blame for the rise of the reprehensible Donald Trump.

If they were worth anything, they would have the support of everyone.

If EVERYONE voted their conscience, the Greens would win by a landslide.

So you are the one who is deluded thinking that rewarding the unethical status quo with your vote will be good for the planet...the wars and environmental destruction will go on and on thanks to you and others like you .
Right? Right.

CahootsConspiracy
14h ago
9 10

Not sure what the goal of his endorsement would be at this point. Many if not most of his supporters already know whether or not they'll vote for Clinton in November, and it seems unlikely that him urging his supporters to vote for her will pick up many new converts.

siansim -> CahootsConspiracy , 2016-07-11 15:51:20
I understand only about half of sanders supporters are willing to switch to clinton http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/bernie-or-bust-clinton/488276 /

Toeparty
14h ago
29 30

I'm afraid Bernie's endorsement of Clinton will not stop Trump. There is no room for a neo-liberal status quo candidate like Clinton in this race. The American economy is going to hell in a hand cart. 50 million Americans use food banks millions more are facing bankruptcy, joblessness and homelessness. They need a radical socialist candidate. Voting for more of the same for them is utterly pointless. Trump will beat Clinton. America needed Bernie if Trump was to be beaten.

Greg Jones , 2016-07-11 14:05:42
Americans want the short lived rush of another Obama moment with the first woman President.But look at Obamas America,anything changed? Black protest riots across the Country as we speak.
WhitesandsOjibwe , 2016-07-11 14:04:23
They used to say when 'Billy' was running and Hillary was by his side, that we were getting 'two for the price of one, This time around, the bargain is two outdated, technologically incompetent, out-of-touch, power-hungry, money-grubbing globalists who have consistently lied to the American people. They have sold out the American people in their self-serving, addictive grasp for more power and more money.
SenseCir , 2016-07-11 14:02:50

the Sanders camp failed to insert outright opposition to Barack Obama's controversial Trans Pacific Partnership deal. [...] Clinton supporters blocked the proposed amendment

Hardly a surprise that Clinton is a slave of corporate interests. That's been the crowd she has surrounded herself with for decades.

newjerseyboi -> SenseCir , 2016-07-11 14:08:18
A slave? More like an enabler and promoter
CorruptIntenz -> newjerseyboi , 2016-07-11 14:13:10
Both are true.

WhitesandsOjibwe -> YorkerBouncer , 2016-07-11 14:08:20
A "sophisticated" person would understand the importance of handling very sensitive information. Clinton signed documents from the FBI, which acknowledged the importance of appropriately handling classified information, how then as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could possibly have thought having an unsecured private server was appropriate?
"I don't think that our investigation established she was actually particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment."

-Comey

And Trump is more dangerous, how?

zolotoy -> GreatLizard , 2016-07-11 15:24:29
But we know how Hillary feels about interventionism.
IRFANRAINY , 2016-07-11 14:01:50
If Sanders endorses Clinton then he has wasted his efforts entirely -- Killary is a war mongering Wall St stooge, who cannot be trustd one bit -- His progressive agenda should have joined hands with The Greens and stood for a new socialist agenda -- A v sad day --
bcarey , 2016-07-11 13:59:35
Looks like we're seeing the real Sanders now. So sad.... but he sounded okay, didn't he?
Pulling the party to the left is meaningless if the nominee is a neocon. It's just window dressing.(And Bernie, of course, definitely knows that.)

siansim -> Shelfunit , 2016-07-11 14:57:55
I wonder if conspiracy theorists also stated clinton perjured herself many times over the last year?
Tut tut

By the way...

"A second Stanford study comparing voting machines to pre-election polls shows extreme discrepancies in many states where electronic voting machines were utilized."

http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/07/10/new-stanford-study-shows-serious-voting-discrepancies-favor-clinton /

Tommy Lobotomy , 2016-07-11 13:58:25
Even if Sanders endorses her, I -- a lifelong Democrat -- will not vote for her. She claims she opposes TPP and yesterday her delegates made passage of TPP part of her campaign platform. She's a lying, hypocritical, corrupt, Wall Street-toadying warmonger. No thank you. Sayonara Democratic Party. Prospect of Bill Clinton back in White House makes her candidacy doubly nauseous.

[Jul 12, 2016] GOP Seeks Criminal Inquiry of Hillary Clinton's Testimony to Congress

Notable quotes:

"... there might be enough to warrant opening an investigation. That alone could prove damaging to her campaign. ..."

www.nytimes.com

The Republican request, five days after the department closed a yearlong investigation into Mrs. Clinton's handling of classified information in the emails, threatens to shadow her through the campaign and perhaps even into the White House if she is elected.

In a letter Monday evening, House Republicans asked the Justice Department to determine whether Mrs. Clinton had "committed perjury and made false statements" during her appearance in October before a special House panel on the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

The letter was signed by Representatives Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, who leads the Oversight Committee, and Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia, who leads the Judiciary Committee.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the request. In a Twitter post, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, called the Republican request "another futile, partisan attempt to keep this issue alive now that the Justice Dept has declared it resolved."

Mrs. Clinton has said she regrets the decision to use a private email server for official communications as secretary of state, but she has defended the truthfulness of her public remarks.

Legal analysts said that while it appeared unlikely the F.B.I. would ultimately find enough evidence to prosecute Mrs. Clinton on charges of lying to Congress, there might be enough to warrant opening an investigation. That alone could prove damaging to her campaign.

[Jul 12, 2016] Hillary Clinton emails: State Department reopens investigation into 'mishandling' of 'classified' information by Feliks Garcia New York

Notable quotes:

"... The real wild card that's yet to be played is the investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Jim Comey at the FBI seems to have given up a little too easily on Mrs. Clinton - perhaps because he knows something more damning is coming? ..."

independent.co.uk

According to the Associated Press, the internal investigation will not result in criminal charges. Many of Ms Clinton's top aides could have their security clearances revoked, which would all but dissolve their chances of being a part of the national security team should the former Secretary of State win the presidency.

... The probe by the department will focus on 22 emails found on Ms Clinton's emails that were considered to be "top secret".

... Mr Kirby would not identify the top aides under investigation, but the AP said the ones most likely to face scrutiny are Jake Sullivan, Cheryl Mills, and Huma Abedin.

Marine

I quit being a dem after 45 yrs., when Bill Clinton stabbed workers in the back. I know I was not the only one to do so & change . politicians don't represent voters anymore, money has corrupt the whole system of government we have now. The TRADE BILLS signed benefited Wall Street & the 1%. It is them that that regulate the two party system when they should be regulating Wall Street & a brand new set of Campaign laws.

It is the 1% who tell us who to vote for, they choose the candidates offering large sums of money to both party's campaign funds. If only more voters could see the real evil in our system of government instead of just feeling it. The country is in decline like never before & worse then the 1928 crash.

Earthnotmoving2me

The insanity has reached epic proportions and it's all caused by our own government... The American people are being held hostage by psychopaths ... A large portion of the population can't seem to make the connection our government has turned into one of the most violent corrupt destructive evil forces working against humanity on earth...

wanderingone56

Awkward for Mrs. Clinton, I know, but State won't really do much more than provide a few awkward moments. (After all, would you really want to be the Statie who p!$$ed off your future boss?)
The real wild card that's yet to be played is the investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Jim Comey at the FBI seems to have given up a little too easily on Mrs. Clinton - perhaps because he knows something more damning is coming?

Sal20111

Sounds a bit off. Hilary can become President, despite the carelessness that was basically hers, but her aides can't get sensitive cabinet positions - are the cabinet positions more sensitive than President? Reeks like a trade-off: no criminal charges but some punishment in terms of restricting your aides. Is Hilary already compromised before becoming President?

Enso

We already know George W Bush set up a private email server WHILE he was president and there were 88 accounts on the server. Karl Rove had one and did a range of things with it.
Just after Valerie Plame was outted by an anonymous source as a CIA field agent, just after her husband said something the administratin didn't like - that was when Karl Rove destroyed 22 MILLION emails.

mokopoloko

why wouldn t they be looking to pursue criminal charges if she is found guilty of wrongdoing.this woman is a liar and a criminal as was her slimeball of a husband.they are not fit to run as smalltown mayors nevermind the supposed leader of the free world.

anti-morons

But as we all know, America is no "free world" - it is a dump of corruption, bible-belt hate-mongering and fear-mongering, and the world's greatest threat to security and peace.
America is nothing other than a terrorist, rogue State.

SpinResistant

Michel Gove pulled exactly the same dodge with private emails as Hillary when he was Secrtary of State for Education, and he went on to become one of the most trusted politicians in the Conservative Party.

anti-morons

Trusted by whom precisely ?
Neither UK nor USA can be trusted - both are warmongering nations and responsible for the destabilisation of the whole of the Middle Eastern region, which has ultimately led to non-stop war, the murder of millions, and a continuing influx of millions of displaced persons into Europe.
Time to say NO to England's and America's murder machine !
It's not something the least but new or unique.

Muffin

Oh Hillary the wagons are circling. Who and why? I think we can guess.....

sinbad

Clinton has been chosen by the Wall St Gods to be the Queen of the World.
Nothing can change that, she has been chosen.

Tom North London

Correct. The world will be changed as necessary to make it compatible with Her.

ComberBryan

No charges for Hillary, so time to scapegoat some of the little people.

[Jul 11, 2016] Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama prefer the elephant to the emails in the room

www.theguardian.com

... as Trump prepared to address a rival rally 170 miles away in Raleigh, it was clear that the Democrats were going to have to do more than this if they really expected the email scandal to go away for good.
"As FBI Director James Comey let Clinton off the hook for her 'extremely careless' actions, the fix was final," blasted Trump in a statement. "The Obama administration's anointed successor has had an indictment removed from her path, and will now be able to glide to the rigged Democrat nomination. As we move toward November, the question now becomes, 'what is Hillary hiding?'"
When the dust from the FBI investigation settles, the former secretary of state is likely to have to give a fuller account of her actions, now that the world knows just how agents assessed them.

[Jul 10, 2016] Here Are The 23 Classified Memos Sidney Blumenthal Sent To Hillary Clinton by Chuck Ross

dailycaller.com

Of the dozens of intelligence memos that Sidney Blumenthal sent to Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state, 23 contained information classified as "Confidential" or "Secret," a Daily Caller analysis shows.
Sending nearly two dozen sensitive emails makes Blumenthal, a former journalist and aide in the Bill Clinton White House, one of Clinton's most prolific sharers of classified information. The Democratic presidential candidate herself sent 104 emails containing classified information, The Washington Post found .
Some of Clinton's State Department aides, such as chief of staff Cheryl Mills and deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin, sent dozens of emails which contain now-classified information. Jake Sullivan, Clinton's top foreign policy adviser, sent 215 now-classified messages.
But the Blumenthal memos are especially intriguing because the longtime Clinton ally did not work for the government. Instead, during the period that he sent Clinton memos, he was working for the Clinton Foundation as well as for several non-profit organizations with close ties to the Clintons. He also worked during some of that period as an editor for The Daily Beast.

Here is a complete list of Blumenthal's classified memos and emails:

2009

June 23 email - Blumenthal forwarded Clinton a nearly entirely redacted email with subject line "N. Ireland/Shaun," an apparent reference to Shaun Woodward, who then served as Northern Ireland's secretary of state.

July 15 memo - Blumenthal refers to information from William Drozdiak, who at the time was the president of the American Council on Germany. The non-redacted portion of the email refers to the "disastrous nature" of an Obama diplomatic trip.

Sept. 23 email - Entitled "URGENT FOR NORTHERN IRELAND MEETINGS TOMORROW," the Blumenthal memo refers to a Clinton Global Initiative event held days before to discuss ways to increase foreign investment in Northern Ireland.

Oct. 8 memo - Blumenthal provided an update on developments in Northern Ireland.

Oct. 11 memo - Blumenthal advised Clinton ahead of a speech she was set to give at Stormont Castle in Belfast in support of devolution, or the shifting of power from the U.K. parliament to the Northern Ireland national assembly.

Oct. 20 memo - Blumenthal shared an email from Northern Ireland's Sec. of State Shaun Woodward. Clinton was set to meet with UK Shadow Foreign Minister US to send Ukraine small drones and armoured Humvees William Hague. "This makes your meeting with Hague unexpectedly pressing," Blumenthal wrote of Woodward's email.

Nov. 28 memo - Blumenthal sent yet another update about negotiations in Northern Ireland.

2010

Blumenthal sent Clinton more updates on negotiations in Northern Ireland, including a Jan. 25 memo , a Jan. 27 memo , a March 4 memo , a March 6 memo , and a March 8 memo .

April 8 memo - Blumenthal forwarded Clinton an email from a source discussing internal politics in Kyrgyzstan, which was then in the midst of a revolution.

April 23 "Secret" memo - Blumenthal updated Clinton on the situation in Kyrgyzstan. The portion of the memo redacted for "secret" classified information discussed a criminal investigation.

2011

March 5 memo - Blumenthal forwarded Clinton an email from his longtime associate Cody Shearer, who has worked on behalf of the Clintons over the years. The memo, sent in the early days of the Libyan revolt, discussed the formation of the National Transitional Council, which replaced Muammar Gaddafi's dictatorship.

March 18 memo - Blumenthal discussed Gaddafi's response to the UN's decision to authorize the use of force in Libya.

June 20 memo - Blumenthal's memo, with the subject line "Bahrain, Iranian intelligence," is completely redacted.

Oct. 12 memo - A memo entitled "Saudi Arabia/Iran/Turkey" relied on Blumenthal's "Sources with access to the highest levels of the Government of Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, as well as regional and Western Intelligence services."

2012

May 30 memo - Blumenthal sent Clinton two memos containing information on German policy on the Eurozone crisis, which had reached full steam at that point. The information in the memos was passed to Blumenthal by sources who had conversations with German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble.

In the memo, Blumenthal cautioned Clinton that the information came from "an extremely sensitive source" and "should be handled with care." He also insisted that the information must not be shared "with anyone associated with the German government.

June 27 memo - A memo entitled "Internal pressures and potential schisms in German government over Euro-zone" is entirely redacted.

July 14 memo - Blumenthal's memo entitled "Egypt internal politics" came from "sources with access to the highest levels of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and Western Intelligence and security services."

Blumenthal characterized the sources as "extremely sensitive" and cautioned that the information should be "handled with care."

Aug. 3 memo - Blumenthal passed along a memo discussing European Central Bank president Mario Draghi and negotitions with Germany to resolve the Eurozone debt crisis. The memo is entirely redacted as classified and is b ased on "sources with access to the highest levels of the Governments and institutions."

Sept. 4 memo - Blumenthal passed along another now-entirely redacted memo based on "high-level sources." The subject matter of the memo is not clear.

[Jul 10, 2016] Hillary Clinton Emailed Names of US Intelligence Officials, Unclassified by Peter Van Buren

June 06, 2016 | antiwar.com

You can look at the source documents yourself. This is not opinion, conjecture, or rumor. Hillary Clinton transmitted the names of American intelligence officials via her unclassified email.

From a series of Clinton emails, numerous names were redacted in the State Department releases with the classification code "B3 CIA PERS/ORG," a highly specialized classification that means the information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence Act of 1949 by exposing the names of CIA officials.

How FOIA Works

The Freedom of information Act (FOIA) requires the government to release all, or all parts of a document, that do not fall under a specific set of allowed exemptions. If information cannot be excluded, it must be released. If some part of a document can be redacted to allow the rest of the document to be released, then that is what must be done. Each redaction must be justified by citing a specific reason for exclusion.

But don't believe me. Instead, look at page two of this State Department document which lists the exemptions.

Note specifically the different types of "(b)(3)" redactions, including "CIA PERS/ORG." As common sense would dictate, the government will not release the names of CIA employees via the FOIA process. It would - literally - be against the law. What law? Depending on the nature of the individual's job at CIA, National Security Act of 1947, the CIA Act of 1949, various laws that govern undercover/clandestine CIA officers and, potentially, the Espionage Act of 1917.

Names of CIA, NSA Officials Mentioned, Now Redacted

Yet Hillary's emails contain at least three separate, specific instances where she mentioned in an unclassified email transmitted across the open Internet and wirelessly to her Blackberry the names of CIA personnel. Here they are. Look for the term "(b)(3) CIA PERS/ORG" Click on the links and see for yourself:

CIA One

CIA Two

CIA Three

There are also numerous instances of exposure of the names and/or email addresses of NSA employees ("B3 NSA"); see page 23 inside this longer PDF document.

Why It Matters

These redactions point directly to violations of specific laws. It is not a "mistake" or minor rule breaking.

These redactions strongly suggest that the Espionage Act's standard of mishandling national defense information through "gross negligence" may have been met by Clinton.

There is no ambiguity in this information, no possible claims to faux-retroactive classification, not knowing, information not being labeled, etc. Clinton and her staff know that one cannot mention CIA names in open communications. It is one of the most basic tenets taught and exercised inside the government. One protects one's colleagues.

Exposing these names can directly endanger the lives of the officials. It can endanger the lives of the foreigners they interacted with after a foreign government learns one of their citizens was talking with the CIA It can blow covers and ruin sensitive clandestine operations. It can reveal to anyone listening in on this unclassified communication sources and methods. Here is a specific example of how Clinton likely compromised security.

These redactions show complete contempt on Clinton's part for the security process.

BONUS: There is clear precedent for others going to jail for exposing CIA names. Read the story of John Kiriakou .

A Personal Aside: I just remain incredulous about these revelations seeming to mean nothing to the world. They're treated in the media as almost gossip.

Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People . His latest book is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent . Reprinted from the his blog with permission.
tom • a month ago
So if Hillary is elected and she takes the USA into WW3 by continuing to harass Russia and supporting terrorists, and the USA is finally attacked like the USA attacks other nations, are not the people who supported Clinton, and the Clintons themselves, fair game for some sort of retribution? When are these obvious war crimes going to be met with some sort of justice? There is a story well-known by now of how a group f German soldiers tried to assassinate Hitler and failed. Well, the FBI and DOJ have every opportunity to stop another Hitler before she acquires more leverage to reign down death and destruction on America's "enemies". Will they do their job or will we in 10 tens be wondering what could have been?

BrotherJonah tom • 19 days ago

While and at the same time doing much business with Russia, and China, and all of the newly conquered (but not very conquered) puppet dictatorships like Iraq and Libya. The first real indication we'll get is if the Halliburton operatives get pulled out. I haven't seen a mass exodus of pipeline workers coming back to the states. My lowly position as an ex-Halliburton worker (they literally broke me and then abandoned me. I can't walk two blocks without extreme pain for an uncompensated on-the-job injury 23 years ago) gives me a unique vantage no CIA spook can ever get. Unless you were to talk some Harvard Princesses to get up on a damned ladder or roughneck on an oil rig or pipeline. On our level we get a larger view of what's going on. Like for instance, Sudan was invaded by Halliburton years before the Libyan coup. How does that matter? The nation is landlocked and the only direction they can point a pipe to the Med is through Libya. Shell and Exxon want to export the extorted oil so they had to take down Libya. Roll the dice. Also by publishing the names of the agents who were previously outed, we'd be doing the exact same thing. Prove that those agents were endangered and wham bam thank you ma'am they'll be even more endangered. The alternative would be a secret trial. Which happens.
Tonyandoc • a month ago
It seems that HRC may become POTUS, thanks to the actions of DNC, DWS and the MSM and the inaction of the FBI and DOJ - much to the relief of the MIC, CIA and NSA and the satisfaction of the TBTF banks and the RDA*.
The rest of us are FUCD.

* I made this one up; it stands for "Revolving Door Apparatchiks".

Tired_of_poor_healthcare • a month ago
The media has been bought and paid for. There is no longer news reporting, only propaganda recitation. Statistically, most people are followers. Let's hope there are a few principled public servants at the FBI to help save our country.
liveload • a month ago
An external IT audit is necessary in this case, if it hasn't already been ordered. Who gave the approval to set this thing up? Where is the documentation requesting access to the State's servers? Who signed off on that? Who verified that approval? Who processed the request and what verification did the approvals undergo?
An IT auditor would rip State several new orifices with which to excrete solid waste matter.

[Jul 08, 2016] Despite FBI findings, experts say Clinton's email likely hacked

POLITICO

Wright noted that while the State Department's information technology budget trails many other departments, Clinton's arrangement was likely still more vulnerable because it was administered by many people without a cybersecurity background.

"When you take a bad situation and put something else bad on top of it you've made it far worse," he told POLITICO.

And the countries interested in going after Clinton's emails all possess advanced cyber capabilities, experts said. The federal government has determined that Chinese hackers have been snooping on personal email accounts of top U.S. officials for years and just last year Secretary of State John Kerry said it is "likely" that Russian and Chinese hackers are reading his emails.

As for Israel, hackers would have targeted Clinton's emails to glean her positions on Middle East issues, according to Wright.

"They're friendly … but even friendlies can get aggressive on spying on each other," he said.

Clinton also accessed her private email "extensively" while traveling, Comey said, "including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries."

This practice considerably heightened the risk of compromise, particularly if Clinton used unencrypted pathways to access her email while abroad, said Jason Straight, chief privacy officer of UnitedLex, which advises corporations on cybersecurity practices.

Comey also said FBI investigators determined that hackers had infiltrated the private commercial email accounts of people that regularly emailed Clinton's personal account, opening up another potential entry point for digital snoops.

The FBI chief didn't name these outside contacts, leading some, including Wright, to wonder if there would be further investigation into the emails of top aides, like Cheryl Mills or Huma Abedin.

But while there are considerable factors pointing to a likely intrusion, there may never be a smoking gun, according to specialists.

"The bottom line is that we will likely never know for certain whether her server was compromised or not," said Straight.

[Jul 08, 2016] Elizabeth Warren's AWKWARD Tweet Might Upset Hillary -

www.youtube.com
Jul 7, 2016 | YouTube
Elizabeth Warren tweeted about holding public officials accountable. Nobody is above the law, not even public officials, she tweeted. She is the leading candidate to be Hilary Clinton's VP, a public official who is above the law.

Jimmy Dore breaks it down.

Subscribe Here ▶ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...

Full audio version of The Jimmy Dore Show on iTunes ▶ https://itunes.apple.com/podcast/the-...

Join our community by liking, commenting and sharing to help us reach a wider audience. Keep it positive!

[Jul 08, 2016] FBI Invents A New Standard To Let Hillary Clinton Off The Hook

YouTube

Jul 7, 2016 | www.youtube.com

FBI Director James Comey announced there would be no charges for Hillary relating to her reckless use of a private email server while Secretary of State.

Jimmy Dore breaks it down.

Subscribe Here ▶ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...

Full audio version of The Jimmy Dore Show on iTunes ▶ https://itunes.apple.com/podcast/the-...

[Jul 08, 2016] Now Chaffetz Wants Clinton's Lawyers Prosecuted For Defending Her

Notable quotes:

"... Hillary Clinton gave lawyers without any security clearance access to her classified emails. ..."

YouTube

Hillary Clinton gave lawyers without any security clearance access to her classified emails.

[Jul 08, 2016] Chaffetz promises referral to FBI on Clinton testimony for perjury

POLITICO

During the same exchange, Chaffetz inquired as to whether the FBI investigated Clinton's statements to the Benghazi committee, including her declaration that there was "nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received."

"Not to my knowledge. I don't think there's been a referral from Congress," Comey responded, noting that such a probe would usually require a referral from Congress.

Chaffetz responded with a chuckle, "You'll have one. You'll have one in the next few hours."

Megyn Kelly shows video of Hillary Clinton lying and FBI director James Comey calling her out - YouTube

[Jul 08, 2016] Representative Gary Palmer: she is stunningly incompetent in handling e-mail and classified information

From comments: "Just last year: http://www.navytimes.com/story/military ... /30862027/ Granted that was two a year probation plus forever not being allowed a security clearance but there is no substantial difference between between their violations. In fact her violations were several magnitudes worse. "

Notable quotes:

"... Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?"-meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of State. "Yes, she was," Comey replied. "Good grief," exclaimed Mulvaney. ..."

"... Under further questioning from Chaffetz, Comey said that the FBI did not look at civil issues, such as violations of the Freedom of Information Act and federal records law, nor did they look at whether Clinton had committed perjury before Congress in sworn testimony wherein she said that she had neither sent nor received classified information via her e-mail. ..."

"... Comey also said that Clinton's mail server was "less secure" than Gmail. "Individual accounts might be less secure, but Google does regular security checks and updates," he explained. Clinton's mail server, set up by people working for former President Bill Clinton's foundation, sat in a basement of the Clinton home in Chappaqua, New York. ..."

"... He's calling her incompetent, stupid, careless, reckless even...but just saying he doesn't believe they can charge her based on the evidence they reviewed. He even said that prior to this investigation he would have thought that any reasonable person would have known this, but now he is not so sure. ..."

"... "Break classification rules for the public's benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for personal benefit, and you could be President." -- Edward Snowden ..."

"... Between a rock and hard place... On one hand he needs to show us peasants that the law applies to everyone, and on the other, he does not want to take on arguably the most powerful woman in the world and possibly the next president. For someone who wanted software backdoors so much - it couldn't happen to a more deserving person. ..."

"... This seems like a situation where an independent attorney should have been brought on. Why the fuck would the FBI have a role in determining whether or not to prosecute? Isn't that the DOJ's role? A role best delegated to an independent attorney in cases like this? ..."

"... Proving criminal intent was never necessary considering the standard here should be gross negligence, and even though actual harm was done when her server according to experts was almost certainly hacked, her not being indicted is about what anybody who has been paying attention to the bishops of the democratic party circling her and anointing her while chanting "All really do like her. None have any issues with trusting her... ..."

"... In his testimony, in response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification." Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-South Carolina) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?", meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of Stat. ..."

"... People with security clearances are not generally prosecuted for unintentionally mishandling classified documents. If it is a significant level of negligence, they lose their security clearance and therefore their job and the ability to hold a similar job. ..."

"... Clinton's intentional use of her own email server takes negligence to new heights. While I don't think she had any justifiable reason to set up her own mail server and we have good reason to suspect that it was done to avoid oversight, it doesn't seem to have been done with the intention of mishandling classified docs. With Clinton we once again have evidence that she is trying to hide her actions, but no clear evidence of criminal intent. Ideally she would lose her ability to handle classified material and be banned from any position requiring access to classified information. However, negligence in handling the nation's secrets isn't spelled out in the Constitution as disqualifying someone for the office of President. You might think that no one would vote for someone who's been proved untrustworthy and negligent on this scale, but that simply isn't the case. ..."

"... Other people who negligently handle classified information also do face serious consequences. They lose their security clearance. That means they lose their job and can't get another one like it. In some cases that is pretty much career ending. ..."

Jul 07, 2016 | Ars Technica

House Oversight Committee grills Comey over Clinton e-mail findings by Sean Gallagher

"The FBI's recommendation is surprising and confusing," Chaffetz said in a statement announcing the hearing. "The fact pattern presented by Director Comey makes clear Secretary Clinton violated the law. Individuals who intentionally skirt the law must be held accountable. Congress and the American people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the FBI's investigation. I thank Director Comey for accepting the invitation to publicly answer these important questions."
Update, 11:30 am: Eight e-mail threads of the more than 30,000 messages stored on Clinton's server included conversations containing what was determined by State Department and Intelligence Community review to be of the highest level of classification (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information). But that information wasn't marked as such-and much of it was sent to Clinton by her staff from the State Department's unclassified e-mail system. Both Clinton and State Department staff sent messages stored on Clinton's server and on the State Department's unclassified e-mail system that included classified, secret, and Top Secret/SCI information, including names of intelligence community personnel.
In response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification." (Later in his testimony, Comey elaborated that the lack of sophistication was more technical than understanding the importance of protecting classified data.)

Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?"-meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of State. "Yes, she was," Comey replied. "Good grief," exclaimed Mulvaney.

"Based on your answers, and what we know, it seems to me that she is stunningly incompetent in handling e-mail and classified information," said Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL), acknowledging Comey's honesty. "For a Secretary of State, that level of carelessness is shocking."

Chaffetz concluded the hearing with a battery of questions over the people who had access to Clinton's e-mails, including the administrators and lawyers. "She's not the head of Fish and Wildlife," Chaffetz shouted.

Comey responded that it wasn't unreasonable for Clinton to assume that administrators would not be reading her e-mail. And in other testimony, Comey said that because of the lack of security markings on the vast majority of the content, it was reasonable to assume Clinton believed the contents to be unclassified.

Under further questioning from Chaffetz, Comey said that the FBI did not look at civil issues, such as violations of the Freedom of Information Act and federal records law, nor did they look at whether Clinton had committed perjury before Congress in sworn testimony wherein she said that she had neither sent nor received classified information via her e-mail.

Update, 1:00 pm: While a statute passed by Congress in 1917 allowed for prosecution based on "gross negligence," Comey said that there were questions about the constitutionality of that statute, and a later statute for misdemeanor offenses based on negligence. He said the decision not to recommend prosecution "fits within a framework of fairness and what the Justice Department has prosecuted over the last 50 years. I don't see cases that were prosecuted on facts like these," continued Comey. "There was one time it was charged in an espionage case, and the defendant pled guilty on another charge so it was never adjudicated."

The general tone of Comey's testimony was that while Clinton was careless with classified information, virtually none of the information that was sensitive was marked as such. Three e-mail threads included "content markers" at the beginning of paragraphs within the body of messages indicating that the paragraphs included classified information (using a letter "C" in parentheses). In response to a question from Rep. Thomas Massie, Comey said, "Someone down in the chain put a portion marking in the paragraph."

However, as noted by Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, the State Department had said that the content classification markings were in error-that they were preliminary marks from a "call sheet" for Clinton, and should not have been left in the document when it was forwarded to Clinton.

Comey also said that Clinton's mail server was "less secure" than Gmail. "Individual accounts might be less secure, but Google does regular security checks and updates," he explained. Clinton's mail server, set up by people working for former President Bill Clinton's foundation, sat in a basement of the Clinton home in Chappaqua, New York.

As for Clinton's comments when asked if she had "wiped" her server: "Do you mean with a cloth?" Comey quipped. "I would assume it was a facetious comment about a cloth, but I wouldn't know that."
Rommel102
crustytheclown wrote:

In his testimony, in response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification."

Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-South Carolina) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?", meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of Stat.

"Yes, she was," Comey replied.

This says volumes about Comey's bias and political aspirations. Shame! Shame!

I didn't read it like that. I think Comey is honestly trying to say that Hillary is just not sophisticated about it, even after decades of being read in to the program.

He's calling her incompetent, stupid, careless, reckless even...but just saying he doesn't believe they can charge her based on the evidence they reviewed. He even said that prior to this investigation he would have thought that any reasonable person would have known this, but now he is not so sure.

TechTuner777Wise ,

"Break classification rules for the public's benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for personal benefit, and you could be President." -- Edward Snowden

iPirateEverything

Between a rock and hard place... On one hand he needs to show us peasants that the law applies to everyone, and on the other, he does not want to take on arguably the most powerful woman in the world and possibly the next president. For someone who wanted software backdoors so much - it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

arkielArs

This seems like a situation where an independent attorney should have been brought on. Why the fuck would the FBI have a role in determining whether or not to prosecute? Isn't that the DOJ's role? A role best delegated to an independent attorney in cases like this?

Is an FBI recommendation a prerequisite to prosecution now? The fact that they found "extremely careless" sounds like factual information upon which charges could be brought (but then again, I don't know the letter of this law).

IGoBoom
> These people all wish the rules that they were privvy to the same rules as Hilary Clinton.

http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/co-of- ... d-1.168997 Mishandling of classified materials

https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-re ... -materials Mishandling of classified materials, without intent to distribute.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/che ... ck-upheld/ Mishandling of classified materials, in an attempt to prevent an attack that ultimately caused US service members to die.

The last two cases could easily have been hand waived in the same was as being "extremely careless".

MeaildaArs

Marid wrote:

The decision not to prosecute was expected by anyone neutral to the politics. Proving criminal intent is a very high bar to meet. And without actual harm done the case became even more difficult who understands the politics.

Sub this for the strike: Proving criminal intent was never necessary considering the standard here should be gross negligence, and even though actual harm was done when her server according to experts was almost certainly hacked, her not being indicted is about what anybody who has been paying attention to the bishops of the democratic party circling her and anointing her while chanting "All really do like her. None have any issues with trusting her...

IGoBoomWise,

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/?q ... archresult Also, here is a sampling of emails tagged with the secure internet the military uses.

Read them yourselves. Look at the actual PDFs and see all the redacted info. Read the emails and see how there is conversation that directly discusses information that was sent via secure channels.

crustytheclown

In his testimony, in response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification." Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-South Carolina) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?", meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of Stat.

"Yes, she was," Comey replied.

This says volumes about Comey's bias and political aspirations. Shame! Shame!

about 19 hours ago

IGoBoom wrote:
These people all wish the rules that they were privvy to the same rules as Hilary Clinton.
http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/co-of- ... d-1.168997 Mishandling of classified materials

Clinton is not SoS, so they can't fire her
Quote: https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-re ... -materials Mishandling of classified materials, without intent to distribute.
Lied to the FBI, kept the materials after he was told to delete them.

Quote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/che ... ck-upheld/ Mishandling of classified materials, in an attempt to prevent an attack that ultimately caused US service members to die.

Again, was fired, not criminal charges filed

Quote: The last two cases could easily have been hand waived in the same was as being "extremely careless".

Coriolanus A, about 19 hours ago

I did a quick bit of research. The only instance of 18 U.S.C. 793(f) being used to prosecute anyone was U.S. v. Dedeyan, 584 F.2d 36 (4th Cir., 1978) (which was referenced by Dir. Comey in his press conference and at the House hearing).

In that case, a civilian mathematician took some classified documents home to proofread. His cousin, who was a Soviet agent, was staying with him and took pictures of the classified work he brought home with him. The cousin later told him he copied the classified materials and gave him $1000 to keep quiet, which he did.

In that case, the DOJ brought charges under 18 U.S.C. 793(f) because he didn't report that the classified material was copied after he learned about it, and for taking the bribe to remain silent.

There has never been an instance of the DOJ bringing a 18 U.S.C. 793(f) case against anyone for mere gross negligence alone.

AlexisR200X Ars Scholae Palatinae
19 hours ago

I have lost all faith in the democracy the US politicians spout. Sounds good but its rotten to the core with secret bullshit behind closed doors actually calling the shots. There is not much point on expecting anything meaningful to come from this circus, its just pretending to look busy and the outcome was already decided long before it even started.

Last edited by AlexisR200X on Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:34 am

flatrock Ars Centurion
reply about 19 hours ago

iPirateEverything wrote:
Between a rock and hard place...
On one hand he needs to show us peasants that the law applies to everyone,

and on the other, he does not want to take on arguably the most powerful woman in the world and possibly the next president.
For someone who wanted software backdoors so much - it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

People with security clearances are not generally prosecuted for unintentionally mishandling classified documents. If it is a significant level of negligence, they lose their security clearance and therefore their job and the ability to hold a similar job.

Clinton's intentional use of her own email server takes negligence to new heights. While I don't think she had any justifiable reason to set up her own mail server and we have good reason to suspect that it was done to avoid oversight, it doesn't seem to have been done with the intention of mishandling classified docs. With Clinton we once again have evidence that she is trying to hide her actions, but no clear evidence of criminal intent. Ideally she would lose her ability to handle classified material and be banned from any position requiring access to classified information. However, negligence in handling the nation's secrets isn't spelled out in the Constitution as disqualifying someone for the office of President. You might think that no one would vote for someone who's been proved untrustworthy and negligent on this scale, but that simply isn't the case.

Prosecuting Hillary would be justified. However, an argument can also be made that without evidence of clear criminal intent, that the voters should not be denied the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. Even if it's a really bad choice in my opinion.

The decision not to prosecute can be justified and if the people want to elect someone as President who as Secretary of State put covering her ass and obscuring her actions over the security of the United States, then we will have one more example of how democracy is an imperfect system. I don't think there is a better system overall, but I of course have my own ideas on how our system could be tweaked to make it a bit better.

benderific about 19 hours ago
Marid wrote: The decision not to prosecute was expected by anyone neutral to the politics. Proving criminal intent is a very high bar to meet. And without actual harm done the case became even more difficult.
Yep. Criminal intent is core to a good persecution.. Simple possession of classified information can be trouble, but these people in state all have clearances. Just from personal job experience, a staggering number of government employees have top secret clearances. It's not like stuff on a private email server was more or less safe than going through official routing. In fact, it's probably a bigger target.

If this is about how big a liar Hilary Clinton is, I would push people to look over some of the very first presidential campaigns the USA has had to see all sorts of whoppers flying at candidates. This is business as usual. Complete with the totally uninformed public spouting expert technological opinions about things they know nothing about.

flatrock , about 18 hours ago
greatn wrote:

HonorableSoul wrote:
You all know this is a witch hunt. FBI Comey is doing the right thing in trying to be transparent so as to let voters decide. Still going to vote Hillary and not Trump.

But this has nothing to do with voting for Hillary or Trump. I don't plan on voting for either one, but that doesn't change what Hillary did, and the fact that her actions received zero consequences, when anyone else would have received life in prison.

The FBI director has been very clear that no one else has EVER received prison for something like this. In fact, this is a direct quote from him from this hearing: "You know what would be a double standard? If Clinton actually were prosecuted for gross negligence"

Well there is a significant difference in both the level of negligence and the level of authority of the person involved. Other people who negligently handle classified information also do face serious consequences. They lose their security clearance. That means they lose their job and can't get another one like it. In some cases that is pretty much career ending.
As long as Clinton can get elected to public office that requires access to classified data, she can't be denied access simply based on mishandling such data in the past. The voters can elect the representatives they want and have every right to make stupid choices. So basically Clinton violated the law and is avoiding all consequences because she seeks to be an elected official, not a government employee.

If Clinton manages to escape any consequences it will be because of voters. If she was criminally prosecuted, maybe more voters would realize who they would be voting for, however there seems to be lots of evidence that Hillary supporters just don't care that she is untrustworthy and puts her own ambitions ahead of the country. It's not likely they haven't been presented with enough evidence of that before now.

danstl , about 18 hours ago
I think a big take-away here from watching this unfold is that the FBI director is correct in his assertion that Clinton did not lie to the FBI. BUT because she was in charge she bears the responsibility of information handled improperly.
From the questioning it was brought up that no actual documents classified or greater classification were actually transmitted to/from her email server, BUT transcribed conversations (conversations that happened in person between two or more individuals) that contained classified information was. These message threads all originated from a person lower on the chain and then forwarded around (not just to Clinton's server) through non-classified systems. Sometimes (like in many forwarded emails) only portions of the original messages were maintained (this is common with any forwarded and or quoted email in long chains) and a paragraph for instance would have a [C.] marking at the beginning of the thread, but as it got forwarded around that message was quoted and modified and the marking was removed by another individual (accidentally or on purpose, this is unknown).

Comey stated that they are not actively investigated the origination of the email chains as that was not part of their original investigation (this is somewhat interesting, but makes sense as it was not in their original investigative scope)

linnen, about 18 hours ago
sugarbooger wrote:

Interesting. Others have been punished more severely for less. from the Military Times

Quote: When another officer who received the email raised the alarm about sending the document over a nonsecure network, Brezler reported himself to his superiors and cooperated with a Naval Criminal Investigative Service probe into the classified material spillage. The probe turned up another folder with some 106 documents marked secret. Brezler said he inadvertently brought them back with him following his 2010 deployment to Now Zad, Afghanistan, where limited resources sometimes meant Marines worked on their personal computers and thumb drives.

Quote: But a Marine prosecutor said this week that the case was about more than that one communication with Marines in Afghanistan. Brezler knowingly kept classified documents to inform a book he was writing about his Now Zad experiences, said Maj. Chip Hodge, showing that Brezler had copied and pasted a paragraph from the Sarwar Jan document into his manuscript, "Rebirth of Apocalypse Now Zad."

[Jul 06, 2016] Eight Laws Hillary Clinton Could Be Indicted For Breaking The Daily Caller

dailycaller.com

As a former Justice Department official, I have, of late, been asked by both Democratic and Republican friends whether Hillary Clinton could be indicted for her email related actions. The simple answer is yes - she, and perhaps some of her senior staff, could be indicted for violating a number of federal criminal statutes. But for reasons that will be discussed later, it is unlikely that she will be.
Nevertheless, it is well worth discussing the various criminal provisions of federal law that she and others may have been violated based on mainstream news reports. Remember that news reporting can be incorrect or incomplete - and that Hillary Clinton, and anyone else involved, deserves every presumption of innocence. Also keep in mind that an indictment is not a conviction but rather the informed opinion of a grand jury that probable cause exists to believe one or more violations of federal criminal statutes have transpired.

This intellectual and legal research exercise should commence with a brief review of the basics of criminal jurisprudence: There are two elements of a criminal offense: the prohibited conduct as defined in statute; and the mens rea or mental intent of the individual or individuals engaging in the prohibited conduct. Thus, to gain a conviction on a criminal count in an indictment, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the prohibited conduct occurred, (2) the prohibited conduct was undertaken by the defendant, and (3) the defendant had the requisite mens rea or intent at the time.

1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
A federal prosecutor would naturally focus first on the most serious allegations: willfully transmitting or willfully retaining Top Secret and Compartmented (TS/SCI) material using a private server system. The individual who transmits and the individual who receives and retains TS/SCI information on a private server jointly share the culpability for risking the compromise and exploitation of the information by hostile intelligence services. The prosecutor's charging document would likely include felony counts under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and under 18 U.S. Code § 798 against each transmitting individual as well as separate counts against each receiving and retaining individual. Violation of either provision of the U.S. Code cited above is a felony with a maximum prison term of ten years.

The prohibited conduct is the insecure transmission of highly classified information, as well as the receipt and retention of highly classified information in an unapproved manner. The requisite mens rea is the willful commission of the prohibited conduct and the knowledge that compromised information could result in prejudice or injury to the United States or advantage to any foreign nation. Proof of intent to disclose the classified information is not required.

[Jul 06, 2016] Fact Check Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law Its All Politics

www.npr.org

NPR
Section 1924 Of Title 18 - Classified Information
During Clinton's news conference last month, she was asked if she was aware of the security implications of using her own email. Clinton answered this way:

"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."

What's remarkable about that answer is that she wasn't asked in the preceding question specifically about classified emails, but offered that answer anyway. There's a reason for that. It would be illegal for anyone to store classified information in an unauthorized way, like, say, on an unauthorized personal email server.

The day after Clinton's news conference, the New York Times reported, quoting a former State Department official, that it "seemed unlikely" that Clinton didn't email at least something classified.

"A former senior State Department official who served before the Obama administration said that although it was hard to be certain, it seemed unlikely that classified information could be kept out of the more than 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton's staff identified as involving government business.
" 'I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified,' said the former official, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to seem ungracious to Mrs. Clinton. 'Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it's hard to imagine.' "

The bottom line is this: No one will likely ever know what was deleted from Clinton's server. Barring one of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department being deemed "classified," it's also unlikely she will ever be found to have violated the letter of the law.

[Jul 06, 2016] 3 Federal Laws Hillary May Have Violated By Using Personal Email Accounts for State Business by Larry O'Connor

Notable quotes:

"... "'By using a private email system, Secretary Clinton violated the Federal Records Act and the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual regarding records management, and worse, could have left classified and top secret documents vulnerable to cyber attack,' Cause of Action Executive Director Dan Epstein said in an email to reporters. ..."

"... 'This is an egregious violation of the law, and if it were anyone else, they could be facing fines and criminal prosecution.'" ..."

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

"... "Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency's record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton's case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record. ..."

"... In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clinton's advisers, late last year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department." ..."

"... "'At this point in time, I think we're the only ones that specifically asked for both her personal and government email and phone logs,' Arends said of his group's Benghazi-related request." ..."

"... "'Hillary Clinton's system was designed to defy Freedom of Information Act requests, which is designed to defy the law.'" ..."

ijr.com

Mishandling Classified Information

Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email. Casey Harper at The Daily Caller delved into this angle:

"'By using a private email system, Secretary Clinton violated the Federal Records Act and the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual regarding records management, and worse, could have left classified and top secret documents vulnerable to cyber attack,' Cause of Action Executive Director Dan Epstein said in an email to reporters.

'This is an egregious violation of the law, and if it were anyone else, they could be facing fines and criminal prosecution.'"

Harper goes on to point out that multiple violations of this law have been enforced recently, including in 1999, when former CIA Director John M. Deutch's security clearance was suspended for using his personal email to send classified information.

Additionally, this past week, Gen. David Patraeus pleaded guilty for mishandling classified information by using a Gmail account instead of his official government email.

Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act

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

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

According to the original story on Clinton's emails published in The New York Times:

"Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency's record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton's case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record.

In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clinton's advisers, late last year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department."

The fact that the State Department combs through the 55,000 pages of emails sent on Clinton's private email account seems to verify that at least some of the emails Clinton sent contained classified information.

Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)

Veterans for a Strong America has filed a lawsuit against the State Department over potential violations of FOIA. Joel Arends, chairman of the non-profit group, explained to the Washington Examiner that their FOIA request over the Benghazi affair specifically asked for any personal email accounts Secretary Clinton may have used:

"'At this point in time, I think we're the only ones that specifically asked for both her personal and government email and phone logs,' Arends said of his group's Benghazi-related request."

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell believes that the use of a personal emails server appears to be a preemptive move, specifically designed to circumvent FOIA:

"'Hillary Clinton's system was designed to defy Freedom of Information Act requests, which is designed to defy the law.'"

These are just three of the potential violations that Clinton may have committed by using a personal email account to conduct official State business. More information will be provided as this story continues to develop.

[Jul 06, 2016] FBI Director Thought He'd Drop Hillary Charges Walk Away. Now, Congress Says 'Not So Fast'

ijr.com

On Tuesday, multiple Republicans said they expected to hear from Comey, as Independent Journal Review reported. That was followed Tuesday evening by House Speaker Paul Ryan, who told Megyn Kelly he would be calling Comey to the Hill to explain his decision:

"Comey should give us all the publicly available information to see how and why they reached these conclusions … Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the Oversight Committee, is going to be calling up James Comey to ask questions. He didn't answer any questions with the press. And our judiciary committee has sent a number of questions. There are a lot of unanswered questions here, Megyn."

Now, we've got a concrete development. Just a day after the FBI announced its decision on Hillary's emails, the House Oversight Committee will be holding a hearing where Comey will testify on his decision.

That's right. Comey will be on Capitol Hill on Thursday, just two days after his statement.
In a statement from the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said:

"The FBI's recommendation is surprising and confusing. The fact pattern presented by Director Comey makes clear Secretary Clinton violated the law. Individuals who intentionally skirt the law must be held accountable. Congress and the American people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the FBI's investigation."

Republicans will have plenty of "questions" for Comey, as Chaffetz has said in the past. Now that Comey has nailed down numerous Clinton lies on the emails, it will be very intriguing to see how he'll explain his decision not to indict.

We'll find out on Thursday.
Sigmund Kramer · On-Air Personality at Salem Media Group

This will serve no real purpose, not even much of a political one. But Comey needs to be put in the hot seat over his dereliction of duty. It's all a game, though. And that's the worst part of all of this corrupted mess.

[Jul 06, 2016] The Strange Gaps in Hillary Clinton's Email Traffic

Notable quotes:

"... But a numeric analysis of the emails that have been made public, focusing on conspicuous lapses in email activity, raises troubling concerns that Clinton or her team might have deleted a number of work-related emails. ..."

www.politico.com

POLITICO Magazine
But, when it comes to Clinton's correspondence, the most basic and troubling questions still remain unanswered: Why are there gaps in Clinton's email history? Did she or her team delete emails that she should have made public?
Story Continued Below

The State Department has released what is said to represent all of the work-related, or "official," emails Clinton sent during her tenure as secretary-a number totaling about 30,000. According to Clinton and her campaign, when they were choosing what correspondence to turn over to State for public release, they deleted 31,830 other emails deemed "personal and private." But a numeric analysis of the emails that have been made public, focusing on conspicuous lapses in email activity, raises troubling concerns that Clinton or her team might have deleted a number of work-related emails.

We already know that the trove of Clinton's work-related emails is incomplete. In his comments on Tuesday, Comey declared, "The FBI … discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014." We also already know that some of those work-related emails could be permanently deleted. Indeed, according to Comey, "It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that [Clinton and her team] did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery."

Why does this matter? Because Clinton signed documents declaring she had turned over all of her work-related emails. We now know that is not true. But even more importantly, the absence of emails raises troubling questions about the nature of the correspondence that might have been deleted.

Peter Schweizer is president of the Government Accountability Institute, senior editor at large at Breitbart News and the author of Clinton Cash.

[Jul 06, 2016] WikiLeaks Published Over 1,200 of Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Emails by legitgov

www.legitgov.org

WikiLeaks Published Over 1,200 of Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Emails | 05 July 2016 | On Monday, whistleblowing website WikiLeaks tweeted a link to 1,258 emails that it claims were sent and received by the former Secretary of State pertaining to the war in Iraq. The emails were part of a trove of 30,322 emails made available by the U.S. State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request, according to WikiLeaks. While the emails were available since February of this year, the tweet was timed to Wednesday's release of the so-called Chilcot report, which will outline the U.K.'s involvement in the Iraq war.

[Jul 06, 2016] The worst thing Hillary Clinton did with her email

Notable quotes:

"... Given her "extremely careless" handling of classified material, how can she be given the required security clearance that the President of the United States must bear? ..."

finance.yahoo.com

Jim

Was Clinton properly trained by WH IT advisers and the FBI?

I worked as a contractor employee for DoD for 43 years until retirement end of 2007.

I recall that my company had specific requirements from DoD Security with respect to the technical considerations required to be implemented to protect classified information (physical building 'shielding', computer devices and use thereof having to be closed systems within the secure domain used for the classified program, etc).

Both the FBI and DoD personnel performed the clearance investigations required for all employees.

So the FBI was very much aware of the risks associated with communications devices.

But since task performance did require some communication beyond the firewall, the primary line of defense was simply to prohibit verbal and written communication of classified aspects of the project. And any classified information 'captured' on hard copy or electronically had to be managed on a 'need to know', ...even if the audience had a clearance compatible with or exceeding the declared classified level of the information annotated with security labeling appropriate to hard copy and electronic 'copy'.

In other words if information which you had access was classified, the DD-254 Security document peculiar to the project clarified made it very clear which information was classified and to what security level (Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, etc).

The FBI was responsible for making sure personnel (including management and company executives) were cognizant with respect to all aspects of classified information and material handling, ..and .even thought despite appropriate levels of clearance, ...some project personnel might not have access because they did not have a need to know with respect to their tasks on the program.

My point is that the FBI along with DoD security had a responsibility to prevent inappropriate handling of classified information, ...and after making it clear what was expected, ...to then address abuses which were contrary to FBI and DoD requirements which had been clearly communicated as part of the clearance process.

So how is it that the FBI did not tell State what the rules were? If State makes up the rules for security on the fly, ...then why is the FBI asked to enforce rules which they did not establish with respect to the operation?

Are we saying the FBI is not enforcing a lack of rules which they failed to implement with State employees?

I am just saying that this whole "email' issure seems incredibly disjointed with respect to common sense security protocol required by DoD, ....so I would expect the FBI should be establishing security procotol for State in a manner just like, ...or at least similar too, ...the requirements for process required for Defense Department contractors?

I cannot believe that security protocol considerations of 50 years ago would not be engaged today? The FBI knew how to protect information, so why did they not do it, ...and now be passing judgement on the character of a political candidate even though the FBI cannot show any wrongdoing????

Looks like a political hack job instead of an FBI investigation.

Larry

And no mention of the biggest crime she committed: the cover up and deletion of evidence when she deleted select emails that she knew could be used as criminal evidence against her. She did that KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY WITH CRIMINAL INTENT. She's a damn lawyer she fully knew the consequences of her actions.

Why have we sunk to such lows as a free society to allow something like this to happen without public protest? Why is Hillary Clinton even being considered as a possible candidate for president? Have we lost all our personal pride as a free and just society?

Larry

"Intent" is the word as to why she got off. The report clearly shows that she lied to the public, and must of given a very different story to the FBI, State Department, and Justice Department, or she would have been prosecuted for lying to investigators. This means she and her campaign knew they were purposely lying to us. It is also clear she did not follow the freedom of information act. I never thought they would be able to show intent, but the way she handled classified material should have already been investigated by the DIS (Defense Investigative Service), and most likely would take away her security clearance. How can you be president without a clearance?

Kitt

The Bilderberg-CFR-controlled press are relentless. There is an adage that comes to mind that befits what they're trying to do. "Don't pee on my leg and then tell me it's raining."
;..
Not since the complicity of the FBI and the Justice Department in the Kennedy Assassination and the 9/11 False Flag Ruse have they been so complicit in being dutiful servants to the Bilderberg Round Table Usury-Oil-War Enslaver Hierarchy.

With a billion people around the world scratching their heads, wondering how such a miscarriage of justice could happen - we all wonder how Comey, Lynch and Obama can live with themselves. Shrillary and Bill (the Anti-Christ couple) have no problems living with their evil selves. But, Comey, Lynch and Obama - even though you're all members of the Council on Foreign Relations (one the evil subgroups of the Bilderberg Round Table), we had some hope that you would be honest brokers and help Americans come to the conclusion that no one is above the law. We have certainly learned on July 5, 2016, that's nowhere close to being true.

Non-Politicus

The most corrupt person ever to run for president and she is about to be our commander in chief. For the record, during my military career I placed on report several service members for security violations [they lost their security clearances and were FIRED] which were insignificant when compared to what this candidate did. American voters do have a very serious decision to make before the general election: elect the crooked one, elect the trash talking one, or elect the boring one.

Michael

Hillary used a personal email server for 100% of her government work for one reason and one reason only: Secrecy. Se knew exactly what she was doing. She didn't need any government watchdog groups drawing conclusions between her position as Sec. of State & the Clinton Foundation & Bill's speaking gigs.

Bill

Interesting, I work for a government agency where people have been charged, convicted and sent to prison for far less.

Bart

"no reasonable prosecutor" would file criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for using a private email system as secretary of state.

Say what? FOR USING A PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER? Is that all she did? Who writes this idiocy?

opiegreensboro

One issue not being discussed is that she fired an ambassador for doing the same thing she did, on a much smaller scale. If it was important enough to fire that person, why isn't she being held accountable? Oh, because the current Attorney General was co-opted in a clear conflict of interest meeting which is also not being reported. Must be great to be a Clinton. Laws matter people.

Tom

Ok, maybe if I squint just right and make a generous interpretation of laws regarding intent versus gross negligence, I could see some argument for this recommendation by the FBI...but let's not pretend avoiding prison time is compelling evidence that she should be promoted to leader of the free world.

John

The FBI director should have referred this matter to a grand jury. This was he job. His job was NOT to unilaterally decide whether ''a reasonable prosecutor'' would file criminal charges. This is just another example of the total corruptness of Washington, D.C. Hillary Clinton is only qualified to clean latrines since she and ''Bubba Bill'' crawled out of one! They are both POS.

Blair

Intent. Well a good percentage of prisoners in jails across the country can be let out now and the legal system completely revamped as the FBI has established new Harvard Law policies. All hit and runs, manslaughter, and anyone that can lie should be freed. Clinton and their arrogance put my military brothers and our country in peril. Screw her send her packing.

Try A Hammer

Given her "extremely careless" handling of classified material, how can she be given the required security clearance that the President of the United States must bear? Will she be careless with nuclear launch codes as well, effectively fumbling the "Nuclear football" in her "extremely careless" hands? This alone disqualifies her for the presidency.

alex

The guy spent 15 minutes outlining, point after point, Clinton's level of incompetence and dishonesty. The, when it was time for action, he rolled over and played dead like every other government hack.
Coward.

[Jul 06, 2016] The FBI gave Hillary Clinton a legal victory – and a political setback

Notable quotes:

"... it could hardly have gone any worse for Hillary. Many people proclaimed that she was the safe pair of hands but she's now been stamped with "extremely careless" with regards to national security. ..."

"... If the FBI (at the time) did not know that Hillary Clinton was using a personal email address and a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State, then I have lost all confidence in our nation's security apparatus. ..."

"... I think it was good for the FBI to let Hillary Clinton off even though she violated the law (no intent is no excuse). It actually takes the curtain down and the voters realize the special DC people have different rules than the common people! ..."

"... Nope. Dems did this. None of this stuff today is new info, Dems nominated and voted for her despite this investigation. Plus it was Clinton's fault, no one forced her to have a private email server or an unsecured phone. I don't often agree with Trump, but this is one thing he's right about, and it's all on the Dems this time. ..."

"... Didn't the FBI director say most people would face consequences for this kind of thing? Then let's Hillary off the hook.... Rather careless of him. ..."

"... Seems about right. The Wall St bankers, credit ratings agencies, and government regulators didn't intentionally destroy the world economy. They were simply "extremely careless", too. ..."

"... Hillary's arrogance, not "Republican operatives," put her in this hole. The question is why she ignored her own agency's regulations, and for so long. ..."

"... No one really believes that Hilary thinks any of the rules apply to her, so this is all about nothing. She was able to dispose of about half of her e-mails before there destruction could be the subject of obstruction of justice charges, so she skates there too. ..."

"... Christopher Hitchen's wrote a great deal on the Clinton's when they were last in the White House. He was scathing about them and their corrupt dealings. Christopher Hitchens' Case Against Ever Voting For Hillary Clinton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyDQxfDeWRc ..."

"... I've never seen the DNC struggle so hard to support a disaster. Shady smoke around donations to the Clinton Foundation and arms deals certainly haven't made her any more trustworthy to many Americans. She not a disaster waiting to happen...she's a disaster happening. ..."

"... If the FBI were to charge Clinton for using her private e-mail for government work they the FBI would have to charge Bush and several hundred of his employee's. Not only did they use a private e-mail server but it was run by the National Republican Committee. They not only used it but they illegally deleted at least 5 million government E-mails that by law had to be saved. Bush and Cheney and the Republican Nation Committee did this to cover up multiple crimes related to hundreds of Billions of American Taxpayer dollars as well as activities into 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. ..."

"... She DELIBERATELY set up the home server to try and keep her emails out of the reach of Freedom of Information Act requests. ... Calculated felony. ..."

"... That is absolutely ****ing outrageous, as is the fact Hillary has apparently promised Lynch she'll be re-appointed AG in the event she is elected come November. ..."

"... The reason why Clinton is viewed as liar is not because she is a woman, or because of partisan smears or because of the fact that she has had a long political career. The reason she is viewed as a liar is because she is one. ..."

www.theguardian.com

Haigin88

"......but Clinton's enemies will say yes. And that means the political witch hunts will begin anew......".

This is no witch hunt. Aside from the fact that she wasn't indicted, it could hardly have gone any worse for Hillary. Many people proclaimed that she was the safe pair of hands but she's now been stamped with "extremely careless" with regards to national security. She's also, yet again, been confirmed as a shameless liar. Her proclamation - in that tired, "bored teenager" voice that she affects when she's boxed in to a corner - at that event: "I never sent any classified information.....I never received any classified information" has been proven as a lie. The standard that she was held to was that intent meant that she was a spy. The standard of intent that you or I would have been held to would have been a heck of a lot lower.

Also, the law says that 'gross negligence' is enough to either fine someone or put them in jail for not more than ten years or both: how is Hillary's 'extreme carelessness' is any way different from 'gross negligence'? Everything that people suspected of Hillary Clinton has been borne out, if not more (yesterday was the first I'd heard of *multiple* servers: how is that not intent to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act?) but - yay! - the bar for presidential candidates is now so staggeringly low that champagne corks are being popped because she avoided jail.
*Clap..........clap.............clap...........clap...........clap.........clap.......*

Raskente

If the FBI (at the time) did not know that Hillary Clinton was using a personal email address and a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State, then I have lost all confidence in our nation's security apparatus.

Iron Mike

I think it was good for the FBI to let Hillary Clinton off even though she violated the law (no intent is no excuse). It actually takes the curtain down and the voters realize the special DC people have different rules than the common people!

There is no telling what Bill told Loretta but it worked. I know they didn't discuss grand kids for 30 minutes.

HungerArtist

In that way, Republican operatives have already accomplished their mission

Nope. Dems did this. None of this stuff today is new info, Dems nominated and voted for her despite this investigation. Plus it was Clinton's fault, no one forced her to have a private email server or an unsecured phone. I don't often agree with Trump, but this is one thing he's right about, and it's all on the Dems this time.

erik_ny

Didn't the FBI director say most people would face consequences for this kind of thing? Then let's Hillary off the hook.... Rather careless of him.

ga gamba

Seems about right. The Wall St bankers, credit ratings agencies, and government regulators didn't intentionally destroy the world economy. They were simply "extremely careless", too.

One can be graduated from one of the world's finest law schools and still plausibly state that she didn't intend to break the law. Seems law school trains people how to treat the law cavalierly. Sure, she was informed she was flouting the rules, and she disregarded this each time, but this is meaningless because the FBI is unable to read her mind. Ignore the actions because they suggest nothing of a person's intent.

That's the privilege of power. You're never accountable.

Tom Cuddy

Once again with feeling. We know Sec Clinton won her delegates. She has achieved the numerical feat of having enough delegates to be our nominee. And I see the tree coming closer and the brakes are not working. This is why Sander's is not enthusiastically joining the Clinton effort as yet. The party can stop from making a terrible mistake. I like Sec Clinton and believe she would make a good Prime Minister. She is also exactly the kind of politician Trump eats for breakfast. We are not unrealistic, we are not anti woman and we are not "Bros'. We just see Sanders as giving Trump a serious campaign and Hillary just being , not quite.... The question; do Americans fear Clinton or Trump more. The great unpopulated states ( y'know, the Red one's) are terrified of Clinton. DEmocrats ( and a few Republicans) are terrified of trump. This truly shows Plato's point about Democracy

Shotcricket -> Tom Cuddy

Sanders is what the US need but are told they don't, not unlike the UK in its portrayal of Parties & their leaders etc.

Robert Rudolph

Hillary's arrogance, not "Republican operatives," put her in this hole. The question is why she ignored her own agency's regulations, and for so long.

Did Hillary want to evade normal channels because she was using her official position to lever money out of people? Follow the money, people....

Dee Smith

I wish to humbly apologize in advance to the other nations that inhabit this earth on what the US is about to unleash on our collective space. Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated she is a money and power grasping disingenuous liar, complicit in the murder of US citizens, and not bearing the sense that the good Lord gave a woodchuck in handling information that ought to be more protected than storing it on an unsecured server in a basement. Conversely, we have Mr. Trump, whom, while opening up a very necessary dialog for myself and my American brethren, demonstrates all the sensitivity of rampaging water buffalo at a wallow.

Dear God, help us.

SteveofCaley -> Dee Smith

Don't fret. They already suspected, I think. Another day, another drone.

devanand54

The FBI did a lot more than rebuke her for being "extremely careless." It was a scathing report, the conclusion of which was not consistent with what was actually in the report. It also proved Clinton to - once again - be lying.

Dale Roberts

No one really believes that Hilary thinks any of the rules apply to her, so this is all about nothing. She was able to dispose of about half of her e-mails before there destruction could be the subject of obstruction of justice charges, so she skates there too. I recall a couple of military officers who were brought up on charges for failing to lock their safe containing classified material in a secure building. The nightly security sweep found the safe closed but combination lock had not been engaged. Eventually no one was prosecuted but the matter was handled administratively so neither was likely to ever see another promotion. Being a politician may save Hilary from this fate too.

DebraBrown

Oh, enough of the balony that we don't trust Hillary because of her gender. We don't trust her because she LIES, again and again, demonstrably and proveably, beyond any shadow of doubt. Both the IG Report and Comey confirm her lies about the email server.

Comey's decision is purely practical, given America's two-tiered justice system. The wealthy class are virtually un-indictable, they can get away with any crime because they hire armies of lawyers. It is sickening.

After being a loyal party member for 35 years, I am leaving the Democratic Party because Hillary Clinton is a bridge too far. God save America... from the Clintons.

eminijunkie

Odd. No mention of the fact that like Bill, who got nailed for lying under oath, albeit he only lost his lawyer's license and gained some fame for having said 'it all depends on the meaning of the word is,' Hillary is now shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to have committed perjury. As far as I know though, that's only something Congress can deal with at this point.

We should hear soon if they are going to do anything about it.

Balmaclellan

The case ultimately comes down to a matter of intent, something famously difficult to prove. Did Clinton intentionally send out or receive any sensitive information?

The Guardian seriously expects people to pay for this 'jourrnalism'? Seriously?
Clinton was the Secretary of State. How could she fail to "intentionally send out or receive sensitive information"? What the case actually comes down to is whether she intentionally placed the sensitive information she was sending out and receiving on a private server in order to conceal it from scrutiny and specifically to evade the provisions of Freedom of Information.

And no, I won't be subscribing.

Balmaclellan

Some of it may be attributable to poor optics... attributable to gender... partisan-fueled attacks...

Alternatively, it could simply be that she's a pathological liar. You know, the sort of person who tells stupid, pointless lies for the purpose of self-aggrandisement, and then bone-headedly continues to insist that they're true even when they've been incontrovertibly proven to be lies.

"Yah, the plane zig-zagged as it landed under sniper fire... I ran across the tarmac dodging bullets..."

BigPhil1959 -> Balmaclellan

Her husband was accused of rape and had sexual relations with an intern. She trashed the reputations of these women to protect her husband. I doubt neither May nor Leadsom have ever played the woman's card as Hilary Clinton has. The Clinton's are awful people and should be banned from public office.

badfinger

Flox Newts asks the tough questions:
1. What is the Statute of Limitations?
2. What about the Clinton Foundation?
Watch for a bogus "investigation" of the Foundation soon.
Brought to you by the GOP at taxpayers expense.

Filipe Barroso -> badfinger

A bogus investigation on a Foundation that would make the Mafia embarrassed? No way, they are too compromised for that and the Clinton's would be able to bought their way off anyway.

BigPhil1959 -> badfinger

Christopher Hitchen's wrote a great deal on the Clinton's when they were last in the White House. He was scathing about them and their corrupt dealings.
Christopher Hitchens' Case Against Ever Voting For Hillary Clinton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyDQxfDeWRc

Sadly no longer with us, but a proper journalist.

Alpheus Williams

"Careless" with classified material...certainly careless with the facts...careless with promoting the bombing of M.E. countries. Her record on Iraq, Syria and Libya don't instil confidence....Europe is overwhelmed with refugees from war and chaos from our making and Clinton's judgement certainly hasn't helped. She has not only managed to spot the Nation but there own political party. I've never seen the DNC struggle so hard to support a disaster. Shady smoke around donations to the Clinton Foundation and arms deals certainly haven't made her any more trustworthy to many Americans. She not a disaster waiting to happen...she's a disaster happening.

WMDMIA

If the FBI were to charge Clinton for using her private e-mail for government work they the FBI would have to charge Bush and several hundred of his employee's. Not only did they use a private e-mail server but it was run by the National Republican Committee. They not only used it but they illegally deleted at least 5 million government E-mails that by law had to be saved. Bush and Cheney and the Republican Nation Committee did this to cover up multiple crimes related to hundreds of Billions of American Taxpayer dollars as well as activities into 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.

Beside these government protected account are hacked far more often than private servers, so the information she passed on was safer where she had it.

simonsaysletsgroove -> jsayles

From what I read elsewhere, it wasn't an 'accidentally leaving files on a bus' scenario... She DELIBERATELY set up the home server to try and keep her emails out of the reach of Freedom of Information Act requests. ... Calculated felony.

kaltnadel

If Hillary had any integrity, she would step down in the face of being deemed "extremely careless" by the director of the FBI. Clearly she is unsuitable for a position of responsibility.

Being better than Trump is not good enough.

"Witch hunt" is a totally inappropriate phrase. HC has been close to felons over and over again for decades. She lies as she breathes; she speaks in vapidities; she laughs without a glimmer of what good humor is. She is not only bad, she is dangerous. If she has avoided out and out criminality herself, she has her Yale law degree to thank for that, not her moral compass. And she has not a grain of political ambition that isn't personal to herself.

Someone should help her to realize that she ought to step down, and it clearly isn't going to be Obama.

Metreemewall

Never mind her husband, her carelessness, her snipe's fire dodging skills, her gender.

She's a warmonger - "We came , we saw, he died"a - was her giggling reaction to the news of Gaddaff being sodomised and murdered. And she is an AIPAC tool. And she's partly responsible for the immoral profitable prisons' scheme. And she does not believe in universal healthcare. And she's putting her "Glass-Steagall" poster child of a husband in charge of the economy.

And the list goes on, and on, and on...

elliot2511

"Bill Clinton bumbled his way into the eye of a political storm last week when a private meeting he arranged with Lynch"

That is absolutely ****ing outrageous, as is the fact Hillary has apparently promised Lynch she'll be re-appointed AG in the event she is elected come November.

If this sort of thing had occurred in, say, Bolivia or Kazakhstan, everyone would know what was going on and be able able to see this behaviour for what it is. The contemptible idiocy and demagoguery of Trump doesn't change that.

keeptakingthetablets

The reason why Clinton is viewed as liar is not because she is a woman, or because of partisan smears or because of the fact that she has had a long political career. The reason she is viewed as a liar is because she is one.

Just to take this particular issue as an example, she lied when she said she would fully cooperate "anytime, anywhere' with the respective inquiries and she lied when she said she had permission to use a private email server.

Slammy01

I don't see the matter of intent as a particularly relevant factor here. She has an obligation to protect classified information as part of being granted access. James Comey said she and her aids were "extremely careless" with how they handled information which any reasonable person in that situation would recognize was classified. Any other person would already have been indited....

calderonparalapaz

compared the case to that of retired general David Petraeus, former director of the CIA, who was sentenced to twoyears' probation after he shared classified information with his biographer, with whom he was having an affair. . "The system is rigged. General Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment."

Yup, it sure is rigged.

[Jul 06, 2016] Clinton's main talking point on the email scandal is false by Michael Garofalo

Notable quotes:

"... "Only a very small number of the emails here containing classified information bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information," Comey explained. "But even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it." ..."

"... Comey explained that in the course of its investigation, the FBI was able to recover "several thousand" work-related emails that were not among the 30,000 that Clinton and her staff produced to the State department in 2014, three of which contained information that was classified at the time they were sent. Comey said it is "highly likely" that additional work-related emails were deleted by Clinton's lawyers but not subsequently recovered by the FBI. ..."

"... "In my opinion there is a 100% chance that all emails sent and received by her, including all the electronic correspondence stored on her server in her Chappaqua residence, were targeted and collected by the Russian equivalent of NSA," a former CIA case officer told the Associated Press last summer. ..."

"... The FBI found that Clinton's use of a private domain was widely known and that hackers had accessed the private email accounts of people with whom Clinton regularly communicated using her private email account. ..."

"... "She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside of the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries," Comey said. "Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account." ..."

www.salon.com

Clinton has said throughout the FBI's investigation - and as recently as last week - that while using her private server she "did not send nor receive information that was marked classified at the time."

Comey's statement contradicted Clinton's claim in no uncertain terms: "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was 'top secret' at the time they were sent. Thirty-six of those chains contained 'secret' information at the time, and eight contained 'confidential' information at the time."

Note that Clinton's statement refers to information "marked" classified, while Comey's does not. As Politifact pointed out recently, Clinton's phrasing was revealing because, under scrutiny, it left open the possibility that Clinton's emails might have included information that was classified but inappropriately left unmarked. This appears to have been the case with the majority of the 110 classified emails Comey referenced.

"Only a very small number of the emails here containing classified information bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information," Comey explained. "But even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

Comey did not elaborate on the "very small number" of Clinton's emails that bore classified markings (as opposed to emails that contained classified information not marked as such), but his statement indicates that at least some of the emails on Clinton's private server contained information marked classified at the time they were sent or received. If this is the case, it renders Clinton's claim false even by a legalistic standard.

2. The FBI isn't really sure how much Clinton didn't hand over from her private server

Before Clinton handed over 30,000 work-related emails from her private server to the State Department in 2014, her lawyers deleted roughly 30,000 other emails containing information they deemed personal in nature. After this process was complete, Comey explained, Clinton's lawyers "then cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery."

"I have provided all of my work-related emails," Clinton told ABC News in May. The FBI's investigation revealed that, knowingly or not, a significant number of Clinton's work-related emails were not actually handed over by her staff.

Comey explained that in the course of its investigation, the FBI was able to recover "several thousand" work-related emails that were not among the 30,000 that Clinton and her staff produced to the State department in 2014, three of which contained information that was classified at the time they were sent. Comey said it is "highly likely" that additional work-related emails were deleted by Clinton's lawyers but not subsequently recovered by the FBI.

Though Comey said that the FBI has "no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them in some way," his remarks revealed that the FBI's investigation lacked "complete visibility" because it relied so heavily on the sorting process employed by Clinton's lawyers. That is to say, the FBI acknowledges the existence of what Donald Rumsfeld might refer to as "known unknowns" in its investigation.

3. The FBI doesn't know if Clinton's personal server was hacked

Critics have long claimed that the Clinton's use of a private email server unprotected by government security standards put classified information at risk of being accessed by foreign states or actors.

"In my opinion there is a 100% chance that all emails sent and received by her, including all the electronic correspondence stored on her server in her Chappaqua residence, were targeted and collected by the Russian equivalent of NSA," a former CIA case officer told the Associated Press last summer.

Comey said that while the FBI "did not find direct evidence" that hostile actors had successfully hacked Clinton's email, the bureau would be unlikely to find such evidence even if a breach had occurred.

The FBI found that Clinton's use of a private domain was widely known and that hackers had accessed the private email accounts of people with whom Clinton regularly communicated using her private email account.

"She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside of the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries," Comey said. "Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

[Jul 06, 2016] Ex-DOJ Spox Rips FBI Director's 'Really Reckless Statements'

Notable quotes:

"... "For Jim Comey to come out and make that kind of public statement about someone whom the government is not going to charge is completely inappropriate and arguably violates DOJ and FBI rules." ..."

"... "I think that type of statement is why the FBI director is not supposed to hold press conferences like the one he held today. If you're not going to bring charges you shouldn't insert yourself in the middle of a political campaign the way he did," ..."

"... "If there is to be a judgment that her behavior was careless or inappropriate, that's a judgment for the State Department and Inspector General to make. The FBI's job is to determine whether laws were violated and charges can be brought in court. His determination was that there were no laws violated and he wouldn't recommend charges." ..."

"... "Beyond that, it's really inappropriate for him to be talking about this case any further." ..."

"... "And I can't remember a time in history when the FBI director or when an Attorney General has reviewed a case, decided that the evidence does not support bringing charges, and still make really reckless statements about an underlying individual's behavior. It's really just not appropriate unless he's ready to back them up in court which obviously as he said today he doesn't believe is appropriate." ..."

Jul 05, 2016 | Crooks and Liars
Mrs. Greenspan began by asking Matt Miller, ex-spokesman for the Department of Justice how he could "justify the fact that she was this careless with her emails?"
Oh, the vapors. You could almost see them on the screen.

Miller shot back, "For Jim Comey to come out and make that kind of public statement about someone whom the government is not going to charge is completely inappropriate and arguably violates DOJ and FBI rules."

Mrs. Greenspan was having none of it, so she dragged out Paul Ryan's statement where he did everything but call Clinton Satan.

Miller had a comeback for that, too, and it was not kind to Director Comey.

"I think that type of statement is why the FBI director is not supposed to hold press conferences like the one he held today. If you're not going to bring charges you shouldn't insert yourself in the middle of a political campaign the way he did," Miller asserted.

He went on to repeat, "If there is to be a judgment that her behavior was careless or inappropriate, that's a judgment for the State Department and Inspector General to make. The FBI's job is to determine whether laws were violated and charges can be brought in court. His determination was that there were no laws violated and he wouldn't recommend charges."

"Beyond that, it's really inappropriate for him to be talking about this case any further."
... ... ...
He continued, "And I can't remember a time in history when the FBI director or when an Attorney General has reviewed a case, decided that the evidence does not support bringing charges, and still make really reckless statements about an underlying individual's behavior. It's really just not appropriate unless he's ready to back them up in court which obviously as he said today he doesn't believe is appropriate."

[Jul 06, 2016] Are We a Post-Justice Society?

Notable quotes:

"... We have all been riveted by news Tuesday that FBI Director James Comey concluded that although then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had mishandled more than 100 classified documents, had destroyed evidence, and had acted in an "extremely careless" way at the helm of the US Department of State, he could not recommend that any charges be filed against her. ..."

"... But let's not just pick on Hillary. What about then-SACEUR (NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe), USAF General Philip Breedlove, whose hacked e-mails reveal that he considered civilian control of the military an inconvenient joke? Breedlove, while in uniform, actively conspired with other former military officers and with think tanks and PR firms to undermine President Obama's cautious policy toward the 2014 conflict in Ukraine. He presented false information to suggest that Russia had invaded Ukraine and he misrepresented the Ukraine situation to Congress -- at the same time he was working behind the scenes to fully arm Ukrainian extremists who wanted war with Russia. NATO claims its role is to keep us safe -- but we learn from Breedlove's secret, Strangelovian maneuvers, that those in charge will do anything to make us believe they are still relevant, including provoke a nuclear war. Move over, Hillary. Breedlove deserves a turn on the dock. ..."

"... Congress refusing to act on eight solid years of President Obama's illegal wars is every bit as destructive to the rule of law as Hillary Clinton's email homebrew. ..."

"... That is why we are taking our case to Washington this September, to make a pitch for a new foreign policy that resists to the face the deep state's secret manipulations, the Clintons' maneuverings, and Congress's dereliction of duty. ..."

RPI 5 July Update

Dear Friends of the Ron Paul Institute:
We have all been riveted by news Tuesday that FBI Director James Comey concluded that although then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had mishandled more than 100 classified documents, had destroyed evidence, and had acted in an "extremely careless" way at the helm of the US Department of State, he could not recommend that any charges be filed against her.
Former State Department official and good friend of the Ron Paul Institute, Peter Van Buren, reminded us of the grotesque double standards that on the one hand govern whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning and Ed Snowden, and on the other hand excuse the behavior of the privileged elite like Hillary Clinton. Van Buren tweeted this quote from Comey's statement today: "This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences." Pretty clearly, then, there are one set of rules for the Hillary Clintons of the world and a very different set of rules for the Snowdens or the John Kiriakous of the world. And most of the rest of us are in the second category. Van Buren used sarcasm to point out that in the old days when he (and I) signed a non-disclosure agreement with the US government it was expected that violation of that agreement would be evenly applied regardless of one's placement on the food-chain.
Alas this is not the case.
But let's not just pick on Hillary. What about then-SACEUR (NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe), USAF General Philip Breedlove, whose hacked e-mails reveal that he considered civilian control of the military an inconvenient joke? Breedlove, while in uniform, actively conspired with other former military officers and with think tanks and PR firms to undermine President Obama's cautious policy toward the 2014 conflict in Ukraine. He presented false information to suggest that Russia had invaded Ukraine and he misrepresented the Ukraine situation to Congress -- at the same time he was working behind the scenes to fully arm Ukrainian extremists who wanted war with Russia. NATO claims its role is to keep us safe -- but we learn from Breedlove's secret, Strangelovian maneuvers, that those in charge will do anything to make us believe they are still relevant, including provoke a nuclear war. Move over, Hillary. Breedlove deserves a turn on the dock.
And if we want to further discuss how the rule of law has been flushed to oblivion in the US of 2016, we need look no further than Congress, which actively facilitates lawlessness through its continued inaction and fecklessness in areas of its Constitutional responsibility. Congress refusing to act on eight solid years of President Obama's illegal wars is every bit as destructive to the rule of law as Hillary Clinton's email homebrew.
Yes, there is plenty of lawlessness to go around, and in both parties. That is why we are taking our case to Washington this September, to make a pitch for a new foreign policy that resists to the face the deep state's secret manipulations, the Clintons' maneuverings, and Congress's dereliction of duty. The old system is breaking apart and we will make the case for peace, prosperity, and non-intervention.

[Jul 05, 2016] Clinton Offers New Contract To Attorney General - Escapes Indictment

Notable quotes:

"... Comey laid out a 100% air-tight case for a life-sentence felony conviction, and then said "no reasonable prosecutor would bring an indictment". ..."

"... She is as good as convicted. You could say it was a pardon. ..."

"... Anybody besides me wonder how a "Loyal Bushie" became Obama's FBI Director? ..."

"... So we watch this guy spend 20 minutes telling us how many Federal Criminal Laws / NATIONAL SECURITY she and her staff has broken. Then you tell us that it's impossible to prove intent. That is absurd, pathetic, cowardly and obscene. (Maybe reread the OATH you took to the Constitution and God). ..."

"... I would think the choice of vice president for a Hillary administration is EXTREMELY important. The Corporatists now supporting Hillary will demand a Corporatist VP. Many of the Sanders supporters will not vote for her if she chooses a Corporatist VP. ..."

"... There is one way that Trump is the lessor of two evils: she already has the blood of millions dripping from her hands before the election. What we don't know is if Trump will follow in the footsteps of the previous three fools in the WH and after his election rack up his own million deaths. Killing millions is now another trophy of being president. ..."

"... It's not "lesser of two evils." It's "different of two evils." ..."

"... The remarkable events also serve as a clear reminder that while the Clintons enriched themselves over the years, they were helping to bankrupt the public trust in its government and institutions. And they won't stop until they're stopped. ..."

"... Giuliani: "This is an extremely hard conclusion to justify. People have been charged under these statues for far less than this but... when one is Hillary Clinton, the laws don't exactly apply like they do for ordinary people. . ..."

"... Trump has been handed a lot of firepower. Oh for the debates. Perhaps Hillary's cough may deflect. ..."

"... My personal opinion is that women in Power are expeditive persons whose only concern is" Can I get away with it?" Hillary loves to find ways to break the law. Re her stint as counselor to certain congressional entities in her first job. ..."

"... "Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned", and even Obama should remember it, without counting countless others who stepped on her toes or so she deemed. ..."

"... Surely for all his bravado, Trump is a lesser evil. But I doubt he can win counter to the whims of the Establishment. ..."

"... The Empire's choice not charged? Well, I'm really shocked......NOT! ..."

"... Wikileaks appears to have a substantial amount of information on Clinton, having already released a large archive of Clinton's emails earlier in the year. Breitbart has previously reported on Julian Assange's claims that Google is complicit in the managing of Clintons online media campaign. ..."

"... Released only a week after Bill Clinton's meeting with Attorney General, Loretta Lynch and a day after Huma Abedins admission that Hillary Clinton had burned daily schedules, the contents of Hillary's released emails, containing multiple interactions between Clinton and multiple white house officials, could be extremely damaging to Clinton's current presidential campaign. ..."

"... For those who bellow about her candidacy just being an extension of Obama's (sorry, Obomber) presidency, just bear in mind if he were running again he'd be a shoe-in. ..."

"... Think Jill before Hill hashtag will get some momentum? ..."

"... I completely understand them. Because the most horrible and obscene things Clinton did were not illegal (As far as US law is concerned.) So if destroying Libya and laughing like a hyena at Qadhafi's murder doesn't make you hate here, poor handling of national security documents won't do it either. ..."

"... The global plutocrats that own private finance should be tried for war crimes and their political psychopaths removed from control but since they own rule of law I expect they have legalized all their theft as they go.....history is written by the winners. ..."

www.moonofalabama.org

ALberto | Jul 5, 2016 1:37:41 PM | 16

Wikileaks publishes 1,000 Clinton emails July 4, 2016 ...

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/?q=iraq

blues | Jul 5, 2016 1:47:00 PM | 17

I am stunned. And not because I didn't expect this. Here is what I just posted on ZeroHedge:

Comey laid out a 100% air-tight case for a life-sentence felony conviction, and then said "no reasonable prosecutor would bring an indictment".

She is as good as convicted. You could say it was a pardon.

karlof1 | Jul 5, 2016 2:07:32 PM | 21

Pasting what a fellow posted on the CD comment board on the article related to this event,

""Precedent" (DEJA VU) then BUSH acting AG / Deputy AG Jim Comey's March 16, 2004 Draft Resignation Letter: (Anybody besides me wonder how a "Loyal Bushie" became Obama's FBI Director?)

"I was asked what I would do if I concluded that a course of action was fundamentally wrong and I could not convince my superiors of that fact....Over the last two weeks I have encountered just such an apocalyptic situation, where I and the Department of Justice have been asked to be part of something that is fundamentally wrong. As we have struggled over these last few days to do the right thing, I have never been prouder of the Department of Justice or of the Attorney General. Sadly, although I believe this has been one of the institution's finest hours, we have been unable to right that wrong...I would give much not to be in this position. But, as I told you during our private meeting last week, here I stand; I can do no other. Therefore, with a heavy heart and undiminished love of my country and my Department, I resign as Deputy Attorney General of the United States, effective immediately.

Sincerely yours, James B. Comey."

The next day he / they (FBI) had a meeting with W. Bush and they all had their minds changed. /

So we watch this guy spend 20 minutes telling us how many Federal Criminal Laws / NATIONAL SECURITY she and her staff has broken. Then you tell us that it's impossible to prove intent. That is absurd, pathetic, cowardly and obscene. (Maybe reread the OATH you took to the Constitution and God)." http://commons.commondreams.org/t/fbi-recommends-no-consequences-for-clintons-reckless-email-handling/24678/21?u=enemyofwar

jawbone | Jul 5, 2016 2:08:38 PM | 22

So, a tainted Hillary is elected president. After she is sworn in, and there is a Repub majority in the House, impeachment time!

I would think the choice of vice president for a Hillary administration is EXTREMELY important. The Corporatists now supporting Hillary will demand a Corporatist VP. Many of the Sanders supporters will not vote for her if she chooses a Corporatist VP.

Is a dilemma. For the voters, not for the Corporatist Dems.

AriusArmenian | Jul 5, 2016 2:10:06 PM | 23

There is one way that Trump is the lessor of two evils: she already has the blood of millions dripping from her hands before the election. What we don't know is if Trump will follow in the footsteps of the previous three fools in the WH and after his election rack up his own million deaths. Killing millions is now another trophy of being president.

mc | Jul 5, 2016 2:21:54 PM | 27

The "lesser evil" problem is the "either-or" fallacy. Either one of them is worse or the other is. They both are. It's not "lesser of two evils." It's "different of two evils." Some say the world will end in fire, some in ice. Trump is the roaring fire, Clinton is the suffocating ice. Both end us up the same place, just different ways at different speeds. Freddy Krueger or Hannibal Lecter.

Dismemberment by chain saw or scalpel. A gaping chest wound or gangrene. Going off that high mountain cliff at 500 mph or 400 mph. Either choice is just projecting one's personal fears, not dealing with reality, which is that our grandchildren will look at their conditions when adults and at this election of either Trump or Clinton with hatred and contempt for our stupidity at allowing things to evolve to this point and for relying on "lesser of two evils" arguments to perpetuate them.

likklemore | Jul 5, 2016 2:30:32 PM | 30

Chet380 @ 20

In addition to my post @ 2;
Is there anything at all in these two posts at ZH
which escapes your comprehension?

"From Monica To Loretta - The Clintons Corrupt Absolutely"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-04/monica-loretta-clintons-corrupt-absolutely

[.] The explosive result shows the Clintons haven't lost their touch for leaving destruction and chaos in their wake. The remarkable events also serve as a clear reminder that while the Clintons enriched themselves over the years, they were helping to bankrupt the public trust in its government and institutions. And they won't stop until they're stopped.

And

Rudy Giuliani: "Today Hillary Clinton Was Put Way Above The Law"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05/rudy-giuliani-today-hillary-clinton-was-put-way-above-law

Giuliani: "This is an extremely hard conclusion to justify. People have been charged under these statues for far less than this but... when one is Hillary Clinton, the laws don't exactly apply like they do for ordinary people. .

~ ~ ~

Trump has been handed a lot of firepower. Oh for the debates. Perhaps Hillary's cough may deflect.

CarlD | Jul 5, 2016 2:36:37 PM | 31
Sad day indeed and vexing hours to come, on all fronts, once HRC is elected and sworn in as POTUS.
My personal opinion is that women in Power are expeditive persons whose only concern is" Can I get away with it?"
Hillary loves to find ways to break the law. Re her stint as counselor to certain congressional entities in her first job.

She will spin her ways through the miseries of mankind wrought by her very ministrations. And as sower of wars galore
she will probably receive a Nobel Peace Prize for good measure.

"Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned", and even Obama should remember it, without counting countless others who stepped on her toes or so she deemed.

Surely for all his bravado, Trump is a lesser evil. But I doubt he can win counter to the whims of the Establishment.

So, enjoy life while you can.

ben | Jul 5, 2016 2:42:56 PM | 32
The Empire's choice not charged? Well, I'm really shocked......NOT!
Trump, Clinton, six or half a dozen. The evil Empire rolls on. Business as usual uber alles!

Tony B @ 29 said.."
" Man, wake up! American elections are fixed to the gills."

Yep, No doubt.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14545

WorldBLee | Jul 5, 2016 2:45:55 PM | 33
Re: "Additionally a judge ruled today that Clinton's "private" emails will be open to FOIA requests. Some dirt will be found in them."
Look at the history of FOIA requests for Clinton emails. The cases may be won, but the timeline for actually releasing the information in all cases so far is AFTER the November election--in one case 75 years from now according to the Unanimous Dissent podcast on Sputnik.

Here's a link to the show that discusses this: Unanimous Dissent from July 4

jaqwith | Jul 5, 2016 3:19:18 PM | 39
The Link to Director Comey's statement got mixed up apparently. There is a press release online, and I think it's worth reading in full. I loved the subtlety…

What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

[…]

So, first, what we have done:

[…]

That's what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

[…]

So that's what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

[…]

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation-including people in government-but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way.

I couldn't be prouder to be part of this organization.

ALberto | Jul 5, 2016 3:21:04 PM | 40
Wikileaks appears to have a substantial amount of information on Clinton, having already released a large archive of Clinton's emails earlier in the year. Breitbart has previously reported on Julian Assange's claims that Google is complicit in the managing of Clintons online media campaign.
Released only a week after Bill Clinton's meeting with Attorney General, Loretta Lynch and a day after Huma Abedins admission that Hillary Clinton had burned daily schedules, the contents of Hillary's released emails, containing multiple interactions between Clinton and multiple white house officials, could be extremely damaging to Clinton's current presidential campaign.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously stated that he has multiple leaks in store for Clinton and, as a free speech fundamentalist, believes that a Clinton presidency could be damaging.

source - http://www.globalresearch.ca/things-get-worse-for-hillary-wikileaks-releases-1258-hillary-clinton-iraq-war-emails/5534312

Laguerre | Jul 5, 2016 3:33:59 PM | 41

So how is Clinton's liberation from prosecution likely to play with the public?

peter | Jul 5, 2016 4:05:35 PM | 44
The American people aren't surprised that HRC isn't going to be prosecuted, neither are they highly outraged. It just wasn't that big a deal for them in the first place. They are aware of her shortcomings and Bill's aura has taken a significant hit over the last while.
For those who bellow about her candidacy just being an extension of Obama's (sorry, Obomber) presidency, just bear in mind if he were running again he'd be a shoe-in.

Trump has pissed off some major voting blocks in the US, Hispanics and women to name but two. The Blacks are usually Democratic voters and there's no reason to think that's about to change. His message mostly resonates with angry young whites and they simply don't have the numbers. That being said, there's a chance that Trump could conceivably find enough dirt on hHillary to make a difference, but he's already called her everything but a white woman.

The Yanks still see themselves as inclusive and a nation of immigrants even if the reality is somewhat different. There's something about Trump's denigration of Mexicans and his walked-back ban of all Muslims that doesn't fit with their view of themselves.

The Yanks couldn't give a fiddler's fuck about Brexit and its implications. They don't share this thread's widely held view that now is the time for revolution. Some do, of course, but they're mostly regarded as a fringe.

It's true that Hillary is more of a warmonger than the Donald but that's not too important in this election. Then again Trump's worldview could change in a heartbeat if he were elected and saw an opportunity to cash in on some of that MIC money.

Laguerre | Jul 5, 2016 4:17:32 PM | 45

Public in this case is a Potato Couch.
Typical expression of the American problem. You're unable to say what the problem is.
Bluemot5 | Jul 5, 2016 4:31:54 PM | 46
Think Jill before Hill hashtag will get some momentum? http://www.jill2016.com/it_is_time_for_a_second_american_revolution

Lysander | Jul 5, 2016 5:09:12 PM | 51
@ Mark, 15
I completely understand them. Because the most horrible and obscene things Clinton did were not illegal (As far as US law is concerned.) So if destroying Libya and laughing like a hyena at Qadhafi's murder doesn't make you hate here, poor handling of national security documents won't do it either.

psychohistorian | Jul 5, 2016 5:12:02 PM | 52
I am now thinking that we are entering a high cognitive dissonance phase of empire decline with rule of law being the center piece and Clinton II's teflon application of it being one example.
The next example is this recent speech by Elizabeth Warren which I read at Angry Bear here:
http://angrybearblog.com/2016/07/reigniting-competition-in-the-american-economy.html#more-35836

I encourage folks to read the Warren piece and ask yourselves how someone who believes what she exposes can be associated in any way with Clinton II politics.....but the rumor is that she may be VP pick.....another Dem sheepdog?

The global plutocrats that own private finance should be tried for war crimes and their political psychopaths removed from control but since they own rule of law I expect they have legalized all their theft as they go.....history is written by the winners.

[Jul 05, 2016] Forget It Jake, It's Clintontown

Notable quotes:

"... Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case. ..."

"... I did not believe that official Washington would indict Hillary Clinton, not in a presidential election year, and not when she's the only thing standing between Donald Trump and the White House. ..."

"... The thought of four more years of those people, the Clintons, in the White House, with all their sleaziness, their drama, their sense of entitlement - it's sick-making. What a country. What a year. ..."

Jul 05, 2016 | The American Conservative

I concur with my colleague Daniel Larison:

Clinton won't be indicted for breaking any laws, but Comey's statement is nonetheless an indictment of her poor judgment, negligence, and recklessness. This should be very damaging for Clinton, and maybe it still could be, but it can hardly come as a surprise to anyone that remembers how the Clintons have operated over the years. The sloppiness, sense of entitlement, and disregard for consequences are all only too familiar. We can expect several more years of this sort of behavior from a future Clinton administration.

Andrew McCarthy is stunned. He says the FBI director has refused to indict her on a premise that is not required for an indictment to be issued. And:

I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey's claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

It is somehow comforting to find that one's pitch-black cynicism is vindicated. I did not believe that official Washington would indict Hillary Clinton, not in a presidential election year, and not when she's the only thing standing between Donald Trump and the White House.

The thought of four more years of those people, the Clintons, in the White House, with all their sleaziness, their drama, their sense of entitlement - it's sick-making. What a country. What a year.

[Jul 05, 2016] FBI rebukes Clinton but recommends no charges in email investigation

Looks like the Democratic establishment decided that they wants Clinton in November no matter what. But the price of this decition si that she will now compete as officially named "reckless and stupid" candidate.

An interesting side affect might be that there will be attempts to impeach her from day one.

Notable quotes:

"... How is having your own private server for Secretary of State business not any of these things? What is the purpose of having your own email server if not for intentional misconduct? I imagine it costs a fair amount to set up and then run, did she just set it up for the lulz? ..."

"... "Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did – recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked on Top Secret information on it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally charged long ago, with little fuss or objection." ..."

"... After the FBI qualifying Hillary as extremely careless - precisely while acting as SoS - it sounds silly to hear Obama saying she was a great Secretary of State. ..."

"... Well, Comey just secured his job in a Clinton administration. ..."

"... Hitlery is just another establishment bankster cartel stooge/puppet. Expect more wars and genocides if this woman is elected. ..."

"... The NYTimes, 2 days ago: ..."

"... But, can we now at least admit that she lied, repeatedly and comprehensively, about her email server. This is now proven. ..."

"... She said there was no classified info on her email. This was a lie. ..."

"... She said everything was allowed per State Dept rules. This was a lie. ..."

"... She said the server was never hacked and remained secure. This was a lie. ..."

"... She said that she turned over all her emails. This was a lie. ..."

"... "110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information AT THE TIME they were sent or received. EIGHT of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET AT THE TIME they were sent; 36 chains contained SECRET information AT THE TIME;" ..."

"... I think they got that backwards, An Indictment would destroy Clinton's election hopes, and opened the door for Bernie Sanders to become president. ..."

"... Obama himself issued an executive order in 2009, "Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information," that deals at length with the handling of various levels of classified/top secret data by top officials and others they designate. An executive order has the force of law, and Obama specified various sanctions and penalties that violations can occur. ..."

"... The order even includes sanctions for "reckless" handling of classified data, and Comey used the term "reckless." Why those sanctions were not applied here is baffling. ..."

"... This woman is a dangerous sociopathic liar. I say that as a feminist and registered Democrat for 35 years who voted for her husband in the 1990's. Yes, I'm afraid of what Trump might do as president. But I am MORE afraid of what Hillary will do. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. ..."

"... "Extremely Careless" - that's a great defense for a potential president of the USA. That's what we all welcome - an extremely careless president. ..."

"... Now, to be really, really clear: 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.' ~~ George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945). ..."

"... First, the FBI decides whether to indict, not whether to prosecute. It is not part of its proper remit to decide not to indict on the supposition that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. That is end-running the legal system of a nation ruled by law. ..."

"... Second, whether or not Hillary Clinton could mount a defense of carelessness is not a concern of the FBI, though they act as if they know the mind of Hillary Clinton. I realize they interviewed her yesterday or something. I would hazard she knew every question beforehand and they knew every answer beforehand. But, anyways. ..."

"... They all lie even Comey. He was there and with straight face saying what Clinton did didn't rise to the level of prosecution. Nonsense, for even smaller infractions the FBI refers prosecution to the DOJ. DOJ in these cases depending on mostly resources, decides if to prosecute or not, or seek a plea bargain. ..."

"... Everything he said pronounced her guilt, you'd think he was about to announce charges, then no charges. He even described her actions as gross negligence using other words, which is enough to indict. But no... ..."

"... She was careless with the fate of Libya and she was careless with national security. Yet, according to President Obama, it is hard to think of any person better qualified for the presidency than she. ..."

"... the State Dept contradicts her assertion that she was authorised to use an unguarded private server. No she was not. She neither had the approval, nor had she even requested it. Pure lies! ..."

"... Sorry but carelessness is when you are distracted like going to take a coffee and forget to lock the screen. She deliberately setup an email server at home ans she knew that is illegal and a huge breach of security. ..."

"... Is the FBI also suggesting that she is suffering from Affluenza, you know when rich people think they are above the law. ..."

www.theguardian.com
Rob Lewis , 6 Jul 2016 01:27
In violation of the Espionage Act. The relevant part of the law, 18 USC 793, says that anyone who handles important national security documents with "gross negligence," so that they are "delivered to anyone," or "lost," or "stolen," is guilty of a felony.
The guilty party "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."

Tomas Desent , 2016-07-06 01:07:47
18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, "entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Comey called her "extremely careless." But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that's not what the statute requires.
18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who "knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both." Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.

18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who "uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.

18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years." Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.

eastbayradical , 2016-07-06 01:06:04
Wall Street's Warmongering Madame is the perfect foil for Donald Trump's huckster-populism: a pseudo-progressive stooge whose contempt for the average person and their intelligence is palpable.

She's an arch-environmentalist who has worked tirelessly to spread fracking globally.

She supports fortifying Social Security but won't commit to raising the cap on taxes to do so.

She's a humanitarian who has supported every imperial slaughter the US has waged in the past 25 years.

She cares deeply about the plight of the Palestinians but supported the starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza and couldn't bother to mention them but in passing in a recent speech before AIPAC.

She's a stalwart civil libertarian, but voted for Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and believes Edward Snowden should be sent to federal prison for decades.

She stands with the working class but has supported virtually every international pact granting increased mobility and power to the corporate sector at its expense in the past 25 years.

She cares with all her heart about African-Americans but supports the objectively-racist death penalty and the private prison industry.

She will go to bat for the poor but supported gutting welfare in the '90s, making them easier prey to exploiters, many of whom supported her husband and her financially.

She worries about the conditions of the poor globally, but while Sec. of State actively campaigned against raising the minimum wage in Haiti to 60 cents an hour, thinking 31 cents an hour sounded better for the investor class whose interests are paramount to her.

She's not a bought-and-paid-for hack, oh no, no, no, but she won't ever release the Wall Street speeches for which she was paid so handsomely.

She's a true-blue progressive, just ask her most zealous supporters, who aren't.

Timothy Everton , 2016-07-06 03:11:19
Can the House of Representatives or The Senate vote to prosecute a former Secretary of State?
Defiini -> Timothy Everton , 2016-07-06 03:26:17
Under which law? For what crime? Chortle.
thenthelightningwill -> Defiini , 2016-07-06 03:30:13
Aggressive war is a war crime, Defini.
Probably couldn't be prosecuted in the U.S., but we have charged others with it.

http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-record /

Timothy Everton -> consumerx , 2016-07-06 03:12:31
"Even if information is not marked classified in an e-mail, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it," Mr. Comey said, suggesting that Mrs. Clinton and her aides were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
Mr. Comey said the emails included eight chains of emails and replies, some written by her, that contained information classified as "top secret: special access programs." That classification is the highest level, reserved for the nation's most highly guarded intelligence operations or sources.
SEE A PATTERN HERE ?

hadeze242 , 2016-07-06 03:06:14
"no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" (FBI/CNN). that's a lie. anyone in a working situation who lie so many times, and in so many different ways would be terminated. for Clinton to become the next US President is an absolute moral disaster - which will haunt not only America, but generations of young people watching this moral deception unfold.
RonettePulaski -> hadeze242 , 2016-07-06 03:07:04
Bernie lost.
deal with it.

hadeze242 -> RonettePulaski , 2016-07-06 03:10:50
Bernie did not lose. He was run over by the corrupt establishment of the Dem. Party. He didn/t take their money, & condemned them for their undemocratic manipulations.

BlooperMario

She is a symbol of American hegemony and globalisation.
The East is rebelling and so is Europe.
Shamerica has been exposed as liars and cheats.
Poverty in Asia was promoted in order for USA to rule.
Regime change in Europe and Middle East created to support Lockheed-Martin , Boeing, and military financial machinery.
Time for Europe to disconnect from Washington; link with Asia where the future will come very soon.
Stop Uncle Sam's Navy and Air Force provoking China and Russia.
Hilary needs to go to Laos and Vietnam to clear minefields and unexploded bombs that US is responsible for.

Chirographer

Comey offers his opinion that "no reasonable prosecutor" would press charges, but the dividing line is between a finding that Clinton did wrong and was "extremely careless" is that she was not "grossly negligent."

That's a judgment call to be made by the 'reasonable prosecutors" in the DOJ. It's not for the FBI to prejudge that for them.

In a case like this the decision would normally be made by the AG. But, she had already announced she would not be able to do her job in the circumstances- her chit chat with Bill tainted her impartiality - and the decision whether or not to prosecute would be made by senior level career prosecutors. Apparently the FBI wasn't interested in what the people charged with the responsibility to make the decision would think.

Finally, for some unexplained reason, the FBI Director felt he had to make his statement today without the DOJ's knowledge. Doesn't the FBI operate under the DOJ?

What a mess.

ExKStand

I think this shows you how scared the establishment in the U.S. is of Trump taking up power. Save them from organising a black operation against him. No way should Hiliary be exonerated in this way. In a democracy this should be for a court to decide, not the FBI. Hard to see how a fair court could find her not guilty of at least incompetence.

kiwijams

Are their Clinton supporters who can read through this entire saga and still think she has a high degree of integrity and honesty? By all means vote for her because she isn't Trump, but surely you can't think this woman is all that trustworthy?

GrandmasterFlasher

Hillary is too big to fail, and too big to jail. There are too many vested interests invested in the megalomaniac for charges to be laid.

funnynought

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly lied that none of her emails were classified at the time of sending/receiving. This stinks.

Bill Clinton didn't have a "chance meeting" with Loretta Lynch, but walked across the tarmac and boarded her plane to talk. Hillary Clinton has misleadingly characterized numerous times how the two met, even with Lynch's own account out in the press. This stinks.

Lynch had the option of refusing to talk with Bill Clinton for the sake of avoiding conflict of interest. She didn't. This stinks.

Just days after her husband met Lynch, Hillary Clinton was called into the FBI for a meeting, on the quietest news weekend of the year till Thanksgiving. This stinks.

Somehow, after a mere 3 days of deliberating--over a holiday weekend--the FBI came to a recommendation. This stinks.

The recommendation was no charges. This stinks.

The recommendation lays heavy emphasis on her intention, not on her negligence with classified information. This stinks.

If elected president, Hillary Clinton is "considering" retaining Lynch as Attorney General. Quid pro quo. This stinks.

President Hillary Clinton: "I didn't really mean to leak the nuclear codes to ISIS in Libya. My bad. I didn't have bad intentions, though." This stinks.

"The buck stops here." -Democratic President Harry Truman. This doesn't stink.

Shardz

Meanwhile, feel free to leak any government documents you might have and see how lenient the FBI will be with your case. I guarantee you will be in federal prison before dusk. Hillary was not authorized to set up an external mail server no matter what the status was with those documents. More Liberal ridiculousness.

Britaining

So Hillary carelessly voted for Iraqi war, carelessly pushed the Libya/Syria civil wars, carelessly paved the way for Benghazi attack and refugee crisis in EU.......but liberal idiots won't care.

Anyway, she made a special contribution to Brexit, just like theGuardian's smarty pants.

Michronics42

This decision is deeply disappointing but not surprising as the late Carl Sagan observed:

" One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."

The FBI's partial exoneration of Hillary comes with this proviso: "Although we did not find clear evidence that the Secretary or colleagues intended to violate laws, [of course has been clearly documented that Clinton knew exactly what she was doing

1)by lying that she received government permission to set up her private servers and

2)knowing full well that she would evade FOIA requests by destroying thousands of these emails]there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of highly classified information, said Comey."

For those Clinton, Inc supporters who continue to support this "congenital liar," and longtime "charlatan," this just the latest 'careless' episode in the deeply troubling career of a sociopath who craves power way more than she cares about the nation she may one day govern.

I'll always Feel the Bern and I'll always support those who will continue the fight for reform.

jimmy coleman

Praise the mosquitoes in a Louisiana swamp, Ms. Hillary is innocent. She didn't know what she was doing!! On several levels I can believe that. We can now all sleep better just knowing the Clinton's once again dodged a close one, like the time Ms. Hillary and Chelsea dodged gunfire in Bosnia. We are told to believe that no reasonable prosecutor, from Maine to Texas, from Alaska to Florida, from the moon to Pluto would dare try the fair lady.

Ms. Hillary may not know what she twas doing after she signed the pledge not to do such a thing, she may have misspoken like she did when traveling in Bosnia or talking about the Benghazi video to the victim's families. She may have used bad judgment, ad infinitum, slept through the burning of the midnight oil as Rome burned and been a lousy administrator of the nation's secrets but add, according to the latest legalese, Ms. Hillary ain't guilty of deliberately knowing what she was doing!! She can do more harm in ignorance than a smart person can do on purpose!

For those of you working in the computer security field, your job has just become easier, for now nothing, absolutely nothing one can do with classified or even Top Secret information can be considered criminal. If the prospective Democratic nominee, perhaps our next Great Leader of the 'free' world, can do what the FBI Director himself said she did, then none of the underlings should have a fear to face or a hefty price to pay for emulating the shenanigans of Ms. Hillary.

Ain't this country great. If you got money and power - where you can send your disbarred, impeached hubby to visit secretly for half an hour with the chief law enforcement official, all the while the FBI G-men shoo away pesky reporters with cameras rolling - and then two days later those same G-men interview the prez-in-waiting, - with just a one day interval in-between the FBI Director can say to the country, with a straight face, that 'no reasonable prosecutor in the whole wide country would convict Ms. Hillary.... And if that don't beat all, while the FBI is talking to the nation, Ms. Hillary and the other guy,...... oh yes, Mr. Obama, who promised us to run the most transparent and honest government in the nation's history, strap themselves in Air Force One to go campaigning together. And if that wasn't enough poop through a goose, a big chunk of the unwashed masses swallowed what was said and done, hook, line and stinker!!

jgwilson55

WaPo piece on the topic....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/05/hillary-clintons-email-problems-might-be-even-worse-than-we-thought/

I wouldn't rule Bernie out quite yet! The superdelegates don't like liars!

TheRealCopy

"Several thousand work related emails were not among those returned to the government and appeared to have been deleted"!
How does the FBI know what was in the e-mails apparently missing if they were deleted?

It appears to be a political decision not to charge her for security breached and they won't charge her because she's who she is and in the middle of a campaign as POTUS nominee for the Democratic Party!

To put the matter into perspective, Remember what happened to General Petreaus! A top notch war commander completely destroyed over breaching information security on a much smaller scale!

ericsony

Talk about friends in high places....Watch the Clinton chronicles on you tube.. what these people get away with is amazing...If it was made into a film you would think it was a bit too far fetched!!

CaliforniaLilly -> ericsony

Time to watch a classic movie: The Manchurian Candidate. Love the original one with Angela Lansbury. But, good time to see it. Trust me.

PotholeKid

"This extreme, unforgiving, unreasonable, excessive posture toward classified information came to an instant halt in Washington today – just in time to save Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations." /Greenwald
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/washington-has-been-obsessed-with-punishing-secrecy-violations-until-hillary-clinton/

lot3con3rr1

"Extremely careless" just the kind of person you need with the finger on the button.

ID8020624

The 15 minute press interview w/ the FBI, however, was vey revealing, but not duplicated here. She was shown to be the careless arrogant system-girl that she is. W-leaks just published 1000 of her emails for all to see,...go see for yourselves.

Bot candidates have highest unfavorable ratings ever recorded in US history. This is not right: over 60% of voters neither support nor Trump!

The Oligarchic rule is stripped naked for all to see. US people are not that dumb not to see a couple crooks running to rule over them,...

Vote Green! Vote Stein!

Unfortunately Bernie is busy trimming party platform that has never been followed by any Dem president.

Robb1324

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

How is having your own private server for Secretary of State business not any of these things? What is the purpose of having your own email server if not for intentional misconduct? I imagine it costs a fair amount to set up and then run, did she just set it up for the lulz?

Is there a benefit to having your own email server to conduct department business on other than skirting FOIA requests and internal oversight?

KlaatuVerataNiktu

Glenn Greenwald: Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations - until Hillary Clinton

"Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did – recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked on Top Secret information on it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally charged long ago, with little fuss or objection."

time2plyBsides -> Nelson Ricardo

I worked in IT for the U.S. gov't. Everybody has to take the trainings for IT and data protocol. The lowliest cleaning staff who merely dust a laptop. The highest ranked general. They are VERY serious about it.

There are specific rules for which communications go over which networks. If Hilary wants to log on to her gov't computer, the system must register that she took the training or she will be locked out. Let me be clear: THERE IS NO WAY THE SEC. OF STATE DID NOT KNOW ALL DoS BUSINESS ALWAYS MUST STAY ON SECURE GOV. NETWORK. She would have had that drilled into her head by then.

She is a lawyer. She knows all Sec. of State emails are archived to protect the People from malfeasance. She intentionally side-stepped protocol. There is no other reasonable explanation IMO.

eminijunkie

""I am confident I never sent nor received any information that was classified AT THE TIME it was sent and received,..."

Same sentence parsed properly: " I know i sent and received classified information, so I can't say I didn't, but I need to make it sound like I didn't know what I was doing in an nice, innocent way, so I'll say I was 'confident that I didn't because I think that's the safest thing I can say to seem to deny the possibility of doing what i know I did."

Goias Goias -> CriticAtLarge

After the FBI qualifying Hillary as extremely careless - precisely while acting as SoS - it sounds silly to hear Obama saying she was a great Secretary of State.

Bo1964

A decade ago CIA claimed Iraq of WMD, now FBI recommends 'no charges' against Hillary. All collusions to please the bosses!

Brockenhexe

Well, Comey just secured his job in a Clinton administration.

Brendan Groves

Hillary has been careless with her emails, careless with her votes for the Iraq war, and very careless with her husband. all of this carelessness does not bode well for a future President.

shaftedpig

Hitlery is just another establishment bankster cartel stooge/puppet. Expect more wars and genocides if this woman is elected.

johhnybgood

Proof if any is needed, that the US Administration, together with its Judiciary and its law enforcement agencies, are criminally negligent. The elites are above the law, just like the banks. This may well be the tipping point that sends Trump and Sanders supporters over the edge.

rochestervandriver -> MtnClimber

"The head of the FBI is a Republican, btw."

This is what he is (below) so no wonder people think the fix is in. Obama appointed him , republican or not. He's a "Business as usual" man. I guess he hopes that Trump doesn't get elected as I'm sure this story will not end here.

Anyway, this will cost Hilary on the campaign trail . Trump will rip chunks out of her with this.

In December 2003, as Deputy Attorney General, Comey appointed the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, close friend and former colleague Patrick Fitzgerald, as Special Counsel to head the CIA leak grand jury investigation after Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself. In August 2005, Comey left the DOJ and he became General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin. In 2010, he became General Counsel at Bridgewater Associates. In early 2013, he left Bridgewater to become Senior Research Scholar and Hertog Fellow on National Security Law at Columbia Law School. He also joined the London-based board of directors of HSBC Holdings. In 2013, Comey was appointed as the director of the FBI by President Barack Obama.

NoOneYouKnowNow -> outfitter

The NYTimes, 2 days ago: "Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation's first black woman to be attorney general, who took office in April 2015."

UKnowNothing

Whether it's putting the Bush/Cheney crime family in prison for an illegal war and thousands of innocent deaths, or HRC in prison for Bengazi and releasing sensitive documents, y'all are starting to see what's wrong in this nation. It's a nation of crooked professional politicians, family dynasties run by the 1% and the banksters... Welcome to the land of the free. Free for the wolves to eat our souls.

Vladimir Makarenko

Not counting this:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-04/hillarys-closest-aide-admits-clinton-illegally-burned-daily-schedule

Scott Anderson

Clinton is not above the law. If the GOP really thinks they have a legitimate case then Speaker Ryan and the other members can impeach her if she wins. The reality is it is game over since it is only GOP partisans who are interested in pursuing this. I think it would be a repeat of the last time with the Senate laughing at the House for their stupidity. Everyone knows that neither Clinton nor Trump are honest. The Democrats don't see it as a real issue. Bernie Sanders said he does not care about "her damn emails".

Both the GOP and the Democrats are more intent on partisanship than in talking about ideas on how to improve the government and society. Sanders was different and I think a lot of his supporters felt that it wasn't just about him. Both Trump and Clinton do not have strong morals and it is a bit sad.

Leviathan212

I'm glad Hillary is not being indicted, and I'm happy that we still have a viable candidate against Donald Trump.

But, can we now at least admit that she lied, repeatedly and comprehensively, about her email server. This is now proven.

- She said there was no classified info on her email. This was a lie.
- She said everything was allowed per State Dept rules. This was a lie.
- She said the server was never hacked and remained secure. This was a lie.
- She said that she turned over all her emails. This was a lie.

People are so blinded by their worship of a candidate that they are willing to ignore blatant wrong-doing. This is how moral and ethical corruption happens. Try admitting the truth to yourself - it's okay to say, "Yes, I support Hillary Clinton, but I can also see how she lied in these instances".

RealWavelengths

if an average worker at, say, a bank would have been caught using a private email account to conduct bank business, and some of those emails contained unsecured, confidential bank customer info that could have been at risk for interception by identity theft crime rings, that worker would have been in violation of several laws. And if subsequently it turns out that employee deleted some of those emails and claimed they did not contain customer data but were personal, it is doubtful, given other evidence, the employee would have gotten away with just scolding words from the FBI.

At least a fine would be levied, and perhaps a prohibition from working with confidential financial data again. Here, Clinton just got scolded, and that's it. Clearly, this is a problem with high ranking elected and appointed officials, and yet many of us somehow keep letting these people get into office. We should indeed let our voices be heard online in various ways that enough is more than enough. Time to get rid of the revolving door of past corrupt officials getting back into office with the same corrupt ethics. Both parties are trash. There's a better way…

Georwell

"...is Ian Bremmer who said that "it's very clear that in trying to make it go away actually lied, repeatedly, about whether or not these materials were classified at the time. And it's the cover up frequently that gets people in trouble, it's not the actual misdeed. This was very badly mishandled by Hillary all the way through."

But then she got some much needed help from the FBI to complete the cover up.

In retrospect, perhaps former Attorney General Eric Holder said it best when he justified with the US DOJ simply refuses to bring up criminal cases against those it deems "too big to prosecute":

if you do bring a criminal charge it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps world economy

And just like that, Hillary is "systemically important", if mostly for her countless Wall Street donors. "

full story here:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05/peak-fbi-corruption-meet-bryan-nishimura-found-guilty-removal-and-retention-classifi

midnightschild10

Welcome foreign countries. You will soon be able to know everything you need to know about thrUS if Hillary becomes President. Will need a larger bedroom or basement for her server which of course the White House has. The head of the FBI says although statutes may have been broken, it is no big deal. We don't need them anyway. Good to know, so if anyone wants to break statutes in the future, they just need to ask the FBI for the Hillary deal. Poor people of Washington D.C. Just when we thought it couldn't get any worse then the poisoned water in Flint, or the Green Algae in Southern Florida, the toxic smell of whitewashing covers D.C. Stay indoors, take precautions, donate to the Clinton Foundation, because this could last for years.

Leviathan212

So, Bill Clinton meets with Loretta Lynch and four days later the FBI recommends no charges?

I'm not saying that there was any corruption - mainly because I have a high enough opinion of Loretta Lynch's integrity (and not of Bill Clinton's). But the optics are not good. It further fuels the idea that the Clintons play fast and loose with the rules and are morally and ethically compromised.

virginiacynic -> boscovee

No one should ever, ever talk to the FBI without a lawyer (preferably two lawyers) and a Tape Recorder.
The FBI will not record it and instead write up a summary of what was said and ask the person to sign the summary. If the person subsequently says something contrary to the FBI summary then that person can be charged with lying to the FBI.
It was not overkill when the FBI had eight people. It was good sense and good lawyering by Clinton's Counsel once it had been decided to talk with them. If she were not running for President then any sane lawyer would have said to take the fifth, just as the guy who set up the server system did.

greg2644

For all of you guys who are up in arms about this decision, let's pretend for a second that serious classified information did get out from her server. Even if that were true, involuntary treason is not a crime. Intent matters in a court of law. All of the things Hillary is being accused of are only crimes if she intended for information to get out. There's no proof that she did, so they can't charge her with anything. This decision shouldn't surprise anyone. Politicians are untouchable unless they're caught with blood on their hands... and even then...

Vladimir Makarenko -> greg2644

It's called "criminal negligence". The stress is on the word "criminal". If she couldn't have understood after had been told many times the rules of separation of private from government emails how she can be trusted with Red Button?
As minimum JD must withdraw her clearance. She can apply for a job at her "foundation".

Georwell

so Hitlary declare she never sent any classifieds documents
""I am confident I never sent nor received any information that was classified AT THE TIME it was sent and received,..." (Hitlary )

BUT next we get this from FBI :

"110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information AT THE TIME they were sent or received. EIGHT of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET AT THE TIME they were sent; 36 chains contained SECRET information AT THE TIME;"

Its this incompetence or just THE MOST corrupt system ever ?

ghostintheshell29

"An indictment could have wrecked Clinton's election hopes and perhaps opened the door for Donald Trump to become president."

I think they got that backwards, An Indictment would destroy Clinton's election hopes, and opened the door for Bernie Sanders to become president.

Its a lot easier for Trump to beat Hillary then Bernie. People actually like him.. Huge advantage over both other opponents.

RealWavelengths -> Joe Smith

Actually, laws were broken. Comey just chose not to prosecute because, in his and his staff's opinion, no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the matter, which is in the discretion of the prosecutor to do. But Obama himself issued an executive order in 2009, "Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information," that deals at length with the handling of various levels of classified/top secret data by top officials and others they designate. An executive order has the force of law, and Obama specified various sanctions and penalties that violations can occur.

As Secretary of State, Hillary was considered an "Original classification authority," which is a top ranking official that not only handles such data, but classifies and declassifies it. The order even includes sanctions for "reckless" handling of classified data, and Comey used the term "reckless." Why those sanctions were not applied here is baffling.

DebraBrown, 2016-07-05T19:59:58Z
America's two-tiered justice system strikes again. One rule of law for the masses, a very different set of rules for the elite.
However one may feel regarding whether or not Hillary committed crimes, one thing is absolutely clear -- she lied.

Comey listed a number of points which prove beyond doubt that she lied. For instance, she said she never sent or rec'd anything marked classified at the time. Per Comey, there were seven (known) email strings that were clearly marked classified at the time.

The Inspector General's report also made it clear beyond doubt that Hillary lied about her use of the email server, point by point by point refuting everything she said about its use. And yet, after the IG report came out, Hillary went on air to say how happy she was that the IG report validated everything she'd been saying (though the opposite is true).

This woman is a dangerous sociopathic liar. I say that as a feminist and registered Democrat for 35 years who voted for her husband in the 1990's. Yes, I'm afraid of what Trump might do as president. But I am MORE afraid of what Hillary will do. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.

gvs951

"Extremely Careless" - that's a great defense for a potential president of the USA. That's what we all welcome - an extremely careless president.

Sarah7

FBI Director James Comey stated the following, which makes it clear that the investigation of Hillary Clinton and her top aides is a very 'special case' that would not pass the standard statutory criteria:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. (Emphasis added)

Now, to be really, really clear: 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.' ~~ George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945).

theguardianread

Forgot to say that mishandling US Official communications is a crime-- there is NO WAY TO KNOW IF AN INCOMING COMMUNICATION IS CLASSIFIED OR NOT, ESP AT THAT LEVEL, EVERYTHING IS CLASSIFIED BY THE "LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS" RULE. No matter how unimportant it may seem to you, it is part of the bigger picture of responsibility...

Goias Goias

I am listening to Hillary giving a speech and she hasn't mentioned a word about the FBI declarations. Can she really think her bulshit is above answering for being called extremely careless by the FBI?

KlaatuVerataNiktu -> Goias Goias

Being high-ranking in the establishment means never having to say you're sorry.

Goias Goias Goias Goias

Even Obama is looking ridiculous building up Hillary after the FBI wiped the floor with her credibility.

MARK Corrales

So by this rational it is okay to break the law and violate national security protocols as long as its unintentional. WOW! The political elite do not have to worry about any kind of accountability for there actions.

Jessica Roth -> Stu Wragg

It's not so much her wealth, but how she got it. When you're in the pay of the Saudis/MIC/Wall Street, the US government looks out for you.

Seriously, she swears under oath that she's turned over all her emails, it eventuates that there are thousands more emails, but the FBI goes "no big, don't worry"? I didn't know that the federal perjury statutes had been wiped off of the books. Perhaps Hillary sent me an email, but I missed it?

Snowden gets exiled, Manning gets tortured…Clinton gets a coronation. Yes, very fair.

I urge everyone to vote for Jill Stein. Nothing can be done about this election (Trump, despite his manifest flaws, is the more honest candidate and the peace candidate, but he has very little chance of winning), but by getting Stein/the Greens to 5%, there is an opportunity for the left to be properly heard next time, rather than the same corrupt dance between the two halves of the Money Party. It's the only way to deny Clinton the second term she's already planning.

Yuri Esev -> zepov

Quote: ...love people who think that because Comey is a Republican, that this means that he tried everything he could to reach an indictment. He's TELLING YOU that he's choosing not to.
Some people refuse to acknowledge this simple reality:
If there is one thing that democrats and republicans *always* agree on, it's helping big business to buy our politicians wholesale so that they can continue to redirect money away from the most electorate, and towards big business and the existing political establishment. In this case, it means putting the first lady of Goldman Sachs in the White House Unquote

Carpasia

First, the FBI decides whether to indict, not whether to prosecute. It is not part of its proper remit to decide not to indict on the supposition that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. That is end-running the legal system of a nation ruled by law.

Second, whether or not Hillary Clinton could mount a defense of carelessness is not a concern of the FBI, though they act as if they know the mind of Hillary Clinton. I realize they interviewed her yesterday or something. I would hazard she knew every question beforehand and they knew every answer beforehand. But, anyways.

I believe Hillary Clinton fully intended to break the law, that law being the Freedom of Information Act under which her emails were capable of being publicized upon request after vetting for, among other things, how classified they were. Only a fool would think otherwise given the information she had and the use of a private server in the face of that information.

I do not think she intended to break laws concerning effectively risking the loss and publication of classified security materials by using an unsecured private server for her email.

Thus, what she did resulted in the risk of loss of classified materials that would never have been lost if she had stayed within the government system, which laws she broke, one intentionally and one carelessly, so journalists could not read her other unclassified emails, for they would never have seen the classified ones.

At best, she was ignorant of the law on classified materials while intending to break the law on access to information.

This bodes well if she is elected a President of the United States, for it will put paid to the vaunted myth the Americans ceaselessly tell the rest of the world, that it is a nation in which no one is above the law. This is the truth. Hillary and Barack having a laugh at The Donald.

csterling11 , 2016-07-05T19:09:05Z

In the meantime, a serious federal lawsuit, not business related, has been brought against Trump, alleging, among other things, rape and false imprisonment of a minor, about which I see little to no coverage in the media. http://lawnewz.com/celebrity/why-isnt-anyone-paying-attention-to-the-sexual-assault-lawsuit-against-trump / and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

Jooolie

Its great to see this investigation come to an end so quickly after such a long process.

June 27th Bill speaks with Lynch
July 2nd FBI interviews Hillary
July 5th FBI clears Hillary

ClearItUp

They all lie even Comey. He was there and with straight face saying what Clinton did didn't rise to the level of prosecution. Nonsense, for even smaller infractions the FBI refers prosecution to the DOJ. DOJ in these cases depending on mostly resources, decides if to prosecute or not, or seek a plea bargain.

For what she did, at a minimum she would have been charged with something to cause her to agree to a plea bargain, the terms of which would have been at a minimum not being able to receive classified information, i.e. losing her security clearance. If she were not running for president, I have no doubt she would have plea bargained to that level and admitted she broke the law.

But in the infinite wisdom of the FBI, they decided not to pursue her because just charging her with anything would have ended her campaign for presidency. The punishment would have been greater than the crime, again in their mind. So they didn't charge her. They would have even charged Hillary Clinton if she wasn't running for president. This was a political decision no matter how you look at it.

dongerdo

Critically, the FBI said that other similar cases in which a prosecution had been sought involved evidence of "willful or intentional" breaches of the rules, "vast quantities" of data or "indications of disloyalty or efforts to obstruct justice". "We do not see that here," he said.

Interesting. Considering all those things are actually applicable, it was intentional, it involved a lot of mails concerning Libya, she made an effort to keep it secret and tried to delete rather large quantities and therefore has been obstructing justice I am curious if they would still 'Do not see that here' if the opponent would not be called Trump....

Adoniran

"Nonetheless the detail of the FBI's investigation is likely to hit Clinton politically. Comey revealed that of the 30,000 emails returned to the state department, 110 emails in 52 chains were determined to contain classified information at the time they were sent."

Just add it to the list of lies that she told about this.

From the FBI:

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

So I guess we have different standards of intent for her than we do for the rest of us. That intent to commit an action that is felonious would be enough for anyone else. For Clinton though, it seems she needed to intend to break the law knowingly, otherwise she's immune. But wait, even if we use that lofty, specialized standard, more from the FBI:

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

..........So why, again, are we not indicting?

ClearItUp

If a government agent takes a folder of classified (not even talking about highly classified) information and leaves them on a counter in a public restroom, then after say a few hours remembers and goes and retrieves it, he will be charged with neglect or mishandling classified information. Depending on what the information and intent was, they could be charged anywhere from a misdemeanor to a felony with possible years in jail. If this act occurs multiple time by the same individual not being charged with something is unusual, even in cases of unintentional confidential information. The usual outcome for such unintentional negligence, if they are minor is plea bargain in which the subject gives up his/her security clearance for a period of time or permanently.

Hillary Clinton by Comey's own admission violated the law, but they decided no to pursue prosecution. Because, the penalty would have been too strong in her case, i.e. dropping out of nomination. This is the real story. It was a political judgement, no two ways about it.

venkatt

The Farce of a Presidential nomination cycle is now complete. The billionaire Donor class has officially INSTALLED its "Chosen One" on the American Masses...

Lester Smithson

The Clinton propensity for ethical shortcuts, special treatment, statute dodging (they are both Yale-educated lawyers), and supreme entitlement are eclipsed by the last GOP president ($7T war, and wrecking the economy) and the prospect of Trump, whose potential for destruction in near infinite.

Clinton dodged this one. She'll destroy Trump and the next ethically challenged foot in the dung is just around the corner. It's the Clinton way.

Jill Stein 2016

skatterbrayn

Everything he said pronounced her guilt, you'd think he was about to announce charges, then no charges. He even described her actions as gross negligence using other words, which is enough to indict. But no...

Another win for the oligarchy and queen of the weapons industry. I fear for families in the Middle East if she is POTUS. Get ready to go play in the desert again troops.

A sad day for justice in America. The Guardian must be thrilled though. Congratulations. I'm sure Lucia will write a a great nyah nyah piece about this. Pat yourselves on the back, your queen of global intervention skated on something others have been destroyed for.

callingallcars

People are attracted to Trump because he is not a member of the political establishment, viewed by many as incorrigibly corrupt and discredited. Ironically, the decision not to prosecute Clinton will enhance the prospect of Trump's being elected, because it reinforces widespread views in the public that political elites like Clinton can act with impunity and are immune from the laws that apply to the rest of us. If Trump is elected, Clinton only has her own bad judgment to blame. Using a private server for email and effectively stealing the public record is conduct that one only does if one actually feels immune to the rules that the rest of us must follow. Her arrogance may well lead to her own downfall and the foisting of Trump on the rest of us. (That is not to suggest that Clinton would serve the American public well.)

Longleveler

The e-mail server imbroglio is the tip of the iceberg. Under the water and as yet out of MSM's sight is the influence peddling, money laundering , and election rigging:
https://medium.com/@Chijourno/bernie-sanders-should-go-there-on-arms-sales-for-donations-influence-peddling-is-at-the-rotten-f4b61019be9a#.8fnh4x1jy
http://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/is-democracy-dead-in-california_us_5772c94fe4b04650f1505de2
If the Fairness Doctrine was still in effect the Corporate Media would have had less influence in creating the mirage that Hillary is capable of being President.

Jon404

There's an old Roman saying -- 'Res ipsa loquitur' -- 'The thing speaks for itself'. Basic to our tort law; you don't need to prove intent.

For 28 minutes, Comey precisely described the 'thing'. Then, in his last two minutes, he ran away from the law, and then out of the room as fast as he could go.

Is there a different law for the Clintons than for the rest of us? Yes. From Whitewater until today, obviously. In the corridors of power, from the leaders of both parties, the fix is in.

As a Democrat, does this mean that I should vote for Trump, and put up with four years of babbling idiocy, rather than going with Hillary and furthering the assault on our democracy and on our law?

Maybe.

steveky

So She was not knowingly Criminal.
She only had an unsecured server and put national security at rick so she could have her own Blackberry.....
Or she had the server to circumvent freedom of information act laws, which Comey did not even address.
This is not over folks....
Stupid or Criminal... If she is to be president I almost hope Criminal....

Curt Chaffee

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," said Comey."

The poodle speaks.

Copper65 -> Curt Chaffee

..no reasonable prosecutor who wanted to keep his job (or maybe his life).

dddxxx -> Wolfclan

Winston Churchill once said when criticized, "Any fool can see what is wrong---Can you see what is right?"

BillFromBoston

I'm sure that many of you Europeans speak Spanish and,therefore,know what "plato o plomo" means.However,I'll wager that few of you know much about the Mexican drug cartels that literally control Mexico today.And they control Mexico through "plato o plomo".This utterance is very,*very* effective when directed at the police,judges,prosecutors and elected officials.

Although it's possible that Mr Comey and/or his subordinates were promised "silver" that seems unlikely.Much more likely is that they were promised jobs...promotions...lucrative consulting gigs.Remember,Europe...there are many,many,*many* people who make very,*very* comfortable livings while connected to folks "inside the Beltway" (meaning Washington).

It's also possible,but highly unlikely,that anyone involved was threatened with "lead".Much more likely is that threats to careers...threats to reveal the existence of a mistress...and other less extreme,but *very* persuasive,threats were communicated.

"Plato o plomo"..."I'll make him an offer he can't refuse"...take your pick.

nerospizza -> ID1773222

It means silver or lead- as in you can take a bribe or a bullet..

Arbuzov

I possessed a Top Secret Special Intelligence Compartmented Access security clearance for 34 years before my retirement, and I handled uncountable classified documents in my time. And I can assure you that 90 percent of them (at a minimum) were either overclassified, or never should have been classified in the first place.

Joelbanks

She was careless with the fate of Libya and she was careless with national security. Yet, according to President Obama, it is hard to think of any person better qualified for the presidency than she.

What is grievously wrong with this picture?

ilipe Barroso -> alan101

Then, explain this rubbish: https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials

There was no intent but a lot of recklessness. How different is from this case? I'll help you: he was a nobody.

makaio -> alan101

Lying - Her ongoing lie about the server's purpose, and her past b.s. about it being approved and fully above board.

Reckless - See this article, and take into account her support for toppling Muammar Gaddafi, among others.

Obstinate - Twelve years to admit toppling Saddam Hussein -- with millions suffering as a result to this very day -- was a bad call. She's still lying about her server a year after its discovery and, to the detriment of her supporters who always have to avoid this topic, she obviously doesn't care.

Secretive - Her server was implemented to evade public and official records requests, with a degree of success.

Warring - Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Honduras leader ousters or attempts, all without follow-on plans, all increasing suffering and terrorism, all indirectly or directly supported by Hillary.

Her traits are right before us, and they're only "Rubbish!" for those who cower, deny, and stick their heads in sand.

And they don't bode well for our future.

guicho

So she lied when she said no classified information was sent on the private server, the FBI just admitted that there was information of the highest security classification on the server. Whether intentional or not, failing to keep top secret information safe from intrusion and access to persons without the proper security clearances is a crime. Yet the FBI won't recommend charges. I can't believe this is going to be swept under the rug and "news" media will continue to champion Hillary for president. If any of us breached security protocol at work we would be fired, prosecuted and prevented from finding work in the future. Just another example of how the law discriminates based on who you are and how much money and influence you have.

bill9651

Emailgate looks like it is just the tip of the iceberg!

https://m.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3qbytj/hillarys_22_biggest_scandals_ever_with_cliffnotes/

ciaofornow -> trilobitestew

Dud?

I am no Republican.

Clinton has been outed as a serial lair to the nation:
.

the State Dept contradicts her assertion that she was authorised to use an unguarded private server. No she was not. She neither had the approval, nor had she even requested it. Pure lies!

Now the FBI contradicts her statements that none of the material she sent was marked as top secret or as classified.
The FBI found: 110 emails in 52 chains were determined to contain classified information at the time they were sent.
Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time, 36 chains contained secret information at the time, and eight contained confidential information.

So is the FBI part of the right wing conspiracy? And if so, why no indictments. She broke rules in order to keep the public from knowing anything about her using her post to boost the corrupt Clinton Foundation. By doing so, she played fast and loose with govt secrets, even top secrets. And then she repeatedly lied to the nation about it.

Not my findings, not that of Republicans, but of Democrat appointed FBI directors and State Dept investigators.

Her corruption is becoming public knowlege at last.

Battlehenkie

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"

Because doing so would make for a weak case that a prosecutor is unlikely to win, or because it would be career suicide for the prosecutor due to upsetting vested interests?

wjpietrzak

Now we'll never know if the contents of the compromised Secret files led to any harm to the US, its citizens, Servents and allies. No prosecution, no need to reveal the facts.

LeaveHasLost

Just a coincidence http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/bill-clinton-tarmac-history.html?_r=0

Mauricio Faria -> ataylorusa

Sorry but carelessness is when you are distracted like going to take a coffee and forget to lock the screen. She deliberately setup an email server at home ans she knew that is illegal and a huge breach of security.

Doug Wenzel

When my dad was a lt. jg on Kwajalein 50+ years ago, he was an entry level Communications Officer. The whole island was one big Nay base. One day, he got distracted, and forgot to deliver a minor, routine encrypted message. It was found in his pants at the base laundry.

Needless to say, that was the end of his career in communications. he was reassigned as a radar operator in the belly of a single-engined SkyRaider like this one, which meant sure drowning if the plane had to ditch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider#/media/File:AD-5W_on_deck_USS_Kearsarge_1957-58.jpg

When Hillary Clinton opted to have her own server she assumed strict liability for everything involved with it. Plus she signed an acknowledgement when assuming work at the State Department. Clearing her is an disgrace, and an insult to those in the intelligence community and with foreign allies whose lives were put at risk, as well as to all those who have had their careers drawn and quartered for breaches far less significant than these.

Jack Dornan

Careless = little or no regard to the consequences.

Top Secret = disclosure consequences would be damaging to the nation or place US lives in danger

No prosecution = no unauthorized disclosure occurred

Conclusion = Lucky Lady

stratplaya

No classified info: lie
Allowed by State: lie
Turned over all work emails: lie
Wanted a single device: lie
Never breached: lie

Laws are for the peasants, not our rulers.

Reason336 -> stratplaya

ahhh when has it EVER been different than that in human history???

You expected different now?

Kommentator

On the premise she did nothing wrong (snigger....) she is reckless, careless, a proven lair, Wall St. bought & paid for, a known warmonger, a recipient of funds from dubious nation states and apparently a war hero from dodging snipers bullets........and yet......and yet you still she is the best option, you could not make this up.

Urgelt

This is very disturbing to me.

The FBI doesn't mention the legality, or lack of legality, of Clinton's avoidance of compliance with federal records statutes and the FOIA. She purged official correspondence from her e-mail server - a fact turned up by discovery of that correspondence on the senders' servers. Did they even ask her if her intent was to avoid compliance with federal records statutes and the FOIA? We can see no evidence that the FBI even brought it up.

So the Obama Administration hands to Clinton a mild spanking on classified document handling, but ignores the elephant in the room: why she refused to use an official government server for her official correspondence. If her intent was to avoid compliance with federal statutes, then she broke the law.

Adrian Newton

Is the FBI also suggesting that she is suffering from Affluenza, you know when rich people think they are above the law.

God bless exceptional America. Lady Justice will not be back anytime soon.

callingallcars

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," said Comey.

Evidence of potential violations of criminal statutes is typically called "probable cause" that would get every American in the country other than its elite and untouchable political classes indicted and brought to trial. Or at least all of the black ones, i.e., the superpredators that must be brought to heel.

[Jul 05, 2016] Giuliani: Dissapointed in FBI's Comey

www.youtube.com

Jul 5, 2016
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani argues FBI Director James Comey put Clinton above the law.
Category
News & Politics
License
Standard YouTube License

[Jul 05, 2016] Hillary Clinton vs. James Comey: Email Scandal Supercut

Jul 5, 2016 | youtube.com

Hillary Clinton 2015 vs FBI Director James Comey 2016
Subscribe to Reason TV for daily content like this: http://bit.ly/1Ocr2AL
Approximately 1:45 minutes.
Produced and edited by Austin Bragg. Music by Kevin MacLeod.
Visit http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/07/05... for full text, links, and downloadable versions of this video.

[Jul 05, 2016] Rand Paul Rule of law 'turned upside down' on Clinton emails

Notable quotes:

"... The Republican senator and former presidential candidate took to Twitter to express his outrage over what he called "a loss for the rule of law" that "further degrades Americans' faith in the justice system." ..."

"... "While I respect the law enforcement professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation. No one should be above the law. But based upon the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent. The findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions. ..."

TheHill

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday blasted the FBI's recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server as secretary of State.

The Republican senator and former presidential candidate took to Twitter to express his outrage over what he called "a loss for the rule of law" that "further degrades Americans' faith in the justice system."

Paul also criticized the controversial private meeting between the former president Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch that took place just days before the FBI's announcement regarding possible charges for Clinton.

WASHINGTON-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) issued the following statement regarding the recommendation from FBI Director James Comey that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not be prosecuted for her "extremely careless" mishandling of classified information:

"While I respect the law enforcement professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation. No one should be above the law. But based upon the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent. The findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions.

While we need more information about how the Bureau came to this recommendation, the American people will reject this troubling pattern of dishonesty and poor judgment."

Fred Lang,

Just underscores that there are 2 justice systems in America today: One for us peons and another for the rich, powerful and politically connected.

It's a disgrace.

[Jul 05, 2016] Off the hook: FBI directors statement on Hillary Clinton email investigation

From comments: "Judging by the vast majority of comments, NO ONE has been fooled by the decision. The massive awakening is in full swing. The people are just waking up and won't be stopped now. Throughout history once the people opened their eyes to the fraud, the powers that should NOT be was removed, destroyed or both."

Now, to be really, really clear: 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.' ~~ George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945).

Notable quotes:

"... I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. ..."

"... Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities. ..."

"... Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal email server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors. ..."

"... Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the state department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send email on that personal domain ..."

"... when one of Secretary Clinton's original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the email software was removed. ..."

"... 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was 'top secret' at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained 'secret' information at the time; and eight contained 'confidential' information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional emails were "up-classified" to make them 'confidential'; the information in those had not been classified at the time the emails were sent. ..."

"... The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. ..."

"... I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many email users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails or emails were purged from the system when devices were changed. ..."

"... The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her emails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related emails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total emails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in 2014. ..."

"... there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. ..."

"... we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the US Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the later "up-classified" emails). ..."

"... None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at departments and agencies of the US government – or even with a commercial service like Gmail. ..."

"... Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked "classified" in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. ..."

"... With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal email domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. ..."

"... Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person's actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. ..."

"... To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. ..."

"... As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. ..."

www.theguardian.com
Good morning. I'm here to give you an update on the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system during her time as secretary of state.
After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

So, first, what we have done:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email server during her time as secretary of state. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal email server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, "email server", in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the state department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send email on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together – to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal email was used for government work – has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton's original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the email software was removed. Doing that didn't remove the email content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of email fragments end up unsorted in the server's unused-or "slack"-space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 emails provided by Secretary Clinton to the state department in December 2014. Where an email was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the email to any US government agency that was a likely "owner" of information in the email, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the email contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the email now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as "up-classifying").

From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the state department, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was 'top secret' at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained 'secret' information at the time; and eight contained 'confidential' information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional emails were "up-classified" to make them 'confidential'; the information in those had not been classified at the time the emails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional emails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private email domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government email accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a secretary of state might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related emails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of email fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of emails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the 'confidential' level. There were no additional 'top secret' emails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been "up-classified".

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many email users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails or emails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account – or even a commercial account like Gmail – there was no archiving at all of her emails, so it is not surprising that we discovered emails that were not on Secretary Clinton's system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 emails to the state department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related emails we recovered were among those deleted as "personal" by Secretary Clinton's lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her emails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her emails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related emails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total emails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related emails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related emails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton's personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on email, to those involved in the email production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal email operation.

That's what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the US Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the later "up-classified" emails).

None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at departments and agencies of the US government – or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked "classified" in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the state department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal email domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.

So that's what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don't normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person's actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation – including people in government – but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn't be prouder to be part of this organization.

[Jul 04, 2016] Hillary Clinton Wanted to Keep Up Appearances Regarding Private Email Server as Early as 2009

Notable quotes:

"... Newly revealed emails, released via a court order in relation to a public records lawsuit filed by the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, cast yet more doubts on Hillary Clinton's claim that she used a private email server while serving as secretary of state merely " for convenience ." ..."

"... You can't have it both ways, Madame Secretary. Either you didn't know the rules or you thought you were above the rules. ..."

"... Yesterday the Washington Post 's Chris Cillizza wrote that Clinton's exchange with Abedin "reads to me as though Clinton is both far more aware of the email setup and far more engaged in how it should look than she generally lets on publicly," which he describes as "deeply problematic" for a candidate so widely distrusted ( ..."

Jun. 29, 2016 | Reason.com
Newly revealed emails, released via a court order in relation to a public records lawsuit filed by the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, cast yet more doubts on Hillary Clinton's claim that she used a private email server while serving as secretary of state merely "for convenience."
Among the 165 pages of emails released Monday, the Associated Press notes one particularly telling exchange from March 2009 between Clinton (who had been in office barely two months) and aide Huma Abedin:

"I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State," Clinton wrote to Abedin and a second aide. "Who manages both my personal and official files? ... I think we need to get on this asap to be sure we know and design the system we want."

You can't have it both ways, Madame Secretary. Either you didn't know the rules or you thought you were above the rules.

The AP adds, "In a blistering audit released last month, the State Department's inspector general concluded Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup violated federal records-keeping standards and could have left sensitive material vulnerable to hackers." Reason's Peter Suderman wrote after the report's release, "It makes clear that [Clinton] refused to play by the rules while acting as Secretary of State-ignoring them as a point of personal privilege, and creating both security vulnerabilities and transparency and accountability problems in the process."

Yesterday the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza wrote that Clinton's exchange with Abedin "reads to me as though Clinton is both far more aware of the email setup and far more engaged in how it should look than she generally lets on publicly," which he describes as "deeply problematic" for a candidate so widely distrusted (but not by former New York Times editor Jill Abramson, who inexplicably declared Clinton "fundamentally honest" in a recent Guardian column).

[Jul 02, 2016] Dems had to come up with a Plan B

Notable quotes:

"... Remember that piece by Democratic operative Dan Metcalfe about how Hillary Clinton was clearly in deep trouble with this criminal investigation and that the Dems had to come up with a Plan B for when she was indicted and would have to be replaced? ..."

"... It may be a fantasy, but it fits the Loretta/Billy/FBI facts known so far: Before the convention, Hill suddenly takes "ill" (she has a spot on her soul, er, lungs), and just can't continue campaigning. Joe Biden steps in, and is crowned as the next Prez at the convention. If Obomba has to pardon her, she will become his Marc Rich. Better to get rid of her before that need to happen. It would be the best thing he's done in eight years. ..."

"... In 2008, when Barach Obama was elected President, I cried with joy and relief. This beautiful, eloquent, principled, fearless, peace loving, family-man would stop the relentless fascist conquest of Earth (All Government owned by a small number of Super Business') . ..."

"... Eight years later and the Powerful Super Business', in their fearsome glory, are arrayed against the tiny, weak, relatively poor, comical figure of Donald Trump. History pushes forward the most unlikely heroes, in times of great need. ..."

"... I am beginning to think that Bill Clinton doesn't really want his wife to be president; maybe part of it is that her presidency would – at a minimum – put the sweet Foundation deals in jeopardy, and at a maximum, completely take the lid off that swamp of incestuous mutual enrichment, leading to who knows what? ..."

"... ""The GOP's War on Voting Is Working" [The Nation]. What a steaming load. If the Democrat Party were serious about voter registration, it would be running voter registration drives as a normal, year-round, 24/7 part of normal party function, certainly since Florida 2000. They aren't, so they don't. They would also be setting up programs to get voters IDs in states were Republicans insist on that. This talking point is classic "mean Republican" whinging, issued by a flaccid party apparatus, flat on its back, making no effort to rise.'" ..."

"... Today Hillary Clinton gets 'interviewed' by the FBI. Yesterday her best friend had a chitchat with the AG Loretta Lynch. What a coincidence. I wonder to which circle of Hell Dante would have assigned the Clintons. ..."

www.nakedcapitalism.com
Buttinsky , July 1, 2016 at 4:56 pm

This takes me back to something I've been wondering about for a while. Remember that piece by Democratic operative Dan Metcalfe about how Hillary Clinton was clearly in deep trouble with this criminal investigation and that the Dems had to come up with a Plan B for when she was indicted and would have to be replaced? At the time, observers pointed to the piece as a signal to establishment Dems that they had to seriously start thinking about an establishment backup to Hillary.

But I've been thinking now that maybe it was more than that. Maybe the signal was to the FBI and the Justice Department. The gist of Metcalfe's plan was that because the nominee couldn't be Sanders (?!), Democratic Party "leaders" would have to choose a nominee. Was this a way of telling law enforcement and prosecutors, please, just let us get through the convention, after which the Sanders rabble will be safely out of the way and the "responsible" people who pull the strings in the party can decide who the nominee will be? Meaning an indictment very soon after the convention.

Kurt Sperry , July 1, 2016 at 5:45 pm

The timing of when an indictment might be filed – or even Clinton being called in for an interview where she would be forced to take the Fifth which would trigger the same effects – certainly won't be accidental, strictly by the book, or done in a political vacuum. There's far, far, far too much riding on it.

Doug , July 1, 2016 at 9:45 pm

It may be a fantasy, but it fits the Loretta/Billy/FBI facts known so far: Before the convention, Hill suddenly takes "ill" (she has a spot on her soul, er, lungs), and just can't continue campaigning. Joe Biden steps in, and is crowned as the next Prez at the convention. If Obomba has to pardon her, she will become his Marc Rich. Better to get rid of her before that need to happen. It would be the best thing he's done in eight years.

clarky90 , July 1, 2016 at 6:46 pm

In 2008, when Barach Obama was elected President, I cried with joy and relief. This beautiful, eloquent, principled, fearless, peace loving, family-man would stop the relentless fascist conquest of Earth (All Government owned by a small number of Super Business') .

Eight years later and the Powerful Super Business', in their fearsome glory, are arrayed against the tiny, weak, relatively poor, comical figure of Donald Trump. History pushes forward the most unlikely heroes, in times of great need.

You all know the story/joke of the man who cried out to God to save him from the rising flood waters.

http://www.coolfunnyjokes.com/Funny-Jokes/Religious-Jokes/The-Big-Flood.html

"Upon arriving in heaven, the man marched straight over to God. "Heavenly Father," he said, "I had faith in you, I prayed to you to save me, and yet you did nothing. Why?" God gave him a puzzled look, and replied "I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you expect?""

Maybe, Donald Trump is the man in the rowboat sent to rescue us from the rising waters?

Anne , July 1, 2016 at 7:49 pm

I am beginning to think that Bill Clinton doesn't really want his wife to be president; maybe part of it is that her presidency would – at a minimum – put the sweet Foundation deals in jeopardy, and at a maximum, completely take the lid off that swamp of incestuous mutual enrichment, leading to who knows what?

What I am pretty sure of, though, is that something is really rotten here; it's a smorgasbord of corruption and likely criminal acts and Hillary ascending to the presidency is very, very threatening.

And Loretta Lynch either isn't as smart as we thought she was, or she's willing to take this hit because she knows crimes have been committed and the foot-dragging and slow-walking are leaving her with only rumor and innuendo – and a media and Trump willing to take that bait – to cast enough doubt on Hillary's fitness for office that she has no choice but to step down.

Opening the door for someone like Biden.

Kim Kaufman , July 1, 2016 at 7:51 pm

""The GOP's War on Voting Is Working" [The Nation]. What a steaming load. If the Democrat Party were serious about voter registration, it would be running voter registration drives as a normal, year-round, 24/7 part of normal party function, certainly since Florida 2000. They aren't, so they don't. They would also be setting up programs to get voters IDs in states were Republicans insist on that. This talking point is classic "mean Republican" whinging, issued by a flaccid party apparatus, flat on its back, making no effort to rise.'"

And they wouldn't have pushed ACORN over a cliff. I particularly remember Barbara Boxer giving a shove.

Pat , July 2, 2016 at 9:33 am

And do not forget one of my favorite legislative options, the continued use of unrelated amendments in important bills. You want to make sure people can get what they need to vote, require by federal law that states that require ID to vote not only pay for said ID but must provide services to help voters acquire the documentation they need for that ID AND pay for that as well. Up to but not limited to, hiring genealogists to search records to find evidence in local and church records when no birth certificate was created.

Funny how that hasn't happened either.

Quentin , July 2, 2016 at 6:18 am

Today Hillary Clinton gets 'interviewed' by the FBI. Yesterday her best friend had a chitchat with the AG Loretta Lynch. What a coincidence. I wonder to which circle of Hell Dante would have assigned the Clintons.

[Jul 02, 2016] Makes ya wonder how treacherous Lynch and the shadowy figures pulling her strings could be

Notable quotes:

"... Unless both Lynch and Clinton thought it would be a shh, secret, ..."

"... Obama pays homage to the most qualified candidate evah, whom he and Michele love like one of their own, only to find he's powerless, just powerless, because of a subordinate's foolish PR blunder, to help Hillary with that pesky investigation his AG can't go heavy on. ..."

"... What would be a good name for the American version of Kremlinologists? Beltwayologists? Wallstreetologists? Plutocratologists? ..."

www.nakedcapitalism.com
dingusansich , July 1, 2016 at 2:53 pm

But surely that "shadow" would have been obvious in advance to lawyer Lynch and (disbarred) lawyer Clinton. So WTF?

Getting so you can't tell who's grifting whom. Unless both Lynch and Clinton thought it would be a shh, secret, it's blazingly obvious their private-jet meetup is public relations poison. Must've been pur-ty important, then. Makes ya wonder how treacherous Lynch and the shadowy figures pulling her strings could be.

Obama pays homage to the most qualified candidate evah, whom he and Michele love like one of their own, only to find he's powerless, just powerless, because of a subordinate's foolish PR blunder, to help Hillary with that pesky investigation his AG can't go heavy on.

Where are the Kremlinologists when you need them?

Vatch , July 1, 2016 at 3:29 pm

Your theory is worthy of The Game of Thrones!

What would be a good name for the American version of Kremlinologists? Beltwayologists? Wallstreetologists? Plutocratologists?

[Jul 02, 2016] Clinton Says Knows of No Timeline to Wrap Up FBI E-Mail Inquiry by Chris Strohm, Ben Brody & Margaret Talev

Jul 02, 2016 | Bloomberg Politics

Hillary Clinton was questioned on Saturday as part of the FBI's inquiry into her use of a private e-mail server while U.S. secretary of state, a practice that's dogged her presidential run, fueled Republican charges that she's unfit for office, and caused Clinton herself to say she wishes she could take it back.
The roughly three-and-a-half hour meeting at FBI headquarters in Washington was confirmed by Clinton's campaign. It threatens more turbulence for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee days after Attorney General Loretta Lynch was criticized for meeting former President Bill Clinton privately on an aircraft in Phoenix.
In her first comments on the interview, Clinton said on MSNBC on Saturday that she "was happy I got the opportunity to assist the department and bring this to a conclusion." The Democrat told NBC's Chuck Todd, though, that she had "no knowledge of any timeline" for the investigation to conclude. "I'm not going to comment on the process," she said. "I'm not going to go into any more detail then I already have in public many times."

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, said in an earlier e-mailed statement that Clinton's appearance had been "voluntary."
Once it finishes its investigation, the FBI will make a recommendation to Lynch about whether to pursue a prosecution of Clinton or her aides, guidance the attorney general said Friday that she expects to accept. And while the holiday-weekend interview doesn't imply that the former first lady and senator from New York faces indictment, the idea of Clinton having met with law enforcement officers will have political consequences.

[Jul 02, 2016] FBI to Interview Hillary Clinton in Coming Days About Email Scandal, Source Says

Jul 01, 2016 | ABC News

Hillary Clinton could be interviewed by the FBI in the coming days as part of an investigation into the former secretary of state and her staff's use of private email to conduct official U.S. State Department business, according to a source familiar with the U.S. Department of Justice's investigation.

The Justice Department's goal is to complete the investigation and make recommendations on whether charges should be filed before the two major party conventions take place toward the latter half of July, the source said.

[Jul 02, 2016] Loretta Lynch to follow FBI guidance in Hillary Clinton email investigation

Notable quotes:

"... The question never obviously arose in the Guardian whether Obama should be endorsing a candidate under investigation -- forgetting for the moment that he previously declared her innocent. ..."

www.theguardian.com

The US attorney general, Loretta Lynch , intends to accept whatever recommendation career prosecutors and federal agents make in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, a justice department official said on Friday.

"The attorney general expects to receive and accept the determinations and findings of the department's career prosecutors and investigators, as well as the FBI director," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation .

Lynch was expected to discuss the matter further at a summit on Friday in Aspen, Colorado.

This revelation comes amid a controversy surrounding an impromptu private discussion that Lynch had aboard her plane on the tarmac at a Phoenix airport on Monday with Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton. That get-together has been criticized as inappropriate by Republicans and some Democrats at a time when the justice department has been investigating whether classified information was mishandled through Clinton's exclusive use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

Lynch was expected to discuss the matter further at a summit on Friday in Aspen, Colorado.

This revelation comes amid a controversy surrounding an impromptu private discussion that Lynch had aboard her plane on the tarmac at a Phoenix airport on Monday with Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton. That get-together has been criticized as inappropriate by Republicans and some Democrats at a time when the justice department has been investigating whether classified information was mishandled through Clinton's exclusive use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

Lynch told reporters that she and Bill Clinton did not discuss the email investigation during the encounter.

Pitoto , 2016-07-01 14:11:45
Did Chickenshit Cheney recuse himself from oil policies after he had secret meetings with oil companies during the administration of his puppet the Texas Moron? No!
Do conspiracy mongers have any proof or evidence that Ms. Lynch discussed email matters with president Clinton? Of course not! just plain b.s.
aleatico , 2016-07-01 14:11:18
The question never obviously arose in the Guardian whether Obama should be endorsing a candidate under investigation -- forgetting for the moment that he previously declared her innocent.
Joelbanks , 2016-07-01 14:10:45
Now we know why both Hillary and her patron President Obama have been so complacent about the outcome of the FBI investigation. Loretta Lynch, who made clear her political edge during her confirmation hearing, would decide to indict or ignore or minimise. And the decision would be in line with Obama's nod.
oelbanks , 2016-07-01 14:07:32
In Loretta Lynch's own words, her private conversation with Bill Clinton, the Foundation man, had 2 dimensions. She has described the primary dimension; she has been silent about the secondary one.
What was secondary to Lynch might have been primary to Clinton.
aleatico , 2016-07-01 14:00:23
I just read the NY Times article of the same title and they have airbrushed her "primarily social" comment by Lynch concerning her meeting (why the qualification?)", leaving intact her claim they talked about grandkids and travel (thereby giving the impression that she said that was all they talked about). Interestingly, the FBI, at the airport went around strongarming journalists not to take any pictures of the meeting.
evis7 aleatico , 2016-07-01 14:07:30
The Clintons live in a world that is outside and above the law.
Alice1957 aleatico , 2016-07-01 14:09:24
Do you have a link for this "strong arming" that allegedly took place? Was it Clinton's security detail? Yesterday, I read that Clinton knew Lynch's schedule and maneuvered his schedule so that he was on the tarmac at the same time as Lynch so he could force a meeting. Arizona is friendly territory for the Clintons.
steveky , 2016-07-01 13:42:01
The one point every one is "Glossing Over" is that if the Clinton Server and E-mail account was the "Official" Secretary of States E-mail... That makes all E-mail on that Account subject to the "Freedom of Information Act" Hillary has No Right to Pick and Choose"...
The Court Needs to decide what is irrelevant not Hillary....
PotholeKid steveky , 2016-07-01 14:04:20
except her private email which was supposedly deleted and lost will be difficult to make public.. Hopefully Assange, Guccifer 2.0 or others will do so. Ask yourself why Clinton would have deleted those emails and not made a backup..just makes no sense.

[Jul 02, 2016] Obama's Latest Attempt to Save Clinton From Indictment by Michael Sainato

Notable quotes:

"... POTUS delays critical email release to protect Entitled Establishment Darling ..."

observer.com

06/07/16 | Observer
POTUS delays critical email release to protect Entitled Establishment Darling
By Michael Sainato • 06/07/16 12:30pm

"I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI-not just in this case but in any case," President Obama said in an interview with Fox News this past April. Despite his repeated claims of not influencing the Department of Justice and FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server scandal, Obama has helped shield her throughout the fiasco.

The White House has protected Clinton's emails with the most potential to incriminate or impugn Clinton's self-portrayed public image. In October 2015, the Obama Administration blocked the release of emails between Clinton (while she served as secretary of state) and the president, citing the need to keep such communications confidential. Recently, the Obama Administration also blocked the State Department's release of emails from Clinton regarding the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership after it had promised to fulfill a Freedom of Information Act Request to IBTimes earlier this year. The request will now allegedly not be completed until after the general election in late November.

"The delay was issued in the same week the Obama administration filed a court motion to try to kill a lawsuit aimed at forcing the federal government to more quickly comply with open records requests for Clinton-era State Department documents," reported David Sirota of IBTimes.

Hillary Clinton's involvement with the Trans-Pacific Partnership is riddled with hypocrisy. As secretary of state, Clinton helped move TPP negotiations along. However, she avoided taking a position on TPP for the first few months of her 2016 presidential campaign-until Bernie Sanders' staunch opposition to the deal forced Clinton to risk losing highly coveted endorsements from labor unions who strongly oppose it. Politifact rated Clinton's switch as a full flip-flop.

Despite holding back an endorsement during the Democratic primaries, Obama hasn't made much effort to hide where his favoritism lies. The Clinton campaign recently claimed Obama will be releasing an endorsement for Hillary Clinton very soon. This came shortly after Obama reaffirmed his endorsement of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who faces growing calls for resignation from Sanders supporters and a strong Democratic primary opponent in Tim Canova.

In January 2016, Obama condescendingly referred to Sanders and his unexpected challenge to Clinton's coronation as a "bright, shiny object," in an interview with Politico.

"If Bernie Sanders' campaign has proven anything, it is that there are millions of citizens who are engaged, invested and closely scrutinizing the policy positions of all of the candidates in the electoral field," countered Harry Jaffe for The Guardian. "If Sanders can bring new voters to the polls with his message of authenticity and empowerment-as he seems to be doing-that's a testament to the power of his words rather than their shiny quality."

If Bernie Sanders was under investigation by the FBI and Department of Justice, it is doubtful Obama would be jumping to his defense as he has repeatedly done for Hillary Clinton. "She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy," he told Fox News in April 2016, while simultaneously guaranteeing he wouldn't interfere with the investigation. But by making a judgment at all on Clinton's private server use, he is intervening-especially by affirming Clinton had no intent, which is vital to determine criminal liability in this case.

Obama, like many of his Democratic colleagues who overwhelmingly support Clinton, were downplaying the private email server investigation as frivolous, until the recent report from the State Department Inspector General illuminated the blatant lies Clinton has been telling the public for over a year. She never received authorization for using a private email server and broke federal record laws by not preserving and turning over her records to the State Department when she left office. Shortly after the report was released, Obama dodged a question at a press conference in Japan, refusing to provide an answer at all, instead telling reporters such questions should be directed to the Clinton and Sanders campaigns-which is what he should have been doing all along.

Just as Hillary Clinton has depended on Obama whenever she was cornered in a debate and needed help diverting an issue, she is now depending on him to get through the FBI and Department of Justice investigation long enough to get to become president-at which point there will be no chance of serving the indictment her actions certainly warrant.

"What we already know about her security infractions should disqualify her for any government position that deals in information critical to mission success, domestic or foreign," wrote Philip Jennings in an op-ed for USA Today. "But beyond that, her responses to being found out-dismissing its importance, claiming ignorance, blaming others-indict her beyond anything the investigation can reveal. Those elements reveal her character. And the saddest thing is so many Americans seem not to care."

Rick Richards · Indianola Academy "a political tool from day one."
Dropped charges against a uniformed Black Panter carrying a billy club at a voting place. The case was all but done. ObamaCo came in and dropped all charges. Like · Reply · 145 · Jun 7, 2016 12:21pm Walter Riley · Grand Island, New York The President is inexorably tied to the Clinton private server, and now working behind the scenes to force Bernie from the race before the Democratic convention. The strategy? Should word leak that Hillary is recommended for indictment, the establishment will be able to install its own establishment choice (not Bernie). Really sleazy!
Hillary is evil enough to have set the President up by sending and receiving from him information that is potentially damaging to the country's security. This is a tactic used by common criminals to lure unsuspecting persons into a trap of having committed a crime and suddenly begins to suffer the 'in-to-deep', and the 'let's overlook it for now' syndrome, and the consequences will somehow simply be forgotten and go away. Bottom line, the President of the United States is being blackmailed by the Secretary of state and her husband Bill Clinton.
If the POTUS had classified e-mail exchanges with the SOS, he (the POTUS) has been naively sucked in, and Hillary is constantly free to imply everyone knew (inferring the POTUS as well) and, hence she gets a free ride. The FBI should give special attention to this likely possibility. Bill and Hillary has been at this game forever, and there is no reason to calculate otherwise.
HOW ELSE CAN SHE SAY WITH SUCH CONVICTION, "IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN'! Our POTUS has his ass in a bind. The FBI cannot help but conclude that, many in the White House (and perhaps the President himself) knew this e-mail address was not secure!
Where the President had been too compliant, he now finds himself too complicit.
It's no wonder how the broadest spectrum of Social Media is 5 to 1 in support of Bernie, and the ballot box ends up a vote or two in favor of Hillary? BERNIE OR BUST! Richard Davidson · The University of Michigan Impeachment requires only a majority of the House, but removal requires a two thirds vote of the Senate. It failed to happen the last two times a president was impeached, and it certainly would fail again against Hillary.
BTW, impeachment is not a criminal or civil matter, but a political one. Theresa M Brown · Works at Freelance new build/home renovation designer Walter Riley - at some point, if Bernie doesn't, Trump will force the hand of the crooks up in Washington - when that happens - Americans will probably have their one chance to uninfest this country of the new world order Joe Clark · Works at Retired I think many millions of Americans do care about Hillary's past indiscretions but feel helpless to stop her progress given the influence of the political elite who throw millions of dollars her way knowing they all will eventually be rewarded for their support. Hillary Clinton is as corrupt as any politician I have ever seen in my lifetime; even more dangerous than Richard Nixon. America will pay dearly if see is somehow elected president. Anita Katleen Ruggles-Zigmont · Haddon Heights High School Obama can claim all he wants that there has been no political influence used by him or the DOJ. It's like all the other lies he tells and of course while keeping a straight face. Like I have said many times now, if some poor GI had mishanlded classified material or put it on a private server, he would have been tried, convicted and still sitting in some Federal Prison, before you could say Obama! Wake up people, she put the safety of the USA on the line, with her blantant disregard for established rules on handling classified materials! How can she be trusted in the White House? Charles DeJoseph · Sr. Airframe Mech at Sikorsky Aircraft. at Where do you work This President and his administration are the worst obstuctionists in our history. The only reason he wasn't impeached was because of the fear Congress had of the riots in the streets that would have ensued, from the minorities and possible bloodshed from the victims of the riots who would finally arm them selves cause they've had enough of their buisnesses being burned down and their families threatened. Frank Ciurca · University of Maryland, College Park She has broken so many Federal Laws it's ridiculous. Then Obama's henchmen went after General Petraeus for arguably much less. Now this corrupt Administration, the worse since Nixon, is protecting Clinton. Patraeus as an honorable person admitted to his wrong doing. Clinton has no problem lying, after all she's related to another liar. Steve Taylor Obama is complicit in the Clinton corruption and lies. He should be impeached, imprisoned and deported if he is ever released. If he is found guilty of treason he should be publicly executed by firing squad. Perry Rondou · UW Whitewater Is this the as advertised 'Most transparent Administration'? Hah, the bunch of lib hypocrites. The republicans have a much better candidate than the convict and the socialist. The left is intent on giving illegals everything in exchange for their votes, and turning us into Greece or Venezuela. Hell, obama and the hollywood left love Ortega. Richard McDonald · Jacksonville, Florida The "most transparent administration", yeah, right! We can see right through Obama, what his agenda is and was from Day one when he was "ready to rule" as Ms. Jarrett so specifically put it. He has not been a "President of the people", he's been many things while in office, but, clearly, not a President.
His entire administration was built on lies and deceit, with divisiveness thrown in for good measure. Everything he has touched, from Solyndra to shovel ready, to the automobile companies to our healthcare has turned to a pile of dog feces and he's been behind it all, and more. He chose the most inept people to run critical cabinet departments.
Hillary was, perhaps, the worst of all. She claims abject failures as "accomplishments" and is too stupid to understand the difference. From her meddling in Lybia to the Egyptian "spring" debacle. She cannot account for $ 6 Billion in cash that went missing on her watch that was in Iraq and Afghan safes that were under the watchful eye of the CIA and others. As long as she got her cut, doesn't care.
Barack Hussein Obama, the one man wrecking crew of a nation. Alice Gaunt · Phoenix Union High School, Phoenix, AZ Wake up people!!!!!! She lied directly to the families of the Benghazi victims along with all the other lies she's told!!!!! She blamed the women that Bill sexually abused and yet she says shes all for women's rights?!?!?!?! This woman is as corrupt if not moreso as the Obama administration and the only reaon he's covering for her as he knows he can control her if she's elected!!!!!! He'll be calling in all these "favors" hes giving her now sooner or later. We really don't want nor need another ace liar in the WH!!!!!! God help us if this corrupt bit*ch gets electd!!!!!! Lee Abbamondi · Goldenwest, Huntington Beach, California She has condemned herself...She obstucted this investigation. We know she destroyed documents conerning Top Secret e-mails sent over her server. She sent her computer to a company in Texas to have it cleaned. Check U.S. Code Title 18 Section 2017. If she destroyed any government documents she cannot hold any government office--EVER. She gets 3-yuears in prison and I want to see her and billy-boy in those orange jumpsuits for the fraud of the Clinton Foundation. Based on her record as Secretary of State---what did she accomplish other than have Russia buy our uranium for a $50M donation to the Foundation through Canada along with the
Arab Countries give hundred of millions----she was working for herself and not the country. And as far as her doing things for women----name one. Words. Words. Words. Every time she opens her mouth, you can smell what she has been eating. Wait to see how much more the muslim in the White House will do to save her arse. And she has had her face lifted so many times she has hair on her chest. One more time and she'll have a mustache or that could be something she has been diving. Thomas Schanher · Works at Retired When are all you people going to realize that this is all part of Barry's plan. He'll save Billary & Butthead from embarassment & prison, fix the November elections for that witch like he did for himself, all in exchange for her nominating Barry to the Supreme Court. Ever wonder why Barry says he's not leaving Washington DC? It's all part of his ongoing masterplan to ruin America, something he's done a good job of doing for the past 7 1/2 years. Without a Trump election in November, we're all in trouble!! Charles Smith · The Ohio State University Benghazi got burried in the shredder. Fast & Furious did not get investigated. Hillary's Emails what was left of them have not been gone through by Lynch. The Black Panthers refusing to let White voters in Philliadelpha vote in 2008. That was filmed voice and all Holder refused to prosecute. The federal Government brought a huge injustice to a MR Finican in Oregon. They killed MR Finican in Col Blooded Murder and for a topper shot him in the head after they knew he was dead. The umjust department of unjust bussed Blacks from Orlando to get the Police chief fired. Then tried to influence a jury to convict an innocent Zimmerman for killing Martin. Matthew Graff · Various So Trump may be a buffoon, but what does that say about Hillary and Obama - liars to the core. Sorry, can't vote democrat, they're basicaly unamerican in every way shape and form. Joe Butler · Las Vegas, Nevada It would be hard to explain why Obama did nothing to inform Clinton not to use a private server when she corresponded with him via email. Both are culpable. Covering her butt is Obama just covering himself. Shirley Allan · Administrative Assistant at Dr. Perry Mueller She talkes of honesty, doing the right thing for the people etc., etc. - she needs to be held responsible NOW before this election stuff goes further - whether others have done anything similar doesn't matter - it is NOW AND NOW - you can't simply do wrong and then expect the average person to respect and vote for her - I don't trust any of the candidates running, but what choices do we have really? Our earth will end soon just watch the weather changes - people are in panic mode - people lie to get our attention. I feel each candidate should live in our WORLD and walk in our SHOES for few months just to get an idea of what we the average person goes through and the conflicts and hardships we all go through and then maybe we can get on track - The President needs to do the correct thing !! Woody Nelson Obama has become appalling. I hate to make this observation but blacks just don't recognize criminal activity. Obama has supported the thugs Trayvon Marting and Michael Brown while throwing our police departments under the bus. Eric Holder with Obama's nod illegally sold guns to gang members, etc. Now he doesn't recognize the criminality of Hillary Clinton. I worked for DoD for over 20 years and retired and while I was employed we had annual mandatory training about handling classified materials and the legal repercussions of violating any of these U.S. codes and laws governing classified material. We also had very strict guidelines governing telework. At no time were we allowed to do government business on personal or home accounts. All business was conducted through a government firewall. Hillary without a doubt violated some of the codes and laws and should be held accountable in the same manner I would have been held accountable had I violated any of these. Lee Allen · Riverside, California If you would have seen the Documentary that came out, wayback when AKA BARRY SOTORO decided to run for PREZ. It was entitled, Obama's America 2016.Denesh Desousa producted it. Everything that was said in th film, has come true. An,he is getting ready to release one on the Clintons, soon. Roger Rocky Scobey Obama has lied about everything. He promised to have the most transparent administration ever but he lied. He promised to close Guantanamo, but lied. He lied that the IRS was not targeting conservatives groups. He lied about selling guns to the Mexican drug cartels, he lied about Obamacare not being a tax. He lied about the Iran Nuclear deal. He lied about blaming a youtube video for the killing of our Ambasador in Benghazi. Etc., etc.. His lies are too many to list. Jason Hadley · Louisiana Tech University The President should be charged with "obstruction of justice". Any common place citizan would be. this country has become so caulis that they dont even see or care that our goverment has become so corrupt and dagerously strong that eventually we will lose all our freedoms and we will cease to be The United States of America. Terry Foster The headline needs to be corrected . Obama's Latest Attempt to "OBSTRUCT" JUSTICE "and Save Clinton From Indictment !!! That illegitimate ,low life ,lawless fool crackhead obama has been the mos corrupt ,incompetent,most destructive,most divisive and up till now ,the most unqualified fraud ever installed in our White House !!! Joseph Kaminski No one in governmnet has the courage, or desire to charge obama with his crimes, or clinton with hers. NONE, because they are all as corrupt as him and her. they are all criminals. Instead they attempt to tell Americans lies that even a child would not believe. The entire world is looking on in shock and disbelief , and when it wears off they will themselves decide to expand their own corrupt crimess and be like the USA, since Julie Hardaway · Aiken, South Carolina The writer is mistaken in this statemtn: "But by making a judgment at all on Clinton's private server use, he is intervening-especially by affirming Clinton had no intent, which is vital to determine criminal liability in this case." In fact, the Espionage law does NOT require intent for guilt. Gross negligence is quite sufficient. Not that it matters, since we now see that the Clinton-Obama Democrats--not the Sanders Dems--don't give a damn about "equal justice under (snicker) law." THe law, as Hillary's alter-ego Leona Helmsley so colorfully put it, "is for little people." That means you and me. Gail Newman America always gets the president we deserve. Why do we deserve Clinton? It's not our fault. Public schooling was intentionally designed to shut off critical thinking and independent thought. It's all documented. It was NEVER meant to educate, though Johann Ficht's documents say that SOME education is inevitable, but that's not the purpose of schooling. It said that history should never teach facts, but should teach patriotic themes. That's how so many American don't have a clue that the Supreme Court conducted a coup d'etat in 1819 and it threw out the Constitution and our Constitutional Republic - replacing it with a common law government (the 1st 2 reasons given in the Dec. of Independence for breakinig with England). Until we get the real truth about our own history into public knowledge, we are doomed. OUr economic paradigm is directly responsible for every social/political/ecological problem we have, but that isn't taught in schools either. The end of human life on earth is much closer to us than most dare imagine. And that indoctrination / programmiing given us in public schools is why we have a Clinton and a Trump today. America must join in a Learn-In .
Thomas Bryan · Medellín, Colombia
Obama will always have a go-between so he never is directly held reponsible for his actions, remember all the statements....I didn't know anything until I saw it on the news. He's 100% lying traitor to the American People. Who else has the authority to hender evidence in a Federal Investigation, Duh

Clifford Fargason
Failure to safeguard classified information is illegal regardless of intent. For example, Gen Petraus, Eric Snowden, and PFC Manning were all convicted for mishandling classified information. In Gen Petraus's case he shared information with an individual who had the appropriate clearance level but not "need to know."
Cheryl Gumulauski · Coupeville, Washington Wow, Nixon tried this with is tapes and lost. Time to file a suit for them and have the courts order Obama hand them over. They are not his, but belong to the government unless classified and a special judge has to sign off on that. Political embarrassment is not justification for classification, as the case for the Pentegon papaers proved. Randy Vandegrift In mishandling classified materials, hillary is either stupid, incompetent or hiding something, and I would postulate that she is guilty of all 3. She is stupid because we now know that some hacker, and Putin, have her emails; incompetent because she did not protect classified materials placing people and operations at risk, going so far as to direct someone to remove the classification markings and fax some classified materials over an unsecured fax line; and hiding something because, as we now know, she did not want them subject to FOIA (maybe selling her influence as Sec'y of State for donations to a Clinton Foundation; colluding on the elections; or post your own thoughts). As a former federal contractor, I know that had I or any of my colleagues done what she did, we would have been fired immediately and facing serious federal charges including signficant prison time. Mark Foster · Escambia High School If you believe that then I want to sell you some land in FL, come see it at low tide:)
Let your vote be counted, let's make America rich and great again, because now that Obama is almost out of office and running up the national debt from 10 Trillion to 20 Trillion maybe a real business man can accomplish something great for America? Fran Ferreira I would love to see the "dirt" the Clinton's have on Obama. We all know Obama hates the Clintons and for him to continue covering her butt it must be good. Oh, to be a fly on the wall when those two get together. Alan Jones · Philadelphia, Pennsylvania First of all, if Obama has to stand there and say "I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department" chances are political influence has already been exercised. That's just like Slick Willy saying "I never had sex with that woman". Like · Reply · Jun 7, 2016 1:55pm Ed Ernst · DePaul University I truly believe that this entire administration is re-writing the old hand book "lying for Dummies"!! Every department is so full of crap, from the Administration, to the IRS, to the EPA, to the Justice Dept., and the Veterans Administration that they no longer would know the truth if it bit them in the arse!!! This is why that lyin', scumbag, schemin', PHONY of a human being hil-airous cling-on can't be elected president. Like · Reply · Jun 8, 2016 4:23am Eric Park How can we collectively get the message to James Comey, Director of the FBI....Sir, if you have or have not discovered sufficient evidence to justifyt indictment of ex-Sec of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, we the American voters believe you have an obligation to us to reach your conclusion and publicly recommend or not recommend indictment by the Dept of Justice. Please, sir, let us go into this critical Presidential election fully informed. Should the evidence support indictment (be it violation of FOIA and record keeping, ala private servers, or selling govt access via the Clinton Foundatio ... See More Like · Reply · 1 · Jun 7, 2016 1:19pm Jenny Racine York Lloyd Obama and both Clintons should probably all be in jail but the truth will never be believed or acted upon. Power-mongers and greed-filled. They will answer to a much high power some day. Thomas Topmiller · Works at Retired The democrats don't seem to care about Hillary's moral character, only Trump's. Hillary will have Obama intervening for her and Obama will tell the justice dept. not to prosecute her. I can only hope that the fbi will blow the whistle when Obama interfers. There was s no doubt that Obama will interfere, it's just a matter of when. Everybody knows the clintons and obama's are in bed together. Joseph Stretanski · Stamford, Connecticut Hope and Change
Eight years ago we were sold a bill of goods called "Hope and Change".
Eight years ago we were a nation of laws.
In fact, Obama took an oath of office to abide by the laws of this land and the constitution.
Today, we are re-writing laws after they are passed (Obamacare).
Today, the President is implementing laws he likes and ignoring those he doesn't.
Today , the President is making laws and ignoring the will of the people who made the House and the Senate Republican to prevent the President from continuing his assault on the laws and the constitution of this nation.
Today, judges are ruling against the President for his immigration executive orders.
Today, the Presidents economic policies and the use of excessive regulations and the Govt. agencies, such as the EPA, has resulted in anemic growth and the lowest labor participation rate in 30 years.
However, if you exist in Obamaland, none of this is true.
Granted the "Change" part is true. However, today 62% of the public thinks it is in the wrong direction. A fact that the President, and also, his close associates ignore.
I would say it is time to reverse the current direction. Andrew Martinson Barack "the pathological and sociopathic liar" Obama; the same liar who has been proven to have known he was lying when he told us over and over and over again ad nauseam "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" ... and "if you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan" ... and "the average American family will save $2500 on their health insurance" ... and not to be forgotten;
"there's not even a smidgeon of corruptness in the I R S".
More and more and more lies by the Barack "the pathological and sociopathic liar" Obama. THAT will be his legacy.

[Jul 01, 2016] Could Hillary Clinton really be indicted over her emails?

Notable quotes:

"... But former US attorney Joseph DiGenova is blunt: "I don't think there's any question Mrs Clinton and her staff broke the law. She maintained a server in her private home in Chappaqua, New York, and conducted government business. This clearly was beyond gross negligence. ..."

"... "When she set up the server, the intent was to avoid accountability. There is no other intent required. The notion this is not a violation of the law is ludicrous. If she and her staff get a pass, there will be hell to pay in the intelligence community." ..."

"... Innocent until proven guilty, she would not be legally barred from running for president. Handy draws parallels with Sheldon Silver , the former speaker of the New York assembly who last month was jailed for 12 years for corruption. ..."

"... The political, media and public pressure on Clinton might be overwhelming, however, making her candidacy untenable and prompting a sensational, unprecedented and humiliating withdrawal. ..."

"... Cox adds: "If charges came down before the convention, it would raise questions over whether the Democratic party really wanted to proceed with a nominee facing criminal charges but, again, I think it is very unlikely that is going to happen." ..."

Jun 10, 2016 | theguardian.com

As an FBI investigation continues, expert opinion is divided. Some offer a view reminiscent of Bill Clinton's famous remark that he experimented with marijuana but "didn't inhale".

... ... ...

State department and intelligence officials have identified 2,093 email chains from Clinton's server as containing classified information. Twenty-two were deemed so highly classified that they were withheld from release to the public. Clinton contends that none of the messages was marked classified at the time.

But former US attorney Joseph DiGenova is blunt: "I don't think there's any question Mrs Clinton and her staff broke the law. She maintained a server in her private home in Chappaqua, New York, and conducted government business. This clearly was beyond gross negligence.

"When she set up the server, the intent was to avoid accountability. There is no other intent required. The notion this is not a violation of the law is ludicrous. If she and her staff get a pass, there will be hell to pay in the intelligence community."

... ... ...

If Clinton is indicted, what would happen?

Innocent until proven guilty, she would not be legally barred from running for president. Handy draws parallels with Sheldon Silver, the former speaker of the New York assembly who last month was jailed for 12 years for corruption.

"I would hope that she would step down but even given Shelly Silvers' indictment, it took tremendous pressure to get him to step down as speaker. Even if there were an indictment, I don't know if she would step aside. I would hope someone indicted would say, 'For the good of the party, for the good of the nation.' But her supporters would probably say, 'She deserves her day in court'."

While she would not be arrested, experts say, she would normally be expected to appear in court. The optics would be disastrous for a would be commander-in-chief but she could apply to have the charges dismissed or plead to a minor dismeanour in the hope that it would not necessarily disqualify her.

The political, media and public pressure on Clinton might be overwhelming, however, making her candidacy untenable and prompting a sensational, unprecedented and humiliating withdrawal.

Stewart says: "I don't know how you couldn't pull out, especially for something like this involving national security."

Cox adds: "If charges came down before the convention, it would raise questions over whether the Democratic party really wanted to proceed with a nominee facing criminal charges but, again, I think it is very unlikely that is going to happen."

But what if she is forced to pull out?

The Democratic party's charter and bylaws state that responsibility for finding a replacement nominee would fall to the Democratic National Committee, but the rules do not specify exactly how this would be done.

Sanders would presumably claim that he should inherit the mantle of nominee after pushing Clinton close in the primaries and earning the right to face Donald Trump. Indeed, it has been speculated that the Vermont senator has clung on so long in case the FBI investigation proves a cataclysmic event for the former first lady and a gamechanger for him.

[Jun 28, 2016] Democratic donor lobbied Secretary of State Hillary Clintons office for board appointment despite lack of experience

This just one case of Clinton's family corruption and probably not the most outrageous one. It is now more clear why she deleted so many emails. Clinton faces many questions about whether she helped her family foundation collect millions of dollars from questionable people, countries and organizations when she was secretary of state.

Notable quotes:

"... A major Democratic donor personally lobbied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office for a seat on a sensitive government intelligence board, telling one of her closest aides that if appointed he would make Clinton "look good." ..."

"... The emails shed new light on how Fernando got a spot on the International Security Advisory Board . He resigned in 2011, days after his appointment and after his selection was questioned. ..."

"... In recent weeks, emails obtained by Citizens United show the appointment perplexed the State Department's professional staff, according to ABC News , and that dozens of State Department officials worked overtime to quickly obtain Fernando's security clearance, according to Fox News . ..."

"... Reines appeared to mock the appointment by responding to Samuelson: "Not the most compelling response I've ever seen since it's such a dense topic the board resolves around. Couldn't he have landed a spot on the President's Physical Fitness Council?" ..."

Jun 27, 2015 | mcclatchydc.com

Rajiv Fernando lobbied top Clinton aide for a seat on sensitive intelligence board. He had little experience in the field and resigned after appointment was scrutinized. The Chicago businessman donated to Clinton, Obama and the Clinton Foundation.
A major Democratic donor personally lobbied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office for a seat on a sensitive government intelligence board, telling one of her closest aides that if appointed he would make Clinton "look good."
Rajiv Fernando acknowledged that he may not have the experience to sit on a board that would allow him the highest levels of top-secret access, but he assured deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin in newly released 2009 emails that he was talking to two professors who were "getting me up to speed on the academics behind the field."

Fernando, who contributed to Clinton, her family's foundation and Barack Obama, described himself as one of "Hillary's people" and mentioned that he recently had sent an ailing Clinton flowers to wish her a speedy recovery.

The emails shed new light on how Fernando got a spot on the International Security Advisory Board. He resigned in 2011, days after his appointment and after his selection was questioned.

... ... ...

In recent weeks, emails obtained by Citizens United show the appointment perplexed the State Department's professional staff, according to ABC News, and that dozens of State Department officials worked overtime to quickly obtain Fernando's security clearance, according to Fox News.

Reines appeared to mock the appointment by responding to Samuelson: "Not the most compelling response I've ever seen since it's such a dense topic the board resolves around. Couldn't he have landed a spot on the President's Physical Fitness Council?"

Fernando founded Chopper Trading, a high-frequency trading firm that was acquired by the Chicago firm DRW Trading Group in 2015. In an economic speech last year, Clinton criticized high-frequency traders. Providence, Rhode Island, sued Chopper Trading and other financial companies, charging they'd defrauded the city, which managed funds for its employees.

[Jun 28, 2016] Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria

Notable quotes:

"... Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper riﬂes, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. ..."

"... The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea - 125mm and 200ea - 1[55 mm]. ..."

truepundit.com

@54 pw

Here you go ...

~~SECRET-NOFORN~~
QQQQ

SERIAL:(U) (b)(3)10 USC§424
BODY
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 051443Z OCT 12.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE.

COUNTRY OR NONSTATE ENTITY: (U) LIBYA (LBY); SYRIA (SYR).

SUBJECT: ( ~~S//NF~~ ) (b)(3)10 USC§424. FORMER-LIBYA MILITARY WEAPONS
Shipped to Syria via the Port of Benghazi. Libya

DATE OF INFORMATION: (U) 1 May 2012 - 1 Sep 2012.

CUTOFF: (U) 18 Sep 2012.

(b)(3)10 USC§424, (b)(3)50 USC§3024(i)
REDACTED
CLASSIFIED

WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT. NOT FINALLY EVALUATED
INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED ~~SECRET//NOFORN~~ .

TEXT: 1. ( ~~S//NF~~ ) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Weapons from the former Libya
military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to
the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons
shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper riﬂes, RPG's, and 125mm
and 155mm howitzers missiles.

2.( ~~S//NF~~ }During Ihe immediate altermath of, and following the
uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddaﬁ)) regime in
October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the
former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were
shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and
the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to
the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The
ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to
hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo. (NFI)

3. ( ~~S//NF~~ ) The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August
2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers
missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500
Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and
approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea - 125mm and 200ea - 1[55
mm].

(b)(1) Sec. 1. 4(c).(b)(3): 10§USC 424,(b)(3):50§USC 3024(i)
REDACTED
CLASSIFIED

Posted by: jfl | Jun 23, 2016 9:05:30 AM | 67

[Jun 28, 2016] President Obama, Hillary Clinton Knew of Weapons Supplied from Benghazi to Al-Qaeda in Syria

truepundit.com

June 22, 2016 on True Pundit
Finally, there is official confirmation of what has been rumored for years: President Obama, his White House, and Hillary Clinton and her State Department knew that weapons were being shipped from Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria. Those "rebels" were largely al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood extremist factions, according to corroborating documents.
Below is a gem of an intelligence cable we unearthed from the Defense Intelligence Agency dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, courtesy of Judicial Watch's stacks of ongoing FOIA litigation. Absent wholesale redaction, this could prove to be a smoking gun finally exhibiting what the United States was doing in Benghazi prior to the Jihadists attacks on the U.S. consulate and then-secret CIA annex just miles away.

[Jun 26, 2016] Hillary Clinton email scandal shines light on specter of shadow IT

Notable quotes:

"... Surely, The State Department had an enterprise-grade email solution in place in 2013. We can only hope that Clinton protected her personal accounts with something more sophisticated than "Chelsea1980". ..."

"... 52% of IT executives said they don't have processes in place to manage outside sources, such as Dropbox in Vision Solutions' 2015 State of Resilience Report . Meanwhile, 70% of employees that use Dropbox do so solely for work, according to a 2013 Forrester report, and shadow IT appeared as a concern for the first time in the 2015 SIM IT Trends Study . ..."

"... Former FBI Director Robert Mueller said in 2012, "There are only two types of companies: those that have been hacked and those that will be." ..."

"... What kind of security risks does shadow IT create for your organisation? What happens when an employee uses the same password for both personal and enterprise accounts and hackers target that person's personal account? ..."

"... Their low-security Google Drive password just created a big headache for your organisation. ..."

"... Sourced from Bob Dvorak, founder and president, ..."

Mar 6, 2015 | Information Age

Consumer-grade and insecure applications can make headlines – and not in a good way
...This revelation should have public and private sector IT pros questioning their policies and practice around shadow IT – those programs outside of the formal control of the information technology department.
The Times wrote: "Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach."

Surely, The State Department had an enterprise-grade email solution in place in 2013. We can only hope that Clinton protected her personal accounts with something more sophisticated than "Chelsea1980".

IT has an important job, and keeping tabs on the personal email accounts of executives or high-ranking officials should be the least of their worries. However, with 783 reported data breaches in 2014, according to The Identity Theft Resources Center, shadow IT is a strategic IT issue that is too important to ignore.

The topic raises an important issue around policy and practice of shadow IT, individual or departmental use of consumer-grade applications, such as personal email accounts, and cloud storage, departmental (or individual) SaaS accounts, even employee social media activity. All fall within this category in an age where the lines between work life and personal life are increasingly blurred.

While there may be individual, departmental or even organisational benefits to some elements of shadow IT, there are both operational and security risks associated with it and professionals' use of consumer grade tools for email, cloud storage and other services. CIOs and IT leaders need to be vigilant in developing, instituting and enforcing corporate IT governance policies and procedures.

52% of IT executives said they don't have processes in place to manage outside sources, such as Dropbox in Vision Solutions' 2015 State of Resilience Report. Meanwhile, 70% of employees that use Dropbox do so solely for work, according to a 2013 Forrester report, and shadow IT appeared as a concern for the first time in the 2015 SIM IT Trends Study.

...Gartner reported in its 2015 CIO Agenda that shadow IT consumes as much as 20% of a company's IT resources and, for the first time, respondents to the SIM IT Trends Study included shadow IT among their list of management concerns.

So what happens when Dropbox experiences downtime, as it did in January of last year? How do businesses react? What happens to the customer data, financial data or important documents they stored there?

When nearly two-thirds of organisations using the cloud reported not having HA or DR solutions for their enterprise applications, according to Vision Solutions, you can imagine how low the number must be for companies actively able to recover from, or are even monitoring, employee activity in the cloud.

The small matter of security

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller said in 2012, "There are only two types of companies: those that have been hacked and those that will be."

What kind of security risks does shadow IT create for your organisation? What happens when an employee uses the same password for both personal and enterprise accounts and hackers target that person's personal account?

Their low-security Google Drive password just created a big headache for your organisation.

You may not face a public records request that brings the specter of shadow IT in your organisation to light, but publicly traded corporations have internal control requirements to consider and private companies are notoriously protective of their intellectual property and confidential information.

All it takes is one instance and your company can be front-page news – and not in a good way.

Sourced from Bob Dvorak, founder and president, KillerIT

[Jun 26, 2016] Hillary Clinton takes shadow IT mainstream by Larry Dignan

Notable quotes:

"... Now let's strip away all the politics, sniping and legality over Clinton's email practices. What you have is shadow IT for official business and a State Department without the IT clout to stop it. You could argue with all the NSA snooping that Clinton's own email infrastructure was warranted. ..."

"... Security issues often are tossed aside for convenience. For Clinton it was a homemade email server. For the rest of us it's a personal cloud storage account. ..."

"... In the end, the Clinton email flap will play out for months. There will be hearings and non-stop election coverage about it. Just keep in mind what you're witnessing is shadow IT at a grand scale ..."

March 4, 2015 | ZDNet / Between the Lines

Hillary Rodham Clinton is in one big email mess, but if you zoom out and look at her as any other employee you have a leading example of shadow IT at play.

Hillary Rodham Clinton reportedly ran her own email server out of her house and now is in the middle of political firestorm. For our purposes, Clinton has provided us with the most high-profile case of shadow IT practices. And the first lesson of shadow IT is that the techies aren't going to push around the top execs. For the folks in business tech, the concept of shadow IT isn't exactly new. You're the CIO. Your other C-level peers have had their own cloud services provisioned for years. Developers have Amazon's cloud on a corporate Amex. It started with an innocuous printer under a desk. Then went to a server. Then smartphones to cloud services. People bring their own devices, apps and business practices with them to work.

Hell, the poor CIO is just finding out about some of these things.

Enter Clinton. According to the Associated Press, Clinton ran her own email as a Cabinet-level official. Enter records laws and all sorts of concerns. On the bright side, Clinton at least wasn't using a public email server. She at least earns some techie props for that.

Now let's strip away all the politics, sniping and legality over Clinton's email practices. What you have is shadow IT for official business and a State Department without the IT clout to stop it. You could argue with all the NSA snooping that Clinton's own email infrastructure was warranted.

Boil this down to Clinton as an employee and you have the following.

Clinton was a top exec and those folks often get to push IT around. How do you think the iPad and iPhone became an enterprise juggernaut? You guessed it. The CEO wanted one.

The email infrastructure Clinton ran was techie, but how many of you are conducting work on personal accounts? Thought so. You may not have federal records laws, but you're ignoring IT policies almost daily.

Security issues often are tossed aside for convenience. For Clinton it was a homemade email server. For the rest of us it's a personal cloud storage account.

In the end, the Clinton email flap will play out for months. There will be hearings and non-stop election coverage about it. Just keep in mind what you're witnessing is shadow IT at a grand scale

[Jun 26, 2016] BlackBerry-crazed Hillary Clinton ignored warnings about email security

Notable quotes:

"... she ignored State Department and spy community warnings her outdated phone and private email server posed national security risks ..."

www.bostonherald.com

The FBI's case against a BlackBerry-obsessed Hillary Clinton could be strengthened following a bombshell report she ignored State Department and spy community warnings her outdated phone and private email server posed national security risks , former federal prosecutors and officials told the Herald.

[Jun 26, 2016] Hillary clintons private email account hacked the perils of shadow IT

www.tripwire.com

According to the Washington Post, the worst scenario may have come true when hacker "Guccifer" reportedly released several emails pertaining to Benghazi, which appear to be between Sidney Blumenthal and Hillary Clinton at the "clintonemail.com" domain. The domain was registered January 2009 through Network Solutions.

Looking a bit deeper at the MX records for the domain they map to a service run by McAfee:

MX Logic was acquired by McAfee in June of 2009 and is now part of McAfee's SaaS offerings. So, it looks like someone knew what they were doing at some level to modify the MX records to use McAfee's service.

However, the risk of this email account being compromised is significant and one wonders who else aside from Guccifer may have had access to sensitive communications.

Before we pick on Hillary Clinton too much, we should evaluate how common this practice is. If the goal is to circumvent a regulatory requirement and is putting communications at risk, these shadow IT practices should be evaluated government-wide.

tonyE

This is a security breakdown at a very high level.
From personal experience I can tell you that any emails that are classified MUST be routed via very specific networks.
For the SecState to use a private network is a breakdown of security at the HIGHEST LEVEL.
She is guilty of a very serious crime, there is simply no way for her to excuse herself.
Also, how about all the people who were communicating with her? Surely they knew they were breaking the law... ( and I&#039m not talking about the records, I&#039m talking about a security breach at the highest level of our nation).

[Jun 26, 2016] Hillary clinton jokes wiping email server cloth

Notable quotes:

"... "What? Like with a cloth or something?" she asked, then laughed. "I don't know how it works digitally at all." ..."

"... She made the quip during an exchange with Fox News' Ed Henry . ..."

"... The Intelligence Community's inspector general had notified senior members of Congress that two emails randomly sampled from Clinton's server contained sensitive information that was later given a "Top Secret" classification, while two others contained classified information at the time they were sent. ..."

"... The emails with information subsequently classified as "Top Secret" were forwarded to Clinton, according to the State Department. ..."

abcnews.go.com

Hillary Clinton joked to reporters Tuesday in Las Vegas about whether she "wiped" her email server clean before giving it to the FBI.

"What? Like with a cloth or something?" she asked, then laughed. "I don't know how it works digitally at all."

Clinton maintained that she has turned over the server to investigators and gave them "every single thing" that was work-related. Federal investigators are looking into the security of the server and whether there was classified information in the emails from the private account she used while serving as secretary of state.

She made the quip during an exchange with Fox News' Ed Henry.

This isn't the first time Clinton has joked about her emails: the former Secretary of State also quipped about why she liked Snapchat at the Wing Ding Dinner in Iowa.

"You may have seen that I recently launched a Snapchat account," she said. "I love it. Those messages disappear all by themselves."

Clinton turned over more than 30,000 personal messages from her email server to the State Department, which is being released in batches. And earlier this month, Clinton turned over her private email server to the Department of Justice.

The Intelligence Community's inspector general had notified senior members of Congress that two emails randomly sampled from Clinton's server contained sensitive information that was later given a "Top Secret" classification, while two others contained classified information at the time they were sent.

The emails with information subsequently classified as "Top Secret" were forwarded to Clinton, according to the State Department.

Just this week, Intelligence community officials involved in the review of Clinton's emails flagged 305 messages for further inspection, new court documents released Monday said.

Clinton has maintained that she never used her private email to handle classified information. Her spokesman, Nick Merrill, said it was "not surprising" that several hundred messages were flagged for further inspection "given the sheer volume of intelligence community lawyers now involved in the review of these emails."

"We expect there will continue to be competing assessments among the various agencies about what should and shouldn't be redacted," Merrill said in a statement to ABC News.

[Jun 25, 2016] A Very Clinton E-Mail Scandal by Ryan Lizza

The New Yorker

A more responsible accounting of another scandal that has dogged Hillary Clinton came this week from the State Department's inspector general, who was tasked with looking into the propriety of Clinton's use of a personal e-mail account while she was Secretary of State.

The I.G.'s eighty-three page report, "Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements," is one of the more comprehensive examinations the government has ever issued on proper document-retention habits in the federal bureaucracy. Skip to page forty-two if you want the scintillating conclusion:

Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State. OIG recognizes that technology and Department policy have evolved considerably since Secretary Albright's tenure began in 1997. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership. OIG expects that its recommendations will move the Department steps closer to meaningfully addressing these risks.

...The fact that Clinton did not fully cooperate with the I.G. investigation (she declined to be interviewed, for example) does not inspire confidence that her Administration would be a model of transparency

...The fact that Clinton did not fully cooperate with the I.G. investigation (she declined to be interviewed, for example) does not inspire confidence that her Administration would be a model of transparency

[Jun 25, 2016] Clinton's e-mail scandal another case of the entitled executive syndrome

Notable quotes:

"... And lest we forget, well before Clinton came to the State Department, members of the George W. Bush administration used a private e-mail server (at gwb43.com) run and paid for by the Republican National Committee-at least 88 accounts were set up for Bush administration officials in order to bypass the official White House e-mail system and avoid the regulations around presidential record retention, the Federal Records Act, and the Hatch Act (which bans the use of government e-mail accounts for political purposes, among other things). In the process of using that system, more than 5 million e-mail messages were "lost," which led to the resignation of a number of White House officials, including Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. None of the e-mails for 51 of the 88 accounts was preserved by the RNC. ..."

"... Clinton was well aware of the Bush administration e-mail fiasco before she was nominated and confirmed as Secretary of State. She even told the State Department's assistant secretary for diplomatic security that she "gets it" after being briefed on why there were problems with her using a BlackBerry. ..."

"... Sure, the State Department's IT support is not exactly customer-centric. But its IT department has supported BlackBerry devices for unclassified e-mail in the past, and if Clinton could have dealt with sticking to using a computer while inside the State Department secure compartmented information facility (SCIF) and using a BlackBerry for unclassified e-mail, the State Department could have probably accommodated her. It was purely about Clinton's discomfort about using a PC for e-mail and her desire to use e-mail just like she did while running for office. ..."

"... So, as the State Department Office of the Inspector General reported, she paid a State Department staffer (who had worked for her directly in the past) off the books to create a shadow e-mail service of her own, and she used a personal BlackBerry not configured to State Department security standards to carry out official business. Having had a BlackBerry and the full control offered by private e-mail service during her presidential campaign in 2008, Clinton knew what she wanted, and she was going to have it whether it was approved or not. And she provided the same shadow e-mail service to her core staff as well-taking all of their communications off the grid and out of federal oversight. ..."

"... Besides, Clinton's excuse basically boils down to this: other people broke the rules, so she should have been allowed to as well. It's the entitled executive syndrome writ large. ..."

arstechnica.com

A certain class of executives wants a specific phone supported or special IT support for their chosen staff, and they want it now, rules and regulations be damned. "Yes" is the only answer they ever hear, and they will keep asking until they hear it-either from the IT department or from someone who will do it for them on the side. When I worked in IT, particularly when I moved up to a role as a "director of IT strategy" at a previous employer, these requests for special treatment happened so frequently we started calling it the "entitled executive syndrome." No matter how many times I explained the laws of physics and the limits of our budget and capabilities, I was told to find a way to make it happen… or come up with a creative workaround.

Sure, there's often a reason for dissatisfaction with the organizational norm. But skirting the norm can create all sorts of regulatory and legal headaches-Sarbanes-Oxley-related ones are the most common in the corporate IT world. Looking at the government sector, shadow IT has constantly gotten people in trouble for a host of other reasons: federal records laws, Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) violations, and privacy violations. For example, in 2010, doctors at a Department of Veterans Affairs got caught using Google and Yahoo cloud calendar services to schedule surgeries, breaching the security of health care data. They used it because it was more convenient than the VA's internal shared calendar system.

And lest we forget, well before Clinton came to the State Department, members of the George W. Bush administration used a private e-mail server (at gwb43.com) run and paid for by the Republican National Committee-at least 88 accounts were set up for Bush administration officials in order to bypass the official White House e-mail system and avoid the regulations around presidential record retention, the Federal Records Act, and the Hatch Act (which bans the use of government e-mail accounts for political purposes, among other things). In the process of using that system, more than 5 million e-mail messages were "lost," which led to the resignation of a number of White House officials, including Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. None of the e-mails for 51 of the 88 accounts was preserved by the RNC.

Clinton was well aware of the Bush administration e-mail fiasco before she was nominated and confirmed as Secretary of State. She even told the State Department's assistant secretary for diplomatic security that she "gets it" after being briefed on why there were problems with her using a BlackBerry.

As previous e-mails obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests have shown, Clinton pushed hard to get the State Department's information security officers to approve her use of a mobile device for e-mail and do it from inside the State Department's secure executive suite-largely on the grounds that she was uncomfortable using a PC. The National Security Agency suggested she use an approved secure device capable of doing Secret-level classified e-mail as well as official unclassified e-mail. But the State Department was unprepared for the cost of supporting such a device, and its IT department didn't have the resources (nor, likely, the skills) in-house to support it.

Sure, the State Department's IT support is not exactly customer-centric. But its IT department has supported BlackBerry devices for unclassified e-mail in the past, and if Clinton could have dealt with sticking to using a computer while inside the State Department secure compartmented information facility (SCIF) and using a BlackBerry for unclassified e-mail, the State Department could have probably accommodated her. It was purely about Clinton's discomfort about using a PC for e-mail and her desire to use e-mail just like she did while running for office.

So, as the State Department Office of the Inspector General reported, she paid a State Department staffer (who had worked for her directly in the past) off the books to create a shadow e-mail service of her own, and she used a personal BlackBerry not configured to State Department security standards to carry out official business. Having had a BlackBerry and the full control offered by private e-mail service during her presidential campaign in 2008, Clinton knew what she wanted, and she was going to have it whether it was approved or not. And she provided the same shadow e-mail service to her core staff as well-taking all of their communications off the grid and out of federal oversight.

Clinton's excuse for her decision, which she now calls a mistake, was:

Previous secretaries of state (specifically Colin Powell) used personal e-mail accounts.

Condoleezza Rice got to use a BlackBerry, so she (and her staff) should be allowed to, too.

But no other secretary of state before her used e-mail as heavily, and the regulations regarding preserving e-mail records have changed over the past two decades. Condoleezza Rice did not use a personal e-mail account, according to the OIG report; she used a BlackBerry, but it was State Department issued. Madeline Albright never even sent e-mails. And while Colin Powell did use a personal e-mail account, the State Department was just getting Internet-connected e-mail at the time (on a system called OpenNet).

Besides, Clinton's excuse basically boils down to this: other people broke the rules, so she should have been allowed to as well. It's the entitled executive syndrome writ large.

[Jun 25, 2016] Clinton email flap highlights issues of shadow IT by Aaron Boyd

Notable quotes:

"... "The reality is that every organization has a BYOD program - whether they think they do or not," Stevens said. "Now's the time to shore up the systems and enable mobility without sacrificing security." ..."

March 4, 2015 | .federaltimes.com

"I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business," former NARA Director of Litigation Jason Baron told the Times.

While pundits and politicians are debating the ethics and legality of this, it also raises questions about the security of Clinton's communications.

"This news is yet another example of the lines blurring between work and personal lives and should serve as a wake-up call to federal IT departments," said Bob Stevens, vice president of federal systems at Lookout. "This trend towards mobility has clear benefits but it also adds a nuanced layer to not just email security, but all security."

Stevens noted that mobile devices, by their nature, move about and touch multiple networks as they do so. Since some networks are less secure than others, it becomes even more important to use secure programs and services to communicate.

"The reality is that every organization has a BYOD program - whether they think they do or not," Stevens said. "Now's the time to shore up the systems and enable mobility without sacrificing security."

Subsequent reports revealed that Clinton maintained her own server, but whether that server was more or less secure than commercial or federal email offerings is still unknown.

[Jun 25, 2016] The Perils of Shadow IT Your Most Senior Executives Are Doing It

Notable quotes:

"... In fact, according to the survey respondents, the average company already uses 20+ SaaS applications - think about it: Asana, Dropbox, Skype, Basecamp, Apple iCloud, Gmail, LastPass, not to mention your Facebooks and Twitters. But of those 20 or so SaaS platforms, more than 7 are non-approved. So, "…upwards of 35 percent of all SaaS apps in your company are purchased and used without oversight." ..."

"... Instead of losing sleep over perceived risk, companies must develop clear and concise policies governing cloud computing and SaaS usage. And don't stone me for saying it, but IT departments shouldn't exclusively own this exercise. Today, most executive level employees are well versed in SaaS, and they are probably well aware of what systems and platforms their teams are using day to day. ..."

duckduckgo.com
They say any press is good press, and the ruling is still out as to whether or not Hillary Clinton knowingly broke any laws when she used a private, home based email account for official State business as Secretary of State. She admitted on Tuesday that she had made a mistake and should've created two email accounts: a government one and a personal one. Still, one thing is clear: When the story broke last week, the entire world was talking about the latest threat to corporate security: shadow IT.
For those of you heavily immersed in the tech side of running a business, this won't be news to you. But for many business executives and CEOs the idea of classified information being run through outside servers or software can be chilling.

Basically, Shadow IT, also known as Stealth IT, describes solutions and SaaS, specified and deployed by departments other than the organizations own IT department.

As far back as 2012, IT research and advisory company Gartner was predicting that 35 percent of enterprise IT expenditures for most organizations would be managed outside the IT department's budget by 2015. Surely today, based on the innovations in technology which have occurred in 2012, that number's even higher.

And if you think the blame lies with those hipster millennials and their "always on" lifestyle, you would be wrong.
The Enemy Is Us
According to a 2014 study by Stratecast and Frost & Sullivan and based on input from organizations in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, the biggest users of Shadow IT services are IT executives and employees.

Now extrapolate that fact across your organization, to other executives, managers, and employees, and you can see just how quickly those numbers begin to add up.

In fact, according to the survey respondents, the average company already uses 20+ SaaS applications - think about it: Asana, Dropbox, Skype, Basecamp, Apple iCloud, Gmail, LastPass, not to mention your Facebooks and Twitters. But of those 20 or so SaaS platforms, more than 7 are non-approved. So, "…upwards of 35 percent of all SaaS apps in your company are purchased and used without oversight."

So, if you can't blame the millennials, who or what can you blame?

You can blame technology.
Get Off'a My Cloud
More to the point, you can blame the rise of cloud computing. As with most things in life, that which can benefit us the most, can also harm us.

With more and more companies adopting BYOD policies (often also referred to as BYOC, or cloud), it's no surprise that Shadow IT isn't really in the shadows anymore. Which probably isn't news to any of you.

In fact, as the study discovered, Shadow IT is now being perceived as an important step in innovation, opening new channels of development for businesses, and reducing overall costs.

Here's why:

Ease of access – Users can access SaaS apps via the Internet, using and from any Internet-accessible device. In most cases, little or no client-side software is required, which means that the SaaS solution leaves no "footprint" on company-owned devices.

Ease of maintenance – SaaS apps are maintained by the provider. Users have no responsibility for patches or updates.

Free or low cost – Many software providers offer a limited functionality or limited capacity version of their applications at no cost. And if subscriber based, most can often be terminated at any time, with no strings attached.

Quick deployment – SaaS is available on demand, with a click of the "accept" button on the Terms and Conditions page. Users do not have to wait weeks or months for server provisioning and application deployment (assuming the request is approved).

Of course, these are in addition to the direct benefits to a corporate IT department: No monies paid out in development costs, maintenance, testing, upgrades capacity planning, or performance management. Plus, backup and recovery of data and infrastructure is generally also the responsibility of the platform's vendor.
Manage Your Risk
So, where does that leave us? With remote working, job sharing, file sharing, and BYOD policies becoming commonplace, along with the rise of mobile and the ever evolving technological advances happening around us daily, it's a little too late to shut that barn door.

And, contrary to how nefarious the term Shadow IT "feels," it appears most employees who "go rogue" and use unapproved SaaS during work hours are doing so with the best of intentions: They simply want to do their jobs, as efficiently and as cost effectively as possible. What's not to like about that?

They're not doing it just because, either. These are generally speaking a smart group of people who want to get things done. They cite reasons like quickly gaining access to the right tools, overall comfort level with certain apps and platforms, and, perhaps most importantly, the desire to avoid a steep learning curve and the waste of time conquering such a learning curve entails if forced to adopt something new.

I think the responsibility today in handling cloud computing and unregulated corporate SaaS usage lies squarely with each organization. As we need to look inward to see who's really performing this Shadow IT (our own executive, managers, and IT people), we also need to look inward when it comes to corporate policies and guidelines. Because most companies today don't have any.

Instead of losing sleep over perceived risk, companies must develop clear and concise policies governing cloud computing and SaaS usage. And don't stone me for saying it, but IT departments shouldn't exclusively own this exercise. Today, most executive level employees are well versed in SaaS, and they are probably well aware of what systems and platforms their teams are using day to day.

The ideal approach to Shadow IT is to collaborate. We've got to break down silos between IT and the rest of the organization, and involve all areas of your organization to work together to create best practices and help put the right policies in place to minimize corporate risk. Think outside the box. Remain flexible. Be prepared to drop old-school "firewall" thinking. And remember, the end-goal really is to improve business outputs and add to the bottom line of the organization.

Was Clinton breaking the law with her Shadow IT efforts? I don't know. The State Department's email system is known to be vulnerable to hackers. But what I do know is she was leaps and bounds ahead of Romney and Palin, who conducted official business on free email services from Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc.

Sometimes, perspective really is everything.

What do you think? Are you aware of any Shadow IT occurring in your organization? What do you think would be the most important things to include in policies and guidelines supporting SaaS usage? I would love to know your thoughts in the comment section.
This post was written as part of the Dell Insight Partners program, which provides news and analysis about the evolving world of tech. For more on these topics, visit Dell's thought leadership site PowerMore . Dell sponsored this article, but the opinions are my own and don't necessarily represent Dell's positions or strategies.

[Jun 25, 2016] Hillary Clinton's Shadow IT Problem

Notable quotes:

"... Again, the point here is not that Clinton should have ditched the secure, government system in order to use her phone of choice. In her circumstances, the security concerns should have outweighed her personal comfort. But for many, the desire to stick with tech that they know and love is often counter to logic, efficiency, security and policy. And most of us work in environments where bucking the system isn't quite as dire as it could be for the nation's top diplomat. ..."

"... " Shadow IT " is technology that users install without company approval because they prefer it to what's offered. What I know is that I can't secure my network if it's packed with technology that my users hate. ..."

March 20, 2016 | Techcafeteria
...Judicial Watch, a conservative foundation looking for evidence that Clinton broke laws in her handling of the email, received some fascinating information in response to a recent FOIA request.
Upon joining the State Department in early 2009, Clinton immediately requested a Blackberry smartphone. Having used one extensively during her 2008 Presidential campaign, she, like almost every attorney in that decade, had fallen in love with her Blackberry, hence the request. After all, Condoleezza Rice, her predecessor as Secretary of State, had used one. President Obama had a special secure one that the NSA had developed for him. But they said no. Even after being called to a high level meeting with Clinton's top aide and five State Department officials, they still said no.The NSA offered Clinton an alternative. But it was based on Windows CE, a dramatically different, less intuitive smartphone operating system. A month later, Clinton started using her own server. Judicial Watch claims that this info proves that Clinton knew that her email was not secure, but I think that she has already admitted that. But it also reveals something much more telling.

As a three plus decade technology Director/CIO (working primarily with Attorneys), I can tell you that people get attached to specific types of technology. I know a few Attorneys who still swear to this day that Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS was the best word processing software ever released. And there are millions who will tell you that their Blackberry was their virtual right arm in the 2000's.

How devoted are people to their favorite applications and devices? I worked for a VP who was only comfortable using Word, so when she did her quarterly reports to the board, she had her assistant export huge amounts of information from our case management system. Then she modified all of it in Word. Once delivered, she had her assistant manually update the case management system in order to incorporate her changes. Efficient? Not at all. But she loved herself some Word. I've seen staff using seven year old laptops because they know them and don't want to have to learn and set up a new one. And it wasn't until the bitter end of 2014 that both my boss and my wife finally gave in and traded up their Blackberries for iPhones.

Again, the point here is not that Clinton should have ditched the secure, government system in order to use her phone of choice. In her circumstances, the security concerns should have outweighed her personal comfort. But for many, the desire to stick with tech that they know and love is often counter to logic, efficiency, security and policy. And most of us work in environments where bucking the system isn't quite as dire as it could be for the nation's top diplomat.

"Shadow IT" is technology that users install without company approval because they prefer it to what's offered. What I know is that I can't secure my network if it's packed with technology that my users hate. Smart people will bypass that security in order to use the tools that work for them. An approach to security that neglects usability and user preference is likely to fail. In most cases, there are compromises that can be made between IT and users that allow secure products to be willingly adopted. In other cases, with proper training, hand-holding, and executive sponsorship, you can win users over. But when we are talking about Blackberries in the last decade, or the iPhone in this one, we have to acknowledge that the popularity of the product is a serious factor in adoption that technologists can't ignore. And if you don't believe me, just ask Hillary Clinton.

[Jun 25, 2016] How to Turn Hillary Clintons Shadow IT Habits into Opportunity

Notable quotes:

"... Hillary Clinton has quickly become the public face of so-called "shadow IT" practices, which already affects almost every organization ..."

"... In other words, shadow IT is the unapproved, unmanaged solution that frustrated employees (and government officials) turn to when official systems don't meet their needs. In Chua's view, it's simply a good idea to take this bull by the horns, identify the pain points people are trying to avoid, and meet those needs through official channels instead. ..."

"... "Heavy-handed approaches are not going to eliminate shadow IT, it'll just go farther underground," ..."

"... In other words, a light touch might do wonders to tame the shadow IT beast even where strict policy edicts fail. And this lesson needs to be absorbed by a very large audience. ..."

The Motley Fool

... there's also a big upside to Clinton's home-brew email solution getting national attention. Hillary Clinton has quickly become the public face of so-called "shadow IT" practices, which already affects almost every organization -- from small and medium businesses to enterprise-class giants, and onward to the government behemoth. It's high time investors and business managers take a closer look at this trend, so let's thank her for opening the debate.

... ... ...

"I think we're at a point in time where companies can no longer ignore shadow IT," Chua said. "They need to put official policies in place, start talking to employees about what they need, make sure that these needs are aligned with the business.

"If they don't, then people can start creating their own solutions and create this whole shadow IT problem."

In other words, shadow IT is the unapproved, unmanaged solution that frustrated employees (and government officials) turn to when official systems don't meet their needs. In Chua's view, it's simply a good idea to take this bull by the horns, identify the pain points people are trying to avoid, and meet those needs through official channels instead.

"This is definitely an opportunity to sit up and take action," Chua explained. "The IT industry is moving away from cookie-cutter solutions with help desk tickets and red tape around everything. This debate gives IT departments a chance to say, 'Hey, different business units have different needs. I'm going to create a baseline framework, but I'll be agile and respond to the various needs of different units.'"

Chua's comments underscore a growing sentiment among IT industry professionals. Talking to the CIO magazine this week, Deputy Chief Technology Officer Steve Riley of data networking specialist Riverbed Technology (NASDAQ:RVBD) expanded on the problem. "Heavy-handed approaches are not going to eliminate shadow IT, it'll just go farther underground," Riley said. "There's no positive outcome for being a disciplinarian about something like this. You might end up with services that are even more dangerous, where people now actively seek to circumvent policies."

How the solutions fit the problem

In other words, a light touch might do wonders to tame the shadow IT beast even where strict policy edicts fail. And this lesson needs to be absorbed by a very large audience.

According to Softchoice's data collection, over 80% of organizations -- businesses, corporations, churches, you name it -- already see some members stepping outside the formal IT structure to enjoy the convenience of cloud-based public services.

Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) is a popular provider with tools including Gmail, Google Docs, and Google Calendar. Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) might lose some software license sales to other cloud providers, but its Windows Azure and SkyDrive services are also leaders in their own right.

Sure, some of these service choices already have the official support of the IT department. But one-third of all users in a large Softchoice audit program recently reported employing tools such as SkyDrive or Google Calendar at work -- without so much as notifying the IT department.

The shadow IT market seems to open up a very large business opportunity for software-as-a-service providers such as Google and Microsoft. Managing these tools in a properly approved and budgeted fashion will help in closing boatloads of security and transparency concerns. And that way, they could soak up the demand for unofficial email servers and unapproved data warehouses running in some random employee's garage, beyond the reach of corporate firewalls.

Final words

A flexible approach to systems management can help businesses and government agencies make the most of their resources. There will always be rogue systems and maverick users, but acknowledging this reality can help contain the problem -- and maybe turn it into a strength instead.

Sweeping shadow IT under the rug, on the other hand, only opens up the door to more security leaks and the next Clinton-style transparency scandal.

[Jun 25, 2016] Huma abedins private emails and the muslim brotherhood by Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Notable quotes:

"... One other State Department official evidently violated this policy: Her Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin. Ms. Abedin's emails are of particular interest insofar as Huma has extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. That's the Islamist organization whose self-declared mission is "destroying Western civilization from within." ..."

Mar 06, 2015 | centerforsecuritypolicy.org

Hillary Clinton's Emailgate scandal is becoming more problematic by the day. Turns out she exclusively used a private email account while personally prohibiting other State Department employees from doing the same.

One other State Department official evidently violated this policy: Her Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin. Ms. Abedin's emails are of particular interest insofar as Huma has extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. That's the Islamist organization whose self-declared mission is "destroying Western civilization from within."

The indispensable investigative group, Judicial Watch, has filed suit in federal court for access to these emails. It remains to be seen if they are provided and, if so, what they reveal about these ladies' contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood – and their damage-control concerning revelations about Huma's connection to it.

[Jun 25, 2016] State Department: Mills and Abedin official BlackBerrys likely gone by Josh Gerstein

Notable quotes:

"... The secretary of state's information technology office "believes that Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin were each issued BlackBerry devices," State Executive Secretary Joseph Macmanus wrote in a declaration submitted to a federal court in Washington (and posted here). The office, referred to as S/ES-IRM in agency parlance, "has not located any such device at the department" and "standard procedure upon return of such devices is to perform a factory reset (which removes any user settings or configurations) and then to reissue the device to another employee, to destroy it, or to excess it," he added. ..."

"... The official also said former Secretary of State Clinton appeared never to have had a BlackBerry from her agency or any other official gadget. "S/ES-IRM does not believe that any personal computing device was issued by the Department to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and has not located any such device at the Department," Macmanus wrote. ..."

"... Earlier this month, Sullivan ordered the State Department to ask Clinton, Mills and Abedin to preserve all official records they had responsive to Judicial Watch's request and to execute a declaration under penalty of perjury about their use of private email or devices to store such records. ..."

www.politico.com

BlackBerry devices the State Department issued to former Hillary Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin have likely been destroyed or sold off as surplus, a State official said in a court filing Wednesday.
The secretary of state's information technology office "believes that Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin were each issued BlackBerry devices," State Executive Secretary Joseph Macmanus wrote in a declaration submitted to a federal court in Washington (and posted here). The office, referred to as S/ES-IRM in agency parlance, "has not located any such device at the department" and "standard procedure upon return of such devices is to perform a factory reset (which removes any user settings or configurations) and then to reissue the device to another employee, to destroy it, or to excess it," he added.
"Because the devices issued to Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin would have been outdated models, in accordance with standard operating procedures those devices would have been destroyed or excessed. As stated above, the state.gov email accounts themselves are generally housed on the Department's servers," Macmanus said.
The official also said former Secretary of State Clinton appeared never to have had a BlackBerry from her agency or any other official gadget. "S/ES-IRM does not believe that any personal computing device was issued by the Department to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and has not located any such device at the Department," Macmanus wrote.
The filing came in a lawsuit where the conservative group Judicial Watch is seeking records relating to Abedin's employment arrangements, including a period after she left a full-time post as deputy chief of staff and took a part-time position while also working for a New York-based firm run by a former aide to President Bill Clinton.
In recent weeks, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan has expressed increasing concern that the State Department was not making an adequate effort to recover all records about the matter, including emails Clinton or the other aides may have had on private accounts or took with them when they left the department.
Earlier this month, Sullivan ordered the State Department to ask Clinton, Mills and Abedin to preserve all official records they had responsive to Judicial Watch's request and to execute a declaration under penalty of perjury about their use of private email or devices to store such records. Clinton submitted such a declaration. Abedin and Mills did not submit personal declarations, but lawyers for the aides said they had returned or were in the process of returning any official records to State and would preserve any such records in their possession.

[Jun 25, 2016] Judicial Watch Sues for Hillary and Huma's Egypt Emails

Notable quotes:

"... Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State ..."

Mar 04, 2015 | judicialwatch.org

Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the State Department seeking any and all communications – including emails – from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Chief of Staff Huma Abedin with Nagla Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian president Mohammad Morsi, from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00321)). This latest lawsuit will require the State Department to answer questions about and conduct thorough searches of Hillary Clinton's newly discovered hidden email accounts. Judicial Watch also has nearly a dozen other active FOIA lawsuits that may require the State Department to search these email accounts. Huma Abedin is also alleged to have a secret account as well.

Judicial Watch submitted its original FOIA request on August 27, 2014. The State Department was required by law to respond by September 26, 2014 at the latest to Judicial Watch's request for:

Any and all records of communication between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Nagla Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi, from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013; and

Any and all records of communication between former State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin and Nagla Mahmoud from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013.

To date, the State Department has not responded.

Ms. Mahmoud threatened Mrs. Clinton after Morsi was ousted. According to JihadWatch.org:

In the words of El-Mogaz News, Morsi's wife "is threatening to expose the special relationship between her husband and Hillary Clinton, after the latter attacked the ousted [president], calling him a simpleton who was unfit for the presidency. Sources close to Nagla confirmed that she has threatened to publish the letters exchanged between Morsi and Hillary."

The report continues by saying that Nagla accuses Hillary of denouncing her former close ally, the Brotherhood's Morsi, in an effort to foster better relations with his successor, Egypt's current president, Sisi-even though, as Nagla laments, "he [Morsi] was faithful to the American administration."

"Now we know why the State Department didn't want to respond to our specific request for Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's communications," stated Tom Fitton. "The State Department violated FOIA law rather than admit that it couldn't and wouldn't search the secret accounts that the agency has known about for years. This lawsuit shows how the latest Obama administration cover-up isn't just about domestic politics but has significant foreign policy implications."

[Jun 25, 2016] Hillary Clinton Wouldn't Take an Official BlackBerry: State Department

Notable quotes:

"... Piling on more embarrassment for Hillary Clinton amid a row about her emails, U.S. officials revealed Thursday that during her time as secretary of state she had declined a government-issued cellphone. ..."

www.newsmax.com

Piling on more embarrassment for Hillary Clinton amid a row about her emails, U.S. officials revealed Thursday that during her time as secretary of state she had declined a government-issued cellphone.

Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Clinton was "not issued a State Department BlackBerry, and that wasn't a requirement - no one is required to be issued a State Department BlackBerry."

[Jun 25, 2016] NSA denied hillary secure blackberry

NSA proposed for Hillary modified Windows phone, which she refused

www.wired.com

Since he became president, Barack Obama has carried a special "secure" BlackBerry, altered by the NSA to make it as difficult as possible for hackers to turn it into a remote spying device. Now it's been revealed in emails obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked in 2009 for one of those uncrackable BlackBerries, too, and the NSA denied her request for unknown reasons. Conservative pundits have used the news to argue that Clinton knew her BlackBerry was insecure and yet still used it for sensitive emails.

[Jun 25, 2016] Hillary Clinton's BlackBerry envy failed to impress the NSA

Notable quotes:

"... Clinton liked to use her BlackBerry rather than a desktop or laptop to stay on top of her emails at all times, but this was a problem at the secure office space at the State Department's headquarters, where wireless devices were banned, according to the documents. To overcome this, she requested the same modified 8830 World Edition used by the president, which would allow her to check her email constantly, something she had become accustomed to during the 2008 presidential campaign. ..."

"... The NSA refused, saying that it had phased out the waivers that allowed her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, to use a BlackBerry as they had been "expanded to an unmanageable number of users from a security perspective." ..."

www.cnet.com

President Barack Obama wasn't the only administration official enamored of the BlackBerry phone.
When she was serving as the US secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Hillary Clinton repeatedly tried to get her hands on "BlackBerry-like communications," but was denied by the National Security Agency out of concerns for security and cost, according to a report Wednesday by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.
Emails obtained by the organization under a Freedom of Information Act request show that Clinton demanded access to the same type of secure BlackBerry device used by President Obama, and the NSA's subsequent rebuffs often led to heated exchanges between the two camps.
"Each time we asked the question 'What was the solution for POTUS?' we were politely told to shut up and color," or to mind their own business, according to one email sent in 2009 by Donald Reid, the State Department's coordinator for security infrastructure.
Once the de rigueur instrument of business communications, BlackBerry dominated the cell phone industry before losing its crown to Apple's iPhone and to Google's Android software. Corporate and government types loved using BlackBerrys because they offered a level of data encryption that prevented everyone, including BlackBerry itself, from snooping into the phone's contents. Clinton has come under fire over the past few months for using her personal email on the BlackBerry she used while she was secretary of state.
Clinton liked to use her BlackBerry rather than a desktop or laptop to stay on top of her emails at all times, but this was a problem at the secure office space at the State Department's headquarters, where wireless devices were banned, according to the documents. To overcome this, she requested the same modified 8830 World Edition used by the president, which would allow her to check her email constantly, something she had become accustomed to during the 2008 presidential campaign.
The NSA refused, saying that it had phased out the waivers that allowed her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, to use a BlackBerry as they had been "expanded to an unmanageable number of users from a security perspective."
Clinton, now the front-runner in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, carried on using her personal BlackBerry for state business after her request for a customized secure device was rejected by the NSA. She has since apologized and claimed that she never used the BlackBerry to send classified information.
ADVERTISING
The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[Jun 25, 2016] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huma_Abedin

en.wikipedia.org

Outside employment while at State Department

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, raised questions about Abedin's work as a State Department employee, concerning the fact that she held four jobs^[20] from June 2012 to February 2013.^[14]^[21]^[22]^[23] These included serving as a part-time aide to Clinton at the State Department, while also working as a consultant to private clients for the consulting firm Teneo Holdings,^[21]^[22] a consulting firm run by Douglas Band, a longtime aide to former president Bill Clinton.^[24] At the time, she was also being paid a salary for work at the Clinton Foundation, and working as Hillary Clinton's personal assistant.^[20] The State Department and Abedin both responded, with the State Department indicating that it uses special government employees routinely "to provide services and expertise that executive agencies require", and Abedin stating that she did not provide any government information or inside information gained from her State Department job to her private employers.

... ... ...

Employment records and emails

In October 2015, a federal court in Washington heard arguments on a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Judicial Watch for records related to Abedin. Judicial Watch asked to make Ms. Abedin's emails and employment records public, asking for details of the arrangement under which Abedin was designated a "special government employee," allowing her to do outside consulting work while also on the federal payroll.^[26]^[27] On October 6, the State Department said it would be able to hand over 69 pages of emails in response to the FOIA request.^[28]

In 2015, emails by Abedin became part of the FBI investigation and the controversy concerning Hillary Clinton's private email account while Secretary of State,^[29]^[30] resulting in various allegations by Republicans of violations of State Department regulations.^[31] Some officials within the intelligence community have stated that potentially-classified information was contained in e-mails from Abedin relating to the 2012 Benghazi attack and its aftermath which had been sent through Clinton's private, non-government server.^[29]^[32]^[33] So far, 1818 emails contain classified information on the private server, with 22 being classified as Top Secret. "They were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but they did contain classified information when they were originally sent and received." Her aides also sent and received classified information.^[34]

House Benghazi Committee testimony

On October 16, 2015, Abedin testified in closed session before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, in a session that was expected to focus on the 2012 Benghazi attack during which Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.^[35] The committee had previously heard closed-door testimony from two other Clinton aides, Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan, in September 2015,^[35] and former Secretary Clinton appeared before the panel in a public hearing on October 22.^[36]

The Republican-led committee's top Democrat Representative, Elijah Cummings of Maryland, questioned the panel's decision to hear testimony from Abedin, arguing that her knowledge of details at the time of the attacks was minimal.^[35] Republican Representative Mike Pompeo of Kansas, defended the decision to interview Abedin, saying: "Ms. Abedin was a senior official at the State Department at all of the relevant times. Every witness has a different set of knowledge."^[37] Although there were political tensions surrounding Abedin's appearance, the proceedings were friendly, and after her almost eight hours of testimony, Abedin said: "I came here today to be as helpful as I could be to the committee."^[37]

Allegations by some Republican members of Congress

In a letter dated June 13, 2012, to the State Department Inspector General, five Republican members of Congress-Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Trent Franks of Arizona, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Thomas J. Rooney of Florida, and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia-claimed that Abedin "has three family members – her late father, her mother and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations."^[38]^[39]^[40] The five members of Congress alleged that Abedin had "immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations" which they said were "potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a security clearance" and questioned why Abedin had not been "disqualified for a security clearance."^[39]

The claims in the letter were generally rejected, and were labeled by some as conspiracy theories.^[38]^[41] The Washington Post editorial board called the allegations "paranoid," a "baseless attack," and a "smear."^[38] The letter was also criticized by, among others, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, the first Muslim member of Congress, who called the allegation "reprehensible."^[42] Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, also rejected the allegations, saying "The letter and the report offer not one instance of an action, a decision or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government....These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis and no merit."^[42] Bachmann's former campaign manager Ed Rollins said the allegations were "extreme and dishonest" and called for Bachmann to apologize to Abedin.^[43] The Anti-Defamation League condemned the letter, calling upon the Representatives involved to "stop trafficking in anti-Muslim conspiracy theories."^[44]

[Jun 25, 2016] Hillary Clinton's aide Huma Abedin's emails now face disclosure lawsuit

Notable quotes:

"... Judicial Watch , a conservative public interest law firm that uses open-records laws to pry information loose, had filed a request to get a look at Ms. Abedin 's emails during her four years at the State Department . News outlets have reported that Ms. Abedin also used the private email server Mrs. Clinton set up to handle government business, but the status of her messages is unclear. ..."

"... The State Department said it wouldn't comment now that Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit - though it had struggled to explain its procedures even before the lawsuit was filed, and the status is of Ms. Abedin 's emails remains unclear. ..."

"... The law at the time Mrs. Clinton was in office urged federal employees doing government business to use their official accounts, but said those who used personal accounts were required to forward all government-related messages to their official accounts for storage. Mrs. Clinton rejected using an official account and did not forward her messages, but after Mr. Gowdy's inquiries the State Department asked her to belatedly turn her emails over. ..."

"... Ms. Abedin , who is married to former Rep. Anthony Weiner, has come under scrutiny for her time at the State Department . Mrs. Clinton designated her a special government employee, allowing her to collect a federal salary even as she also worked for an outside consulting company. ..."

"... The department's inspector general is looking into whether that arrangement was legal, since the designation is supposed to be used to lure workers with special skills into government service. Ms. Abedin was already a government employee when she was given the designation, and the State Department has yet to explain what skills she brought to earn the special status. ..."

May 5, 2015 | The Washington Times

The emails of Huma Abedin, the top personal aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, are now facing a disclosure lawsuit after the State Department failed to turn them over in response to an open-records request.

Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest law firm that uses open-records laws to pry information loose, had filed a request to get a look at Ms. Abedin's emails during her four years at the State Department. News outlets have reported that Ms. Abedin also used the private email server Mrs. Clinton set up to handle government business, but the status of her messages is unclear.

It's one of a number of open-records requests Judicial Watch filed after the email scandal broke, and Tom Fitton, president of the organization, said they've been stonewalled on all of them, so now they're turning to the courts.

"We're churning through these," he said. "The scandal at the State Department is more than about Hillary Clinton. There are others involved."

The State Department said it wouldn't comment now that Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit - though it had struggled to explain its procedures even before the lawsuit was filed, and the status is of Ms. Abedin's emails remains unclear.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who exposed the private emails as part of his investigation into the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, has urged Mrs. Clinton to turn the server over to a neutral third party while questions get sorted out, but Mrs. Clinton has refused, saying she believes she has now complied with the law by finally going through and turning emails over.

The law at the time Mrs. Clinton was in office urged federal employees doing government business to use their official accounts, but said those who used personal accounts were required to forward all government-related messages to their official accounts for storage. Mrs. Clinton rejected using an official account and did not forward her messages, but after Mr. Gowdy's inquiries the State Department asked her to belatedly turn her emails over.

The State Department has turned about 300 emails over to the Benghazi probe, but has refused to release the other tens of thousands of messages, saying it wants to process and clear them all at the same time, which will take months.

But the department has admitted in court that it was remiss in not searching the emails earlier, and has agreed to reopen some previous open-records requests from Judicial Watch that had sought Clinton emails.

Ms. Abedin, who is married to former Rep. Anthony Weiner, has come under scrutiny for her time at the State Department. Mrs. Clinton designated her a special government employee, allowing her to collect a federal salary even as she also worked for an outside consulting company.

The department's inspector general is looking into whether that arrangement was legal, since the designation is supposed to be used to lure workers with special skills into government service. Ms. Abedin was already a government employee when she was given the designation, and the State Department has yet to explain what skills she brought to earn the special status.

[Jun 25, 2016] Hillary email probe turns to Huma by Rachael Bade

Notable quotes:

"... The 2016 Democratic front-runner on Monday told a federal judge that Abedin - long considered her boss's keeper and even dubbed her "shadow" - had her own email account on Clinton's now infamous home-brewed server, "which was used at times for government business," Clinton acknowledged. That's an unusual arrangement, even for top brass at the State Department. ..."

"... Abedin had been granted "special government employee" (SGE) status, allowing her to work both for Clinton and the private sector - and it's unclear if she continued using the server that appears to have held classified information following her departure from her full-time State gig. ..."

"... But Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' project on government secrecy, said any former employee's potential access to secret materials could be problematic after they leave the government. ..."

"... "What happens if [a former government employee] still retains access through a prior server, to information that was justified by a previous position? That's not supposed to happen - and that's one of the anomalies that are created by the private server," Aftergood said. ..."

Aug 13, 2015 | .politico.com

Clinton's top aide is likely to face more questions, not least from congressional investigators, about her access to Clinton's system.

Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's most trusted confidante, is increasingly becoming a central figure in the email scandal that's haunting her boss on the campaign trail, as Republicans and federal judges seek information about Clinton's communications while she was running the State Department.
The 2016 Democratic front-runner on Monday told a federal judge that Abedin - long considered her boss's keeper and even dubbed her "shadow" - had her own email account on Clinton's now infamous home-brewed server, "which was used at times for government business," Clinton acknowledged. That's an unusual arrangement, even for top brass at the State Department.

... ... ...

After an inspector general found that Clinton had at least two "top secret" emails stored on her unsecured computer network, Abedin is likely to face more questions from congressional investigators, and perhaps others, about her access to Clinton's system.
Abedin had been granted "special government employee" (SGE) status, allowing her to work both for Clinton and the private sector - and it's unclear if she continued using the server that appears to have held classified information following her departure from her full-time State gig.

... ... ...

"It's election season, and congressional Republicans are running the same series of plays, just on a different field," Merrill said in an email, later adding that Abedin maintained her security clearance while she worked as a State contractor.
Merrill said SGEs often have clearance and there's nothing unusual about her having such access. He also said that many government workers take on such contractor status, adding that Abedin had a green-light from State's legal and human resources departments to do so.
But Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' project on government secrecy, said any former employee's potential access to secret materials could be problematic after they leave the government.
"What happens if [a former government employee] still retains access through a prior server, to information that was justified by a previous position? That's not supposed to happen - and that's one of the anomalies that are created by the private server," Aftergood said.
Classified materials with national security implications are supposed to be stored in a place where no one can gain access to them unless they have special clearance.

... ... ...

[Jun 25, 2016] How to Email Like Hillary Clinton

Notable quotes:

"... "Qualified security people are very rare," she says. And that's one of the problems with this setup for Clinton. ..."

"... As a result, Moussouris assumes whoever set up Clinton's private email server was a staffer, unless they were very well paid. And if that's the case, the best way to email like Hillary Clinton is to spend a lot of money. ..."

March 4, 2015 | TIME

But most people aren't trying to protect sensitive State Department data. Instead, one reason people run their own email services is so they can use their own domain name in their email address. If this was a reason for Clinton, it was a foolhardy one, argues Moussouris. If being a high-value target for hackers is a reason for using an (allegedly) more secure private email service, choosing an domain name like clintonemail.com, as Clinton did, only gave her a higher profile.

"Such an obvious name would make it an interesting target for a hacker," says Moussouris. "People with that high of a profile, whether it's a politician, celebrity, or high-level executive, they should already be operating with that in mind."

Besides, consumer-based services not only allow users to use their own domain name while hosting their emails in the cloud, they also provide end-to-end encryption, ensuring that their messages stay safe while traveling through the web.

But if you still want to email like Hillary Clinton, Moussouris recommends relying on an expert - if you can find one. "Qualified security people are very rare," she says. And that's one of the problems with this setup for Clinton.

"I couldn't imagine a top-notch security person going to work for anyone in Washington, let alone an individual in, essentially, a non-technical function," Moussouris says. "We have a scarcity of talent in the security industry, and we see this when we try to hire good people all the time."

As a result, Moussouris assumes whoever set up Clinton's private email server was a staffer, unless they were very well paid. And if that's the case, the best way to email like Hillary Clinton is to spend a lot of money.

[Jun 23, 2016] Clinton's email server ran without security software, new records reveal by Mike Segar

Notable quotes:

"... Just a month before the email issue arose, in November 2010, Abedin and Clinton discussed that department employees were not receiving emails sent by then-secretary, the newly-released emails indicate. ..."

"... "We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam," Abedin wrote to Clinton on November 13, 2010. ..."

"... Another email shows that John Bentel, then the technical support director, warned Clinton that if she opted to use the official email box, "any email would go through the Department's infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches." ..."

"... After Abedin reported the technical problem, the State Department technical staff suggested that "turning off the anti-spam filter" would resolve the problem. ..."

"... As shutting down the security software didn't appear to be helpful, one email recommended turning off two of the three anti-phishing filters that protect personal data from identity thieves and cybercriminals "in order to eliminate the categorizer." ..."

Jun 23 , 2016 | www.rt.com

Hillary Clinton's private server was temporarily unprotected by security features in December 2010, when the then-secretary of state had technical problems with her email. In 2011, Clinton's server was hacked multiple times, newly-disclosed papers show.
On Wednesday, the legal advocacy group Judicial Watch published a batch of back-and-forth emails between high-level State Department technical support and Clinton staffers as they tried to fix a serious problem with the secretary's private home email server.

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. © Lucas JacksonHacker 'Guccifer 2.0' publishes DNC campaign docs with strategies for defending Clinton
According to December 2010 emails, one of Clinton's closest aides, Huma Abedin, reported that some people within the State Department, using the state.gov domain, were not receiving emails sent from the Clintons' private clintonemail.com server.
"There are many messages and responses not received," one of the officials, Cindy Almodovar, wrote to S/ES-IRM staff, delivering Huma's complaint.
Just a month before the email issue arose, in November 2010, Abedin and Clinton discussed that department employees were not receiving emails sent by then-secretary, the newly-released emails indicate.
"We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam," Abedin wrote to Clinton on November 13, 2010.
In response, the secretary wrote: "Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible."
Another email shows that John Bentel, then the technical support director, warned Clinton that if she opted to use the official email box, "any email would go through the Department's infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches."
After Abedin reported the technical problem, the State Department technical staff suggested that "turning off the anti-spam filter" would resolve the problem.

However, after the Trend Micro Inc. security software installed on Clinton's server was turned off, a senior State Department official, Thomas W. Lawrence, wrote: "We view this as a Band-Aid and fear it's not 100 percent fully effective. We are eager for TrendMicro to fully resolve, quickly."
A screenshot of TrendMicro's 'ScanMail for Exchange' in one of the emails showed the anti-spam disabled.
As shutting down the security software didn't appear to be helpful, one email recommended turning off two of the three anti-phishing filters that protect personal data from identity thieves and cybercriminals "in order to eliminate the categorizer."
However, in his response, Lawrence did not support the idea, saying that both "content-filtering and anti-virus checking… has blocked malicious content in the recent past."
Another set of emails from January 2011, just mere weeks after attempts to fix Clinton's email server, reveal that someone tried to compromise it.
"Someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to," the non-departmental advisor to President Bill Clinton, who provided technical support, told the State Department's deputy chief of staff for operations on January 9, 2011.
"We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min," he wrote later that day.
The next day, Abedin instructed Clinton's chief of staff and deputy chief of staff for planning not to email the secretary "anything sensitive" and stated that she could "explain more in person."
Clinton, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has repeatedly denied that her private email server was ever breached.
In late May, the State Department's Office of the Inspector General released a scathing report largely concerning Clinton's email use, saying that unsecured communications at such a high level created "significant security risks."
This most recent release of Clinton-linked records by Judicial Watch referred to that report. The group requested the emails and was granted the right to obtain the records under a June 14, 2016 court order by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
Clinton's use of a private email server has been a major headache for her presidential campaign.

[Jun 08, 2016] Hillary Clinton and the FBI Primary

Fox News

Blakeman says the FBI has deliberately waited to interview Hillary Clinton until after the primaries because the bureau did not want to interfere with the nominating process. He thinks the FBI is "likely" to recommend to the Department of Justice whether or not she should be indicted for violating what she says are agency rules and what others call the law between now and the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, which begins July 25.

If she is indicted before the convention, Blakeman says, it will give the party an opportunity to make changes in the rules that could result in an alternate nominee.

[Jun 08, 2016] Hillary Clinton Emailed Names of US Intelligence Officials, Unclassified

Notable quotes:

"... Hillary's emails contain at least three separate, specific instances where she mentioned in an unclassified email transmitted across the open Internet and wirelessly to her Blackberry the names of CIA personnel. ..."

"... These redactions point directly to violations of specific laws. It is not a "mistake" or minor rule breaking. ..."

"... These redactions strongly suggest that the Espionage Act's standard of mishandling national defense information through "gross negligence" may have been met by Clinton. ..."

"... There is no ambiguity in this information, no possible claims to faux-retroactive classification, not knowing, information not being labeled, etc. Clinton and her staff know that one cannot mention CIA names in open communications. ..."

"... Exposing these names can directly endanger the lives of the officials. It can endanger the lives of the foreigners they interacted with after a foreign government learns one of their citizens was talking with the CIA It can blow covers and ruin sensitive clandestine operations. It can reveal to anyone listening in on this unclassified communication sources and methods. Here is a specific example of how Clinton likely compromised security. ..."

"... These redactions show complete contempt on Clinton's part for the security process. ..."

"... A Personal Aside: I just remain incredulous about these revelations seeming to mean nothing to the world. They're treated in the media as almost gossip. ..."

"... It seems that HRC may become POTUS, thanks to the actions of DNC, DWS and the MSM and the inaction of the FBI and DOJ - much to the relief of the MIC, CIA and NSA and the satisfaction of the TBTF banks and the RDA (* I made this one up; it stands for "Revolving Door Apparatchiks".) ..."

"... An external IT audit is necessary in this case, if it hasn't already been ordered. Who gave the approval to set this thing up? Where is the documentation requesting access to the State's servers? Who signed off on that? Who verified that approval? Who processed the request and what verification did the approvals undergo? ..."

"... An IT auditor would rip State several new orifices with which to excrete solid waste matter. ..."

June 06, 2016 | Antiwar.com

These are facts.

You can look at the source documents yourself. This is not opinion, conjecture, or rumor. Hillary Clinton transmitted the names of American intelligence officials via her unclassified email.

From a series of Clinton emails, numerous names were redacted in the State Department releases with the classification code "B3 CIA PERS/ORG," a highly specialized classification that means the information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence Act of 1949 by exposing the names of CIA officials.

How FOIA Works

The Freedom of information Act (FOIA) requires the government to release all, or all parts of a document, that do not fall under a specific set of allowed exemptions. If information cannot be excluded, it must be released. If some part of a document can be redacted to allow the rest of the document to be released, then that is what must be done. Each redaction must be justified by citing a specific reason for exclusion.

But don't believe me. Instead, look at page two of this State Department document which lists the exemptions.

Note specifically the different types of "(b)(3)" redactions, including "CIA PERS/ORG." As common sense would dictate, the government will not release the names of CIA employees via the FOIA process. It would - literally - be against the law. What law? Depending on the nature of the individual's job at CIA, National Security Act of 1947, the CIA Act of 1949, various laws that govern undercover/clandestine CIA officers and, potentially, the Espionage Act of 1917.

Names of CIA, NSA Officials Mentioned, Now Redacted

Yet Hillary's emails contain at least three separate, specific instances where she mentioned in an unclassified email transmitted across the open Internet and wirelessly to her Blackberry the names of CIA personnel. Here they are. Look for the term "(b)(3) CIA PERS/ORG" Click on the links and see for yourself:

CIA One

CIA Two

CIA Three

There are also numerous instances of exposure of the names and/or email addresses of NSA employees ("B3 NSA"); see page 23 inside this longer PDF document.

Why It Matters

These redactions point directly to violations of specific laws. It is not a "mistake" or minor rule breaking.

These redactions strongly suggest that the Espionage Act's standard of mishandling national defense information through "gross negligence" may have been met by Clinton.

There is no ambiguity in this information, no possible claims to faux-retroactive classification, not knowing, information not being labeled, etc. Clinton and her staff know that one cannot mention CIA names in open communications. It is one of the most basic tenets taught and exercised inside the government. One protects one's colleagues.

Exposing these names can directly endanger the lives of the officials. It can endanger the lives of the foreigners they interacted with after a foreign government learns one of their citizens was talking with the CIA It can blow covers and ruin sensitive clandestine operations. It can reveal to anyone listening in on this unclassified communication sources and methods. Here is a specific example of how Clinton likely compromised security.

These redactions show complete contempt on Clinton's part for the security process.

BONUS: There is clear precedent for others going to jail for exposing CIA names. Read the story of John Kiriakou .

A Personal Aside: I just remain incredulous about these revelations seeming to mean nothing to the world. They're treated in the media as almost gossip.

Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People . His latest book is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent . Reprinted from the his blog with permission.

Tonyandoc

It seems that HRC may become POTUS, thanks to the actions of DNC, DWS and the MSM and the inaction of the FBI and DOJ - much to the relief of the MIC, CIA and NSA and the satisfaction of the TBTF banks and the RDA (* I made this one up; it stands for "Revolving Door Apparatchiks".)

The rest of us are FUCD.

Tired_of_poor_healthcare

The media has been bought and paid for. There is no longer news reporting, only propaganda recitation. Statistically, most people are followers. Let's hope there are a few principled public servants at the FBI to help save our country.

liveload

An external IT audit is necessary in this case, if it hasn't already been ordered. Who gave the approval to set this thing up? Where is the documentation requesting access to the State's servers? Who signed off on that? Who verified that approval? Who processed the request and what verification did the approvals undergo?

An IT auditor would rip State several new orifices with which to excrete solid waste matter.

[Jun 02, 2016] Gaius Publius Bernstein – The White House Is Terrified the Clinton Campaign Is in Freefall

Notable quotes:

"... But the panic is also a clear indication, and perhaps as important, another message, not just to Clinton but to Team Dem, that the Administration can't, or won't but is making it seem like can't, do what it takes to save Hillary's bacon. ..."

"... The fact that there is an independent effort, completely outside the Administration's control, pursuing the server mess, also makes it riskier for the DoJ to do nothing if Judicial Watch exposes damning documents. ..."

"... The Democrats don't have any dirt on Trump the Republicans didn't have. Trump is a referendum on the establishment. The establishment can't attack him, and any attacks too similar to the very publicized establishment attacks will be dismissed. ..."

"... Maybe not Mittens and Bill Kristol at this point, the GOP elites will show loyalty because anything less will risk their own position. The base will remove GOP elites over certain sins. The Teabaggers cleaned the GOP caucus of TARP voters. ..."

"... "Trump is a referendum on the establishment." ..."

"... That's the best one-sentence explanation for his success that I've seen. ..."

"... That is certainly the narrative Trump wants. What I find the height of black, despairing comedy is that anyone believes it. In addition to being completely untrustworthy and self-centered, Trump has little to gain by overthrowing the status quo, and has given many signs that he will continue business as usual, only with a slightly different crew of low-rent elites in charge at the top. ..."

"... No matter what he says, Trump is not leading some sort of revolution to abolish the Empire and replace it with something else, much less something better. He just wants a shortcut to being Emperor. ..."

"... I'm under the impression that if not for the Benghazi investigation, the home server would not have been discovered. However, maybe someone else can confirm that I'm correct. Which, if you think about it, does not actually make sense. The NSA should have known all along. Why on earth she supposed that she could get around the NSA is simply… words fail me. ..."

"... My tin foil hat has always told me Clintonistas may not have worked overly hard for Kerry in 2004, even offering bad advice. Every Winner and Loser column from after the election listed on clear winner, the front runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton. Clinton Inc was operating out of crummy digs in Harlem because they couldn't raise money, but the money poured in after the Kerry loss. ..."

"... My only fear re: how Clinton could win in November would be if she and Bill had the juice to help throw 2000 and 2004 to keep the path clear for her. Unless she can steal in the General, she isn't going to be President. That would also explain Obama's focus on caucuses in 2008 - he went after her soft, less stealable underbelly. (I realize there are also less CT explanations for this.) ..."

"... "Maintaining a homebrew server could be written off as a policy violation, rather than a criminal matter. " ..."

"... Given the last 15 years of brutal, if selective, prosecutions for mishandling materials less sensitive than some of the material on Clinton's servers, I don't think many people will buy that. ..."

"... The elephant in the room is not the private server per se, but the use of it to circumvent any exposure to FOIA requests. The pay-for-play activities of the Secretary with regard to the Foundation can certainly be inferred, and if proven are grounds for an indictment leading to prosecution for treason, and the incarceration (if not the death penalty) for the entire Clinton family. The tons of circumstantial evidence regarding the timing of payments and the goodies granted, would be sufficient for a Grand Jury indictment; the "smell' test is overwhelming. ..."

"... People seem to forget that Clinton served on the Committee on Armed Services from 2003 to 2009 and on the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities … you know, the Subcommittee that has jurisdiction over Department of Defense policies and programs to counter emerging threats, information warfare and special operations programs. ..."

"... I too would want to keep my PRIVATE and PERSONAL emails and other communications private … if she'd been above board and simply had a private email for non-official communications and kept the official State Dept stuff on the official account, there would be nothing here. ..."

"... Sanders will lose his clout and things go back to normal. ..."

"... private server ..."

"... a personal email account was allowed ..."

"... It seems that Mills claimed that HRC's use of the private email was not kept secret and lots of Admin officials knew about it. (Note that people had to make a special request to be able to use her email.) But Obama claimed he only learned of it "like the rest of you, in the news reports". So Obama and Hillary never emailed each other while she was SoS? ..."

"... They never were chummy esp. after all the heat of the campaign: "You're likeable enough, Hillary". ..."

"... It was reported last January that there were eighteen emails between Clinton and Obama that State was not going to release for security reasons. So yes, they did email each other. It would be interesting to know what security instructions Obama received regarding using his email. Did anyone ever caution him to check the sender's email address as a caution against phishing? Her email address was clintonemail dot com. Even a technical neophyte has to know that means either she or some other entity was hosting the site; and, if a separate entity, did that entity have security clearance for handling those emails? Obama knew darn well that she was using an unsecure system. He is equally guilty of enabling her risk-taking. ..."

"... Now that Elizabeth Warren is being a good girl and playing footsie with Schumer, I can see them thinking putting her in as VP would work well enough. I don't think so (in my neck of the progressive woods, there seems to be a general understanding that she sold out), but more importantly, I can't imagine Hillary stepping away only to see Liz moved in. ..."

"... Their smartest real play would be to let Bernie have the nom and bide their time, hoping they can work in the background with Republicans to taint and undermine him. But I suspect that they're exactly smart enough to know that probably wouldn't work. ..."

"... my rich friends (lifetime republicans included) will vote for hillary, my poor friends won't. ..."

"... Clinton voters are the small amount type. She has only "won," even in the states she did did "win," by massively suppressing the vote. She hasn't even held onto her own voters from 2008, even in conservative states. Her "big wins" in the South were with much smaller numbers of votes cast. There are people who genuinely want to vote for her. They were not enough to win the Democratic primary without massive suppression AND theft. ..."

"... The problem for Hillary is there is no indication the email scandal narrative will ever improve to the point of improving her untrustworthy numbers. The best she can hope for is the FBI stating it will not recommend an indictment which will merely confirm the public's correct perception that the power elite are treated better than the rank and file. Hillary cannot unring the Inspector General's conclusion she circumvented FOIA and federal record keeping laws. She cannot undue the fact she maintained thousands of classified records, along with 22 top secret documents on the private server. She cannot change the fact she hid her use of the private server from the public and only disclosed it when caught by the Senate Committee investigating Benghazi. Everyone who pays attention to the facts is disgusted by her misconduct in this matter. ..."

"... I think her problem is that, in routing official traffic through a private mail server, she's tried to avoid records of her work (as a public official!) ever becoming available to the public. It looks, at the very least, like she's trying to hide something and it's a demonstration of breathtaking contempt for the very people whose votes she's now asking for. ..."

"... If he shagged under the legal age limit girls, traveled on a jet which was used in slave trade of underage girls, etc; then it isn't just his business, it's a criminal matter. If Mrs. Clinton enabled, and/or aided and abetted, then she could be facing criminal charges. ..."

"... The interesting thing is Jeffery Epstein has hidden cameras on both his plane and all over the US Virgin Island private pedophile reserve he ran for politicians and high level government officials. The overseas press is reporting he blackmailed his way out of Federal Charges. Was Bill part of that blackmail? ..."

"... Bill is a sexual predator. His affair with Jennifer Flower was consensual. But starting from when he was Governor, there is a long list of credible allegations of him engaging in sexual harassment (extremely aggressive come-ons with women he had just met, often women who were state employees or Dem consultatnts), including a rape allegation by Juanita Brodderick. We've even had a reader in comments say that when Bill Clinton visited a friend, he asked their college aged daughter when he was alone with her if she wanted to ride in his car and give him a blow job. DC contacts confirm the city is rife with stories like that. ..."

"... If there were an equal ..."

"... As strange a thing as this is to say, I find myself wishing that more journalists had experience in IT security. I do have such experience, and from what I can see most people really don't appreciate just how totally, ludicrously irresponsible it is for that server to exist. Talk of it having been "secured" by some lone IT contractor is ridiculous on its face. I wouldn't run a homebrew email server, and I am basically not worth hacking – very much unlike the US Secretary of State. ..."

"... Seriously, think about it. The Secretary of State had a private email server which seems to have been widely known about within the State Department and other people in government who had dealings with Hillary Clinton. There's really no question as to if that thing was hacked – you can absolutely bet your ass ..."

"... That's what's really galling to me – even by Hillary's own stated standards, what she did with her email is orders of magnitude worse than what Snowden did. But it's Hillary Clinton, so it gets handwaved by the Democrats' long practice at assuming a Clinton scandal is overblown nonsense. ..."

"... That's why people like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake, Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou, Joe Wilson, and so forth are persecuted by the government while people like Clinton (and Petraeus, Novack, Libby, Bush, Cheney, Obama, Biden, etc.) are protected. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of events. Just as one example, here's the 'ole Gray Lady serving as dutiful stenographer for Nancy Pelosi herself, the Democratic Speaker from San Francisco, supposedly one of the most liberal parts of the entire country, explaining that the law doesn't apply to people in power. ..."

"... I've worked in IT and software development for years and agree that her provision of that server doesn't meet the most basic requirements for security. Also, I work for a rather large company with a sizable federal contract and, if you haven't contracted with the government, you can only imagine the levels of security they impose upon their vendors. Two-factor authentication, encryption at rest, kernel hardening and on and on. Not only do you HAVE to do these things if you want to do business with the government, they bring in teams of their IT people to audit you. And it is not perfunctory in any way. They take InfoSec very, very seriously. ..."

"... Yesterday in the WSJ was this op-ed which made many of the same points that were made here, as well as discusses the fallout if Clinton loses the California primary. I also think that the Dems are not only just worried about the nomination now. The IG's report clears a path for hearings by the Republicans against Clinton after the election. ..."

"... I agree. Sanders has nothing to gain and a lot to lose by "making nice" with the Dem establishment. Why make nice with them? They are the problem, not the solution. That's a mainstay of Sanders' campaign. ..."

"... The Clinton fanaticism isn't about Sanders. They believe they need Clinton. An active DoJ might be a threat. A few have backwards ideas about politics. Some simply did the believe Sanders when he said Hillary was weak, but with a Gabbard in play, many Democrats can kiss their ambitions good bye if Sanders wins. ..."

"... I've said it elsewhere: Sanders is unacceptable to the DNC because a Sanders win would render the DNC networks, influence and fundraising abilities irrelevant overnight. The DNC would no longer be gatekeepers. You can win without them. Thus, Team D does not fear a Sanders defeat, and they can live with President Trump. In fact, that would represent an unprecedented fundraising opportunity. But from the Team D perspective, a Sanders victory must be prevented at all costs. ..."

"... How the hell could Sanders "make friends" with members of the Democratic Party elite? He is blowing up their revolving-door-greasing funding model. Running as effectively as he has with almost no lobbyist money? No major corporate donors to speak of? What can he offer them, except unpleasant changes that negatively impact their careers? ..."

"... "The implications of all of this are that Hillary Clinton did not want her emails subjected to the Freedom of Information Act or subpoenas from Congress. And that's why she set up a home-brew server" ..."

"... But this is definitely putting a lot of spin on the ball, because the other half of the story is the reason WHY she wanted to avoid FOIA and Congressional scrutiny. The answer is: so that between her and Bill she could sell her office to the highest bidders, which the FBI is quite prepared to prove, or if denied that chance, to "leak like crazy" ..."

"... Caution: this course of action carries a high risk of nominating Bernie ..."

"... And that bring up another point for all you "feminist" Clintonistas. Wasn't the whole point of the "first woman in the White House" thing to show that women can do it alone? That they don't need men carrying them around all the time to be successful? Well what's up with your candidate? I have never (in my 65 years) ever seen anyone (woman or man) need more help from other people (mostly men) to gain the success they seek. At every single turn in this campaign we have Ms. Clinton needing someone else, someone MORE, falling on their sword for her. Because left on her own, against a freaking socialist, for Christ's sakes, all she has been able to do is F@ck up. A FIFTY POINT LEAD, gone. Wasted. Nothing to show. And this is what you want as feminism's representative in the White House? Shame on you. ..."

"... Most of the DLC establishment could find it easy enough to "live" with a Trump Presidency. Just like Lil Marco Rubio, they'll easily bend their knees to kiss Trump's heiney and make deals with him. What's it to them, after all? ..."

"... In that scenario Hillary wins the nomination and loses the election, Obama pardons her to head off (in his telling) partisan persecution and looks noble (to the credulous) standing up for her, clearing the way to elbow in on the Clinton network for the-haven't you heard?-Obama Foundation. And the grift goes on. ..."

"... stopped ..."

"... Because the email thing, and the speeches thing, and the neo-liberalism thing, whatever. Bernstein's "leaking" makes clear that as far back as February Obama's guys in the trenches said – hey, we just saw the Bear funds blow up, and this thing is going to end badly one way or the other. We don't know exactly how bad, but bad. Which is bad for us… ..."

"... Yves – Time hss proved you wise. Japanafication is exactly what has been unfolding. And according to Forbes and the Fed, 48% of the population having less than a grand in savings means the US is near third world. One can buy Pop Tarts in third world countries also. ..."

"... The real danger is geopolitics. And this bitch that thinks she is queen has no issues literally seeing 1/3 of the global population dying to escape her crimes. Think of what a rapist does to a rape victim many times. Strangle that woman so she doesnt indict you. Yeah, it is that bad. But there are some form of tech that will end any world war quickly. Stuff of science fiction. America's competitors should think twice, or such may dissapear. Literally. ..."

"... However – and this must have been Clinton's worst nightmare x 10 - unbeknownest to CESC and Platte River, the backup server accidentally synced with another off-site server belonging to Datto for two years before anyone realized it. ..."

"... wasn't ..."

"... to the cloud was taking place ..."

"... So one Democratically connected organization signed onto this separate justice system for the politically connected. Possibly the concern Obama has for his unfunded $1Billion Presidential Library will force him to burnish his legacy by NOT rescuing HRC with some dubious legal maneuver. It is somewhat ironic that Nixon was brought down by a private electronic system (his tape recording system) while Clinton may be brought down by her own private electronic email system. ..."

"... Regardless my experience with talking to Hillary supporters is that no amount of scandal of outright criminal lawbreaking affects their views about Hillary. They revert to "she's been scrutinized and tested for decades by her enemies and she's survived." They are people on the margins who will be affected. How many are the Dem establishment? It's going to take a whopper to get them to tank Hillary IMO. ..."

"... There is a detail that is being universally missed both in the MSM and alternative press: it is a virtual certainty that the NSA has a copy of every email sent or received by that server. ..."

"... Don't forget the mayhem when the FSB (who else) posted Nuland's little chat with Pyatt over an insecure line. Let no one forget that HRC is strongly connected to the neocon project to undermine Russia's return to strength. ..."

"... Just ask yourself: What would Vladimir Putin do? ..."

"... $1 Billion Library ..."

"... I too think bernie will pull it out, the other choices are terrible. I'm looking for aspirational latinos to flock to bernie in california and it'll be a rout that can't be ignored. I hope that's what happens. ..."

"... Clintonsomething – "The Campaign Years" ..."

"... I'm not sure the media's current focus on Hillary's email server is warranted. There are definitely indications that she violated email policies, but there don't seem to be specifics about what these actions were trying to hide. I think her very questionable family ties to corporate money are a more meaningful topic in determining her suitability for the U.S. presidency ..."

"... The Clinton Machine (in other words the political operation of the Bill and Hillary, and potentially Chelsea) has always operated on the basis the money and connections will fix everything. It has, after all, gotten them this far. However, as a core operational mode, it also accumulates cynicism and tends to value loyalty over performance, leading to degradation over time. ..."

"... Seems to me that except in a relatively few corners and local settings, and now very frankly via our mostly collective embrace of the Neo geist, "America" has always and only been about "screwing the other guy." ..."

"... I don't believe "foaming one more runway" (read: having your DOJ, FBI appear helpless) wouldn't bother this administration. A Loyalist are those unengaged (or too engaged) whom choose willingly to believe the disastrous economic and political experiment, that attempted to organize human behavior around the dictates of the global marketplace, has been a splendid success…or worse, blindly, my tribal leader is in accordance with all that is good. ..."

"... Haiti. Look at film of the Clintons in Haiti to see how they work. & Haiti is one place where also the elites own the deeds. Haiti Is America, only sooner. ..."

"... For what it's worth, Jonathan Turley suggests Hillary still has friends in high places in his discussion of former Clinton IT advisor, Bryan Pagliano, who is taking the fifth amendment in deposition on email scandal, ..."

"... Those e-mails don't alarm me anywhere near as much as the $200,000 plus speaking fees from Wall St. NO speech by anyone is worth anywhere near such an amount. These were clearly bribes, there's simply no other way of looking at it. I have no interest in seeing the transcripts of those speeches because the money counts far more than the content, and speaks for itself. No way would I vote for someone so clearly in the pocket of the oligarchy. ..."

naked capitalism

But the panic is also a clear indication, and perhaps as important, another message, not just to Clinton but to Team Dem, that the Administration can't, or won't but is making it seem like can't, do what it takes to save Hillary's bacon.

And I suspect it really is "can't". The FBI has enough autonomy that if they find real dirt on the Clintons, they will leak like crazy if the DoJ does not pursue the case in a serious way. That would make the Administration complicit, and Obama does not want his final months in office tainted by his Administration touching the Clinton tar baby any more than it has to. In addition, the Judicial Watch cases are proceeding, and the judge, having had the Clinton side deal with him repeatedly in bad faith, is not going to cut it any slack. The fact that there is an independent effort, completely outside the Administration's control, pursuing the server mess, also makes it riskier for the DoJ to do nothing if Judicial Watch exposes damning documents.

By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . Originally published at at Down With Tyranny . GP article here.

The last time I featured former Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein on these pages, it was to showcase his delivery of messages he received from the White House , to the effect that the "White House" thought Clinton was blowing it with her Wall Street speeches stance, and because of that, the "White House" was freaking out (to put it colloquially) - at least as Bernstein tells it.

Here's part of what Bernstein - a Clinton supporter - said last February (my transcript and emphasis; video at the link):

Bernstein: There is a huge story going on. I've spent part of this weekend talking to people in the White House. They are horrified at how Hillary Clinton is blowing up her own campaign .

And they're worried that the Democrats could blow - they are horrified that the whole business of the transcripts, accepting the money - that she could blow the Democrats' chance for White House. They want her to win. Obama wants her to win.

But Sanders has shown how vulnerable she is. These ethical lapses have tied the White House up in knots. They don't know what to do. They're beside themselves. And now, you've got a situation with these transcripts a little like Richard Nixon and his tapes that he stonewalled on and didn't release.

... ... ...
In that context , listen to the current "White House" message about the Clinton campaign via Bernstein and video at the top (my italics):

Bernstein: The implications of all of this [the email server issue] are that Hillary Clinton did not want her emails subjected to the Freedom of Information Act or subpoenas from Congress. And that's why she set up a home-brew server.

I think we all know that. People around her will tell you that in private if you really get them behind a closed door.

I was in Washington this week, I spoke to a number of top Democratic officials and they're terrified, including people at the White House, that her campaign is in free fall because of this distrust factor. Indeed, Trump has a similar problem, but she's the one whose numbers are going south.

And the great hope in the White House, as well as the Democratic leadership and people who support her, is that she can just get to this convention, get the nomination - which they're no longer 100% sure of - and get President Obama out there to help her, he's got a lot of credibility, it's an election that's partly about his legacy .

But she needs all the help she can get because right now her campaign is in huge trouble…

... ... ...

Two takeaways - one is that top Democrats know how precarious Clinton's position is . They're not fooled any more than you are. That's worth noticing. And second, the White House and Bernstein are not blaming Sanders . Whoever crafted this message for us is blaming the Clinton campaign only, and by extension, Clinton herself.
fajensen , June 1, 2016 at 8:35 am

Hmm. Does make one wonder.
If "they" are so worried about Hillary flubbing her "inevitable" nomination as presidential candidate, and "they" are apparently not so worried about Hillary loosing to Trump in the run for president later, one does wonder about the possibility of "they" having some good quality dirt on Trump (or a backdoor to the voting machines).

Really Good Quality Dirt!

It is a *big* issue to mishandle classified information – normal people will be prosecuted and may go to jail even by coincidence; like a selfie in front of equipment they didn't know was classified and which was not labelled as such. Then on top of that comes the sleaze-factor with avoiding the FOIA requirements, destruction of evidence (which means that certainly Hillary was up to *something* crooked, because why else bother with all the work? it's very *easy* to hand over a verified duplicate of a hard disk compared to everything Hillary tried to not do this!) and of course the blatant incompetence + arrogance shown by Hillary by running a private business, a crooked one at that, from work?!

A street level dope dealer can manage to compartmentalize their real business from the one they report to the IRS. But not Hillary.

NotTimothyGeithner , June 1, 2016 at 10:47 am

The Democrats don't have any dirt on Trump the Republicans didn't have. Trump is a referendum on the establishment. The establishment can't attack him, and any attacks too similar to the very publicized establishment attacks will be dismissed.

The simple problem is Republican voters selected him over the GOP establishment. All the Republicans will line up because Trump is now their rightful leader. Maybe not Mittens and Bill Kristol at this point, the GOP elites will show loyalty because anything less will risk their own position. The base will remove GOP elites over certain sins. The Teabaggers cleaned the GOP caucus of TARP voters.

The secret weapon is to be a generic tax and spend Democrat, uninterested in colonialism.

marcus , June 2, 2016 at 10:43 am

Yes, the intelligence establishment has dirt the two leading candidates (Trump and Clinton). This can be used in what ever way is expedient, but most of all to maintain the status quo. Like the mafia, you have committed a crime so you have to promote our crimes or you will be exposed/deposed. Which is why the race to the bottom of the hogs wallow is being actively promoted. Likely, no dirt on Sanders, which is why the MSM and even some parts of social media are enlisted to create the appearance of dirt because blackmail/graymail of Sanders will be difficult or impossible.

Crespo , June 1, 2016 at 11:49 am

"Trump is a referendum on the establishment."

That's the best one-sentence explanation for his success that I've seen.

Jason , June 1, 2016 at 12:51 pm

That is certainly the narrative Trump wants. What I find the height of black, despairing comedy is that anyone believes it. In addition to being completely untrustworthy and self-centered, Trump has little to gain by overthrowing the status quo, and has given many signs that he will continue business as usual, only with a slightly different crew of low-rent elites in charge at the top.

No matter what he says, Trump is not leading some sort of revolution to abolish the Empire and replace it with something else, much less something better. He just wants a shortcut to being Emperor.

That he may end up being so bad at the job the entire edifice burns down is not, IMHO, any sort of positive. I don't like where we are or where we are headed, but neither do I want my family trying to survive in some sort of post-apocalyptic wasteland.

I'll repeat the tin-foil hat level thought that keeps crossing my mind with Trump: his job is to discredit any sort of opposition to the establishment from the right for a generation or more.

Detroit Dan , June 1, 2016 at 2:18 pm

I think you're underestimating Trump. As you note, he does want to maintain current establishment, and he could be successful at this for awhile (e.g. ramping up spending and not worrying about deficits).

The establishment (Clinton types not aggressively calling out Republicans and proposing credible alternatives) has brought us to this point.

Martin Finnucane , June 1, 2016 at 11:35 am

Then on top of that comes the sleaze-factor with avoiding the FOIA requirements …

That's it, right there. She purposefully conducted the business of the State in such a manner to avoid scrutiny by the citizenry. That is a breach of the public trust that cannot be countenanced, cannot go unpunished. She's gotta go, and if "everybody's doing it," then they all gotta go too.

readerOfTeaLeaves , June 1, 2016 at 11:29 am

I'm under the impression that if not for the Benghazi investigation, the home server would not have been discovered. However, maybe someone else can confirm that I'm correct. Which, if you think about it, does not actually make sense. The NSA should have known all along. Why on earth she supposed that she could get around the NSA is simply… words fail me.

Morning Joe is saying that Trump is polling as 'more trustworthy' than Clinton.
If the White House isn't in a panic at this point, they're somnambulant.

NotTimothyGeithner , June 1, 2016 at 11:45 am

The Washington elite still labor under the delusion the sycophants are the general population and everything will return to normal any time now.

Antifa , June 1, 2016 at 12:03 pm

I thought it was strictly due to Benghazi-related FOIA requests from Congress that brought her server to light, but this article indicates it was discovered as a matter of routine housekeeping when John Kerry became SoS, and they finally filled the position of Inspector General at State.

Something Clinton didn't get around to doing . . .

NotTimothyGeithner , June 1, 2016 at 12:58 pm

My tin foil hat has always told me Clintonistas may not have worked overly hard for Kerry in 2004, even offering bad advice. Every Winner and Loser column from after the election listed on clear winner, the front runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton. Clinton Inc was operating out of crummy digs in Harlem because they couldn't raise money, but the money poured in after the Kerry loss.

If this election was about whether the country wanted a fourth term of the Kerry Edwards Cantwell? (She makes the most sense for a Vice President to Edwards 2012 running mate) teams, where would Clinton Inc be?

aab , June 1, 2016 at 6:49 pm

My only fear re: how Clinton could win in November would be if she and Bill had the juice to help throw 2000 and 2004 to keep the path clear for her. Unless she can steal in the General, she isn't going to be President. That would also explain Obama's focus on caucuses in 2008 - he went after her soft, less stealable underbelly. (I realize there are also less CT explanations for this.)

But watching the primary play out suggests to me that there are limits to election theft capability. I don't think there's anyway she wanted to drag this out this long. The theft in Kentucky was pretty obvious and clumsy, too. That plus the Republican Party doing its thing rallying around its nominee gives me hope that at least we won't get President Clinton.

It feels a bit like clinging to a ice floe in the North Atlantic, though.

Ray Phenicie , June 1, 2016 at 7:02 pm

But there's another point here too which is out in the open and yet no one is talking about it much except to note that her emails were not part of the National Archives. She had a private server for that very Orwellian reason-she planned to control the historical record by having a whole parcel of it hidden and not available until she decided to release it, if ever. I see the reference to Orwell as particularly apt . Remember in 1984 our besotted hero, (depressed with the horror of what he was doing), spent the livelong day erasing or changing the archival records related to key events that Big Brother needed changing. His needs, like Hilary's, kept changing from day to day so the censorship was endless.

Clinton has always been in charge of a Ministry of Truth-yesterday she stood for practice 'A' but now today opposes practice 'A'. The private server is just another facet of MiniTrue.

HotFlash , June 2, 2016 at 8:32 am

The domain name was clintonemail.com, so the email addresses would be [email protected] etc. etc. Anyone receiving these emails *could* see that if they looked, but if the sender is in your address book it may just come in as that person's name or nickname as you have it in own your machine.

While it may be that most recipients wouldn't bother to drill down to the actual originating address, there are offices and agencies that would definitely be tuned to this sort of thing. For instance, State's in-house IT security people seem to have twigged, not that it helped.

What I wonder is, aren't there 16 some-odd agencies who scan and analyze email traffic? In this case, the metadata alone would have told much (as it so often does).

tinheart , June 1, 2016 at 5:00 pm

Illuminating. She was jealous of Obama who only had one Blackberry.

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/hillary-clinton-blackberry-security-envy-nsa-no-go/

pretzelattack , June 1, 2016 at 6:39 am

suddenly, i'm feeling optimistic again. obama might be many things, but he is a very good politician, and he protects his legacy like an enraged bear protects cubs. throwing clinton under the bus to do that? no problem, if doing so results in less damage to his image, and i trust him to be able to judge that well.

Bullwinkle , June 1, 2016 at 10:28 am

He's not a very good politician. Too much of a phoney.

nowhere , June 1, 2016 at 11:16 am

Politician, not Statesmen.

Steve , June 1, 2016 at 11:53 am

"Too much of a phoney" sounds to me like the kernel of the prototypical modern politician.

aab , June 1, 2016 at 6:53 pm

I don't think he gives even one f**k about his image or legacy. He cares about being wealthy and having high status. He's only cutting Clinton loose if his owners that previously told him he had to help her now tell him to toss her over.

voteforno6 , June 1, 2016 at 6:40 am

I still have my doubts that any indictments are forthcoming. Maintaining a homebrew server could be written off as a policy violation, rather than a criminal matter. The punishments for that are administrative (loss of job, loss of security clearance), which don't really touch her. Having classified information in those emails, unless it's really egregious, probably won't result in any criminal charges, either. I wouldn't be surprised if that is rather common among senior government officials. If they go after Clinton for that, a lot of other people could be put under greater scrutiny. My guess is that there is institutional pressure in the government to not charge one of their own for that.

If any charges are filed, it will probably be for something else that they've stumbled upon, possibly related to the Clinton Foundation. That's why I find it interesting that the news about Terry McAuliffe broke when it did. If they are pursuing something, there will be pressure to resolve it before the election. At the same time, they won't want to rush it, because they're only going to get one shot at this – you don't want to take a swing at the Clintons, and miss.

allan , June 1, 2016 at 6:55 am

"Maintaining a homebrew server could be written off as a policy violation, rather than a criminal matter. "

Given the last 15 years of brutal, if selective, prosecutions for mishandling materials less sensitive than some of the material on Clinton's servers, I don't think many people will buy that.

voteforno6 , June 1, 2016 at 7:46 am

They may not buy it, but that feeds directly into my other point – senior government officials are rarely held accountable for those types of actions, unless they're really egregious. People much lower on the food chain are held to a higher standard. Because of that, I think that there will be resistance to prosecution from other senior officials, simply because they don't want to be put in jeopardy as well.

apber , June 1, 2016 at 8:38 am

The elephant in the room is not the private server per se, but the use of it to circumvent any exposure to FOIA requests. The pay-for-play activities of the Secretary with regard to the Foundation can certainly be inferred, and if proven are grounds for an indictment leading to prosecution for treason, and the incarceration (if not the death penalty) for the entire Clinton family. The tons of circumstantial evidence regarding the timing of payments and the goodies granted, would be sufficient for a Grand Jury indictment; the "smell' test is overwhelming.

Norb , June 1, 2016 at 8:52 am

All well and true, but when do citizens say enough is enough. Creating and maintaining a two tiered justice system is not the foundation on which democracy is built. How egregious does lawbreaking have to become before support is withdrawn from these people?

readerOfTeaLeaves , June 1, 2016 at 11:48 am

IMVHO, that is exactly what we are seeing play out.

And trying to equate what Hillary did with Colin Powell's early use of email is simply beyond the pale: I've seen no credible evidence that Powell ever set out to evade the NSA or the FBI. For Hillary to conflate the two is flagrantly dishonest, and it pisses me off.

We may be at a 'tipping point' of the public finally fed up with a two tier system. Add in income inequality, and things tip even more.

NotTimothyGeithner , June 1, 2016 at 12:45 pm

Equating Hillary to a war criminal makes perfect sense.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 1, 2016 at 12:54 pm

That's for the FBI to show – hard evidence of intention evasion…a memo or a witness, while Clinton, on the other side, will argue computer/internet illiteracy.

Tom , June 1, 2016 at 1:31 pm

Clinton has already been planting seeds of computer illiteracy, through her subordinates, who claim Clinton "didn't even know how to access email on a desktop!" My lands, what's a pretty little thing to do? Why, a lady such as Hillary must rely on the kindness of strangers, or gentleman such as Bryan "Nowhere Man" Magliano, her IT Manager, to convey her electronic missives to others in a timely manner.

People seem to forget that Clinton served on the Committee on Armed Services from 2003 to 2009 and on the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities … you know, the Subcommittee that has jurisdiction over Department of Defense policies and programs to counter emerging threats, information warfare and special operations programs.

If it were possible, I'd go back through the Sub committees minutes or transcripts to see how involved ole' Hillary got when the subject was attempts by foreign governments or agents to hack into U.S. government employees' emails.

oh , June 1, 2016 at 3:00 pm

It's possible that some of the information was only accessible by computer. She couldn't have had any aides helping her 'cause they probably were not cleared to read such info.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 1, 2016 at 3:59 pm

From Jim Haywood on today's cooler:

But if you've ever watched one of these hearings, you know that perhaps 20 percent of the committee members have even a layperson's knowledge of monetary policy. The rest waste their 5-minute question time delivering set-piece partisan rants.

Probably more display of illiteracy. Or, no unlike some college teachers – no practice experience, thought they sound impressive in theory.

Lambert Strether , June 1, 2016 at 2:58 pm

Intent is not a bar to a charge of gross negligence. "No intent" is a Clinton talking point.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 1, 2016 at 3:57 pm

Perhaps her intent is to negotiate gross negligence to just negligence. From there, it's 'everyone does.'

Malcolm MacLeod, MD , June 1, 2016 at 9:03 pm

LS: Little rides on the fact that Mrs Clinton may be guilty of
stupidity, ignorance, or evil intent. The primary fact is that
Mrs Clinton is, was, and probably has been guilty of duplicitous
conduct for the majority of her life. She's no beginner or social
climber, but a real mountaineer.

polecat , June 1, 2016 at 12:01 pm

well…support IS being withdrawn , from them, in real time !!! That's why people, increasingly, will vote scorched earth …. for Trump, if Sanders gets cheated out of the nom. They've had it with the two-tired JUST US system, and the corrupt pols and corporate slugs who've benefited by it !!

Brooklin Bridge , June 2, 2016 at 7:56 am

Agree. It's hard to know how many, but a significant number of people certainly are sensing the depth of this morass, even if the particulars remain vague, and are reacting as best they can given the choices. Since reasonable choices have been crushed to an amazing degree, as Matthews – under orders no doubt – made clear, and this is part of what people sense is wrong, scorched earth is what remains.

JacobiteInTraining , June 1, 2016 at 1:03 pm

In my case, it has already been withdrawn.

Hell, if Bonnie Prince Snowden were to land on the US equivalent of Eriskay…I would like as not put on fatigues and go to join him, along with whatever other ragtag band of 'jacobites' rallied to the cause.

Yes, it would likely end as miserably as 'The Forty Five' did, but I am long past believing that ANYONE in a position of power in the Federal Government – any branch – really 'gets it' that We, The People, are sick and damned tired of the crap they are up to, and the lengths they are willing to go to pander and enrich their fellow power mongers.

The 'Just Us' system, indeed.

Maybe a little whiff of grapeshot might wake them up.

I know its either that, or someday the guillotines will be set up by a starving rabble with far less of a sense of humor about these things then I.

jsn , June 1, 2016 at 10:44 am

What is interesting to me is the quality of what happens next as an exemplar: either Obama doubles down on the Patraus treatment for the elite and everyone who's ever had a security clearance is formally notified that the rules only apply to little people, or D O Justice acts on this in the same spirit they have acted on Assange, Manning, Snowden, Stirling etc.

For those implicated at the heart of the security establishment, either decision will have crystal clear implications. If it is the latter, the National Security State lumbers on in its more or less current form which isn't exactly great and embroils our "presumptive" nominee in a criminal investigation. If the former, things could get very interesting as those feeling betrayed will be uniquely positioned to do something about it, particularly in the prospect of spooks foreign or domestic having dirt with which to blackmail a sitting President.

Another great example of a status quo that, however you support it, sucks.

jawbone , June 1, 2016 at 9:31 am

"Maintaining a homebrew server could be written off as a policy violation, rather than a criminal matter. The punishments for that are administrative (loss of job, loss of security clearance), which don't really touch her."

Could she be denied top security clearance were she to be elected president? Or, is it given no matter what to whomever is elected?

Also, it seems from the article that there are many people now privy to just how badly she managed her email situation (others things as well? And are there actual hard copies? More tapes?) and that could make her independence as president, well, simply no there there. Sounds like the PTBs and/or their minions have her by the short hairs. And if she had any tendencies whatsoever to not serve the Corporatists fully, that is no longer an issue: She would be totally controlled.

So, Hillary would now more than ever be the Corporatists very best bet to consolidate their control, in the US and globally. Trump, second but could possibly be "uncooperative." Bernie? Never allowed to be voted on as the Dem nominee.

fajensen , June 2, 2016 at 6:14 am

Oooh … Dear! Good Point: Hillary being so terribly bad that she's absolutely perfect for everyone who needs to buy influence.

The excitement is seeing the market value of "The House of Clinton's Services" dropping from hard currency to small favors and protection and now this once-in-a-century opportunity to get in at the bottom may go away!

tegnost , June 1, 2016 at 11:08 am

Have you read this? from march and linked on 5/29 in the cooler. they've stumbled on a few things…
https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/
and as pointed out here the administration can't bury judicial watch in the same way they let the banksters off by telling DOJ to let 'em go. And fajensen points out above, classification violations get little people in big trouble, and letting clinton off, which they can't seem to do, will upset a lot of gov employees…but maybe it's just more eleventy dimensional chess

Gaianne , June 1, 2016 at 12:21 pm

Lurking in the background is the likelihood that the Russians scooped up everything on Hillary's server, and the certainty that the NSA knows what they know.

This will not sit well with a lot of people.

Hillary will soon be down to her paid hangers-on and diehard loyalists. Even the bankers will have to start recalculating.

–Gaianne

reslez , June 1, 2016 at 1:17 pm

It seems clear that being hacked by the Russians rated pretty low on the Clinton totem pole of priorities. What concerned her more was the optics of whatever emails she was sending and how the American public would react to seeing them. All her actions point to that. The Secretary of State would rather have Russians read her emails than comply with the FOIA and other laws and risk American citizens see the business she conducted on our behalf and at our expense.

I mean, for all I know senior gov't officials just blanket assume other countries have full access to everything done on a computer, what do they care what the Russians know, the Russians are corrupt too. But when it comes to a bad headline? Panic button time.

Praedor , June 1, 2016 at 6:54 am

I don't blame just Hillary. I blame the Clintons in their entirety. Bill was just as squirmy with the truth (what's YOUR definition of the word "is"? Then there's his whole, "I did not have asexual relations with that woman"). Their slimy slipperyness is genetic. They can't help but lie, obfuscate, prevaricate. Bill is Hillary, Hillary is Bill.

As to wanting to avoid FOIA and subpoenas on her emails, I am sympathetic in broad strokes. I too would want to keep my PRIVATE and PERSONAL emails and other communications private. I believe strongly in the right to privacy and that is why I vehemently oppose NSA spying and corporate spying via metadata. Our private lives BELONG TO US ALONE. The difference between Hillary and I is in the nature of private communications. Unlike the Clintons, I am not a money grubbing greedy bastard who will lie, cheat, steal my way to wealthy. I have NO sympathy for anyone seeking to keep that crap secret and private. That said, if she'd been above board and simply had a private email for non-official communications and kept the official State Dept stuff on the official account, there would be nothing here. I served 20 years in the military. We kept official and confidential communication strictly on the official network and via the official email accounts. Personal use of the official email was discouraged and limited. You NEVER used your personal civilian email for official communications. Never never never. I can't give her a pass on that because we in the military wouldn't get a pass. We'd get an investigation and likely lose our security clearance (career ending that is).

Alex morfesis , June 1, 2016 at 8:36 am

I did not have security violations with that server…

when $hillary was out of town…

$he liked to watch…

because all is well in the garden…

so you go tell rafael that I aint takin' no jive….

fajensen , June 1, 2016 at 9:31 am

I too would want to keep my PRIVATE and PERSONAL emails and other communications private
…
if she'd been above board and simply had a private email for non-official communications and kept the official State Dept stuff on the official account, there would be nothing here.

Exactly. How hard can it be?

The work mail belongs to the workplace, we can basically expect that the PHB or the PFY in tech support will read through it and it will be stored forever. Same with web-traffic. "Work" may read, store and analyze it – so we visit naughty pages at home, strictly on our own time.

That is some of the reasons why we peons always use a private domain for private mail and the work email for work email. Another one is to limit the ownership of work and ideas to those that "work" actually does pay for.

Jonathan Holland Becnel , June 1, 2016 at 11:37 am

Same here, Praedor!

I commented a day or two ago that when we were downrange, you risked your career putting so much as an USB into the computer.

Clinton chatted it up on her black berry straight from the offices of Special Ops Command!

LootersParadise , June 1, 2016 at 3:06 pm

I'm sympathetic to most of your argument, including your characterization of the Clinton's obsession with personal gain. The Clinton Foundation is a money-making machine fueled by graft, pure and simple.

But it's ironic that you criticize Bill for lying about personal affairs in one paragraph, which only happened because Ken Starr actively sought to violate his personal privacy, and state later that "our private lives belong to us alone." The only reason I have a shred of sympathy for Bill is because Starr and his ilk trampled on his right to privacy. That judgment is shared by most Americans, as reflected in public polls.

And as for "we in the military wouldn't get a pass" consider the by-the-book punishment of David Petraeus – which never happened. The military doesn't have any special claim to legal fidelity or consequences. As always, the enforcement of laws in this country varies according to the power of the accused. That's why Hillary isn't and never will be in prison.

Kurghen , June 2, 2016 at 7:37 am

While generally sympathetic to LootersParadise's argument, I would point out that when Bill Clinton was Commander-in-Chief, young military drill sergeants were being court martialed and sentenced to lengthy prison terms for consensual sex with female trainees. The legal premise was that the disparity in their rank and authority made any sexual relations "tantamount to rape". Clinton's behavior with a young intern was worse than bad judgement, it was predatory, and no military commander or drill sergeant would have been excused from such conduct with the argument it was merely a "personal affair".

Yves Smith Post author , June 1, 2016 at 4:22 pm

You keep your private business private by using separate equipment. 2 smartphones. 2 laptops. Tons of people in DC do this, starting with Congressional staffers and assistants to people in Federal agencies. This isn't rocket science. She just wasn't willing to bother.

aab , June 1, 2016 at 7:13 pm

Isn't it also possible, though, that since her State business really was private business, in that she and Bill were working together to sell influence at State to enrich the "Foundation," this wasn't merely entitled laziness? Maybe they made the decision that the best way to limit the paper trail was to just send all State Department correspondence through the server and thus directly to Bill, making it harder to track and prove when they were explicitly collaborating. I can totally see them thinking this was quite clever.

Entitled also works, of course. I do think a big reason for the Blackberry is that she refused to allow the guy who "ought to be carrying her bags" to have a goody she didn't have.

HotFlash , June 2, 2016 at 8:36 am

Apparently that one doesn't fly either, f rom the horse's mouth via Slate.

Money quote: "I'm like two steps short of a hoarder. So I have an iPad, a mini iPad, an iPhone and a Blackberry."

Pat , June 1, 2016 at 7:06 am

The case can be made that the known hacking was of someone she had a correspondence with (troubling as that was) not of her server. While I don't believe her server was secure, and I'm pretty damn sure the IG and the FBI don't think it either, the public can still be spun on this. That is not the problem.

No, what has become crystal clear is that she didn't have permission to set up her email this way, that the NSA and State did not sign off on it, that she was told that and because she didn't want any public oversight of her actions she blew off federal regulations regarding FOIA and the collection of records for the State Department both in setting up the server itself AND in not supplying any documents not in government possession upon leaving office (not two years later). Because she did handle classified material on that email server, she did put herself in jeopardy legally – regardless of her intent and whether the material was hacked or not. And people who do have to follow Security guidelines or face dismissal, fines or worse are pissed as hell about it and are not going to let it go. So it can't just be played off as a right wing conspiracy – no matter how much they try. These guys aren't Judicial Watch, and their credentials are better than Podesta's.

On the public level, except for the Clinton sycophants and tribal Dems who desperately want to believe this really is a nothing burger, what this means is that Clinton had no intention of allowing public oversight into her actions if she can avoid it by any means whatsoever, regulations and the law be damned. And that she does not consider herself a public employee even if she is one and being a public employee is where her power lies. Now those of us who distrust her and her husband and child just outright assume that this is because her real business is selling access to government and its monies or services to those with the funds to afford the Clintons. But most people are reacting to the sheer arrogance of the "law doesn't apply to me" attitude and the lies about it so far. But the longer this stays around the more it will become 'what DID she have to hide'.

So this tells me something different. It isn't really about how big a threat Clinton is to the 'Obama legacy' and how terrified they are she is blowing this. Or rather has blown this since it stems from actions from seven years ago, although later choices have compounded it. No, this is about how much bigger a threat Sanders is to that legacy and how close her blowing this gets HIM to the nomination. Otherwise why is this about her getting the nomination. Her getting the nomination and then Obama getting out on the road and saving her butt only works if the threats from the investigation disappear BEFORE she gets the nomination officially. It really blows up while he is campaigning for her and his legacy is also blown.

Of course, this presupposes that he WILL get out there and campaign for her beyond a few cursory appearances. If the President is suddenly too busy to campaign, I will admit to being wrong and it is all about Clinton's threat to him, even if I think a better strategic choice would be to find a way to torpedo her outright if that is the concern.

pretzelattack , June 1, 2016 at 7:14 am

this may be one of the initial signs of the torpedo. "captain, it looks like something is moving toward us underwater". he wasn't required to broadcast his concerns like this. you make some excellent points. meanwhile, i'm successfully controlling my impulse to attempt to do a cartwheel. so far.

Pavel , June 1, 2016 at 7:51 am

Pat - excellent analysis, thank you.
And Yves, great post. As you point out, the use of Bernstein as White House messenger - if true - makes that a pretty explosive little interview.

I note the lawyer twisting himself into knots trying to say that Hillary didn't "lie" about the server.

Steve H. , June 1, 2016 at 7:54 am

– And that she does not consider herself a public employee even if she is one and being a public employee is where her power lies.

That may be the right twist that puts the optics in focus. Arrogance and petulance are tolerated in politics ('he's got a Blackberry, I want one!') But the Clintons are cunning enough to not risk the appearance without reason. They need to be smarter than their customers, and just one bad email from a dunderhead could prove a quid pro quo link from the Clinton Foundation to the State Department.

Obama knows better than anyone her tendency to collapse. His campaign was 'Change,' and that she does not do.

Samuel Conner , June 1, 2016 at 7:58 am

"Getting her to the nomination" allows the D establishment, after she is forced to step down, to replace her with Biden/Warren or some other "anyone but Sanders" ticket with less trouble (party disunity, bad optics, turnout suppression) than if she implodes before the convention and the HRC delegates + superdelegates outright steal the nomination from Sanders.

Bryan , June 1, 2016 at 8:04 am

IMO, it's utterly impossible in this climate for anyone other than Sanders (or whoever Sanders signs off on, like Warren) to become nominee if HRC implodes.

Roger Smith , June 1, 2016 at 9:19 am

I agree. The optics would be off the charts terrible for the party. They are in a rock and a hard place. I think their best non-Sanders bet (if they continue their double downs and selfish folly) is to stay with Clinton. If she implodes, so be it, have her impeached (if she wins) and be done with it. Pass as much of the responsibility off on her and what she did wrong. "The party did not know! We are victims!"

vlade , June 1, 2016 at 10:56 am

actually, the back-door candidate could be Warren. She endorsed neither, has clearly anti-WS policies, but is not as "radical" as Sanders. She would likely be acceptable to a number of Sanders people (incomparably much more so than HC), she's woman (so still a first woman president message) etc.

She's better debater than Sanders I believe (and incomparably better than HC), and could (assuming there are no bombs in her backyard) deal with Trump pretty well.

So, if the plan in Dem circles is to get past primaries and then shoot HC and fend off Sanders, I'd say Warren is about their only reasonable choice.

NotTimothyGeithner , June 1, 2016 at 2:06 pm

Warren is a threat to the courtesan class as much as Sanders. Saturday design and Warren threaten every Democrat who has ever said "the dopes would vote for for If they just understood how smart we were and had better messaging," just by existing.

vlade , June 1, 2016 at 6:20 pm

Warren is a very specific threat to WS. She's a less of a generic threat than Sanders is – say look at her education proposals. If it looks to Dems like a choice between HC enabling Trump, Sanders changing the party entirely, or Warren as a compromise, they only reasonably safe bet is Warren. HC getting nomination and then losing to Trump kills the Dem party (as we know it) as well as Sanders would if he won. The difference is that one (Sanders) is a certainty, while the other (HC losing to Trump) is still just a probability. But one raising every day so far.

Coming up with somoene like Warren, even HC can look statesmanlike in pulling it off (say blaming it on bad health, but giving a chance to another woman), in exchange for a deal that Warren focuses on WS. Chances of Warren winning against Trump are very high, possibly higher that Sanders.

That said, I doubt this would happen.

Code Name D , June 1, 2016 at 1:10 pm

But the question of the day is – are they smart enough to know this? All the chatter I hear from the beltway is that they don't. That once the nomination is "decided", Sanders will lose his clout and things go back to normal.

Bryan , June 1, 2016 at 2:09 pm

Whole thing hinges on Sanders' concern for his reputation among the elite, and how much he buys the "Trump-means-the-end-of-civilization" garbage. His only leverage is his base, and frankly if he tries to make nice with the Dem establishment after she is nominated, he loses a lot of his cred with that base.

He's going to get very little from them – at most, Warren as VP, which isn't much. No way she gets to be Treasury Secretary, for instance. And why would they give Sanders anything? At bottom, the DNC types believe the left will have nowhere to go come November. Thus Sanders has one job: GIVE HIS BASE SOMEWHERE TO GO. Doesn't matter if he only wins 8%, either as a Green or (far less likely) an independent. He's got the invitation from Jill Stein sitting out there. Earn matching funds, raise tens of millions a year, and run candidates across the country in two years. In four years, mount strong outsider candidates for major offices including president.

But I don't think Sanders has it in him. Too "constructive," as Chuck Schumer called him.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 1, 2016 at 2:32 pm

Does Sanders try to make nice with the Dem establishment, or, as Bubba_Gump at 8:58am below writes, he's too inflexible to make the right friends?

I still don't know what he's doing with the D establishment like Schumer.

Voters will vote him no matter where he goes.

Gaius Publius , June 1, 2016 at 2:56 pm

Sanders will lose his clout and things go back to normal.

He won't lose his list, and he now has more followers than any politician in America. He can run his project sitting in the Senate, using that list and his follower base to influence policy.

IMO. This is far from over.

GP

nat scientist , June 1, 2016 at 5:38 pm

The Internet will save Bernie just like it was envisioned by DARPA in the dawn of the Nixonan Age, built to survive thermo-nuclear annihilation like the ClinTrumpocalypse.

Tony S , June 1, 2016 at 4:18 pm

I don't think she'll win (the presidency) even if she DOESN'T implode. She has no message. She's banking on identity politics. That won't work in a change election.

It's just a question of degree. If she does get indicted, the Dems lose BIG under every possible scenario except Sanders. If she doesn't, she still probably loses, but at least it won't be a wipeout downballot.

Big River Bandido , June 1, 2016 at 6:00 pm

Downballot the Democrats have already been wiped out, for 22 years running.

Republicans hold 31 governorships to the Democrats' 18. Republicans hold 56% of all statehouse seats (Democrats 43%), and they control the lower house of 33 state legislatures (compared to 16 for the Democrats). It's difficult to even view the Democrats as a party, but if they are, they certainly have no depth of talent.

Add a highly disliked business-as-usual politician to the top of the ticket in a "change" election? Democrats won't have a prayer in the fall.

Fiver , June 2, 2016 at 4:34 am

As one who believes Clinton ought to withdraw before inflicting or sustaining any more damage in the certain knowledge that her candidacy has been hopelessly compromised, I would argue that Sanders is the one candidate now able to pull other contests along with is own. Sanders could swing it from a Republican Congress literally impaled by a lethal lack of talent to a Dem Congress with new faces and new marching orders for long-entrenched types. He really could go all the way in my opinion.

Brooklin Bridge , June 2, 2016 at 8:16 am

The voice of reason, which is why the choice you suggest will be the very last one ever taken – we won't see it. This isn't merry 'ol England, ok UK, where they still goof by letting votes get counted sometimes (Jeremy Corbyn).

hunkerdown , June 1, 2016 at 4:36 pm

The Democratic Party's working priority list apparently putting control over the Party above winning elections, I imagine they are very interested in doing the "impossible", if the benefits to the collaborative nexus of interest (i.e. the Party) of blocking Sanders - neoliberal "purity pledges" with other countries, State selling more Americans' labor abroad like cheap cord wood, inducing despair among the left (a favorite of the Israeli wing of the Party, who sees leftists like unto Hamas) - to the Party outweigh the loss of one election or even the ballot line. With a post-Citizens United machine and its "non-coordinated" universe of nomenklatura, ready to pick right back up where it left off with a New (Improved) Democrat Party (Same Great Taste!) or somesuch, constituted specifically to exclude popular participation, it's relatively cheap.

sleepy , June 1, 2016 at 10:35 am

And obviously the reason for the all out push by the media and the Clinton campaign to have Sanders throw in the towel before the convention which, of course, reached fever pitch the same week the IG's report came out.

JohnnyGL , June 1, 2016 at 11:02 am

This string of comments looks on target. I think this is the unstated reason why the primaries are STILL important.

If Bernie were to get swept on 6/7, he might fold. Every time he looks like he's losing steam, he gets a string of rallies with 10s of thousands of people and realizes that he CANNOT stop. There's too many people counting on him to save us from a Clinton/Trump nightmare.

If Bernie sweeps her on 6/7, the writing is on the wall at that point and she'll look like she's toast. FBI will get the green light and Dem elite will have to bite their tongues and deal with him.

My guess is that he wins 4/6 primaries on 6/7 and NM and NJ are losses, but somewhat closer than anticipated. Clinton will continue to act like it's over and the FBI will continue to dither and the convention floor ends up being a fight (prob won by Clinton).

A key question is, "When do the rank and file FBI agents lose patience and start leaking bad details to the media?"

Or do FBI agents start resigning in protest at the dithering of their superiors.

Obama/Clinton may have the top brass at FBI and DOJ on board, but if the rank and file decide to mutiny, then they can't save this sinking ship that is the SS Clinton!

sleepy , June 1, 2016 at 1:48 pm

You have to have tremendous admiration for Sanders to stick it out with what is obviously a physically and mentally grueling ordeal at the age of 74. I'm 65.

Of course both Trump and Hillary aren't much behind him in age, but Sanders is doing it imho out of principle and ideals, as well as respect for the public that has backed him. He must think back to himself as a young man in the 60s, and realize that this is a chance he could only have dreamt of 50 yrs. ago, and just can't turn his back on that.

Brooklin Bridge , June 2, 2016 at 8:21 am

Good observations. This has to be brutal, even for a veteran politician – particularly one who has kept scruples alive all these years.

Tony S , June 1, 2016 at 4:09 pm

"Getting her to the nomination" allows the D establishment, after she is forced to step down, to replace her with Biden/Warren or some other "anyone but Sanders" ticket with less trouble (party disunity, bad optics, turnout suppression) than if she implodes before the convention and the HRC delegates + superdelegates outright steal the nomination from Sanders.

If they do this, the Dems will lose in November. And badly. They won't get more than a handful of Sanders voters after this kind of a backstab, and the party will be (rightfully) perceived as a bunch of clueless clowns who thought a potential criminal would make a suitable nominee. Independents will strongly swing to Trump.

The question is, do the Democrats care? I can easily see the Dem establishment taking one for the bipartisan consensus beltway team in order to keep Sanders out of the White House. They never did much to support Gore and Kerry in the wake of their questionable defeats - and both of them were much more harmless to the establishment than Sanders.

jawbone , June 1, 2016 at 9:37 am

NSA did not give Hillary permission to use her own server? That is a known fact or surmised? Did she even run it by the NSA, other pertinent agencies?

Bcz, if I were in charge of the NSA I'd damn well make sure the agency knew exactly what she was doing with that server….

Minnie Mouse , June 1, 2016 at 11:30 am

What would the e-mail address of a private server look like? Would it be apparent to anybody who encountered it to be something – say – non standard? But keep your mouth shut.

reslez , June 1, 2016 at 1:28 pm

Well, her official email address as SecState would have ended in @state.gov. The address she actually used was @clintonemail.com. It was obvious to everyone what she was doing. If you work in the State Dept, do you question your boss over something like that? Maybe not, you might assume it was cleared somehow. It looks like IT and Security people were appalled.

Jake , June 1, 2016 at 1:32 pm

[email protected]

reslez , June 1, 2016 at 1:25 pm

The IG report found no evidence she had permission from anyone to use her own email server nor any record of her even asking for permission. Which contradicts statements she made elsewhere.

3.14e-9 , June 1, 2016 at 10:26 pm

Has Clinton ever actually said that the State Department allowed her to have a private server at home and that everyone knew about it? What I've heard her say, and what I took away from the little bit of the Mills deposition that I've read so far, is that the State Department knew she had her own email account ; that use of a personal email account was allowed , and that others before her also did it, most notably Colin Powell.

Anyone can buy a domain using their last name plus "email.com," or whatever variation thereof is available. However, most people (presumably) use a hosting service. It seems obvious to me that there's a huge difference between having a personal email account and storing said email on a server in your basement, but Clinton appears to have succeeded in conflating the two in the public's mind. Her supporters certainly seem satisfied, particularly since she has apologized and openly admitted to a lapse in judgment. I'm not a techie, so maybe I'm meowing up the wrong telephone pole. Tech people here, what's your take?

If I'm right about the distinction and what they've actually said, Clinton and Mills could well be telling the truth that many people at DOS knew she was using private email, and that it was allowed, even for official government business. It's unlikely that her clintonemail.com address raised many eyebrows, even among those who noticed – and many might not have, because once her address was in their contact list, the extension probably wasn't displayed. The big exception was at the very beginning, when her clintonemail address was getting stuck in DOS spam filters and had to be put on a safe sender list, or something to that effect.

Of those who noticed she wasn't using a .gov address, how many would have thought about the server she was using, and how many of those would have imagined that her office hadn't gone through proper security procedures? It's quite plausible that the only people knowledgeable enough to be concerned were the IT security people, and when a couple of them eventually did raise questions, they were told to keep quiet about it.

fresno dan , June 1, 2016 at 12:12 pm

Pat
June 1, 2016 at 7:06 am

Nicely said!
'what DID she have to hide'.

At some point, some of the substance of what was hidden will be revealed – it is terribly hard to believe that it will be that she donated a kidney to a Syrian refugee….(Oh look, she looks sickly because she is SOOOOO Noble!!!)

Lambert Strether , June 1, 2016 at 3:02 pm

The problem is that the "Clinton sycophants and tribal Dems" are a large part of the Democrat base and an even larger part of the Democrat establishment.

I don't see how they get talked off the ledge (absent Clinton "discovering" new medical problems (or even Bill, maybe)).

Samuel Conner , June 1, 2016 at 7:51 am

Not mentioned in this item, but relevant to Obama's legacy, is that he left the State Dept IG post unfilled by a permanent appointment throughout HRC's tenure as Secy State. The acting IG was a career State Dept official, and did not rock HRC's boat. Obama is implicated in HRC's misdeeds in the sense that he left the barn door open for her. There's a sense in which the HRC email scandal may become part of Obama's legacy, whatever he does now. As Yves sometimes puts it, this has been an unnecessary "own goal".

nycTerrierist , June 1, 2016 at 9:47 am

Interesting! good catch.

tegnost , June 1, 2016 at 11:19 am

Are you sure it wasn't hillary who, as head of state dept., was tasked with appointing an IG?

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 1, 2016 at 3:01 pm

I think you're right.

That raises another question – conflict of interest for her (any future secretary) to make that appointment.

A third question is if there is a time limit to have the office filled. Otherwise, the way to get around it is to delay and run the clock out.

LizinOregon , June 1, 2016 at 7:25 pm

No. The IG's of major agencies are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Here is an interesting article which hints that using acting-IG's makes them less independent and is being done intentionally by the Obama Administration. They have the longest vacancies of any recent President.

http://www.govexec.com/oversight/2015/06/senators-obama-fill-inspector-general-vacancies/114412/

tegnost , June 1, 2016 at 8:27 pm

thanks for that, here's a tidbit, I notice the ex-im bank and international development are (not likely there's any double dealing going on there, no, nothing to see here as long as you don't look) unmanned, among others

"Currently, said Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department IG who chairs the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, IG slots are vacant at seven major agencies: Interior, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Veterans Affairs Department, the General Services Administration, the Export-Import Bank and the CIA All but the CIA's have been empty a year or more, he said, and the Obama administration has submitted nominations for only three."

and also this

"{"When IG positions remain unfilled, their offices are run by acting IGs who, no matter how qualified or well-intentioned, are not granted the same protections afforded to Senate-confirmed IGs," said Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis. "They are not truly independent, as they can be removed by the agency at any time; they are only temporary and do not drive office policy; and they are at greater risk of compromising their work to appease the agency or the president."}"

Tom in AZ , June 2, 2016 at 1:12 am

Are you sure that he didn't nominate anyone, or did the Senate just refuse to give them a hearing, as in the SC situation now?

Pavel , June 1, 2016 at 7:55 am

I browsed through the Cheryl Mills deposition yesterday (which was mainly the lawyers arguing about the scope of the discussion it seemed) and some of the coverage today. It seems that Mills claimed that HRC's use of the private email was not kept secret and lots of Admin officials knew about it. (Note that people had to make a special request to be able to use her email.) But Obama claimed he only learned of it "like the rest of you, in the news reports". So Obama and Hillary never emailed each other while she was SoS?

human , June 1, 2016 at 8:39 am

I don't find it surprising that they did not communicate directly. Plausible deniability. What we have is a career civil servant intent on influence peddling and a figurehead interested only in legacy burnishing. They are a perfect fit … as long as they stay out of each others way.

Qrys , June 1, 2016 at 8:52 am

To your last comment: I suspect not. They never were chummy esp. after all the heat of the campaign: "You're likeable enough, Hillary". Obama has plenty of staff to wrangle correspondence for that, and his aides being middle-persons (and likely being of a generation that put a lot more trust in technology at the time) likely didn't think that hard about it…

oh , June 1, 2016 at 3:20 pm

They never were chummy esp. after all the heat of the campaign: "You're likeable enough, Hillary". Is there any confirmation of that besides rumors?

grayslady , June 1, 2016 at 9:22 am

It was reported last January that there were eighteen emails between Clinton and Obama that State was not going to release for security reasons. So yes, they did email each other. It would be interesting to know what security instructions Obama received regarding using his email. Did anyone ever caution him to check the sender's email address as a caution against phishing? Her email address was clintonemail dot com. Even a technical neophyte has to know that means either she or some other entity was hosting the site; and, if a separate entity, did that entity have security clearance for handling those emails? Obama knew darn well that she was using an unsecure system. He is equally guilty of enabling her risk-taking.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 1, 2016 at 12:27 pm

Maybe the FBI can investigate just how many people have mishandled classified information.

10,000 government workers?

100,000?

If one can be in trouble for taking a selfie before a classified equipment, that one wasn't aware so (as fajensen wrote above), can one be in trouble for opening a letter, a disk or a laptop (mistakenly delivered or left behind) containing classified information?

fajensen , June 2, 2016 at 7:07 am

Within the perimeter of a secure environment, you bet you can!

Any paper, CD, computer, phone, …. left alone in the open is already a violation. At the place I consulted at, there are prominent red+white background with the 3-digit number to call for security in *all* cases. Everything has to be locked away, even if one is going for coffee or toilet, one must leave all electronics at the gate. "No mistakes are possible, only conspiracies" the thinking goes.

If one picks any abandoned device / media up, well, it's kind of the same situation as when you find a gun on a park bench: Pick it up "for safety", but now your finger-prints are all over it. And now the police shows up because someone reported the gun …

The very minimum price is a really tedious debriefing by security and punitive training from HR in the handling of classified material. Maybe some Gender Diversity or Cultural Awareness on top because you cursed at the debriefing.

Maximum … about 30 years.

Outside the classified zone, it's easier.

If you find an unsecured laptop or briefcase that – per long-standing British security tradition – was left on the London Tube, you are probably not in trouble, you can even hand it over to The Daily Mail or whatever for a "reward" since the HMG doesn't pay any. Don't sell it on eBay though. China and Russia may buy and then … it's espionage.

Kurt Sperry , June 1, 2016 at 10:03 am

I had the exact same thought. How do the POTUS and SOS not have any record of electronic communication between them, zero?

craazyboy , June 1, 2016 at 1:50 pm

For important stuff, they use "The Cone of Silence".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1eUIK9CihA

thoughtful person , June 1, 2016 at 8:06 am

"because her real business is selling access to government and its monies or services to those with the funds to afford the Clintons. But most people are reacting to the sheer arrogance of the "law doesn't apply to me" attitude and the lies about it so far. But the longer this stays around the more it will become 'what DID she have to hide'."

Good point. Proceedeing to conduct the public's business in private is the smoke. Many suspect the donations to the Clinton foundation by various entities with business beefier the state dept, could be the fire…

dk , June 1, 2016 at 8:54 am

That's it. A point being skirted by just about everyone in the MSM. Smoke here, smoke there, and a black hole in the middle.

redleg , June 1, 2016 at 9:16 am

They (DOJ) don't have to charge/indict her with anything to Hindenburg her campaign. RICO the Foundation and it's over.
I'll bet that's why the FBI is taking so long- the email investigation has spread to the Foundation. The media isn't going there and the FBI had already leaked that they are looking into it.

jawbone , June 1, 2016 at 9:43 am

The "real business" of the Corporatist Dems is –ta dah!– creating more wealth for the Big Whatevers and making sure they donate enough of their wealth to get the right Corporatist Dems elected. And, of course, making sure that those who serve the Big Corporations and Big Whatevers well are granted true wealth once out of office.

And with more wealth comes even more power

it is stunning how very wealthy (as far as we know) the Clintons have become in such a short time. But it somewhat stunning how very wealthy Corporatist Dems in general become….

Bryan , June 1, 2016 at 11:52 am

Here is a liberal publication clearly suggesting this same point last year:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

NYPaul , June 1, 2016 at 1:34 pm

The public doesn't do nuance; it requires in-your-face visuals: "little girl + the daisy, Willie Horton, blue dress."

I wonder what the reaction would be to a montage, with the caption, "I would never let campaign contributions influence my decisions."

First, Hillary collecting $675,000+ for a couple of Goldman speeches…….."They offered it"………cackle.

Then, Bill, with a photo of the "Lolita Express" flying overhead (poetic license:)

Repeatedly requesting permission from State to travel to Africa to meet with Joseph Kabila, the murderous Dictator of the poorest country on earth, the Republic of Congo. The butcher had offered Clinton $650,000 to give a short talk, and have his picture taken with the Ex-President. The request was so outrageous it was, of course, summarily turned down. Not to be deterred so easily, the Big Dog persisted, telling an aide to try again, this time making sure the decision maker at State knew it was B.C. personally making the request. Turned down again, Willie shifted gears, "what if the fee was paid to the Foundation (or, GCI, not sure,) and not directly to me?"

We should be thankful intermediaries had the good sense to , diplomatically, tell Bill to, basically, get-the-F- outta here with this request. But, naturally, it's the optic of this Ex-President even requesting such an inappropriate meeting that, so perfectly, illustrates how far down the sleaze ladder the Clintons have descended.

Oh, you can toss in that, "we came, we saw, he died"……….. extended cackle video for good measure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

dk , June 1, 2016 at 8:09 am

Considering that Obama sees Clinton as part of his legacy, I think there will be some limit to how far he (his people) will go to protect her. A thoroughly tainted Hillary doesn't serve his interest. I read the Bernstein statements as first step away from HRC, and not a tiny one either. "… no longer 100% sure of …" implies "we don't guarantee it".

And the Obama and Clinton teams never warmed to each other, even during her tenure at SoS. (Team) Obama is certainly upset about the prospect of a Clinton failure, but they're not shedding any tears.

Skip Intro , June 2, 2016 at 12:26 pm

The first step may have been his 'jokes' at the WH correspondents' dinner.

PlutoniumKun , June 1, 2016 at 8:10 am

What I don't really get is the motivation for allowing stories like this to leak out, if its not to undermine Clinton?

The way I see it, if Obama was truly, deeply invested in Clinton winning (and I'd be surprised at that, given that we know he doesn't really like her), he would be working hard behind the scenes to shore her up. Get her over the finishing line of the convention, and then deal with things after that as they arise. This sort of leak can only weaken her significantly and maybe even encourage a few superdelegates to start thinking Sanders is a safer option.

The only motivation I can think is to lay the groundwork for a coup against her (and, by definition, Sanders). I'm no expert on internal Dem rules and what is possible legally, but it always seemed to me that the logical and route for Obama to preserve his legacy and ensure a Dem win is to make private calls to senior Dems and say 'trust me, I've seen the legal documents, Clinton is finished, I know she can't get out of this', and then parlay a face saving climbdown (glass of whiskey, gun, private room, medical cert) for Clinton in order to put forward a 'safe' ticket at the convention (Kerry/Biden?). Is it possible for her to transfer her elected delegates to AN Other?

pretzelattack , June 1, 2016 at 8:19 am

well, that would likely tear the party apart. i think they would rather trump win than sanders, but imposing biden/kerry or some such is a risky strategy in the present environment. i think the natural impulse of these people is to be risk averse, and in their bubble they might not be able to gauge the risk.

dk , June 1, 2016 at 8:52 am

I don't think it would tear the party apart, it would just upset the Dem consultants and vendors. Sanders reliance on small donations completely upsets their economic model, which is based on a revenue stream from big donors. Big donors aren't interested in supporting populist goals, ergo populist goals are not money-makers.

On the other hand, a Sanders general candidacy would expose all the Hillary supporters currently making the "party loyalty" and "not another Nader" arguments to be completely specious if they didn't pitch in. Some might have the stomach for that, but most are herd followers to begin with. And the threat of Trump is completely real, regardless (unless the Reps manage to pull a fast one at their convention… which would completely sever that last leg Clinton is standing on).

sid_finster , June 1, 2016 at 10:36 am

Not to mention a Sanders win would render the DNC, their networks, their influence, and yes, their ability to fundraise, irrelevant.

They would no longer be gatekeepers. They would not be necessary for a candidate to win.

Someone else put it best. The DNC does not fear that Sanders will lose. They fear Sanders winning.

Bryan , June 1, 2016 at 12:04 pm

Exactly this. Like vampires, the DNC must find a way to cannibalize the energy of Sanders' supporters in order to re-invogorate a moribund Party, while not losing influence over it.

But the two fundraising models cannot live comfortably in one party for long, certainly not if the corp/elite funding continues to determine the Party's direction.

Sanders is risking a historic misstep in staying within the Party too long. He's right to stay so long as Clinton is capable of imploding, but the moment he's pressured to go full sheepdog in support of Clinton, he has to step away and use the funding structure to build a truly left/populist party.

I doubt he will. He wants her to win instead of Trump, and the DNC types will outmaneuver him because of this. I fear all of the concessions he wins in exchange for his cherished email list will be for nothing once the real game begins.

human , June 1, 2016 at 3:33 pm

Ah yes. The ultimate snatch of defeat from the jaws of victory. The Dems have always been performance artists extraordinaire.

Harold , June 1, 2016 at 7:04 pm

Not to forget. "The Blob" doesn't like Sanders.

PlutoniumKun , June 1, 2016 at 9:15 am

Is it really a risk of tearing the party apart? If managed right, it could be sold as a 'unifying' move to heal the wounds of the nomination process, etc., etc. Especially if a genuine left winger was added as vice prez. The leadership is risk averse, but they can also be ruthless, and they may see the risk of a catastrophic Clinton meltdown as a greater risk.

JohnnyGL , June 1, 2016 at 11:21 am

DNC is desperately hoping for a knockout blow on 6/7. Wins in states like CA for Sanders would only rile up his supporters even more.

If they dare to push a Biden/Kerry ticket, it's going to been seen as a "coup". Tensions are already visibly raised after the NV debacle. DNC tried playing hardball and smearing him and his supporters and he didn't fold. It seems like the Dem elite might be backing off on these tactics.

A Biden/Kerry ticket would really escalate things and probably make Sanders bolt to the Green Party for the general election. Under those circumstances, he'd bring a TON of voters with him. He'd even bring Clinton sympathizers that don't like the DNC's bait-and-switch tactics.

They need Sanders to fade away and fall in line. Every state he wins, every rally with 10s of thousands showing up make it harder and harder to make that happen.

Pavel , June 1, 2016 at 12:31 pm

Given that the mood of the electorate both left and rightwing is "anti-establishment", I don't see why on earth the Dems would choose Biden/Kerry… how much more establishment could one get?

At least offer Warren (and get the "first female president" too boot) and throw Sanders a bone - he's too old for VP but could have a cabinet post. Or Senate Majority Leader? (That is probably too critical a post for the Schumer/Feinstein axis though.)

aab , June 1, 2016 at 7:29 pm

There is no genuine left winger to put on as VP. Or rather, they would NEVER put a real left winger in, given Clinton's possible impeachment or death.

Now that Elizabeth Warren is being a good girl and playing footsie with Schumer, I can see them thinking putting her in as VP would work well enough. I don't think so (in my neck of the progressive woods, there seems to be a general understanding that she sold out), but more importantly, I can't imagine Hillary stepping away only to see Liz moved in.

Their smartest real play would be to let Bernie have the nom and bide their time, hoping they can work in the background with Republicans to taint and undermine him. But I suspect that they're exactly smart enough to know that probably wouldn't work.

EoinW , June 1, 2016 at 10:32 am

Exactly right! In their bubble, in their world where they manufacture their own reality, can they gauge risk? I highly doubt it. The establishment needs an establishment candidate. That's why Sanders will never get the nomination. Given the freak out on the republican side just over speculating stealing the nomination from Trump, I think it comical anyone could believe the democrats could airlift Biden in and get away with it. Such an act would simply be establishment desperation – the only Plan B they could come up with.

Given the vote rigging Sanders supporters believe has been going on, I doubt any will vote for Clinton. How many would vote Trump and how many would sit out is open for speculation. However give the nomination to Biden and i think you're guaranteeing a landslide of Sanders supporters pinching their noses and voting Trump. They'd be just angry enough.

Clinton or Biden? it doesn't matter as Trump wins in a rout. Sanders would be a close call but he'll never get the nomination. The establishment must have skin in the game until they finally get what they deserve in November.

I'll also add that i'm not holding my breath that Trump is the instant panacea to save America. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see him cutting deals like crazy with the establishment behind the scenes or after elected. He won't need the unwashed masses after November. Doesn't mean he does that and even if he cuts some deals he'll still do more good than any establishment candidate. More and more American voters see him as the only non-establishment option. It's never really been about Trump. It's about American voters lashing out at the elites. Trump was simply clever enough to present himself as the great non-professional politician for people to turn to.

James Levy , June 1, 2016 at 12:08 pm

People keep saying this about Sanders voters but I know five (three in my family) who will without fail vote for Clinton over Trump because they hate Trump, see him as a bigot and a fool, and expect Clinton to be Obama's third term, which they can live with.

I don't agree with them, but this endlessly repeated meme that Sanders voters will NEVER vote for Clinton is, I think, wishful thinking.

EoinW , June 1, 2016 at 12:27 pm

Guilty as charged! Wishful thinking indeed. Guess I can't condemn those for thinking an Obama like 3rd term would be a better result. I suppose any kind of thinking falls flat when confronted with the people who live in a highly materialistic and superficial society. Trump optics are very unPresidential and that counts for a great deal in a society(not just the US) that has been conditioned to rever the president of the USA.

Won't even touch on the Left and the Culture War because I've made that point previously.

tegnost , June 1, 2016 at 1:24 pm

my rich friends (lifetime republicans included) will vote for hillary, my poor friends won't. The PTB have created more poor people tha they have wealthy so the numbers won't work for hillary unless a lot of republicans vote for her, which is not a stretch because she is a republican. But since we talk about nader costing gore (really it was dinos for bush) by taking 500 odd votes the sanders deserters (including me, i will not vote for hillary under any circumstances, and not because I think trump is good in any way, hillary is worse IMO) will exact their revenge even as their more comfortable peers who have and continue to benefit from the rigged game go for hillary. We really have no idea how this will pan out. So yes, some sanders supporters will be badgered into clinton, but I think that's a small percentage, people inclined to support hillary already support her, most of sanders voters are the castaways. Sorry, can't go along with the endless drone strikes of the 5th term of GWB. Hillary is not the peace candidate.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 1, 2016 at 2:17 pm

Clinton voters – those not in the establishment, that is – seem to be the silent type.

You don't see them here or hear them on radio often (just yesterday, on the local public radio, almost all the callers were for Sanders – it made me wonder if Hillary would lose 0 to 100 in the upcoming California primary).

aab , June 1, 2016 at 7:34 pm

Clinton voters are the small amount type. She has only "won," even in the states she did did "win," by massively suppressing the vote. She hasn't even held onto her own voters from 2008, even in conservative states. Her "big wins" in the South were with much smaller numbers of votes cast. There are people who genuinely want to vote for her. They were not enough to win the Democratic primary without massive suppression AND theft.

Lambert Strether , June 1, 2016 at 3:07 pm

Some will, some won't. How many is to be decided. If Sanders gives his list to the Democrats, I will certainly vote for Trump. I would rather have Götterdämmerung immediately, then have it play out.

ScottW , June 1, 2016 at 8:13 am

The problem for Hillary is there is no indication the email scandal narrative will ever improve to the point of improving her untrustworthy numbers. The best she can hope for is the FBI stating it will not recommend an indictment which will merely confirm the public's correct perception that the power elite are treated better than the rank and file. Hillary cannot unring the Inspector General's conclusion she circumvented FOIA and federal record keeping laws. She cannot undue the fact she maintained thousands of classified records, along with 22 top secret documents on the private server. She cannot change the fact she hid her use of the private server from the public and only disclosed it when caught by the Senate Committee investigating Benghazi. Everyone who pays attention to the facts is disgusted by her misconduct in this matter.

Loyal Hillary supporters are the only ones willing to buy into the unbelievable rationales floated the past year. For the rest of us, everything we learn merely confirms what we previously thought. That Hillary cannot be trusted, wants to avoid public scrutiny and believes she is above the law. Everything we learn about the email scandal is much worse than initially portrayed by Hillary.

As the article states–this is all on Hillary who for over 1,200 days intentionally used a private email basement server despite being told not to do so. She had numerous opportunities to right her wrongs, but insisted on doing what she wanted to do because that is always how the Clintons operate. There is no way Hillary, Bill and her team of misfits should be allowed within a hundred miles of the oval office. Sadly, Donald will win if Hillary remains the Democrats candidate of choice.

the blame/e , June 1, 2016 at 8:19 am

I believe we can plainly chart the "decay path" (lovely phrase BTW), of Hillary Clinton's failed attempts to secure the highest office of the land just by looking at pictures of Monica Lewinsky from 1998 until today.

The true decay path would have been the trajectory Bill Clinton's baggage would have taken, from the White House to the South Lawn, had Hillary Clinton thrown the bum out in 1998.

I have always been confused by which woman Bill Clinton was lying straight faced about when the then President of the United States declared before the whole world: "I did not have sex with that woman."

At the time of the scandal, Hillary Clinton was First Lady of the United States of America, the most powerful women in the free world. Imagine what her standing-up for women everywhere would have had, let alone upon the current states of "family values" (so-called)? Imagine the affect her standing up for herself would have had upon the women of the world?

Instead she used her power to play the "little woman," when she could have assured herself two (2) terms as President of the United States, even guaranteed herself the title of being the first Empress of the United States of America if she had wanted.

As it stands, Bill Clinton's legacy is not how he ruined one woman, but two (2).

twisted , June 1, 2016 at 9:38 am

I'm sorry, mate. I have to disagree.

Who Mr Clinton shags is his business and his wife's*. Hillary came out smelling like roses. She got sympathy as devoted wife whose hubby screwed around and, in my view, damn near universal understanding for her decision to honour her marriage by staying with her hubby.

I think her problem is that, in routing official traffic through a private mail server, she's tried to avoid records of her work (as a public official!) ever becoming available to the public. It looks, at the very least, like she's trying to hide something and it's a demonstration of breathtaking contempt for the very people whose votes she's now asking for.

That the Democrat brains trust knew all this and still decided to try and coronate her leads me to suspect that they've become completely divorced from reality. Any halfway credible candidate would trample over whoever the R's pick.

* How classy, not to mention politically astute, would it have been if the R's could have kept their frothing to themselves and made a single public statement along those lines and got on with the business of serving their constituents.

Cry Shop , June 1, 2016 at 11:36 am

If he shagged under the legal age limit girls, traveled on a jet which was used in slave trade of underage girls, etc; then it isn't just his business, it's a criminal matter. If Mrs. Clinton enabled, and/or aided and abetted, then she could be facing criminal charges.

The interesting thing is Jeffery Epstein has hidden cameras on both his plane and all over the US Virgin Island private pedophile reserve he ran for politicians and high level government officials. The overseas press is reporting he blackmailed his way out of Federal Charges. Was Bill part of that blackmail?

the blame/e , June 1, 2016 at 1:08 pm

Only if his private business remains private.

Yves Smith Post author , June 1, 2016 at 4:36 pm

In a word, no.

Bill is a sexual predator. His affair with Jennifer Flower was consensual. But starting from when he was Governor, there is a long list of credible allegations of him engaging in sexual harassment (extremely aggressive come-ons with women he had just met, often women who were state employees or Dem consultatnts), including a rape allegation by Juanita Brodderick. We've even had a reader in comments say that when Bill Clinton visited a friend, he asked their college aged daughter when he was alone with her if she wanted to ride in his car and give him a blow job. DC contacts confirm the city is rife with stories like that.

reslez , June 1, 2016 at 1:43 pm

> Hillary Clinton was First Lady of the United States of America, the most powerful women in the free world

Most powerful woman in the world? Somebody's wife? Lord I hope not. Surely there was a female head of state or a Supreme Court Justice or something with better claim.

Skippy , June 1, 2016 at 8:25 am

Clinton's… poster children for Flexians… Disheveled Marsupial… at least the loon pond and wing nutters are open about their insanity… something about the inelasticity of beliefs…

Northeaster , June 1, 2016 at 8:25 am

If there were an equal rule of law in this country, we would not even be discussing this issue as Clinton would have already been indicted by now. The recent Wikileaks release shows exactly how complicit Clinton is, was, and will always be, a truly evil human being.

Chibboleth , June 1, 2016 at 8:50 am

As strange a thing as this is to say, I find myself wishing that more journalists had experience in IT security. I do have such experience, and from what I can see most people really don't appreciate just how totally, ludicrously irresponsible it is for that server to exist. Talk of it having been "secured" by some lone IT contractor is ridiculous on its face. I wouldn't run a homebrew email server, and I am basically not worth hacking – very much unlike the US Secretary of State.

Seriously, think about it. The Secretary of State had a private email server which seems to have been widely known about within the State Department and other people in government who had dealings with Hillary Clinton. There's really no question as to if that thing was hacked – you can absolutely bet your ass that multiple foreign intelligence services have been in and out of that thing.

That's what's really galling to me – even by Hillary's own stated standards, what she did with her email is orders of magnitude worse than what Snowden did. But it's Hillary Clinton, so it gets handwaved by the Democrats' long practice at assuming a Clinton scandal is overblown nonsense.

voteforno6 , June 1, 2016 at 9:46 am

To be fair, a large number of Clinton scandals have been overblown nonsense…I think Democrats have gotten so used to fighting off those attacks, that they just assume the same when something real pops up.

As for the irresponsibility of maintaining that homebrew server, I've tried to explain on other forums how it was actually worse than getting it through a commercial provider, or even what Powell did. The responses were usually along the lines of "it wasn't hacked." Sigh.

washunate , June 1, 2016 at 10:20 am

Agreed. But that's the thing. These events aren't about the substantive IT issues. They're just part of concentration of wealth and power; the authoritarians in both major parties are control freaks who work together in bipartisan cooperation. Laws are for the little people. The ruling class is above the law. The role of the media is to enforce this system, not challenge it.

That's why people like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake, Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou, Joe Wilson, and so forth are persecuted by the government while people like Clinton (and Petraeus, Novack, Libby, Bush, Cheney, Obama, Biden, etc.) are protected. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of events.

Just as one example, here's the 'ole Gray Lady serving as dutiful stenographer for Nancy Pelosi herself, the Democratic Speaker from San Francisco, supposedly one of the most liberal parts of the entire country, explaining that the law doesn't apply to people in power.

Peter Bernhardt , June 1, 2016 at 10:21 am

Agreed. I've worked in IT and software development for years and agree that her provision of that server doesn't meet the most basic requirements for security. Also, I work for a rather large company with a sizable federal contract and, if you haven't contracted with the government, you can only imagine the levels of security they impose upon their vendors. Two-factor authentication, encryption at rest, kernel hardening and on and on. Not only do you HAVE to do these things if you want to do business with the government, they bring in teams of their IT people to audit you. And it is not perfunctory in any way. They take InfoSec very, very seriously.

Rule no 1 of security: a system is only as secure as its weakest link. Imagine how anyone who abides by the strict security requirements necessary to work in or for government feels when learning about Clinton's cavalier disregard for the law? Her arrogant refusal to play by the same rules as the people she is supposed to lead? In fact, her behavior put the entire system and people's lives at risk.

She fails the most basic test of genuine leadership. Yet another important example of why she is unfit to be president.

voteforno6 , June 1, 2016 at 10:51 am

The Clintons certainly do have a habit of pushing into that gray area between what is legal and what is acceptable.

Bryan , June 1, 2016 at 2:19 pm

It's not the lack of IT security experience that's keeping journalists from writing about it more critically.

Lambert Strether , June 1, 2016 at 3:11 pm

Chuck Todd, of all people, gets this right (paraphrasing): "When I think of convenience, I don't think of running an email server in my house."

Even a WiFi router is too much…

Jack Heape , June 1, 2016 at 8:55 am

Good article. The IG's report was the crack in the dam and I believe soon the whole sordid mess that Clinton has created for herself will come flooding through. I think Bernstein's messaging was to the Democratic party as a whole that its time to pursue other avenues. And there are other rumblings as well. Yesterday in the WSJ was this op-ed which made many of the same points that were made here, as well as discusses the fallout if Clinton loses the California primary. I also think that the Dems are not only just worried about the nomination now. The IG's report clears a path for hearings by the Republicans against Clinton after the election.

Bubba_Gump , June 1, 2016 at 8:58 am

What pisses me off to no end is the fact that the party and media are unwilling to pivot to Sanders. He could win the general, perhaps more easily that HRC. But Sanders is also to blame on this for being so completely inflexible that he can't make the right friends.

Roger Smith , June 1, 2016 at 9:31 am

That is a positive for him generally though. These people don't want "friends" they want others who are willing to play ball. Sanders says GTFO, enough is enough.

The truth was never going to sit well with these selfish fools and their sycophants.

RUKidding , June 1, 2016 at 11:48 am

I agree. Sanders has nothing to gain and a lot to lose by "making nice" with the Dem establishment. Why make nice with them? They are the problem, not the solution. That's a mainstay of Sanders' campaign.

NotTimothyGeithner , June 1, 2016 at 12:33 pm

Sanders is the ranking member on the budget committee and has been the chair of the veterans affairs committee. Those are plum jobs which demonstrates the Democratic Party is not a political party by any normal standard because you don't give the best jobs to people outside the party unless you need to.

The Clinton fanaticism isn't about Sanders. They believe they need Clinton. An active DoJ might be a threat. A few have backwards ideas about politics. Some simply did the believe Sanders when he said Hillary was weak, but with a Gabbard in play, many Democrats can kiss their ambitions good bye if Sanders wins.

sid_finster , June 1, 2016 at 12:48 pm

I've said it elsewhere: Sanders is unacceptable to the DNC because a Sanders win would render the DNC networks, influence and fundraising abilities irrelevant overnight. The DNC would no longer be gatekeepers. You can win without them. Thus, Team D does not fear a Sanders defeat, and they can live with President Trump. In fact, that would represent an unprecedented fundraising opportunity. But from the Team D perspective, a Sanders victory must be prevented at all costs.

FluffytheObeseCat , June 1, 2016 at 1:16 pm

How the hell could Sanders "make friends" with members of the Democratic Party elite? He is blowing up their revolving-door-greasing funding model. Running as effectively as he has with almost no lobbyist money? No major corporate donors to speak of? What can he offer them, except unpleasant changes that negatively impact their careers?

Jen , June 1, 2016 at 5:01 pm

Depends on whom one includes in the elite, and what one means by negatively. Are the super delegates who aspire to be on the ticket in November running for their own amusement? If so, I suppose they don't care whether they ride on Sanders coat tails or sail off the cliff on whomever the elite deem the nominee should be. Would you rather be the Senate minority leader, or the Senate majority leader. House minority leader, or speaker of the house? I have no idea where the power lies here, but I admit that am curious about Pelosi's non stance, and Reid's pivot, with almost unseemly hast, from saying Sanders needed to get in line, to that he would be more powerful when he returned to the senate, to saying: "hands off." And sandwiched in between saying no way in hell would he tolerate a senate vp coming from a state with a Republican governor. Assuming he has any actual say in the matter, that would torpedo the preferred sop to the Sandernistas: Warren. Reid is of course gone either way, but Schumer is next in line is he not? What do I know, but it's entertaining to speculate.

Antifa , June 1, 2016 at 9:01 am

When Carl Bernstein opens with, "The implications of all of this are that Hillary Clinton did not want her emails subjected to the Freedom of Information Act or subpoenas from Congress. And that's why she set up a home-brew server" he is only telling half the truth, and is framing the conversation around her supposedly innocent desire for a little privacy. Pretty good lying, Carl.

But this is definitely putting a lot of spin on the ball, because the other half of the story is the reason WHY she wanted to avoid FOIA and Congressional scrutiny. The answer is: so that between her and Bill she could sell her office to the highest bidders, which the FBI is quite prepared to prove, or if denied that chance, to "leak like crazy" to the media. Good Lord, the FBI is even considering treating the Clinton Foundation as a Racketeering Influenced Criminal Organization. There's no chance this is going to just go away.

Given this likelihood of the full story going public in any case, given the completely independent Judicial Watch investigation, and given that the Russian media actually printed Clinton emails in their newspapers back in 2013 - and claim to have 20,000 of her emails in hand that they can release at any time - there's no practical path for the White House or DNC to stonewall or to clamp a lid on this affair, and roll Hillary across the finish line to the nomination on a hospital gurney if that's what it takes.

The same problem exists with pardoning her prior to prosecution - it won't silence FBI leaks, or the Russians, or Judicial Watch, or whomever else wishes to leak the full truth to the morning papers. The public will be fed a steady discovery of exactly what Obama's unconditional pardon actually covered. It will be a magical expanding pardon - starting out as a balloon but growing within months to the size of the Hindenburg before burning to the ground along with Obama's legacy.

As to what the White House knows that they aren't leaking - that would be the devastating damage Hillary's loss of state secrets has done, none of which can ever be shared with the public. If covert CIA operations have been ruined, if agents have been exposed, arrested or killed, if someone's name has gone up on that wall of heroes in the CIA lobby because of Hillary Clinton, the CIA will not forgive, ever. Nor will they tolerate letting her gain the Oval Office, where she can hire, fire and otherwise direct them. The NSA is known to be well aware of her public corruption of the SoS office, and of the wholesale money-laundering of the Clinton Foundation, which Charles Ortel is now meticulously publishing in the form of PDF files covering every separate arena of corruption ongoing over there. They don't want her as their boss, either. Steps can be taken to prevent that from happening, with no risk of exposure.

Hillary's got no way out of her legal troubles other than suddenly checking into a hospital and being declared terminal. Everyone will hold off, at that point. Until she fails to pass away by the weekend, at which point her legal nightmare resumes its course. So no, she's got no way out of what's coming, and no actual path to the White House.

All of which leaves the Democratic Party with only two options:

a) get her nominated at the Convention even if it's by just one vote, but hand pick her VP for her so that person can be the real candidate when she drops out well before November. Problem: Hillary has spent several years scorching the earth for other Dem candidates. Nobody has any organization or resume to suddenly step into her shoes and expect anyone to vote for them in November. If Kerry is their only choice, please don't bother.

b) induce Hillary to drop out before the Convention, and let the Convention be brokered. Don't elect Bernie Sanders on the first round, and after that you're home free - keep voting, round after round, until delegates finally accept your Hillary replacement which isn't Bernie Sanders. Oh, it will be a raucous, riotous event, but it's all above board, and by the rules. Caution: this course of action carries a high risk of nominating Bernie Sanders.

shinola , June 1, 2016 at 11:24 am

Just speculation, but by keeping quiet the NSA/CIA/FBI could be "investing" in blackmail futures. The ghost of J. Edgar may still be lurking somewhere in D.C.

Antifa , June 1, 2016 at 11:50 am

If it is, it's wearing a dress . . . he was fond of floral prints over tight girdles.

Ping , June 1, 2016 at 1:02 pm

The Clinton Foundation, which controls billions in an opaque labrynth structure and funded by war profiteers, crass political operatives and those with corrupt cynical motives, functions like the treasury for a supra national shadow regime.

When this story finally unravels, and it will, it will make WaterGate, IranGate look like a kiddy party.

Code Name D , June 1, 2016 at 1:20 pm

I am inclined to agree. Even the mere mention of RICO might mean the FBI is stalking bigger game – the Clinton Foundation? The Democratic Party itself?

Ping , June 1, 2016 at 2:22 pm

The Libya correspondence between Blumenthal, a Clinton Foundation employee who also representes a security firm evidently poised to be contracted there and HC is an example.

Given all these wheeling and dealing interscections between SOS Hillary and the Clinton Foundation's unwholesome donors
and the extraordinary lenghts to privatize correspondence (and not fully turn over Blumenthal's hacked emails to her) there is no other way to reasonably explain the stunning depths.

Especially given HC's interventions have resulted in lawless no man's lands…… hugely profitable for donor defense contractors or those poised to acquire resources, weaponry (Lybia).

James Levy , June 1, 2016 at 4:37 pm

Cheney et al. got away with the no-bid ultra-corrupt Haliburton contracts in Iraq, so there is a precedent for this kind of naked thieving going unpunished.

Ping , June 1, 2016 at 10:37 pm

The many examples of gross corrupt war profiteering facilitated by high office holders going unpunished or rewarded must be emboldening.

But in my view, setting up a foundation with opaque accounting and trotting around the world soliciting huge donations while SOS with a private server outside government channels and FOIA is a new level of organized criminal archetecture.

Ping , June 1, 2016 at 10:54 pm

Rewarded or unpunished war profiteering facilitated by high office holders must be emboldening.

But in my view, setting up a foundation with opaque accounting then soliciting huge donations from donors specializing in political upheaval and military conflict while globe trotting as SOS using a private server outside of government channels to circumvent FOIA is a new level of criminal and is essentially a Clinton Foundation serving as treasury at the helm, with presumed HC POTUS subversively enforcing a shadow supra national archetecture.

Quantum Future , June 1, 2016 at 5:32 pm

To Code Name D – One can watch a program on Netflix about Hayden and the CIA realizing it has gone too far. What may you ask? Well well has the country done since JFK? Selling out to
the bankers affects intelligence too. It just takes awhile for our species to wake up.

And despite the self admitted overeach directed by corrupt politicians I do not find wasting (literally as in the slang term of the word) funny. This is an issue I have with bombadier Kissinger. Energy policies and struggles matter. But Clinton always would say "well that policy is ten years away" regarding energy policy. So when the Russians play a hot card (but overplayed its hand) because the West in its corruption didnt move faster, lets blame Russia.

These are the kinds of things that kill and cause increased casualties in intelligence. Think nobody woud notice?

As always, increase competitors in energy, alternative and others. Then Russia can fuck off as it tries to raise prices. But that requires the rule of law and not selling the country down the river. Just getting down to some brass tacks here. I get real pissed beause not only can this get my countrymen killed, along with me but the other reason is some of us have had to do the job that government is paid do to. I wont expand.

Code Name D , June 1, 2016 at 9:55 pm

Ah, I am starting to see the "RICO mention" starting to go mainstream on you-tube. I am starting to think this was a preemptive leak to try and discredit the real charges should they come out later. We have yet to see any evidence that would support this and it doesn't fit with the current noise.

Anne , June 1, 2016 at 9:03 am

One has to wonder just how many red flags have to be waved in their faces for it to dawn on them that, hey, maybe Hillary Clinton isn't – and never was – the right person to pass the baton to.

Seems to me that if there was some kind of bargain struck in 2008 (you concede and enthusiastically endorse me, and I'll reward you with a plum job from which you can launch a presidential campaign, and I'll throw in the full support of the DNC and the superdelegates), there were multiple points along the way where it was clear Clinton was putting all of that in jeopardy. She made some terrible decisions, and instead of pulling back, she doubled down.

Are we to believe that no one from "the White House" ever took her aside or suggested that while she may be living a life of entitlement, there was that little thing known as an election that was going to depend on public perception of her actions and decisions, and she might want to consider that, promises notwithstanding, she was playing a fool's game if she bought into her own invincibility and inevitability?

But maybe "the White House" bought into it, too. How else to explain why, in spite of every kind of assistance it's possible to get, some of it of questionable legality, the anointed candidate has done nothing but drop in the polls. A little-known, 74-year old Democratic Socialist from a teeny-tiny state enters the race polling within the margin of error, and a year and hundreds of millions of small-dollar donations later, is in a position to deny Clinton a pledged-delegate nomination.

How large does the writing on the wall have to be over there at "the White House?" How myopic are these people, anyway? Did their eyes all of a sudden just pop open and they can only just now see what has been obvious for some time?

I'd like to feel bad for them, but the phrase that comes to mind instead is "hoist on their own petard."

This whole thing is such a massive exercise in selfish indulgence the only emotion these people deserve is our anger, which we should put to use by denying them the offices and power they seek.

Benedict@Large , June 1, 2016 at 9:17 am

What I don't get here is, if the White House knows she's such a terrible candidate, why do they want to put her in a real cat fight with Trump? Are they so sure (as Bernstein suggests) that Obama will be able to carry her across the finish line in November?

And that bring up another point for all you "feminist" Clintonistas. Wasn't the whole point of the "first woman in the White House" thing to show that women can do it alone? That they don't need men carrying them around all the time to be successful? Well what's up with your candidate? I have never (in my 65 years) ever seen anyone (woman or man) need more help from other people (mostly men) to gain the success they seek. At every single turn in this campaign we have Ms. Clinton needing someone else, someone MORE, falling on their sword for her. Because left on her own, against a freaking socialist, for Christ's sakes, all she has been able to do is F@ck up. A FIFTY POINT LEAD, gone. Wasted. Nothing to show. And this is what you want as feminism's representative in the White House? Shame on you.

Kurt Sperry , June 1, 2016 at 11:19 am

As others have pointed out, all that is required of Hillary at this point is to secure the nomination. Nothing else really matters. Once Sanders is removed from the picture, her job is done. A President Trump would be a minor setback from a partisan perspective and a Democratic Party in opposition to a bogeyman like Trump would experience an amped up version of the unifying effect it enjoyed in opposition to GWB. It really could serve to paper over the seismic ideological rifts widening within the current party. Four years in opposition would be a very small price to pay for averting what would be the existential threat to the party's core that a President Sanders would represent.

I would think the prospect of a President Trump wouldn't bother the party's insiders much if at all. The prospect of a President Sanders on the other hand would or could be a crushing and final defeat for nearly everything the current Democratic Party stands for: a giant and hugely lucrative influence peddling racket making everyone near its center into extremely wealthy individuals with patronage jobs waiting for them and their families within the concerns of the people who are bribing them. President Trump by comparison would be a godsend.

RUKidding , June 1, 2016 at 11:51 am

Bingo! Nailed it.

Most of the DLC establishment could find it easy enough to "live" with a Trump Presidency. Just like Lil Marco Rubio, they'll easily bend their knees to kiss Trump's heiney and make deals with him. What's it to them, after all?

Sanders? That's a horse of a different feather. Sanders isn't interested in them bending their knees and kissing his heiney. And THAT's a huge problem for the 1%.

Dig it.

polecat , June 1, 2016 at 12:20 pm

….."fool me twice…I…I won't get fooled again !"…..

the 2016 voter's motto…..

the DLC is toast……Burnt toast !!

sid_finster , June 1, 2016 at 1:24 pm

Money shot.

TheCatSaid , June 1, 2016 at 1:53 pm

I agree with your assessment. Trump would play the game differently, but he could be counted on to place the game.

Sanders shows that he knows and respects some of the rules of the game, but more of the rulebook would be up for grabs and the outcomes perhaps less predictable for TPTB.

There are also wildcards–impeachments, assassinations, health issues, pardons, etc.

dingusansich , June 1, 2016 at 1:56 pm

In that scenario Hillary wins the nomination and loses the election, Obama pardons her to head off (in his telling) partisan persecution and looks noble (to the credulous) standing up for her, clearing the way to elbow in on the Clinton network for the-haven't you heard?-Obama Foundation. And the grift goes on.

Could be. We'll never know, because we're not at those tables. But could be.

Lambert Strether , June 1, 2016 at 3:14 pm

Yep. Sanders is the real enemy, not Trump.

Angry Panda , June 1, 2016 at 9:39 am

1. Somewhat tangentially. I don't know how the 2007-2008 crisis looked to people on the "outside", but to many of the guys in the trenches the world "blew up" on or about July 18, 2007, when the two Bear-affiliated subprime funds hit a wall and the credit bubble literally stopped the next day. Within a month, the SIVs got obliterated and it was downhill from there.

Yes, it took a while to get to Lehman/AIG. There was the Bear thing, the commodities super-spike in the summer of 2008, a few other notable items. But again, by the time Lehman came around the view in the trenches was that the world had already been blowing up for over a year, and now "main street" finally took notice. Really the one surprise was that the Fed let Lehman go (presumably as a live experiment, or perhaps simply out of stupidity), and then the CDS markets went haywire for awhile (hence AIG).

Not 20%-30% probability of "something bad happening". Rather, 100% probability of "something bad" having already happened and now we're just watching the explosion in slo-mo.

2. Incidentally, this is pretty much what we're seeing with the Clinton campaign. You've already seen the campaign "blow up", in a way, because Sanders didn't go away in February, or March, or April, etc. Part of that was Sanders, part of that was general discontent – but part of that is also Hillary not being able to put away an opponent that is so way out of the Democratic party mainstream. Because the email thing, and the speeches thing, and the neo-liberalism thing, whatever. Bernstein's "leaking" makes clear that as far back as February Obama's guys in the trenches said – hey, we just saw the Bear funds blow up, and this thing is going to end badly one way or the other. We don't know exactly how bad, but bad. Which is bad for us…

3. I actually think that this signalling is not about a specific thing. It's a more of a general – you're not doing what you're supposed to do, and your messing up makes us look bad type of thing. Today it's the emails, tomorrow it's whatever else – there are so many issues with the campaign (and the candidate) that you could have Bernstein deliver a new speech weekly if not daily. The overall message seems to be, "you're blowing up, do something, right now", and I would bet they've been hitting that theme for months in private (the current leak to Bernstein being a sort of a – you don't want to listen to us in private, here's something in public, now pay attention).

4. Honestly, I would be shocked – shocked! – if the FBI or the DoJ did anything to Hillary Clinton on this email front. For one, let's dispense with any talk of "autonomy". Whom does the FBI director report to? Have there been any instances in the past when the White House "influenced" the direction of the FBI investigation? And what has this administration specifically demonstrated time and again vis-a-vis leakers (from the standpoint of intimidation)? Or compartmentalizing information to prevent such? I'm not saying they'll necessarily get away with it, but certainly they can think that to themselves, at least through November.

The basic idea is that Obama and his people have put their chips on Clinton. For whatever reason – political, personal, does not matter. They probably did so with a heavy heart (or some such), but they did it. Now they're freaking out, justifiably, because they literally cannot, cannot afford to have the Clinton campaign blow up right at this point (after November, sure, why not). You think these people won't shut the FBI down if they feel they have to? Of course they will. It will look dirty, of course, but it's – in their minds – probably better than the alternatives, unless they want to go out with a real bang blowing up both Clinton and the DNC and ending up as semi-pariahs among a good portion of the DNC donor base for the rest of their lives…which I doubt.

Eh. The train wreck continues to unfold in slow motion, except that I think this time she actually has a more than slim chance of making it to November and making it in November (after which point, let the scandals lottery commence, to the endless delight of Fox News and the like).

Brindle , June 1, 2016 at 10:25 am

Tend to agree. Clinton will likely win in November. Trump's potential voter base is less in number than Clinton's. She has a built-in demographic that, unless she botches the debates totally, should ensure Trump's defeat. BTW I despise the Clinton's and everything they stand for.

Dikaios Logos , June 1, 2016 at 11:03 am

The 2008 Financial Crisis narrative I tend to follow is that Bear and Lehman had the most enemies and so were the most convenient scapegoats/sacrifices to hand to an angry public. The reality of these big crises is that the banking system fails absent absent government intervention and so the saving of the others was a CHOICE.

Likewise, at some point the professional Democrats and the affiliated parts of the organism, including its funders, might at some point view cutting the umbilical cord to the Clintons as necessary for their own survival. I'd keep an eye out for that!

washunate , June 1, 2016 at 11:23 am

Well said.

FWIW, on the outside, it seemed like things were very bad, so bad that it felt like the political system was going out of its way to try to cover things up and tell people not to worry their pretty little heads and other almost comically defensive approaches. And not just in finance specifically, but all over our system, secrecy and ignoring reality seemed to permeate our public leadership. A willful blindness at a systemic level – because after all, most highly paid professionals depend upon the system; nobody wants to rock that officialdom boat much.

I have also been interested by some of the revisionist history that starts the GFC in 2008 with Lehman, rather than Bear Stearns in 2007, and more generally with the notion that the 2007-2009 crisis was a unique, isolated event rather than part of a multi-decade long process, that slow motion train wreck, as if the kind of inequality that leads to systemic crashes magically appeared out of nowhere in 2006.

Quantum Future , June 1, 2016 at 5:51 pm

To Washunate – I really appreciate the wise commentary, all of the time. The primary issue is who controls the currency. A private bank like the Fed who is the ultimate lobbyist or the the public, basically treasury. Our founders new both can and will fall prey to corruption but out of the two choices public currency (a form of energy of all our labor) is best.

Central banking model is a form of conquest. As an empire it succeeded globally. Now such have to own the empire and its fallacies. Including buying politicians. The rule of law must be restored and the currency restored to public domain (despite its flaws).

washunate , June 2, 2016 at 12:05 pm

Thanks for the kind words. One of the things I really like about what Yves has done at NC is create a space for those inside and outside as panda put it to share directly with each other, without the filter of technocrats and pundits in the middle who portray an air of expertise, of rigorous intellectual curiosity about and understanding of the system, yet seem to possess neither detailed knowledge about things 'in the trenches' nor about the perception of those things by the general public on 'the outside' of the bubbles of affluence and power in our society.

The general public has known for some time to be leary of everything from bankster pronouncements to econ PhD jibberish to warmongering buffoons. But the Serious People of our system act like every problem is a big surprise. Because of course they are protecting the looting – or at least enabling it through various kinds of navel gazing triviality – rather than doing anything meaningful about it.

I heartily agree that rule of law isn't some quaint notion, purity test, or luxury. It is the foundational element of a society that aspires for what are broadly held values (outside DC) like freedom, justice, mercy, and equality.

TheCatSaid , June 1, 2016 at 2:04 pm

1. Economy: "Not 20%-30% probability of "something bad happening". Rather, 100% probability of "something bad" having already happened and now we're just watching the explosion in slo-mo. "

Absolutely everyone I know who has established credibility with me in a wide range of spheres agrees with the 100% figure. Timing: late 2016, early 2017 at the latest. With more far-reaching impact than "usual" in a Great Depression or GFC.

Lambert Strether , June 1, 2016 at 3:18 pm

> Honestly, I would be shocked – shocked! – if the FBI or the DoJ did anything to Hillary Clinton on this email front

The FBI is an independent power source because Comey has his own files, just like J. Edgar. Lynch is another matter.

Yves Smith Post author , June 1, 2016 at 4:52 pm

Did you see by "something bad" I meant a Japan-level unraveling? I wasn't talking about recession or a bear market. I was talking about a financial crisis, but a slower-moving one than we had.

And if you look at my posts from the time, I was very clear in chronicling the four acute phases of the crisis: July-Aug 2007, December 2007, Bear and Lehman, as Very Big Deals. I was particularly critical of the "Mission Accomplished" mode the officialdom went into in Feb-March 2008 and April-July 2008.

TheCatSaid , June 1, 2016 at 6:01 pm

I think you've underestimated how bad the next "something bad" is going to be.

Quantum Future , June 1, 2016 at 6:30 pm

Yves – Time hss proved you wise. Japanafication is exactly what has been unfolding. And according to Forbes and the Fed, 48% of the population having less than a grand in savings means the US is near third world. One can buy Pop Tarts in third world countries also.

But there are wealth holders still spending (albeit less than two years ago) based on the stock market or real estate rentals. Both are subject to harsh correction and that will have some knock-on effects in labor. Not as bad as some may think but some.

The real danger is geopolitics. And this bitch that thinks she is queen has no issues literally seeing 1/3 of the global population dying to escape her crimes. Think of what a rapist does to a rape victim many times. Strangle that woman so she doesnt indict you. Yeah, it is that bad. But there are some form of tech that will end any world war quickly. Stuff of science fiction. America's competitors should think twice, or such may dissapear. Literally.

But as Americans we do know the corruption stinks to high heaven and we are doing something about it. So pray, war does not escalate. Mankind is literally at the end of our evolution and defeating classic death. We need (some is happening and is great) more.of that focus and marketing of it and less global police, empire crap.

Tom , June 1, 2016 at 9:40 am

Regarding the Clinton Hairball (or, Dead Woman Walking)

Just read the Cheryl Mills transcripts and two things jumped out at me. First, on pages 104-106, the Judicial Watch lawyers asked her about Platte River Networks and Datto, Inc. This McClatchy article gives a long version, but the short version of what the big deal is this:

Clinton Executive Service Corp. (CESC) had Hillary Clinton's private email server physically moved to Platte River Networks after she left office in 2013. Platte River is an IT services company. They are headquartered in Colorado but also have a location in New Jersey, which is where Clinton's server ended up. Platte River bought a backup device from another IT services company called Datto, Inc, specifically to back up Clinton's server. CESC requested that Platte River do the backup on site, and Platte River thought that's how they set up the Datto device. However – and this must have been Clinton's worst nightmare x 10 - unbeknownest to CESC and Platte River, the backup server accidentally synced with another off-site server belonging to Datto for two years before anyone realized it. And here's the kicker: this off-site Datto server had all of Clinton's 30,000 or so work-related and 30,000 or so personal emails.

And the FBI found out about it and seized that Datto server and hit the jackpot of all time! Now, in the Mills transcript, Judicial Watch dropped the questions to Mills about Platte River and Datto pretty quick, which suggests to me that they already have some other juicy witnesses to question and they merely tried a few quicky questions to Mills to see if they got lucky. But to me this is the nuclear bomb that has already gone off – the shock wave just hasn't reached us yet. I would imagine that Hillary's personal emails may be a treasure-trove relating to Clinton Foundation Activities and all the related shenanigans Ortel is investigating, as mentioned several times on Naked Capitalism.

On page 138, another item of interest in the transcript appears. Mills is asked about a July 26, 2011 email chain where Clinton jokes with a staffer named Nora Toiv that it was weird Clinton no longer had Toiv's Gmail account and Clinton wondered, "so how did that happen. Must be the Chinese!" Here's the email on Wikileaks.

Keep in mind, this is just a month or so after several warnings from the DS cybersecurity about private email accounts, including this June 28, 2011 cable, in Clinton's name, warning of specific threats to Gmail accounts of U.S. Government employees. From page 34 of the OIG Report :

On June 28, 2011, the Department, in a cable entitled "Securing Personal E-mail Accounts" that was approved by the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security and sent over Secretary Clinton's name to all diplomatic and consular posts, encouraged Department users "to check the security settings and change passwords of their home e-mail accounts because of recent targeting of personal email accounts by online adversaries."141 The cable further elaborated that "recently, Google asserted that online adversaries are targeting the personal Gmail accounts of U.S. government employees. (my emphasis) Although the company believes it has taken appropriate steps to remediate identified activity, users should exercise caution and follow best practices in order to protect personal e-mail and prevent the compromise of government and personal information." It then recommended best practices for Department users and their family members to follow, including "avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts."142

Granted, Clinton could have been just having a laugh in the email exchange with Toiv, but it doesn't help her case. Especially since we know of at least 15 cyberattacks on Clinton's email server just from publically available information, including attacks from IP address in China, Republic of Korea and Germany (and possibly Russia, if you believe the Guccifer story).

Sorry for being so long-winded.

TLDR: Clinton is a dead woman walking. And Abedin, Sullivan and others have yet to testify!

Steve H. , June 1, 2016 at 10:05 am

– the backup server accidentally synced with another off-site server belonging to Datto for two years before anyone realized it. And here's the kicker: this off-site Datto server had all of Clinton's 30,000 or so work-related and 30,000 or so personal emails. And the FBI found out about it and seized that Datto server and hit the jackpot of all time!

Needs more exclamation marks.

jackpot! of! all! time! -- ! -- !!!!!!!

Tom , June 1, 2016 at 11:43 am

I know. And as an aside, another fact that has been glossed over repeatedly is that Hillary's personal email server apparently wasn't new when she had it installed in her basement. Oh no, the server had already been in use as President Bill Clinton's personal server before that. God only knows what kind of incriminating stuff is on there belonging to him. No wonder he suddenly looks like he's aged about 30 years!

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 1, 2016 at 2:07 pm

When did the FBI seize it?

No indictment since then? Why the delay with the jackpot of all time!!!!!?

Can't be that hard to go through 30,000 emails.

Tom , June 1, 2016 at 2:21 pm

Probably because it is the Yellow Brick Road winding its way through years of Clinton relationships with the richest, most powerful and influential people in the world. And we will probably never, ever catch more than a fleeting glimpse of whatever is behind the curtain.

Harold , June 2, 2016 at 3:01 am

Just reading that thousands of subpoenaed e-mails went missing from Bill Clinton's server in year 2000 – personal emails from Monica Lewinsky – that kind of thing. Supposedly.

tegnost , June 1, 2016 at 8:36 pm

depositions are still underway, why give away your leverage

sd , June 1, 2016 at 11:35 am

Searching 'Pagliano' in the trove of emails at Wikileaks only brings up one response for October 26, 2012. It's a Happy Birthday wish. Shouldn't there be more emails either to or from Pagliano and at an earlier date than 2012, at minimum one test email to make sure the server was working when it was first set up?

Still surprised that if her server was hacked, those emails have not be given to Wikileaks.

Tom , June 1, 2016 at 11:44 am

Many questions linger, don't they?
Such as, why didn't Bryan also wish her Happy Birthday for 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013?

Amateur Socialist , June 1, 2016 at 8:53 pm

What I don't get is how/why he is pleading the 5th and refusing to answer questions. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/politics/bryan-pagliano-hillary-clinton-email-server/index.html

That same story says he has an immunity deal and was cooperating with the FBI. I guess it's possible he only got limited immunity and is concerned about something else but…

Ivy , June 1, 2016 at 11:37 am

What is the over/under on the likelihood of an "accident"? My money would be on someone with an axe to grind against Killery.

TheCatSaid , June 1, 2016 at 2:22 pm

I've heard reports that an attempt was made in late 2012. Not the incident in Israel, but on a secret trip to Iran to meet with Ahmedinejad. What I heard (not on the internet–other channels) is that one of her SEALS on the small plane with her had a vision of what she would do as president, and took it into his own hands to stop it. He shot her (the cause for her much-reported-on hospital stay–with her recovery in question in early days) and he was killed by the rest of the SEAL team. His death was then said to have occurred in Afghanistan. There's supporting tangential info about this event that's findable.

Whether or not this story is accurate, I believe there's more to her hospital stay than the official story. I do not think it was a routine medical event.

Roger Smith , June 1, 2016 at 4:28 pm

What was the "official" reason she left SOS?

TheCatSaid , June 1, 2016 at 6:10 pm

The only "reason" I've found stated is that she supposedly "always planned" to step down after Obama's first term.

fresno dan , June 1, 2016 at 11:41 am

Tom
June 1, 2016 at 9:40 am
Thank you very, very much for that elucidating synopsis – its hard to read EVERYTHING so getting just a slice of the prime cut keeps me up to date on an onslaught of info!
I sure hope you do more of these!!!

Tom , June 1, 2016 at 11:49 am

Thank you very much. After writing that, I have even more respect for how much work Yves, Lambert and others put into this site each and every day. Same for the contributions of the many informed commenters. Naked Capitalism is truly an exceptional resource.

SumiDreamer , June 1, 2016 at 3:04 pm

Yes. Thank you.

Quantum Future , June 1, 2016 at 6:52 pm

Agee. Nice work Tom and to all who are restoring the Republic. Make sure you go have a drink and some fun now and then too. A phase of this has passed for me but now another one is looming in a different way than educating.

But for can be happy with gains for a moment.

Pavel , June 1, 2016 at 12:40 pm

Hear, hear! Great reporting by Tom.

I had seen references to the Datto server and the online backups but there hasn't been much discussion of them or the FBI's getting ahold of them. If they did, it truly is a nightmare for HRC.

There is a new poll saying 48% of the public think her server was "illegal" and another 24% or so thought it was "unethical". She and her staff are stonewalling and doubling down on their excuses. I guess she is just hoping to make it through the convention but it all depends on the FBI report at this stage.

Tom , June 1, 2016 at 1:50 pm

If the Datto server debacle checks out - and it sure looks like it does - I have read in several places that it pretty much is a no-brainer violation of 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, specifically Section (f):

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer-
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

If you have classified info on your server and all that data is being sent to another server for two years, without your knowledge, that's pretty much the definition of "gross negligence," I would imagine.
And keep in mind, before we even get to the Datto debacle, I'm already giving Clinton two giant free hall passes:
1. That it didn't constitute gross negligence to have the server in her basement in the first place, and
2. That it wasn't gross negligence to move the server to Platte River Networks. (From what I gather, even if this was an approved server, the U.S. government would have questions like: Who physically picked up the server, put it on a truck or in a car, who transported the server, who had access to it before, during and after the move?" Also, questions like, "Who owns Platte River Networks? What is their security set-up? Who vetted the employees at Platte River? Who had access to the server while it was there?")

Lambert Strether , June 1, 2016 at 3:30 pm

So wait. You're telling me that the half of the email Clinton retained as "personal" wasn't all about Clinton's yoga sessions and Chelsea's wedding?

On " Platte River bought a backup device from another IT services company called Datto, Inc, specifically to back up Clinton's server," I don't think that's quite right. First, the issue is not a device, but backup to the cloud from a device. Second, the Platte River didn't know the backup to the cloud was taking place . From the McClatchy story:

Unbeknownst to Clinton, IT firm had emails stored on cloud; now in FBI's hands

Datto and Platte River seemed at odds, however, over how Clinton's emails wound up on Datto's cloud storage, which may have resulted from a misunderstanding.

Platte River spokesman Andy Boian said the firm bought a device from Datto that constantly snaps images of a server's contents and connected it to the Clinton server at a New Jersey data storage facility. Platte River never asked Datto to beam the images to an off-site cloud storage node and never was billed for that service, he said. Company officials were bewildered when they learned of the cloud storage, he said.

"We said, 'You have a cloud? You were told not to have a cloud.' We never received an invoice for any cloud for the Clintons.'"

The source familiar with Datto's account, however, said Platte River was billed for "private cloud" storage, which requires a cloud storage node. Because Platte River lacks one, the source said, the data bounced to Datto's off-site cloud storage. The source said that senior Platte River officials may not have realized it, but company technicians "were managing the off-site storage throughout."

Datto did not know it was backing up Clintons' email server until mid August, the source said.

As to whether the FBI might recover Clinton's personal emails from Datto's storage, the source said: "People don't Datto's service for getting rid of data."

What a mess, but no more messy than IT generally.

I like the overall picture, though, that the bomb has already exploded, but the shock waves have yet to reach the public. Regarding FBI director Comey, this from William Gibson: "I would say that our Mr. Swain has recently come into possession of a very high-grade source of intelligence and is busy converting it into power."

Tom , June 1, 2016 at 9:48 pm

Yes, you've clarified some points that I mangled in trying to sum up the story. Thank you.
There are many more tangents to just this Platte River/Datto story that are worth following up, but it takes so much time to try to piece together even a seemingly small story like this. I can't even imagine the complexity and confusion facing the FBI investigators as they try to make sense of all the fallout from Bill and Hillary Clinton's public/private activities through the years.

sd , June 2, 2016 at 2:46 am

The server for the Datto cloud that was backing up the Clintons' server would have also had its own backup.

John Wright , June 1, 2016 at 9:46 am

One can hope that Obama handles Clinton the same way Nixon handled his vice-president, Spiro Agnew. Spiro Agnew was the corrupt politician of the hoi polloi, as he was known as "The only politician you could bribe with a bag of groceries.".

The Clinton Foundation and the Clintons sure put the Agnew efforts to shame as they raised the price of buying politicians and access by many orders of magnitude.

Nixon, busy with his own scandals may have been distracted, but his justice department let Agnew plead "nolo contendere" (no contest) to the charges of corruption.

One can wonder if Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon installed this dual USA justice system that we have seen in effect since his time.

The Kennedy Library honored Ford for his courage(?) in granting the pardon ( http://www.jfklibrary.org/Events-and-Awards/Profile-in-Courage-Award/Award-Recipients/Gerald-Ford-2001.aspx )

So one Democratically connected organization signed onto this separate justice system for the politically connected. Possibly the concern Obama has for his unfunded $1Billion Presidential Library will force him to burnish his legacy by NOT rescuing HRC with some dubious legal maneuver. It is somewhat ironic that Nixon was brought down by a private electronic system (his tape recording system) while Clinton may be brought down by her own private electronic email system.

The also share a common advisor, Henry Kissinger, and both have/had phlebitis.

She probably won't borrow Nixon's "I am not a crook." line..

timbers , June 1, 2016 at 9:53 am

I get the tone of alarm and concern of scandal coming from Team Obama shown in this article – I'm just not seeing it in Hillary supporters. Maybe Obama's ego is a bit too fragile. Regardless my experience with talking to Hillary supporters is that no amount of scandal of outright criminal lawbreaking affects their views about Hillary. They revert to "she's been scrutinized and tested for decades by her enemies and she's survived." They are people on the margins who will be affected. How many are the Dem establishment? It's going to take a whopper to get them to tank Hillary IMO.

Lambert Strether , June 1, 2016 at 3:32 pm

That's what I see from Clinton supporters on the Twitter. Some of them good people I've known for years. "Nothingburger" was the favorite phrase, at least for awhile.

Yves Smith Post author , June 1, 2016 at 4:57 pm

Reminds me of the defenders of Elizabeth Holmes at the WSJ, who kept insisting that all the attacks were from journalists who were jealous of the success of a brilliant young woman and only knew how to tear down not build.

Their ranks became thinner over time as their view was increasingly less plausible.

Quantum Future , June 1, 2016 at 6:59 pm

Timbers – You know, a close friend since grade school loves the Clintons. He even buyed the Bill Clinton collector doll. He stole close to $60,000 from his employer Midas, has mistresses and has done a of very unsavory things. And I am not a saint but these people know but do not care. Probably 1 of 3 people are sociopaths.

Stephen Gardner , June 1, 2016 at 10:00 am

There is a detail that is being universally missed both in the MSM and alternative press: it is a virtual certainty that the NSA has a copy of every email sent or received by that server. Does anyone who has read what has been published about Snowden's revelations doubt that? Therefore the Whitehouse knows precisely what the dirt is. Furthermore, what do you suppose the chances are that the FSB didn't hack her jury-rigged server? This potential leak path is also well known to the white house. Don't forget the mayhem when the FSB (who else) posted Nuland's little chat with Pyatt over an insecure line. Let no one forget that HRC is strongly connected to the neocon project to undermine Russia's return to strength.

Just ask yourself: What would Vladimir Putin do?

fajensen , June 1, 2016 at 11:21 am

Just ask yourself: What would Vladimir Putin do?

Putin would do a deal. A "small favor" done in return for something else. Any mobster can understand that.

Trouble is that Hillary represents the US so very well. Any offer would be perceived as a sign of weakness, therefore, righteous bullying and threats from the US will be the only possible response.

So, the leaks would start – have started perhaps.

steelhead23 , June 1, 2016 at 10:02 am

Might this "leak" be a signal to Clinton to get out of the race? She cannot be unaware that Bernstein is carrying Obama's water.

Ivy , June 1, 2016 at 11:41 am

Obama will likely have plenty of drama before he slinks out of the White House to his $1 Billion Library . Future historians will sift through the detritus of his hollow reign and might eventually find out how he got pwned. Maybe Bernstein could have a journalistic draft underway about that to put in his two cents?

TheCatSaid , June 1, 2016 at 2:26 pm

That book's been written. Apostles of Power / Coup de Twelve by David E. Martin, who has first-hand knowledge about some of the most important facts.

It's called fiction but only some of the names and dates/sequences were changed. Cheney's name is left in on purpose.

TheCatSaid , June 1, 2016 at 2:29 pm

if you read it keep in mind the reason it was written–specifically to avert a major disaster involving a nuclear reactor explosion in the US in 2012, to enable a major electronic financial heist. He had to reveal enough of what he knew to stop the button from being pushed. This was successful. Only the preliminary "earthquake" at Santa Ana nuclear reactor occurred, as the charges had already been set, but after the book came out (initially distributed on Amazon for free, so it could be tracked to who downloaded it) then the full plan could not be carried out.

Lambert Strether , June 1, 2016 at 3:34 pm

Sorry. Not buying works of fiction with the names changed (unless we're talking serious roman a clef a la Primary Colors .

TheCatSaid , June 1, 2016 at 6:18 pm

Read the book before judging it. It will be obvious why names cannot be given. And consider my comment above about why the book was written. It was not written to be a best seller, it was written to prevent a major catastrophe. The author has given a number of extended interviews dealing with the events described and confirming his first-hand participation. (He was offered, twice, to join the 12 shareholders in the purchase of the 2008 presidency, without a financial contribution because of his unique big data algorithms. He declined and experienced some very disagreeable effects–but he's not someone who can be bought or intimidated.)

Quantum Future , June 2, 2016 at 1:07 am

TheCatSaid – Interesting book recommendation. Mitigation of casualties is an important goal. It is not set in stone mass casualties will occur because of sociopathic behavior. Some can play a role to minimize the damage. Yves does this directly regarding lawlessness. Others play some different roles.

Now at the end of human evolution, there is nothing more important and realistic to end classic death. But far too few have gotten the memo yet. But that is changing. For what good is it to gain the whole world when you get old, shit your pants, lose your memory when now that is no longer necessary? But absolutley, the wolves must be pushed back and the Republic restored to accelerate such a lofy but now doable goal.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 1, 2016 at 3:06 pm

In Feb, per Bernstein, people at the White House were worried and horrified.

Now, they are terrified, again, per Bernstein.

To me, it seems to be about same.

Lambert Strether , June 1, 2016 at 3:36 pm

That was my counter-suggestible thought: The White House panicked once, and the Clinton campaign shrugged it off, successfully.

I don't think the two cases are comparable, though. The Wall Street transcripts are a Sanders campaign thing, and to every right-thinking member of the political class that spells "not serious."

But this terror is from the heart of the establishment; "serious people."

Steven Greenberg , June 1, 2016 at 10:15 am

At some point the White House and the Democratic party "leadership" are going to realize that if they have to work this hard to get Clinton the nomination, they are going to have worse troubles winning the election with her at the head of the ticket. They are going to have to choose the lesser of two evils – 1. Let the Republicans take this election, or 2 – Let the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party take this election.

Vatch , June 1, 2016 at 11:28 am

From the point of view of the Democratic Party establishment, Trump and the Republicans are clearly the lesser evil. Despite his apparent appeal as an outsider, Trump is very much an insider. As a billionaire, he is one of the very small number of people who own the United States. He'll ruffle the feathers of some of his fellow plutocrats, but the "right people" will remain in charge, and he will continue most of the billionaire friendly policies of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations.

JustAnObserver , June 1, 2016 at 11:39 am

if nothing else they must have realized that Sanders and his millions of supporters have effectively blocked off their – parachute drop Biden – escape route from the Clinton disaster. I think this is the key to why "they're freaking out". They never really had any planB 'cos those Dems and their trained MSM toadies who "create their own reality" never for a moment thought they'd ever need one.

NotTimothyGeithner , June 1, 2016 at 12:04 pm

There was Biden speculation early on for a reason, but I think people in New Hampshire (I've never been to Iowa) take the primary seriously and force the candidates to answer tough questions. Hillary and Obama had a celebrity following and were protected, but any other Democrat would have to have a point. Private prison, charter school, and war supporters would be weeded put early. Biden might be the VP, but he has been at this for years and achieved nothing except to not be as egregious as Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine. No one will go out to see Biden unless he had a point.

The modern Democratic elite can face their voters directly. They need a celebrity wall to protect them. Many of these thugs hid behind Obama a day expected Hillary to do the same, but who else is a celebrity and can hide behind Katie Perry or Oprah? They might be protected by the sycophants in their own district, but the sycophants outside the district have their own objects of devotion. They simply can't go to Iowa and New Hampshire and be taken seriously.

JustAnObserver , June 1, 2016 at 12:49 pm

I take it that

"… can face their voters directly."

should have been

"… can't face their voters directly."
^

?

ckimball , June 1, 2016 at 12:41 pm

Several weeks ago my daughter had a dream.
She witnessed Bernie Sanders accepting the democratic primary nomination
because Hillary Clinton was disqualified by a technicality.

Three years ago during a lengthy Vipassana meditation retreat I experienced
myself sitting on a divan in a long lanai. People were milling around a
banquet table set with fruits salads flowers. There were birds flying in and out
up above us and I became aware that I could understand them and that they were excited and had decided to have a race. Quickly the race began and was over. The winner was a little brown bird…like a sparrow. The other birds were incredulous. How could this happen? A green parrot kept flying up to the little brown bird asking how did you do that? But the little brown bird kept laughing and flying away so fast the parrot could not stay with him.
The next day, continuing the practice in my room with the curtains drawn, I heard
tapping at the window. I acknowledged the sound and continued practicing but
the tap tap pause continued. Finally I had to see. I got up pushed aside the curtain and there was a little brown bird.
When I saw the little bird land on the podium while Bernie Sanders spoke I thought of the little brown bird I'd experienced. And when Bernie in the moments said wistfully something to the effect…it could have been a dove
representing peace. I thought oh no, that little bird is a metaphor for the people
who want and claim their humanity and the natural world resonates with that.

tegnost , June 1, 2016 at 1:44 pm

I too think bernie will pull it out, the other choices are terrible. I'm looking for aspirational latinos to flock to bernie in california and it'll be a rout that can't be ignored. I hope that's what happens.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 1, 2016 at 1:56 pm

That reminds me of the dove who landed on Fidel Castro's shoulder during his Jan. 8, 1959 speech.

Tom , June 1, 2016 at 11:10 am

Once Clinton regrettfully announces her decision to suspend her campaign for presidency (due to mounting health concerns and after consulting with her doctors and family) and returns to private life, she can always count on giving a speech now and again to "replenish the old coffers," right?

Cut to the kitchen in Clinton's residence:

"What do you mean Blankfein isn't returning my calls? Someone find my BlackBerry so I can call him myself!!"

Amateur Socialist , June 1, 2016 at 11:58 am

Sounds like the ending sting in a segment of Clintonsomething – "The Campaign Years" from the excellent Le Show by Harry Shearer.

fresno dan , June 1, 2016 at 11:59 am

From Yves:
"…..
As of late 2007, I was assessing the odds of a really bad outcome (which I did not see as a massive financial blowup, but a Japan-style bumping downhill over a period of years) as 20-30%, which I regarded as uncomfortably high. I told Lambert I thought the Clinton train wreck odds were in that range. He thought it was more like 30% than 20%.

This post indicates the odds are even higher than that. I see two implications in the Bernstein official messaging beyond those that Gaius describes. One is that the Obama Administration has been blindsided by how bad the underlying fact set is, and they recognize that even worse is likely to be exposed. Someone as image-conscious as Obama would be particularly put off by that.

But the panic is also a clear indication, and perhaps as important, another message, not just to Clinton but to Team Dem, that the Administration can't, or won't but is making it seem like can't, do what it takes to save Hillary's bacon.

And I suspect it really is "can't". The FBI has enough autonomy that if they find real dirt on the Clintons, they will leak like crazy if the DoJ does not pursue the case in a serious way. That would make the Administration complicit, and Obama does not want his final months in office tainted by his Administration touching the Clinton tar baby any more than it has to…."

============================================
I am really thinking this is the most serious issue about whether this country operates within the confines of equality before the law since Watergate. I think the financial crisis revealed a level of corruption that is eye opening, but that was mere pecuniary corruption.
If Hillary goes unprosecuted, we decide to let the facade collapse and no longer put the effort into pretending that there is any relationship whatsoever between the law, justice, and the running of the state.

armchair , June 1, 2016 at 12:26 pm

In this imagined history, the Clinton's see their return to the WH thwarted by an upstart junior senator. As things start to crash around them, in 2008, a light bulb goes off. The junior senator is still pretty nervous about the Clinton's and Clinton has leverage to make a deal with him. She can through establishment support behind Obama. Obama takes the deal. Then, with a Clinton at State and a future presidency on the horizon they will be able to enrich themselves and their foundation for millions upon millions.

The future value of a Clinton presidency will sell itself. Money will pour in from everyone in the world who needs a regulatory break or weapons a deal. So, they cut the deal to go in on an Obama presidency.

What they get is eight years of uninterrupted money making, because a Clinton will be president again, and you might as well get in on the ground floor. In this imagined scenario, the Clinton's must get the presidency, because they have essentially promised weapons buyers and regulation skirters that they will get their return on investment coming in 2017.

RUKidding , June 1, 2016 at 1:50 pm

Yes, most likely, at least in part. A lot of influence peddling went on, and that's for sure. It's something that eludes most Clinton supporters that I know personally. They see Hillary as this shining beacon of something something and something else. They have excuses for everything, and somehow don't see influence peddling, selling arms and the like as all that bad. IOW: IOKIYAD. I don't agree with that, myself, but many do.

Lesser evil… is still evil.

armchair , June 1, 2016 at 4:35 pm

It sound like you're encountering the tribal mentality, which is a drag.

Russell , June 2, 2016 at 1:27 am

Sounds like the game.

JustAnObserver , June 1, 2016 at 1:06 pm

Note its not just the CIA who would be (or is already) furious that some of their agents may have been compromised/arrested/executed. The FBI also has agents working abroad undercover. What if the FBI found info in the backed up emails showed one of their own had been blown ? The vengeance would be frightening and there's nothing Comey or anyone else could do that would stop it.

JimTan , June 1, 2016 at 1:11 pm

I'm not sure the media's current focus on Hillary's email server is warranted. There are definitely indications that she violated email policies, but there don't seem to be specifics about what these actions were trying to hide. I think her very questionable family ties to corporate money are a more meaningful topic in determining her suitability for the U.S. presidency :

http://nypost.com/2015/05/12/us-approved-most-bill-clinton-speech-requests-within-days/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-hillary-clinton-and-boeing-a-beneficial-relationship/2014/04/13/21fe84ec-bc09-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/despite-walmart-ties-support-free-trade-hillary-clinton-touts-commitment-2323480

There's been some recent focus on 2013-2015 speeches given by Bill Clinton, and donations to the Clinton family foundation over this time period. What about speeches and payments during the earlier time period when Hillary was Secretary of Sate (January 2009 – January 2013)?

Jess , June 1, 2016 at 1:32 pm

Jeez Louise. The focus on her email server is, in major part, driven by the issue of the deleted emails and HRC trying to keep her communications secret and unobtainable through FOIA. One obvious reason is to hide the connection between Bill's speeches and Clinton Foundation activities with Hillary's decisions as SoS. Email and corporate money is all one big hairball.

JimTan , June 1, 2016 at 1:57 pm

I see. Thanks for connecting the dots.

Synoia , June 1, 2016 at 1:53 pm

And the great hope in the White House…and get President Obama out there to help her, he's got a lot of credibility,

They are deluding themselves. Getting Obama out there will push Trump to success.

SomeCallMeTim , June 1, 2016 at 3:04 pm

Gee, the internet told me just this morning that Obama is champing a the bit to hit the 2016 campaign trail for Hillary (or maybe just against Trump?)

After reading this post and comments, I'm further disabused of the Clintons, and think more and more that Saunders is hanging in there just waiting for the dam to break.

Lambert Strether , June 1, 2016 at 3:39 pm

Or, more precisely, waiting for somebody else to break the dam for him (since no Clinton voter will ever vote for him if he does the deed himself).

dk , June 1, 2016 at 4:32 pm

The Clinton Machine (in other words the political operation of the Bill and Hillary, and potentially Chelsea) has always operated on the basis the money and connections will fix everything. It has, after all, gotten them this far. However, as a core operational mode, it also accumulates cynicism and tends to value loyalty over performance, leading to degradation over time.

The Clinton primary 1992 campaign broke new ground (at the time) by putting the (two-way) sharing of fundraising lists on the table when soliciting endorsements from office holders. This was already commonplace among Republicans, who were already being consolidated by ideologically or business focussed fundraising organizations (long before PACs became an common acronym, but already organized under 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(6)) and often shared these donors. But the Democrats, at the time, were more driven by fundraising lists, which were often closely guarded assets.

But by offering to share (as in, swap) donor lists with endorsers, the Clintons, without actually breaking any laws (although improper development and use of these lists could violate FEC regulation), were putting financial power squarely on the table, and up front (the list share offer was frequently mentioned on the initial approach to the potential endorser, I have first and second hand knowledge of this).

And the swap would involve the endorser sharing their list, as well as receiving one, which would be more than a public endorsement; it would be an endorsement to donors. Reaction in 1992 was mixed. But with Bill political success and popularity as a president (among moneyed Dems), the Clinton Machine became a major player in Dem politics, cultivating a "deep" door list. And what do donors pay for? Consultants, and media and data products. The Machine accumulated a network of loyal consultants and vendors across the country; loyal, because they were certain of getting paid (not always a sure thing in politics), and because of the large and diverse (and at least nominally vetted) network of Machine operatives and vendors. This network also shares strategic methodologies and technologies; essential commodities, but ones whose shelf life (effective expiration of value) can be hard to gauge (especially by lazy/uncommitted people who feel little pressure to actually win anything, as long as they can put on a good show and maintain their stature by… feeding the Machine). And of course, associated (and implicitly grateful/beholden) elected office holders (at State and local levels, not just Federal) are collected along the way.

The reliance on this Machine is one of the reasons the Clinton campaigns have displayed such frequent tone-deafness. Not only is there a sizeable echo chamber of like-minded advisers only to glad to support the current (but often calcified) rationals, but the approach to voter opinion is "they'll forget if we divert them" (and also "poor people don't vote, so their opinions are strategically irrelevant"). The Clintons were relying on a combination of news-cycle turnover and the chorus of their social and MSM channels (repeat-until-true, repeat-until-true, etc). Both of these tools are at least somewhat outdated in the social media age, where articles/posts/images/memes can circulate and resurface independently of MSM news cycles, and where multiple groups can pool opinion and effort as soon as they notice coincidence/convergence.

One can say what one will about Team Obama, but they have always been aware that they rode to power on a populist idea (Black President) and the social media arena that amplified its force. All political groups tend towards tone deafness, but Obama's people have newer ears. They may not feel very beholden to anyone operating in the social media, but they disinclined to completely ignore the potential impacts of opinions in circulation.

BTW, the donor-list swap message has changed over the years. Now the intro message for endorsement solicitations is more like: "We'll mention you to our donors". Which is a double-edged sword; that mention may also be "such-and-such did not endorse, just so you know". Again, leading with this message exerts (by implication, not by direct statement) a powerful financial consideration on the potential (And often acquiescing) endorser. Beyond that common element, solicitations are likely to say whatever might appeal to the particular target.

Quantum Future , June 1, 2016 at 9:13 pm

Dk – Very interesting point about the data. I am in that space in a nutshell. By referral, did some work with both Jeb Bush and Dean. I was hired for market intelligence for fundraising. I remember the Time mag about Dean the Money Machine. Social media was a big deal for donors. Webbies dont make the best door to door activists however.

Anyways, I like Jeb Bush. Dean is an asshole of a human being. So as I was managing Bush constituent list for a time I called his office to suggest them doing market intelligence for donors.
The attorney for Jeb called me back. He told me that if I sent over a plan to not expect to get paid for it. I thought to myself it was no wonder the Clintons could easily win – They paid people.

Jeb did look at an idea for a political social media platform I suggested to connect voters to politicians, a debate platform. He said to call Pete Peterson for funding. Pete wouldn't give me a meeting, his secretary said I wasnt in the club.

So for Jeb he has learned the hard way it is the company you keep. But his other issue was hiring his own Mexican friends his wife and continued amnesty. His campign staff like any tribe, only wanted fo hire Mexicans. Of course, it is the immigration issue where Trump ate his lunch. In the end he wasn't ready to be POTUS. But innovation wise and on monopoly issues he was a Teddy Roosevelt.

Thanks for letting me share my thoughts tonight Yves. You know, I appoached you as a different user at one time and asked to consider joining in the political social media platform I was building. But even if it was a right idea, I came across too strong. I apologize. Wish I hadnt done that your message would been amplified a lot more by now. You are a personal hero of mine. Keep at it, please, the we are clearing a hump in ways but much work left to do.

Quantum Future , June 1, 2016 at 4:45 pm

Cackling at the demise of intelligence assets is not a joking matter. Neither is it a joke, right or deposing dictators and joking about it. Fortunately, the rule of law is being restored. But there is a lot of domestic and geopolitical clean up. With Russia, they are about energy sales. Yes, they got uppity with monopoly but it has gone to far.

You never want to make Putin a Geronimo with the bomb. The Chinese were made promises never to be kept. They know a good customer when they see one so they will get over it.

The only job of government is a security racket. An unfortunate, necessary evil. When the Clintons
are well lets call it what it IS – treason. Enough is enough.

Trump is a Democrat. He is for single payer. Not so sure why some are so freaked about his nationalist campaign rhetoric. Either him or Bernie will make a good president but Bernie has the experience and Trump does not. It matters.

marym , June 1, 2016 at 11:13 pm

Trump is not for single payer

Trump's main ideas for a replacement [of Obamacare] are to allow health insurance to be sold across state lines and permit people to make tax-free contributions to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). HSAs are paired with a high deductible health insurance plan and are intended to make people more conscious of how they spend

Quantum Future , June 2, 2016 at 1:27 am

Mary – Competition is part of Trumps plan for private insurers. A lot of countries have single payer government but also private insurers. It tends to work althogh I wish it all could remain private, free market what have you. Health is like money, it is so important you have to have the awful taint of government one way or the other.

But when pressed Trump has responded he will not let anyone die in the streets. Not arguing to vote for the man just suggesting reading beween the lines. He is a Democrat in drag, what I would call a moderate in policy except immigration. He is duplicating the Eisenhower playbook, on immigration, bond holder haircuts and telling certain bankers to play ball or ELSE. This does work. But as I mentioned Bernie has more a lot of real experience. So dealmaking as Trump claims indeed has a lot of human psychology involved but experience is a major plus.

It woudnt surprise me if so much of this is all political theatre. Trump is the friends of Clinton after all. Could even be with Berniw But that said, rather even if such speculation true better than false flags to right the country. Besides, it has been fun theatre… Besides, the momentum on policy is turning in the right direction.

marym , June 2, 2016 at 7:57 am

Countries that provide universal healthcare using private insurance (the Bismarck model) do so with highly regulated, not-for-profit insurance providing legally defined coverage. Competition and profit-taking are at the margins for elements not included in the defined coverage, such as cosmetic surgery or a private hospital room. Trump's published healthcare plan is the same gibberish Republicans have always offered.

Kim Kaufman , June 1, 2016 at 11:01 pm

There are too many comments to read through right now but is almost 250 comments a record? Has anyone mentioned this might be a trial balloon for Biden to step in?

Phil , June 1, 2016 at 11:07 pm

It's interesting to ponder the various possibilities. What I don't get is why Obama's IT security people didn't notice that Clinton digitally engaged and communicated with the *White House* in a way that could have compromised both parties, and beyond.

fwiw, I think we are all at least *somewhat* impacted by confirmation bais re: the competency of persons we are mostly in agreement with, even in areas outside their domain. When it comes to senior executives and IT security (unless they are IT experts), we see these mistakes over and over again in political and business domains. One can look to any number of well-known political, scientific, or cultural figures who made stupid gaffs within their sphere of influence in this way. We always seem surprised by this, but it's really not a surprise.

Most well-known political persons (I have known a few) are so busy and so immersed in what they are trying to accomplish that their over-trust in operational personnel – and/or belief that they can maneuver out of or overcome almost any problem – creates scenarios like Clinton's.

Bernie is my guy; I would love to see him take on Trump, but the powers that be appear to want something else. I can't stand Trump, but when looking for other perspectives I will put on my long-buried blue collar roots persona; then, I hear a guy (Trump) who "talks the talk" in a way that is almost mesmerizing. I hate to admit that, but it's true – and when I connect with old buds from way back, they reinforce this impression.

When you get enough people (in this case, Americans) scared and worried, they are no different than any other group of human beings; they want to be "saved"; they want to "blame"; they want to throw out the "chief"; they want to "follow a new leader"; they are not concerned (in this case) with whether Trump can "walk the walk"; they are susceptible to someone who is very adept at "talking the talk" (a demagogue) in a way that allays their fear and desperation – leading them to grab onto the nearest piece of flotsam (screw the other guy!) that will keep them from drowning. I'm beginning to worry.

JTMcPhee , June 1, 2016 at 11:24 pm

Seems to me that except in a relatively few corners and local settings, and now very frankly via our mostly collective embrace of the Neo geist, "America" has always and only been about "screwing the other guy." And Tocqueville noted how happy we are to be boiled frogs, or to find ourselves in deep water and only too happy to stand on the other guy's shoulders, by guile or force, to try to gain a little buoyancy to keep our own noses above water, even knowing somewhere in our guts that we ought to cooperate to find the valve and turn off the water, or to go after the pirates that threw us off the ship…

greensachs , June 1, 2016 at 11:34 pm

I don't believe "foaming one more runway" (read: having your DOJ, FBI appear helpless) wouldn't bother this administration. A Loyalist are those unengaged (or too engaged) whom choose willingly to believe the disastrous economic and political experiment, that attempted to organize human behavior around the dictates of the global marketplace, has been a splendid success…or worse, blindly, my tribal leader is in accordance with all that is good.

Russell , June 2, 2016 at 1:25 am

Haiti. Look at film of the Clintons in Haiti to see how they work. & Haiti is one place where also the elites own the deeds. Haiti Is America, only sooner.
Wilmington Coup. C.S.A. methods used again, and again.
Giving the people of the US, the reinsurers of the reinsurer the USPO Service banking they paid for and pay for is the concrete thing that can be done to "Change the Conversation" as Mad Men's guy Hamm? no, his character would say.
Opening there.

Brooklin Bridge , June 2, 2016 at 9:14 am

For what it's worth, Jonathan Turley suggests Hillary still has friends in high places in his discussion of former Clinton IT advisor, Bryan Pagliano, who is taking the fifth amendment in deposition on email scandal,
https://jonathanturley.org/2016/06/02/former-clinton-it-advisor-to-take-the-fifth-in-deposition-on-email-scandal/#more-99459

The silence of Pagliano and the reported lapse of memory of other top aides is likely good news for the Clinton team in pre-November damage control. If top aides will claim faulty memories or invoke their right to remain silent, the only disclosures before the election would have to come from the FBI or Congress. Yet, the FBI would turn over any proposed indictments to the Justice Department and, if the Justice Department scuttles any indictment, there would not normally be a public report.

I kept the link in the above paragraph active as it is interesting reading.

For those curious as to why Pagliano would take the fifth (rather than go straight for a quart :-)) when he already has immunity, one of the comments to Turley's post explains (from Tin at 1:42 am):

They are completely different matters. The FBI gave him immunity from possible criminal prosecution. The deposition mentioned n this post involves a civil lawsuit, "Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State." It is a civil suit brought under the Freedom of Information Act to get more documents out of the State Dept.. Pagliano is not a party to the suit, but they want to depose him as a non-party deponent and his lawyers sought a protective order. He plans to take the 5th and his lawyers don't want it videotaped.

docG , June 2, 2016 at 10:22 am

Those e-mails don't alarm me anywhere near as much as the $200,000 plus speaking fees from Wall St. NO speech by anyone is worth anywhere near such an amount. These were clearly bribes, there's simply no other way of looking at it. I have no interest in seeing the transcripts of those speeches because the money counts far more than the content, and speaks for itself. No way would I vote for someone so clearly in the pocket of the oligarchy.

[May 28, 2016] Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

Notable quotes:

"... the DoS requires workers to print out each email sent or received, and file it in a box, which is preserved. In general, these printouts, when done at all, are "filed" in printout order, making them difficult to search (which may be the intent, given the historic hostility to FOIA requests). ..."

"... Also, wasn't mail.presidentclinton.com used for the emails of the Clinton Foundation aides? Doesn't this mean the FBI likely now has very precise timing of both Hillary's SoS travel communications and Bill Clinton's speaking fee arrangement and Clinton Foundation donation emails, due to the emails likely having timestamps from a common clock? ..."

"... Assuming the ISP has decent security.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGmDBo-00mY ..."

"... That is a GREAT Youtube video. I've only gotten through the first 10 and a half minutes of it so far, and I had to stop watching it for a bit, because I was laughing my ass off so hard that tears were rolling down my cheeks. ..."

"... So let me get this straight, she COULD have been sending stuff involved with Black ops over an unencrypted link, and POTENTIALLY those files could have been printed off ANYWHERE in the world, and people are STILL defending her actions! Did it happen – IRRELEVANT! The very notion that she made it POSSIBLE means she breached national security! ..."

"... if I was an attacker, with or without the backing of a foreign government, I'd have been poking at THE PRINTER in the first instance, because (a) its security is likely to be weaker and also (b) its entirely less likely that there would be any logs produced or kept of my poking around. ..."

"... Now you're saying that not only was a printer available on this subdomain, and there was no firewall and no encrypted transport, but it was actually one of a particular series of HP LaserJet printers that allowed for a firmware upgrade upon receiving a new print job? ..."

"... 24.187.234.188 sounds very much like it was from the optimum online network block, and a quick whois shows that currently it does belong to them. ..."

"... he is not an engineer. Just a Manager that worked for a year 'managing' remote connectivity for foreign Embassies…. he did not go to school for CS or engineering and he has no training either. He was given immunity by the Justice Dept and was then fired by the State Dept so obviously he did something wrong. If you read Brian's post on FB - all of this is explained in the comments below his post with citations/links. ..."

"... The AP and Wired news stories about this whole issue (of the security of the server) catalog an entire boat load of security screw ups. They don't exactly inspire confidence in the competence of the people who set this stuff up. ..."

"... Interesting footnote: On tonight's NBC Evening Nudes, they mentioned that the FBI had seized Clinton's server, and also a USB thumb drive in August of last year. No mention of any PRINTERS being seized. (Typical incompetent FBI, still operating in the Louis Freeh era. The man didn't even know how to use a computer, and didn't want to.) ..."

"... like most hackers, hes a pathological liar. Its in their nature. He came out real quick to brag and prove how he hacked a clinton aid. But didn't want to tell anybody until he went to jail and she runing for president that that he hacked clintons emails? I call total BS. ..."

"... Did the sysadmin(s) who set up the mail and printer systems have security clearance(s) to read all the Mrs. Clinton's mail and print jobs? ..."

"... Because she certainly gave the sysadmin(s) the ability to read her mail and print jobs. archive the data, and transport the data anywhere. If that was not all done by State Department IT employee(s). how is this not a punishable offense? ..."

"... My understanding is that the same person who set up Bill Clinton's website and email after he left office set up Secretary Clinton's; hence, the shared IP addresses for similarly worded domains. Also, wasn't the same server used for both? ..."

"... I say follow the money. Look at the links between Clinton Foundation and classified information. ..."

"... She setup a private email server knowingly to exempt her from compliance. Now, the after the fact doesn't really matter. And she knows that… A .gov address would have full rights to all corispondance as the information belongs the the government and can be requested by ant civilian… ..."

May 28, 2016 | krebsonsecurity.com
Johnny Mnem, May 28, 2016 at 2:25 pm

It has, I think, been shown by Venafi that there was for some time in 2012 and 2013 a VPN running on the clintonemail.com domain. However, that certificate expired. Running a directly Internet connected printer seems more a security threat than simply a chance of sniffing printer queues as modern printers sometimes have their own vulnerabilities.

Venafi's posts (first story has information about VPN):

https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/new-data-confirms-venafi-analysis-on-clinton-email-server/

https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server

https://www.venafi.com/webinars/view/on-demand-clinton-email-server-security-lapses

Benjamin Lim , May 29, 2016 at 7:42 am

I don't see why she requires a publicly routable IP address for a mail server, print server and VPN server. It can easily be NATed behind a router on a single public IP.

JL, May 29, 2016 at 4:21 pm

On a show last week, Rachel Maddow did a segment on the Department of State's official archive policy.

According to Maddow, the DoS requires workers to print out each email sent or received, and file it in a box, which is preserved. In general, these printouts, when done at all, are "filed" in printout order, making them difficult to search (which may be the intent, given the historic hostility to FOIA requests).

This reminded me that the DoS was dismayed at not finding Brian Pagliano's .pst file, indicating they did not expect to find his emails on any server-side backup. Presumably, no server-side DoS email backup capability exists.

Also, wasn't mail.presidentclinton.com used for the emails of the Clinton Foundation aides? Doesn't this mean the FBI likely now has very precise timing of both Hillary's SoS travel communications and Bill Clinton's speaking fee arrangement and Clinton Foundation donation emails, due to the emails likely having timestamps from a common clock?

Email Server Software Management, May 30, 2016 at 12:28 pm
Well, there are many printers have more than one port and protocols in use which means many different ways of establishing a connection to that printer and not just layer 2.
Whoever, May 31, 2016 at 7:37 am

Yes, there are so many printers with integrated frame relay ports.

Jim, May 31, 2016 at 10:35 am

Loved all the arguments, but, show me in the laws where it was illegal, for Hillery, to have a second E-mail address? And that it was illegal to use it on government time. Or to have a printer hooked to that account? But, I will tell you what was illegal. The employees using that address to send classified information too. You shouldn't worry about Hillery, but the useful idiots.

Ken, May 31, 2016 at 11:17 am

There are some registrars that setup DNS by way of a template and assign A record subdomains by default to make it easier….such as MX, www, etc. Not excusing it as you need to be way more careful when you are the state department…but this is hardly the worst thing Clinton has done.

Karen Bannan, June 1, 2016 at 1:48 pm

I'm not surprised since people don't realize how much of a security risk a printer can be - and how to protect themselves and their network. Great white paper about printer and network security written by a third party here: bit.ly/1sq1kyG

I also just read a story about printers and security on Computerworld.

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3074902/security/printer-security-is-your-companys-data-really-safe.html

–Karen Bannan, commenting for IDG and HP

Joe, May 26, 2016 at 7:52 pm

The printer queue to a pimple faced hacker wouldn't be of interest but for a state intelligence agency it would be a jackpot. Some of the greatest intelligence is gathered from the trash still today. Don't think that the printer queue would not be interesting to a knowledgeable party.

Joe, May 27, 2016 at 7:09 am

So… You want me to believe that Hillary's personal email server sat behind MILLIONS of dollars of security infrastructure to keep it protected? And that it employed D.O.D. grade 2 factor authentication, disk encryption, and had a team of the worlds best security professionals monitoring all traffic to/from the server and the network itself?

I doubt it.

IMorgan59, May 27, 2016 at 2:43 pm

Secure, nonsecure, whatever. If she had used State's email server, then 1) copies would have been on their server when she left office, 2) the Benghazi Commitee would have been able to wrap up its investigation 2 years ago, 3) if State's computers were hacked, that wouldn't be her responsibility, and 4) due to her choices, she's on the hot seat insisting she didn't do anything wrong. She made her bed and now has to sleep in it.

Winston, May 27, 2016 at 2:24 pm

The C-SPAN interview with former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Joseph diGenova I linked to above was a real eye opener for me to how HUGE this scandal actually is.

Once one is aware of the details, one can easily see through all of the many intentional red herrings and half truths thrown out on this by Clinton and her campaign. What is absolutely, positively amazing to me is how they have been able to get away with it since it really doesn't take much investigative effort at all to expose their spin job for what it is.

Some of the lame excuses now coming from the State Department are a hint that officials there are also vulnerable to the very major repercussions that SHOULD come from this.

Every one of the 127 to 150 (depending upon who you listen to) FBI agents investigating this and every person in the intel community knows darn well that if any one of them had done even the tiniest fraction of what has been done by Clinton and her crew, their security clearance would have been immediately revoked, they would have been indicted and, most likely, imprisoned.

That is why, as revealed in the C-SPAN interview with Joseph diGenova who has a current Top Secret clearance himself and has his ear to the conversation within the retired DOJ and intel community in DC, there would likely be a revolt within the FBI and intel community if there are no indictments on this. Why?

Well, first, there is that "Think of what would have happened to ME if I'd done even a tiny fraction of this." Second, the failure to indict and prosecute would set a dangerous precedent that would make the successful prosecution of anyone guilty of the mishandling of classified materials and avoidance of public record FOIA inquiries difficult if not impossible.

herunobfuscatedemails, May 27, 2016 at 1:21 pm

@notme and other defending Hillary Fanbois: There is tons of evidence it was not way more secure than a DOD platform and she didn't use a qualified individual to set up the email server.

It was an out of the box config with little or no effort to obfuscate the domain / service. I highly doubt the server or IIS had been harden and I'd have to profile it was out of ignorance. No doubt all default vulnerabilities where unaddressed and patches weren't in effect if a reboot was necessary

How do we know this??? Just a little recon. As you know whatever you post may never go away… Same goes for domains. Enter one of my favorite Internet recon tools The Way Back Machine. If you don't know it, search for it and do a little research.

When the default IIS page comes up for the mail domain and the auth login page shows up for at the default OWA address, we can comfortably conclude this was a lame chatty effort. At least ssl was being used (by default no doubt):
https://mail.clintonemail.com/owa/auth/logon.aspx

Had someone intended to provide a layer of security by hiding her email, it never EVER would've been via that silly domain. An obfuscated domain would've been irrelevant and distasteful i.e. openmalwarehere.com

Mark M, May 27, 2016 at 1:47 am

Assuming the ISP has decent security.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGmDBo-00mY

Ron G, May 27, 2016 at 6:44 pm

That is a GREAT Youtube video. I've only gotten through the first 10 and a half minutes of it so far, and I had to stop watching it for a bit, because I was laughing my ass off so hard that tears were rolling down my cheeks.

Looking forward to the additional amazing absurdities revealed in the NEXT 40 minutes of this video.

You can't make stuff like this up.

Robert, May 26, 2016 at 8:48 pm

Could also DNS poison. They are not connecting to the printer via IP probably if they are setting up A records for it. Also don't underestimate how many routers on the web are hacked, and I am talking up stream core routers.

But why are we even talking about eavesdropping a connection? You can usually trivially compromise a printer (likely default admin creds) and just capture each print job that is sent to the printer using the printer itself. Copy each job onto the filesystem memory on the device and FTP it out. Most all HP and other network capable printers support it or just upload your own firmware.

psgm, May 27, 2016 at 2:20 am

So let me get this straight, she COULD have been sending stuff involved with Black ops over an unencrypted link, and POTENTIALLY those files could have been printed off ANYWHERE in the world, and people are STILL defending her actions! Did it happen – IRRELEVANT! The very notion that she made it POSSIBLE means she breached national security!

Would anyone else who did this be allowed in public yet alone to run for POTUS!?

Why haven't the DNC disqualified her already?

She is DONE

onasty, May 26, 2016 at 6:39 pm

The intercepting of data is also somewhat unlikely. Without knowing how they got internet access you can't say infallibly if it was sniffable. Over a fiber circuit she likely had a CIDR block and there wouldn't have been anyone else to sniff it. Over DOCSIS they would need to break BPI+, and be on the local RF segment. Both create extraordinarily unlikely scenarios for sniffing.

Also you sent me on a confusing wild IP goose chase… You have both 24.187.234.188 and 24.197.234.188 listed in the story.

Ron G, May 26, 2016 at 6:47 pm

An interesting report from 2011:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/exclusive-millions-printers-open-devastating-hack-attack-researchers-say-f118851

"In one demonstration, Cui printed a tax return on an infected printer, which in turn sent the tax form to a second computer playing the part of a hacker's machine. The latter computer then scanned the document for critical information such as Social Security numbers, and when it found one, automatically published it on a Twitter feed…"

So, um, leaving aside the narrow possibility of printer traffic sniffing, I believe that it might be accurate to say that most printers these days have memory… lots of it… and thus, it would seem to be not entirely beyond the realm of the possible to imagine a scenario in which a less-than-perfectly-secured printer which happened to also have a PUBLIC internet address, might perhaps be induced to give up its secrets to some remote attacker, e.g. the last five or ten documents that were printed.

The media and the Republicats are all gaga about the security of THE SERVER, but if I was an attacker, with or without the backing of a foreign government, I'd have been poking at THE PRINTER in the first instance, because (a) its security is likely to be weaker and also (b) its entirely less likely that there would be any logs produced or kept of my poking around.

name, May 26, 2016 at 9:01 pm

Now you're saying that not only was a printer available on this subdomain, and there was no firewall and no encrypted transport, but it was actually one of a particular series of HP LaserJet printers that allowed for a firmware upgrade upon receiving a new print job?

After a few ifs, I agree this could look bad. But, Ron, you're piling on the if after if after if and stating factually that this was bad. Again, what we have is a subdomain with printer as the name. There's a ton of things in between that what you're trying to have poor Brian conclude.

Directly connecting a computer to the internet without any firewall or hardening, bad idea. Directly connecting a printer to the internet without any firewall or hardening, yes, this too is a bad idea. Too bad we're playing hopscotch because of a subdomain name. Not like this: http://210.125.31.xxx/hp/device/this.LCDispatcher?nav=hp.EventLog

Nixie, May 26, 2016 at 6:50 pm

Check this interesting Wayback Machine history out. Looks like the Clinton server was hosting adware, possible malware, on February 7, 2011.

https://web.archive.org/web/form-submit.jsp?type=prefixquery&url=https://clintonemail.com/

Ron G, May 26, 2016 at 7:23 pm

Ummm… Maybe advertising.

This brings up another interesting thing I just learned about the clintonemail.com domain. The FSI passive DNS data bases knows of about 10,000 subdomains of that domain. I was flaberghasted by this at first, but then I realised the real reason for this. (No, that domain DOES NOT actually have anywhere near that many REAL subdomains):

http://serverfault.com/questions/582962/unused-domain-name-getting-routed-to-double-click

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/11/network_solutions_sub_domain_parking/

The simple answer is that NetworkSolutions points your parked domains at their advertising. (That's not actually remarkable at all. That's just what pretty much every company that does domain parking does.)

The more interesting thing is that in the cases of your live/active/non-parked domains for which NetSol provides DNS, they wildcard these domains, so that any time anybody punches in a misspelled subdomain name, they end up at NetSol's advertising partner, DoubleClick.

This is arguably an underhanded thing for NetSol to be doing, but hey! It's (apparently) in the contract, so it _is_ explicit to the customer, and NetSol isn't in business for its health. It's a commecial enterprise, so they can't be blamed for trying to make a buck, here and there.

But all this info about the DNS really brings up some other issues. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Hillary's server was, in actual fact, as tight as a snare drum with respect to security. There's still the question of her login credentials for her NetSol account. If those had gone walkaround… well… you can imagine the scenarios.

Nixie, May 27, 2016 at 1:41 pm

The Wayback links I provided are NOT for subdomains or parked domains. They are for the clintonemail.com domain, for the time period in question that a breach may have occurred. The URL strings captured show (at least) questionable adware running on this box, and I'm really surprised no one is looking at that. The &poru= string is tied to some very dubious adware, for example.

Chris, May 26, 2016 at 7:02 pm

So no evidence except wild speculation based on a sub domain name? I used to have a few sub domains such as router.mydomain voip.mydomain admin.mydomain netgear.mydomain setup as a honeypots. My plan was to script any ips buzzing them had all their future traffic dropped for several days. But alas I never got around to completing it.

Ron G, May 26, 2016 at 7:50 pm

Gosh! I had no idea, up until this moment, that Hillary was so sophisticated that she was even running her own honeypots!

Returning to this planet for the moment, I'd just like to emphasize that, as I told Brian, there are really two core points here:

1) Assigning a *public* IPv4 address to a printer opened up at least the theoretical possibilities that either (a) printer traffic could be sniffed or (b) that the printer itself could be compromised. We can debate all day the actual pragmatic level of risk associated with each of these two possibilities, but I think that it is non-zero in both cases, and in any case, perhaps this all misses the point.

2) Perhaps even MORE importantly, the assignment of a static public IP address to the printer speaks to the general level of network security competence (or lack thereof) of whoever was setting up and maintaining this equipment for the Clintons. And what it says is not good at all. I don't think that many either would or could disagree with that. And this is the more troubling aspect of the whole story. If the Clinton's sysadmin messed up even this simple and obvious thing, then what ELSE did he or she mess up, security-wise?

Ron G, May 27, 2016 at 7:25 pm

"Putting anything on the internet opens up the theoretical possibility that's its traffic could be sniffed. So, unless that's the threshold, in which case she's as secure as anything else on the internet, what's the point of the outrage?"

Actually, yea, you've made a good point. But let's dissect it a bit.

In theory, at least, server-to-server e-mail transmission can be protected from prying eyes via TLS encryption. I personally don't know how well deployed that (TLS) is at the present moment, but let's just say for the sake of argument that it's 50/50, i.e. half the time Hillary's inbound and outbound messages, e.g. to various world potentates, were protected in transit from sniffing and/or MITM attacks, and the other times they weren't.

More to the point, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that she at least understood the possibilities of her e-mails being spied upon… which, in the post-Snowden era, at least, she certainly should have understood… and as a result, she was at least smart enough not to send out e-mails like "Yea, let's drop those bombs now Bibi!" as some clever wag here said.

Contrast this with her probable level of caution when it came to simply *printing* some draft document… which could be equally or perhaps even more revealing and/or inflamatory… to the printer sitting right there next to her desk in her home office.

(As someone suggested, it is at least theoretically possible that data transport to the printer might be encrypted, but in practice, probably not.)

So Hillary is sitting there, and she prints a draft of a document she's working on called "State Department Post-Invasion Plan for Crimea". She doesn't worry about the security implications of "sending" that document out over the Internet, because, as far as she knows, it is actually just going from the screen on the physical desk right in front of her just over to the printer which is sitting right at her elbow. As far as her (possibly technically naive) perceptions go, the document is just being printed, and isn't ever even leaving the room she is sitting in. So her _perception_ is that printing the document is utterly safe and secure.

But this is the whole point here. Maybe that document could be sniffed. Even if that's not a realistic possibility, the printer itself could be directly compromised, and made to give up its secrets.

The apparent high probability that (a) she had a home printer and that (b) this printer had a public Ipv4 address… which was ridiculously easy to find, by the way… and that (c) she probably was NOT just using that printer as a paperweight or a doorstop and (d) the undeniable possibility that said printer could perhaps have been "hacked"… perhaps even via something as simple as remote login using admin/admin… all adds up to what, in my book at least, seems to be a "Holy s**t!" type of scenario.

The fact that the FBI apparently didn't bother to impound her printer when it impounded the rest of her gear is perhaps even more troubling.

For all we know, as we speak, that printer may be sitting exposed in some landfill somewhere in the hills of Westchester County, just waiting for some dumpster diver with an eye for valuable e-waste to come along, fish it out, plug it in, login with admin/admin, and then print out copies of the last 20 documents.

I think that it is safe to say that such a scenario probably would not be fully conformant with State Department rules & regulations with respect to the security of electronic documents.

Name, May 26, 2016 at 7:27 pm

Subdomain names mean little to nothing. Someone could guess what an IP address served based upon the subdomain name, or the domain name itself, but that is silly.

What exactly is an "internet based printer"? I'm not sure if there's a technical person trying to sound not technical and using random jargon or if it's a non-technical person trying to sound technical. Let's try and define some terms maybe?

24.187.234.188 sounds very much like it was from the optimum online network block, and a quick whois shows that currently it does belong to them. That sounds about right because they provide services around the area Hillary Clinton called home. Optonline does provide static IP addresses. But I have to wonder, are these terminated in the house? Do we know if the email server everyone is so hip to talk about was actually located at Clinton's house or was it in a DC (rack, not washington)? If it was in her house what was the connection? Did this IP reside on a cable modem? Was it a DSL line? Fiber? That area wasn't know for it's way updated and trendy transport. Did the carrier provide the equipment? Did Clinton hire a complete idiot to put the email server directly connected to the internet or was there a firewall in front of it?

How likely is it that there was a firewall of sorts in front of the mail server and any printers that were likely there? Pretty damn likely. She didn't buy services from Stooges r Us. And even if she did, they would probably set up a firewall. That's all saying that the vendor supplied equipment didn't perform some firewalling technology. Anyone in the IT field would see this as not very likely outside of pre mid 90s.

For the printer subdomain name, we think that the printer actually had IPP or something? LPD? Are you suggesting, but not saying, that Clinton set up a printing device directly on the internet so that while she was traveling around wherever she was when not at home and printing to that printer? That doesn't even make sense. Or are you suggesting, but not saying, she decided this fancy new printer she saw at Office Depot would look nice with a subdomain sitting next to her email server? And, now she could actually print stuff while she was outside in the yard or upstairs in the bedroom? Oh, it was connected to the internet? Really? "I didn't know it was on the internet even though I somehow called and registered a subdomain so I could get an external IP address for it. And I just plugged this big old CAT5(e)/6 cable into my printer directly from the wall???"

Factually we can say the following: 4 subdomains pointed to 2 IPs. 2 subdomains use the English word "mail" and 2 subdomains use the English word "printer".

Do we know that some mail transfer agent was listening on the mail domain? I assume someone knows this, but I've not seen any documentation on this, haven't looked, barely care. Do we have any open ports on this other IP? Did anyone do some research? Why don't you contact Robert Graham and ask him if masscan hit those IPs and what ports were open. Maybe he doesn't like reporters, but you can ask nicely. Tell him some guy on the internet told you about masscan and that Rob probably had some port information about those IPs.

Ron G, May 26, 2016 at 10:41 pm

"Do we know if the email server everyone is so hip to talk about was actually located at Clinton's house or was it in a DC (rack, not washington)? If it was in her house what was the connection? Did this IP reside on a cable modem? Was it a DSL line? Fiber? That area wasn't know for it's way updated and trendy transport. Did the carrier provide the equipment? Did Clinton hire a complete idiot to put the email server directly connected to the internet or was there a firewall in front of it?"

These are all GREAT questions, many of which the FBI, in its usual half-assed manner, is probably not even thinking about, let alone actually asking. Do you have any of the answers to any of the questions that you yourself have raised? I mean DEFINITIVE answers, rather than just your personal speculations?

"How likely is it that there was a firewall of sorts in front of the mail server and any printers that were likely there? Pretty damn likely."

And you are basing that opinion/supposition on what, exactly?

"She didn't buy services from Stooges r Us."

Ummm… she did, actually:

https://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/467ff78858bf4dde8db21677deeff101/only-ap-clinton-server-ran-software-risked-hacking

As detailed in both of the above news stories, whoever set up Clinton's network was probably a relative of Professor Irwin Corey.

Jen, May 27, 2016 at 11:43 am

She used a SUPER USER from State to set it up for her… he is not an engineer. Just a Manager that worked for a year 'managing' remote connectivity for foreign Embassies…. he did not go to school for CS or engineering and he has no training either. He was given immunity by the Justice Dept and was then fired by the State Dept so obviously he did something wrong. If you read Brian's post on FB - all of this is explained in the comments below his post with citations/links.

Dan Riley, May 26, 2016 at 8:01 pm

Yes, she had a CIDR block:

https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-24-187-234-184-1

The CIDR block 24.187.234.184/29 was allocated to Clinton's home. If the network was configured following standard practices, traffic between systems inside that CIDR block would not have left Clinton's LAN, and most definitely would not have been "sent out over the Internet". Guilmette's comments about vulnerabilities and wasting toner assume incompetence and a total absence of firewalls. What evidence we have is that the people who setup Clinton's home LAN knew enough to configure a router, a firewall, a VPN, and some basic CIDR netmasks.

NAT is not a security fix-all, not using NAT is not a sign of vulnerability or incompetence.

Ron G, May 26, 2016 at 11:01 pm

"If the network was configured following standard practices, traffic between systems inside that CIDR block would not have left Clinton's LAN…"

And if perchance it WASN'T configured following standard practices, what then?

Does the FBI know what how the network was actually configured? Does anybody?

"Guilmette's comments about vulnerabilities and wasting toner assume incompetence and a total absence of firewalls."

Absolutely. Is there any publically known reason to grant the sysadmin(s) who set this stuff up any more generous assumptions vis a vis their competence? The AP and Wired news stories about this whole issue (of the security of the server) catalog an entire boat load of security screw ups. They don't exactly inspire confidence in the competence of the people who set this stuff up.

"What evidence we have is that the people who setup Clinton's home LAN knew enough to configure a router, a firewall, a VPN, and some basic CIDR netmasks."

I can teach an 8th grader of average intelligence how to do all that stuff in 1/2 hour. Teaching him/her how to do it SECURELY takes a bit longer.

The good news is that people with no more intelligence that a bag of hammers can nowadays wander down to the local BestBuy, purchase a network printer and a router, take them both home, plug them in, and they just seem to work. The bad news is that people with no more intelligence than a bag of hammers can nowadays wander down to their local BestBuy, purchase a network printer and a router, take them both home, plug them in, and they just SEEM to work.

The mere existance of this network isn't proof that it was secure in any sense. It isn't even evidence of that.

Blake, May 27, 2016 at 9:42 am

Agreed. The information in this article is largely speculation based on one piece of information meta data (a DNS record).

Whether a printer existed is speculation; Whether said printer was connected to the internet is speculation (having an IP does not equal internet connectivity); If said printer existed, and if said printer was internet connected, any vulnerabilities in the printer itself or in the communications path are also speculation.

Fred, May 26, 2016 at 8:16 pm

It gets better. Do a dig mx clintonemail.com. You'll see that the machine's incoming email was filtered by mxlogic.net, a spam filtering service that works by received all your emails, filtering out the spam, and forwarding you the rest.

This is because the hosting provider, Platte River Network, sold a package along with the hosting. The package included spam filtering and full-disk off-site backup (since then seized by the FBI).

So every email received by Clinton was going through many unsecured places, including a spam filtering queue, a backup appliance and an off-site backup server. Which has already been documented.

Ron G, May 26, 2016 at 10:24 pm

"It gets better. Do a dig mx clintonemail.com. You'll see that the machine's incoming email was filtered by mxlogic.net, a spam filtering service that works by received all your emails, filtering out the spam, and forwarding you the rest."

That arrangement appears to have only been in effect since circa June, 2013. We should think also about the time BOTH before and after that.

;; bailiwick: clintonemail.com.
;; count: 5454
;; first seen: 2013-06-24 21:27:43 -0000
;; last seen: 2016-05-26 12:57:43 -0000
clintonemail.com. IN MX 10 clintonemail.com.inbound10.mxlogic.net.
clintonemail.com. IN MX 10 clintonemail.com.inbound10.mxlogicmx.net.

"This is because the hosting provider, Platte River Network, sold a package along with the hosting. The package included spam filtering and full-disk off-site backup (since then seized by the FBI)."

Was that all in the report? I guess I'll have to go and read that whole thing now.

Interesting footnote: On tonight's NBC Evening Nudes, they mentioned that the FBI had seized Clinton's server, and also a USB thumb drive in August of last year. No mention of any PRINTERS being seized. (Typical incompetent FBI, still operating in the Louis Freeh era. The man didn't even know how to use a computer, and didn't want to.)

"So every email received by Clinton was going through many unsecured places, including a spam filtering queue, a backup appliance and an off-site backup server. Which has already been documented."

Um, yep. You're right. Arguably, the security of Clinton's e-mails were even WORSE after the switch in June, 2013, than it had been before that.

And let's not forget that the Stored Communications Act makes it perfectly legal for any service provider who happens to have YOUR e-mails on THEIR hard drives to peek at those e-mails, pretty much as they see fit, as long as doing so is ostensibly or arguably for "technical" reasons having to do with the management of the service they are providing.
(Google goes further and has software that looks at everything, for marketing/advertising purposes. All 100% legal, based on their end luser contracts, I'm sure.)

So this is basically like when some NSA people got caught peeking at the NSA's records on their love interests. When they get caught, they just shrug, promise never to do it again, and nobody goes to jail.

How many sysadmins at MXLogic had access to Clinton's emails? If the one lone guy who pulled the graveyard shift poked around into those e-mails, at say 3AM, would anybody even know that had happened? (Even the NSA didn't know what Snowden had looked at until he was already long gone, and even then, they weren't entirely sure.)

Bruce Hobbs, May 26, 2016 at 9:10 pm

Ah, Brian, it appears that both the Chinese and the Russians had complete access to Hillary's rogue mail server going back to 2013. I'm not sure there's any point in talking about the printer.

A Romanian cab driver, known as Guccifer and now sitting in a U.S. jail, claimed to have found her mail server and gotten complete access to it in 2013, up to two years before Farsight discovered it in March 2015.

But there is a subsequent story that claimed that Guccifer tried to hack into Russian systems which the Russians discovered. They, in turn, planted malware on Guccifer's computer that allowed them to see everything that he was able to hack into. It's likely that the Russians have every piece of email that went through Hillary's server. If there are any missing, we should ask them about it.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-gets-guccifered-1462487970

cooloutac, May 26, 2016 at 11:12 pm

like most hackers, hes a pathological liar. Its in their nature. He came out real quick to brag and prove how he hacked a clinton aid. But didn't want to tell anybody until he went to jail and she runing for president that that he hacked clintons emails? I call total BS.

Ron G, May 26, 2016 at 11:26 pm

Nobody with any brains believes the recent headline-grabbing pronouncements from this criminal Guccifer. He's pretty obviously just failing around and hoping that he can come up with some topical story that will get him in the newspapers and maybe… if they are really dumb… entice his prosecutors into cutting him some sort of a deal if he "talks" about his alleged break-in to the Clinton server. But so far, he hasn't produced a single shred of credible evidence to back up his wild claims, and as someone pointed out, it is really rather absurd, even or especially for someone in his position, to VOLUNTARILY cop to yet another federal felony.

The smart money says that if anyone ever did compromise any part of Clinton's network, that party will be smart enough to NEVER talk about that, except to his paymasters, or to whoever is willing and able to purchase the exflitrated data, with utmost confidentiality and discretion, obviously.

Chief V, May 26, 2016 at 10:44 pm

I assume that when China, Russia, Israel, Germany, Britian, India, Pakistan, etc… reconnoitered Secretary Clinton's web presence and discovered her use of a private email server and printer, they would have devoted the required time and resources to compromise them, one way or the other. That's what state-sponsored intelligence services do. If I were either Clinton, I would assume my email was compromised and assume my nation-state adversaries have everything … just the same as if I used the State Department's email system.

Ironically, she would have been better off using the State Dept. email system: she would have known from the start that eventually every message would be in the hands of our adversaries.

twinmustangranchdressing, May 27, 2016 at 5:12 am

When she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton worked and lived in Washington, DC. Why would she have wanted to print out emails in Chappaqua, NY?

jb, May 27, 2016 at 7:40 am

The printer could have resided anywhere. Just because the IP is hosted in NY, doesn't mean the printer is there, just the print queue

Algo Rythm, May 27, 2016 at 11:39 am

Two points:

1. DOCSIS – LOL. While her cable company's DOCSIS 3.1 does have encrypted features to prevent someone on the copper from doing the equivalent of ARP poisoning to pretend to be her gateway, I have not yet – anywhere in New England or the Mid Atlantic – found those encryption features enabled. They are left off intentionally by every provider I have tested probably for bandwidth profit reasons. Her packets were sniffable. Period.

2. FOX level hypocrisy detected.

Let's not forget that Rove and Cheney ran the US government for years during a time of war using an Exchange 2003 RNC server. When called on it, suddenly (Oopsy, TeeHee!) all the millions of those email messages – and their backups – got 'accidentally' deleted rather than letting the world + dog see what those two chimps were trusting Microsoft security to keep safe. Any talk of Orange suits needs to put those two at the front of the line.

As far as I'm concerned with Hillary, I'd like to see her precedent more widely adopted – hardened personal mail stores to restore privacy. Screw the folks who think snooping everyone's email is their personal right under some secret law.

brea, May 27, 2016 at 1:08 pm

"More importantly, any emails or other documents that the Clintons decided to print would be sent out over the Internet - however briefly - before going back to the printer. And that data may have been sniffable by other customers of the same ISP, Guilmette said."

How/why would this be the case?

I can see if we make the assumption of all machines using internal IPs so packets headed to 24.187.234.188 would route out then bounce back in … but if it was local net, or if it was defined in hosts or the router (also assumptions) then it would never have to bounce out except for a a lookup.
or am I missing something here ..?

vb, May 27, 2016 at 1:24 pm

Did the sysadmin(s) who set up the mail and printer systems have security clearance(s) to read all the Mrs. Clinton's mail and print jobs?

Because she certainly gave the sysadmin(s) the ability to read her mail and print jobs. archive the data, and transport the data anywhere. If that was not all done by State Department IT employee(s). how is this not a punishable offense?

It boggles my mind to think that anyone could defend Mrs. Clinton for this blatant breach of national security.

KrebsonSecurityFan, May 27, 2016 at 3:15 pm

My understanding is that the same person who set up Bill Clinton's website and email after he left office set up Secretary Clinton's; hence, the shared IP addresses for similarly worded domains. Also, wasn't the same server used for both?

I think this person was granted immunity.

Worrying about whether an indictment is in the future is like wondering what verdicts a jury is going to return. That is something that I learned from a veteran attorney.

CD, May 27, 2016 at 3:53 pm

So I am in the printer industry, and this story is interesting for a couple of reasons.

1) Most IP based printers (read connected via ethernet card rather than USB "local" connection) allow for users and administrators to log in to the printer via the IP address and adjust settings, install new firmware, and so forth. For a state hacker, this could be gold – and the default "service" logins and passwords can typically be found in service manuals readily available on the web.

2) On that issue, one of the things that a lot of multi function devices ("all in one") allow for is "multi plexing". "Multi plexing" is performing multiple functions with a single job submission. For example, there are machines that can receive an incoming fax, print that fax out, forward the fax using SMB to an archive (typically, but not always on the same subnet), forward that fax via email to a recipient, forward that fax to another fax machine using telephony, forward that fax to a fax server using LAN faxing, and so on. You can see how tempting a multifunction machine would be to a a state intelligence service.

3) All the components in a machine are commercially available, from limited manufacturers – there are only so many manufacturers for memory, motherboards, etc. For a state intelligence service with a lot of money – setting up a clone in a lab to use as a template to re-engineer would be relatively cheap.

4) Many PostScript enabled printers allow for firmware upgrades as a PostScript print submission – so the printer could be reprogrammed with new firmware (essentially re engineered) remotely by anyone with access to the IP. Essentially, the multi plexing could be reprogrammed to sent print submissions out to a server controlled by a foreign intelligence service. Now, this isn't something that a pimply faced hacker could do. Too expensive, and too time consuming. But if you had an organization that could figure out how to reprogram centrifuges…

5) Many printers by default "assign themselves" ports with known weaknesses (I'm looking at you, Port 8xxx), and open those ports up to allow communication over a network – for example, the "flag" that pops up on your computer to let you know the printer is out of paper. Depending on how a printer is set up for internet printing, this may or may not apply. Experienced IP administrators will go back, and change the port settings – if they think of it. But in many cases it is not something that they are thinking about.

Shift4, May 27, 2016 at 4:29 pm

I say follow the money. Look at the links between Clinton Foundation and classified information.

She setup a private email server knowingly to exempt her from compliance. Now, the after the fact doesn't really matter. And she knows that… A .gov address would have full rights to all corispondance as the information belongs the the government and can be requested by ant civilian…

[May 09, 2016] Hillary Clinton demonstrated gross negligence in handling classified information - former FBI agent

Notable quotes:

"... There are really two prongs to this investigation: the sensitive handling or mishandling of classified information in the form of emails. But there is also another aspect of this and that is the significant monies that came to the coffers of the Clinton Foundation while Mrs. Clinton held a high cabinet-level political position. And it is a violation of the law for political officials to accept money. This is somewhat of a grey area. But there are indications that part of the investigation is not only looking at the handling or mishandling of classified information… but, on the second hand, is an individual in an official capacity accepting money or favors on behalf of their position with the US government. ..."

"... When I was an FBI agent and I worked overseas, I was not able to accept anything that had a value over 25 dollars… So, there is a big question about not only the handling of information, but also the accepting of gifts. There has been anecdotal information that upwards of $57 million went into the coffers of the Clinton Foundation while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State. So, that is something that the investigation will look at. ..."

"... Could that be an obstruction of justice? Interesting to see. Were emails destroyed? That is a violation of the law in terms of destruction of evidence ..."

"... I think there is a gross negligence of the handling of classified information that protects our national security. ..."

"... They take their orders from the owners of government just like all federal employees. Military included! Oaths mean NOTHING to US government employees. You swear to uphold the constitution and when or if you do you end up like snowden or manning. You collect your pay and your benefits and do as your told otherwise your dealt with like they deal with any citizen that disobeys, they destroy your life one way or another. ..."

"... The handling of Hillary's email is the least of her crimes. She was essentially running a regime change for profit using the US military during her tenure as secretary of state. ..."

"... I had not heard the regime-change-for-profit angle. Fascinating. Hideous. ..."

"... Hillary Clinton taking advantage of her power in such a blatant way setting up a home server for a top US office is beyond poor judgement. That says she believes she is above the law. ..."

"... Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both narcissistic without forethought. They both do what they want and either get out of the way or suffer the cc consequences. They both believe they can do anything. The sad part is the other political powers are either an ally or afraid of them. The media, politicians, corporate executives are either afraid of them or part of corruption. ..."

"... We'll see if the FBI has any balls or just talk. ..."

"... ...and yet, Donald Trump did not set-up a private server system just to get around the rules of being Secretary of State. Why find a roundabout way to have Trump share blame with Clinton for her dishonest behavior and poor choices? He wasn't the one who made them: She did. ..."

"... Their shady deals were made behind closed doors with the only witnesses being those who would, themselves, be implicated if word got out. I'm currently reading "Clinton Cash" and it just blows my mind. Those two are the absolute epitome of corruption. ..."

"... i dont know about this if she has jeopadised national security then she is no different to bradley manning the fbi plays no favourites although bradley manning did everyone a favour by what he did but hillary did it to put herself into the white house ..."

May 8, 2016 | RT Op-Edge

Clinton faces questioning over her handling of classified information in emails, as well as funds received by the Clinton Foundation while she was in high office, James Conway former FBI agent and Managing Director of Global Intel Strategies told RT.

CBS News reported that Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton will be interviewed by the FBI in the near future regarding messages sent and received on her private email server.

RT: What kind of steps may we expect to see taken by the FBI with regards to Hillary Clinton and her email controversy? Will she receive some sort of special privilege due to her high-ranking position?

James Conway: I do know the protocols and standards the FBI follows when it comes to serious violations of the law. First of all, the FBI is an apolitical organization that has nothing to do with politics. Agents of the FBI and support employees of the FBI take an oath to uphold the law. And that's regardless of who may have committed violations of the law.

It is immaterial whether it is the First Lady, or it is the lady down the street, or it is the mayor of a city - it doesn't matter. The FBI has a long history of enforcing the law. And sometimes people who are subjects to those investigations happen to be high-level political officials. So, it has happened a number of times. Just two years ago David Petraeus was charged, former general and former Director of the CIA was charged with violations of the law as it pertains to the protection or the passage of sensitive, classified information which is somewhat the subject of this ongoing investigation or the allegations that have been brought forward against the former First Lady and current candidate for the president of the US.

RT: Does the investigation pose a threat to Clinton's presidential aspirations?

JC: Political commentators have said this. The FBI has said nothing. The FBI's investigation is extremely complex. They are looking at years of activity; they are looking at thousands and thousands of transactions in cyberspace. There are really two prongs to this investigation: the sensitive handling or mishandling of classified information in the form of emails. But there is also another aspect of this and that is the significant monies that came to the coffers of the Clinton Foundation while Mrs. Clinton held a high cabinet-level political position. And it is a violation of the law for political officials to accept money. This is somewhat of a grey area. But there are indications that part of the investigation is not only looking at the handling or mishandling of classified information… but, on the second hand, is an individual in an official capacity accepting money or favors on behalf of their position with the US government.

When I was an FBI agent and I worked overseas, I was not able to accept anything that had a value over 25 dollars… So, there is a big question about not only the handling of information, but also the accepting of gifts. There has been anecdotal information that upwards of $57 million went into the coffers of the Clinton Foundation while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State. So, that is something that the investigation will look at.

RT: How serious are the charges that Hillary Clinton faces?

JC: Personally, I know that the handling of classified information is extremely sensitive. And it is viewed by the courts and by national security folks […] as extremely valuable and important. And those who violate those laws and rules are subject to severe penalties. And sometimes, in the case of David Petraeus, he passed some sensitive information, not official documents, but in the forms of notes to Paula Broadwell who was writing a book about him […]. In this particular case that everybody is talking about in America, because it is within the context of the ongoing presidential campaign here, Hillary Clinton didn't use a State Department closed email system […] Mrs. Clinton had her own public server and that is how she was communicating with her associates and others within the government. To me, that's a clear problem. She has been asked to provide all of that traffic and there have been instances during the course of the investigation that maybe she didn't hand over all those documents, all of that email traffic. Could that be an obstruction of justice? Interesting to see. Were emails destroyed? That is a violation of the law in terms of destruction of evidence. So, there are a lot of problems here. I think there is a gross negligence of the handling of classified information that protects our national security.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

@PeteSanger, ·8 May

"Agents of the FBI and support employees of the FBI take an oath to uphold the law."

If that were the case then they would have reopened the investigation of the so called terrorist attacks on 9/11.

They take their orders from the owners of government just like all federal employees. Military included! Oaths mean NOTHING to US government employees. You swear to uphold the constitution and when or if you do you end up like snowden or manning. You collect your pay and your benefits and do as your told otherwise your dealt with like they deal with any citizen that disobeys, they destroy your life one way or another.

@Emmett647, 8 May

The handling of Hillary's email is the least of her crimes. She was essentially running a regime change for profit using the US military during her tenure as secretary of state.

@LouCoatney -> @Emmett647, ·8 May

I had not heard the regime-change-for-profit angle. Fascinating. Hideous.

@CarolOrcutt, 8 May

Hillary Clinton taking advantage of her power in such a blatant way setting up a home server for a top US office is beyond poor judgement. That says she believes she is above the law. There is a pattern of her apologizing after she makes thoughtless decisions and many when she was Secretary of State and first lady. Her holding these positions does not make her a better candidate. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both narcissistic without forethought. They both do what they want and either get out of the way or suffer the cc consequences. They both believe they can do anything. The sad part is the other political powers are either an ally or afraid of them. The media, politicians, corporate executives are either afraid of them or part of corruption.

We'll see if the FBI has any balls or just talk.

@MidnightAndLulu -> @CarolOrcutt, 9 May

...and yet, Donald Trump did not set-up a private server system just to get around the rules of being Secretary of State. Why find a roundabout way to have Trump share blame with Clinton for her dishonest behavior and poor choices? He wasn't the one who made them: She did.

@Andy007, ·8 May

On RT German I read an article (inspired by Seymour Hersh), that Hillary Clinton supported an secret CIA operation in Libya in 2012, to let steal sarin gas stocks from Gaddafi Regime, to bring it to Syria, and gave it to islamist rebels, who use it to kill thousands of Syrian people. In the world's press Asssad was the mass murderer, the offender. I'm not sure if there are some evidence. But is it clever to support Hillary Clinton, when there are so sensible allegations against her? Perhaps it is gossip perhaps not. For the Democrats it could be painful, if Hillary get president and someday in future she must resign, when she get an indictment and must go into prison. For the Democrats is now the time to clear if it's true or not. Sure I like Bernie Sanders more than Hillary Clinton, he is a good man. But this is not the point. If Mrs. Clinton was part of a criminal mission the Democrats must clear it, or bear up the consequences in future.

@ChristinaJones, 9 May

Unfortunately I doubt anything will come of this. They (both Bill and Hillary) have been able to successfully skirt the law for a very long time now. They have amassed power and wealth by exploiting their positions and connections and have committed their offenses and done their dirty deeds right under everyone's noses. It disgusts me. I'm sure there are those in law enforcement who would love to take them down, are fully aware of their crimes, but, alas, our legal system requires definitive proof of any wrongdoings regardless of how obvious they are. There would have to be a recording of a conversation or an email (perhaps among 30,000 deleted?) That proves, without a doubt, that promises were made and delivered on in exchange for "contributions". The Clintons aren't stupid, especially Hillary.

Their shady deals were made behind closed doors with the only witnesses being those who would, themselves, be implicated if word got out. I'm currently reading "Clinton Cash" and it just blows my mind. Those two are the absolute epitome of corruption. Maybe, just maybe, this whole email situation is the break many have been looking for. If there is any justice at all in America the Clintons will be exposed for all they truly are and brought up on charges, convicted. I have my doubts though. I think what's most sickening is how they (Hillary) has exploited Americans gullibility by playing the victim in this tiresome "that evil GOP is always out to get me!" narrative. Wake up, people! The proof is there, all you have to do is look. I'm not anywhere close to a Republican and I see it. That's because I bothered to look.

@WayneJohnson -> @ChristinaJones, 9 May

i dont know about this if she has jeopadised national security then she is no different to bradley manning the fbi plays no favourites although bradley manning did everyone a favour by what he did but hillary did it to put herself into the white house

@Venom88, 8 May

The wicked witch of the west. Check how's she walks it's so odd...

[Mar 11, 2016] Hillarys Other Server Scandal

Notable quotes:

"... Bernie Sanders keeps refusing' to hit Hillary Clinton over her email. Or so it seems. But maybe the Vermont senator's relentless assault on Mrs. Clinton's corporate ties is about her email after all. Maybe Mr. Sanders is betting that Hillary has a bigger problem than classified information... ..."

www.wsj.com

The focus is on state secrets in her email - but what personal favors lay within?

Bernie Sanders keeps refusing' to hit Hillary Clinton over her email. Or so it seems. But
maybe the Vermont senator's relentless assault on Mrs. Clinton's corporate ties is about
her email after all. Maybe Mr. Sanders is betting that Hillary has a bigger problem than
classified information...

[Mar 03, 2016] Obamas Justice Department Just Gave Bryan Pagliano Immunity and Bernie Sanders the Presidency

Notable quotes:

"... Bryan Pagliano, the person who set up Clinton's private server and email apparatus, was just given immunity by the Justice Department. According to The Washington Post ..."

"... These 31,830 deleted emails, by the way, were deleted without government oversight. ..."

"... Only one person set up the server that circumvented U.S. government networks and this person is Bryan Pagliano. Not long ago, Pagliano pleaded the Fifth , so this new development speaks volumes. ..."

"... The New York Times ..."

"... Washington Post ..."

"... I'm a Bernie supporter. And honestly, offering immunity to Pagliano is almost certainly just so they can close loose ends and begin to close their investigation. Most likely, Clinton or her aides will get called in for one last round and then the FBI will end their investigation. This says nothing to a possibility of her guilt in anything. ..."

"... Thats not an assumption-its a fact. SHE scrubbed the server when she knew the FBI had asked her for it-SHE erased over 31,000 emails, SHE has dozens of emails SHE sent and received that were SEP classification-the very highest level. THis is about corruption at the highest levels and now SHE will have to pay the piper. ..."

"... The real issue i have had for a couple of years are the middle eastern gov. Donors to the clinton foundation while she was sec. Of state... Yeah i am waiting for that to come to light. That the huge REAL as opposed to emails ..."

"... Granting "use immunity" to this witness probably means that they have little to no evidence a crime was committed, and that they need his testimony to advance the investigation. If they had evidence, they would prosecute (or threaten to prosecute), convict him, and then use him to testify about his higher-ups in exchange for leniency. Use immunity means they don't have the goods even on this small fish. ..."

"... It is not a tempest in a teapot. Only a federal judge can grant immunity, and this means they are seating a grand jury, prosecutors, whole nine yards. ..."

"... With Donald Trump revving up his attacks against Clinton, as he is proving to be the Republican nominee, you know that he's not going to let this go. Bernie Sanders may be running a campaign that doesn't get caught up on issues outside of policy, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Donald Trump will obsess about. It's like when he went after Obama's birth certificate. If he makes this a primary issue of his campaign, Hillary will be deemed guilty before anybody has a chance to say otherwise. ..."

"... Clinton wanted to avoid the Wikileaks-revealed searches into her hopefully private exchanges. ..."

www.huffingtonpost.com
Bernie Sanders's path to the presidency was never going to be easy. After surging in the polls and consistently proving America's political establishment wrong, Sanders won Colorado and other states on Super Tuesday. He still has a path to win the Democratic nomination via the primaries, but Bernie Sanders just won the presidency for another reason: Hillary Clinton's quest for "convenience."
Bryan Pagliano, the person who set up Clinton's private server and email apparatus, was just given immunity by the Justice Department. According to The Washington Post, "The Clintons paid Pagliano $5,000 for 'computer services' prior to his joining the State Department, according to a financial disclosure form he filed in April 2009."

First, this can't be a right-wing conspiracy because it's President Obama's Justice Department granting immunity to one of Hillary Clinton's closest associates. Second, immunity from what? The Justice Department won't grant immunity to anyone unless there's potential criminal activity involved with an FBI investigation. Third, and most importantly for Bernie Sanders, there's only one Democrat in 2016 not linked to the FBI, Justice Department, or 31,830 deleted emails.

These 31,830 deleted emails, by the way, were deleted without government oversight.

Only one person set up the server that circumvented U.S. government networks and this person is Bryan Pagliano. Not long ago, Pagliano pleaded the Fifth, so this new development speaks volumes. His immunity, at this point in Clinton's campaign, spells trouble and could lead to an announcement in early May from the FBI about whether or not Clinton or her associates committed a crime. As stated in The New York Times, "Then the Justice Department will decide whether to file criminal charges and, if so, against whom."

... ... ...

In addition to born classified emails (emails that were classified from the start of their existence, undermining the claim that certain emails weren't classified when Clinton stored them on her server), as well as Top Secret intelligence on an unguarded server stored in her basement, Hillary Clinton has never explained the political utility of owning a private server.

Why did Hillary need to own a private server?

Aside from her excuse pertaining to convenience, why did Clinton need to circumvent U.S. government networks?

... ... ...

There are most likely a number of reasons Clinton needed the server and Pagliano's immunity helps the FBI immeasurable in deciphering whether or not criminal intent or behavior is a part of their recommendation to the Justice Department. Pagliano's immunity is explained in a Washington Post piece titled Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server:

The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton's private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.

As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.

... Spokesmen at the FBI and Justice Department would not discuss the investigation. Pagliano's attorney, Mark J. MacDougall, also declined to comment.

"There was wrongdoing," said a former senior law enforcement official. "But was it criminal wrongdoing?"

... ... ...

As for the issue of criminality, Detroit's Click on Detroit Local 4 News explains the severity of this saga in a piece titled DOJ grants immunity to ex-Clinton staffer who set up email server:

Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton staffer who helped set up her private email server, has accepted an immunity offer from the FBI and the Justice Department to provide an interview to investigators, a U.S. law enforcement official told CNN Wednesday.

With the completion of the email review, FBI investigators are expected to shift their focus on whether the highly sensitive government information, including top secret and other classified matters, found on Clinton's private email server constitutes a crime.

.... Huma Abedin is also part of this email investigation, as stated in a CNN article titled Clinton emails: What have we learned?:

The State Department is furthermore being sued for the emails of top aides, and for the tens of thousands of emails Clinton deemed personal and didn't turn over for review.

At a hearing last week in one such lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said he's considering asking the State Department to subpoena Clinton, and aide Huma Abedin, in an effort to learn more about those emails...

Clinton and her aides insist none of the emails she sent or received were marked as classified at the time they were sent, but more than 2,101 have been retroactively classified during the State Department-led pre-release review process.

Whether or not the intelligence was classified at the time is irrelevant; there's already proof of born classified intelligence on Clinton's server. Former Obama official Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn believes Hillary Clinton should "drop out" of the race because of the FBI investigation.

... ... ....

Tim Black

Thank You HA Goodman! As a former Managerof Executive IT Services for an Obama Cabinet member I can say with total certainty this dangerous handling of government correspondence Hillary Clinton not only broke security protocols, she ripped them in half, stepped on them and did the 'Dab'. Based on the information provided no one's framing, stalking, shalacking or setting up the Clintons.

This is the Clintons sabotaging The Clintons. I don't want to hear the cop outs "They're attacking me!". No Madame Secretary. You're attacking yourself. No Republicans necessary!

Tab Pierce · Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

AMEN TIM!!! I to worked for the government for 5 years as an email administrator. There is no way that she was not briefed and well versed in the protocols surrounding emails. If it had been me the FBI would have kicked down my door day one and I would be in jail. She should be held accountable to an even higher standard than you and I. She was the Secrtary of State for gods sake. Igorance is no excusse and on top of that is a lie.

Malcolm Smith · Translator at Self-Employed

O lord, they used an MS Exchange server that was naked on the internet to boot. Microsoft's pervasive OS presence in Government is all by itself a national security risk.

Scott Laytart · Los Angeles, California

I'm a Bernie supporter. And honestly, offering immunity to Pagliano is almost certainly just so they can close loose ends and begin to close their investigation. Most likely, Clinton or her aides will get called in for one last round and then the FBI will end their investigation. This says nothing to a possibility of her guilt in anything.

This is not positive or negative for Clinton, other than the investigation part of this may be over (probably) before June. If charges are filed, that's most likely when it would happen. Or they may not... no one knows but the FBI/DoJ.

Karen Teegarden
No one should take anything H.A. Goodman writes seriously.
Hillary has been asking for him to testify all along. What does immunity represent? Does it mean that either Pagliano (or Clinton) are accused of offenses? Quite the opposite. If the DOJ thought they had a case against Pagliano, they would not grant him immunity. In any event, for all the shrill attention that it will get, immunity for Bryan Pagliano will help move the Hillary Clinton email inquiry toward an end – and be one less thing for her to worry about.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/03/02/immunity-for-bryan-pagliano-will-help-end-the-hillary-clinton-email-inquiry

Jyade Gloria Kardos · Author at Jyade Cythrawl
Andy Stanton http://www.wnd.com/.../ex-u-s-attorney-hillary-case.../
Thats not an assumption-its a fact. SHE scrubbed the server when she knew the FBI had asked her for it-SHE erased over 31,000 emails, SHE has dozens of emails SHE sent and received that were SEP classification-the very highest level. THis is about corruption at the highest levels and now SHE will have to pay the piper.

Trevor Mooney
The real issue i have had for a couple of years are the middle eastern gov. Donors to the clinton foundation while she was sec. Of state... Yeah i am waiting for that to come to light. That the huge REAL as opposed to emails
Steve Smith · Attorney at Myself
Granting "use immunity" to this witness probably means that they have little to no evidence a crime was committed, and that they need his testimony to advance the investigation. If they had evidence, they would prosecute (or threaten to prosecute), convict him, and then use him to testify about his higher-ups in exchange for leniency. Use immunity means they don't have the goods even on this small fish.
Jyade Gloria Kardos · Author at Jyade Cythrawl
http://www.wnd.com/.../ex-u-s-attorney-hillary-case.../
Malcolm Smith, Translator at Self-Employed
It is not a tempest in a teapot. Only a federal judge can grant immunity, and this means they are seating a grand jury, prosecutors, whole nine yards.

Carl Gainsworth

This is an important aspect of the campaign at this point. With Donald Trump revving up his attacks against Clinton, as he is proving to be the Republican nominee, you know that he's not going to let this go. Bernie Sanders may be running a campaign that doesn't get caught up on issues outside of policy, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Donald Trump will obsess about. It's like when he went after Obama's birth certificate. If he makes this a primary issue of his campaign, Hillary will be deemed guilty before anybody has a chance to say otherwise.
Molly Cruz · Santa Cruz, Guanacaste, Costa Rica
Clinton wanted to avoid the Wikileaks-revealed searches into her hopefully private exchanges. My God, if Merkel was being hacked, surely everyone else of note was also, both foreign and domestic. My question is, to whom were these questionably high intensity emails sent? Don't the recipients have a say in this? Everyone knows they're being watched.
There are no exceptions I would think, least of all those searches useful for later political assassination. But those on the other end of these questionable emails must have some interest here, as they are involved.

[Feb 27, 2016] As One Clinton Email Nightmare Nears an End, Another Begins

finance.yahoo.com

Meanwhile, a federal judge ruled this week that Clinton and her top aides should be questioned under oath about her email arrangement, signaling the start of an entirely new legal headache for the now White House contender and her campaign team.

The lawsuit, brought by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, will pick up again in a few weeks in mid-March when the group files its preliminary plan for the questioning. State has until Apr. 5 to respond, and then Judicial Watch gets 10 days to file a reply.

The legal maneuvering means that Clinton aides could be deposed during the dog days of summer and potentially well into the general election. Another months-long round of questions about her emails could drag her entire campaign down as it did last year and give Sanders another shot at the nomination or hobble her in a contest against the GOP nominee.

[Jan 29, 2016] US government finds top secret information in Clinton emails

Notable quotes:

"... Oh, but it is serious. The material is/was classified. It just wasn't marked as such. Which means someone removed the classified material from a separate secure network and sent it to Hilary. We know from her other emails that, on more than one occasion, she requested that that be done. ..."

"... fellow diplomats and other specialists said on Thursday that if any emails were blatantly of a sensitive nature, she could have been expected to flag it. "She might have had some responsibility to blow the whistle," said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, "The recipient may have an induced kind of responsibility," Pickering added, "if they see something that appears to be a serious breach of security." ..."

"... Finally whether they were marked or not the fact that an electronic copy resided on a server in an insecure location was basically like her making a copy and bringing it home and plunking it in a file cabinet... ..."

"... In Section 7 of her NDA, Clinton agreed to return any classified information she gained access to, and further agreed that failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924 of the US Criminal Code. ..."

"... The agreement considers information classified whether it is "marked or unmarked." ..."

"... According to a State Department regulation in effect during Clinton's tenure (12 FAM 531), "classified material should not be stored at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for convenience." ..."

"... Additionally, a regulation established in 2012 (12 FAM 533.2) requires that "each employee, irrespective of rank must certify" that classified information "is not in their household or personal effects." ..."

"... As of December 2, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Manual has explicitly stated that "classified processing and/or classified conversation on a PDA is prohibited." ..."

"... Look, Hillary is sloppy about her affairs of state. She voted with Cheney for the Iraq disaster and jumped in supporting it. It is the greatest foreign affair disaster since Viet Nam and probably the greatest, period! She was a big proponent of getting rid of Khadaffi in Libya and now we have radical Islamic anarchy ravaging the failed state. She was all for the Arab Spring until the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt....which was replaced by yet another military dictatorship we support. And she had to have her own private e-mail server and it got used for questionable handling of state secrets. This is just Hillary being Hillary........ ..."

"... Its no secret that this hysterically ambitious Clinton woman is a warmonger and a hooker for Wall Street . No need to read her e-mails, just check her record. ..."

"... What was exemplary about an unnecessary war, a dumbass victory speech three or so months into it, the President's absence of support for his CIA agent outed by his staff, the President's German Chancellor shoulder massage, the use of RNC servers and subsequently "lost" gazillion emails, doing nothing in response to Twin Towers news, ditto for Katrina news, the withheld information from the Tillman family, and sanctioned torture? ..."

"... Another point that has perhaps not been covered sufficiently is the constant use of the phrase "unsecured email server" - which is intentionally vague and misleading and was almost certainly a phrase coined by someone who knows nothing about email servers or IT security and has been parroted mindlessly by people who know even less and journalists who should know better. ..."

"... Yet the term "unsecured" has many different meanings and implications - in the context of an email server it could mean that mail accounts are accessible without authentication, but in terms of network security it could mean that the server somehow existed outside a firewall or Virtual Private Network or some other form of physical or logical security. ..."

"... It is also extremely improbable that an email server would be the only device sharing that network segment - of necessity there would at least be a file server and some means of communicating with the outside world, most likely a router or a switch, which would by default have a built-in hardware firewall (way more secure than a software firewall). ..."

"... Anything generated related to a SAP is, by it's mere existence, classified at the most extreme level, and everyone who works on a SAP knows this intimately and you sign your life away to acknowledge this. ..."

"... yeah appointed by Obama...John Kerry. His state department. John is credited on both sides of the aisle of actually coming in and making the necessary changes to clean up the administrative mess either created or not addressed by his predecessor. ..."

"... Its not hard to understand, she was supposed to only use her official email account maintained on secure Federal government servers when conducting official business during her tenure as Secretary of State. This was for three reasons, the first being security the second being transparency and the third for accountability. ..."

"... You need to share that one with Petraeus, whos career was ruined and had to pay 100k in fines, for letting some info slip to his mistress.. ..."

"... If every corrupt liar was sent to prison there'd be no one left in Washington, or Westminster and we'd have to have elections with ordinary people standing, instead of the usual suspects from the political class. Which, on reflection, sounds quite good -- ..."

"... It's a reckless arrogance combined with the belief that no-one can touch her. If she does become the nominee Hillary will be an easy target for Trump. It'll be like "shooting fish in a barrel". ..."

"... It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the President should be communicating on a secure network controlled by the federal government. It is obvious that virtually none of these communications were done in a secure manner. Consider whether someone who contends this is irrelevant has enough sense to come in out of the rain. ..."

www.theguardian.com

The Obama administration confirmed for the first time on Friday that Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained some of the US government's most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification. The revelation comes just three days before the Iowa presidential nominating caucuses in which Clinton is a candidate.

jrhaddock -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 23:04

Oh, but it is serious. The material is/was classified. It just wasn't marked as such. Which means someone removed the classified material from a separate secure network and sent it to Hilary. We know from her other emails that, on more than one occasion, she requested that that be done.

And she's not just some low level clerk who doesn't understand what classified material is or how it is handled. She had been the wife of the president so is certainly well aware of the security surrounding classified material. And then she was Sec of State and obviously knew what kind of information was classified. So to claim that the material wasn't marked, and therefore she didn't know it was classified, is simply not credulous.

Berkeley2013 29 Jan 2016 22:46

And Clinton had a considerable number of unvetted people maintain and administer her communication system. The potential for wrong doing in general and blackmail from many angles is great.

There's also the cost of this whole investigation. Why should US taxpayers have to pick up the bill?

And the waste of good personnel time---a total waste...

Skip Breitmeyer -> simpledino 29 Jan 2016 22:29

In one sense you're absolutely right- read carefully this article (and the announcement leading to it) raises at least as many questions as it answers, period. On the other hand, those ambiguities are certain not to be resolved 'over-the-weekend' (nor before the first votes are cast in Iowa) and thus the timing of the thing could not be more misfortunate for Ms. Clinton, nor more perfect for maximum effect than if the timing had been deliberately planned. In fact I'm surprised there aren't a raft of comments on this point. "Confirmed by the Obama administration..."? Who in the administration? What wing of the administration? Some jack-off in the justice dept. who got 50,000 g's for the scoop? The fact is, I'm actually with Bernie over Hilary any day, but I admit to a certain respect for her remarkable expertise and debate performances that have really shown the GOP boys to be a bunch of second-benchers... And there's something a little dirty and dodgy that's gone on here...

Adamnoggi dusablon 29 Jan 2016 22:23

SAP does not relate to To the level of classification. A special access program could be at the confidential level or higher dependent upon content. Special access means just that, access is granted on a case by case basis, regardless of classification level .

Gigi Trala La 29 Jan 2016 22:17

She is treated with remarkable indulgence. Anywhere with a sense of accountability she will be facing prosecution, and yet here she is running for even higher office. In the middle of demonstrating her unfitness.

eldudeabides 29 Jan 2016 22:15

Independent experts say it is highly unlikely that Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing, based on the limited details that have surfaced up to now and the lack of indications that she intended to break any laws.

since when has ignorance been a defence?

nataliesutler UzzDontSay 29 Jan 2016 22:05

Yes Petraeus did get this kind of scrutiny even though what he did was much less serious that what Clinton did. this isn't about a rule change. And pretending it is isn't going to fool anyone.

Sam3456 kattw 29 Jan 2016 21:18

Thats a misunderstanding on your part First lets look at Hillary's statement in March:

"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I'm certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."

She later adjusted her language to note that she never sent anything "marked" classified. So already some Clinton-esque word parsing

And then what people said who used to do her job:

fellow diplomats and other specialists said on Thursday that if any emails were blatantly of a sensitive nature, she could have been expected to flag it.
"She might have had some responsibility to blow the whistle," said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, "The recipient may have an induced kind of responsibility," Pickering added, "if they see something that appears to be a serious breach of security."

It is a view shared by J. William Leonard, who between 2002 and 2008 was director of the Information Security Oversight Office, which oversees the government classification system. He pointed out that all government officials given a security clearance are required to sign a nondisclosure agreement, which states they are responsible if secrets leak – whether the information was "marked or not."

Finally whether they were marked or not the fact that an electronic copy resided on a server in an insecure location was basically like her making a copy and bringing it home and plunking it in a file cabinet...

beanierose -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 21:08

Yeah - I just don't understand what Hillary is actually accused of doing / or not doing in Benghazi. Was it that they didn't provide support to Stevens - (I think that was debunked) - was it that they claimed on the Sunday talk shows that the video was responsible for the attack (who cares). Now - I can think of an outrage - President Bush attacking Iraq on the specious claim that they had WMD - that was a lie/incorrec/incompetence and it cost ~7000 US and 200K to 700K Iraqi lives. Now - there's a scandal.

Stephen_Sean -> elexpatrioto 29 Jan 2016 21:07

The Secretary of State is an "original classifier" of information. The individual holding that office is responsible to recognize whether information is classified and to what level regardless if it is marked or not. She should have known. She has no true shelter of ignorance here.

Stephen_Sean 29 Jan 2016 21:00

The Guardian is whistling through the graveyard. The FBI is very close to a decision to recommend an indictment to the DOJ. At that point is up to POTUS whether he thinks Hillary is worth tainting his entire Presidency to protect by blocking a DOJ indictment. His responsibility as an outgoing President is to do what is best for his party and to provide his best attempt to get a Democrat elected. I smell Biden warming up in the bullpen as an emergency.

The last thing the DNC wants is a delay if their is going to be an indictment. For an indictment to come after she is nominated would be an unrecoverable blow for the Democrats. If their is to be an indictment its best for it to come now while they can still get Biden in and maintain their chances.

Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 20:57

In Section 7 of her NDA, Clinton agreed to return any classified information she gained access to, and further agreed that failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924 of the US Criminal Code.

According To § 793 Of Title 18 Of The US Code, anyone who willfully retains, transmits or causes to be transmitted, national security information, can face up to ten years in prison.

According To § 1924 Of Title 18 Of The US Code, anyone who removes classified information " with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location," can face up to a year in prison.

The agreement considers information classified whether it is "marked or unmarked."

According to a State Department regulation in effect during Clinton's tenure (12 FAM 531), "classified material should not be stored at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for convenience."

Additionally, a regulation established in 2012 (12 FAM 533.2) requires that "each employee, irrespective of rank must certify" that classified information "is not in their household or personal effects."

As of December 2, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Manual has explicitly stated that "classified processing and/or classified conversation on a PDA is prohibited."

kus art 29 Jan 2016 20:54

I'm assuming that the censored emails reveal activities that the US government is into are Way more corrupt, insidious and venal as the the emails already exposed, which says a lot already...

Profhambone -> Bruce Hill 29 Jan 2016 20:53

Look, Hillary is sloppy about her affairs of state. She voted with Cheney for the Iraq disaster and jumped in supporting it. It is the greatest foreign affair disaster since Viet Nam and probably the greatest, period! She was a big proponent of getting rid of Khadaffi in Libya and now we have radical Islamic anarchy ravaging the failed state. She was all for the Arab Spring until the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt....which was replaced by yet another military dictatorship we support. And she had to have her own private e-mail server and it got used for questionable handling of state secrets. This is just Hillary being Hillary........

PsygonnUSA 29 Jan 2016 20:44

Its no secret that this hysterically ambitious Clinton woman is a warmonger and a hooker for Wall Street . No need to read her e-mails, just check her record.

USfan 29 Jan 2016 20:41

Sorry to be ranting but what does it say about a country - in theory, a democracy - that is implicated in so much questionable business around the world that we have to classify mountains of communication as off-limits to the people, who are theoretically sovereign in this country?

We've all gotten quite used to this. In reality, it should freak us out much more than it does. I'm not naive about what national security requires, but my sense is the government habitually and routinely classifies all sorts of things the people of this country have every right to know.

Assuming this is still a democracy, which is perhaps a big assumption.

Raleighchopper Bruce Hill 29 Jan 2016 20:40

far Left sites like the Guardian:

LMAOROFL
Scott Trust Ltd board
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited

Neil Berkitt – a former banker (Lloyds, St George Bank) who then helped vulture capitalist Richard Branson with Virgin Media.

David Pemsel – Former head of marketing at ITV.

Nick Backhouse – On the board of the bank of Queensland, formerly with Barings Bank.

Ronan Dunne – On the Telefónica Europe plc board, Chairman of Tesco Mobile. He has also worked at Banque Nationale de Paris plc.

Judy Gibbons – Judy is currently a non-executive director of retail property kings Hammerson, previously with O2, Microsoft, Accel Partners (venture capital), Apple and Hewlett Packard.

Jennifer Duvalier – Previously in management consultancy and banking.

Brent Hoberman – Old Etonian with fingers in various venture capital pies including car rental firm EasyCar.

Nigel Morris – chairman of network digital marketing giants Aegis Media.

John Paton – CEO of Digital First Media – a very large media conglomerate which was sued successfully in the U.S. for rigging advertising rates.

Katherine Viner – Startlingly not a banker, in marketing or venture capital. She is I gather (gulp) a journalist.

Darren Singer – formerly with BSkyB, the BBC and Price Waterhouse Coopers

FirthyB 29 Jan 2016 20:36

Hillary is in that class, along with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bush, Cheney etc.. who believe the rule of law only pertains to the little guys.

MooseMcNaulty -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 20:28

The spying was illegal on a Constitutional basis. The Fourth Amendment protects our privacy and prevents unlawful search and seizure. The government getting free access to the contents of our emails seems the same as opening our mail, which is illegal without a court order.

The drone program is illegal based on the Geneva accords. We are carrying out targeted killings within sovereign nations, usually without their knowledge or consent, based on secret evidence that they pose a vaguely defined 'imminent threat'. It isn't in line with any international law, though we set that precedent long ago.

makaio USfan 29 Jan 2016 20:08

What was exemplary about an unnecessary war, a dumbass victory speech three or so months into it, the President's absence of support for his CIA agent outed by his staff, the President's German Chancellor shoulder massage, the use of RNC servers and subsequently "lost" gazillion emails, doing nothing in response to Twin Towers news, ditto for Katrina news, the withheld information from the Tillman family, and sanctioned torture?

Those were just starter questions. I'm sure I missed things.

Raleighchopper -> Popeia 29 Jan 2016 20:05

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-clinton-idUSN2540811420080326

Rowan Walters 29 Jan 2016 19:51

Another point that has perhaps not been covered sufficiently is the constant use of the phrase "unsecured email server" - which is intentionally vague and misleading and was almost certainly a phrase coined by someone who knows nothing about email servers or IT security and has been parroted mindlessly by people who know even less and journalists who should know better.

As an IT professional the repeated use of a phrase like that is a red flag - it's like when people who don't know what they're talking about latch on to a phrase which sounds technical because it contains jargon or technical concepts and they use it to make it sound like they know what they're talking about but it doesn't actually mean anything unless the context is clear and unambiguous.

The phrase is obviously being repeated to convey the impression of supreme negligence - that sensitive state secrets were left defenceless and (gasp!) potentially accessible by anyone.

Yet the term "unsecured" has many different meanings and implications - in the context of an email server it could mean that mail accounts are accessible without authentication, but in terms of network security it could mean that the server somehow existed outside a firewall or Virtual Private Network or some other form of physical or logical security.

Does this term "unsecured" mean the data on the server was not password-protected, does it mean it was unencrypted, does it mean that it was totally unprotected (which is extremely unlikely even if it was installed by an ignorant Luddite given that any modern broadband modem is also a hardware firewall), and as for the "server" was it a physical box or a virtual server?

It is also extremely improbable that an email server would be the only device sharing that network segment - of necessity there would at least be a file server and some means of communicating with the outside world, most likely a router or a switch, which would by default have a built-in hardware firewall (way more secure than a software firewall).

And regarding the "unsecured" part, how was the network accessed?
There are a huge number of possibilities as to the actual meaning and on its own there is not enough information to deduce which - if any - is correct.

I suspect that someone who knows little to nothing about technology has invented this concept based on ignorance a desire to imply malfeasance because on its own it really is a nonsense term.

seanet1310 -> Wallabyfan 29 Jan 2016 19:37

Nope. Like it or not Manning deliberately took classified information, smuggled it out and gave it to foreign nationals.
Clinton it would appear mishandled classified material, at best she failed to realise the sensitive nature and at worst actively took material from controlled and classified networks onto an unsecured private network.

dusablon 29 Jan 2016 19:28

Classified material in the US is classified at three levels: confidential, secret, and top secret. Those labels are not applied in a cavalier fashion. The release of TS information is considered a grave threat to the security of the United States.

Above these classification levels is what is as known as Special Access Program information, the release of which has extremely grave ramifications for the US. Access to SAP material is extremely limited and only granted after an extensive personal background investigation and only on a 'need to know' basis. You don't simply get a SAP program clearance because your employer thinks it would be nice to have, etc. In fact, you can have a Top Secret clearance and never get a special access program clearance to go with it.

For those of you playing at home, the Top Secret SAP material Hillary had on her server - the most critical material the US can have - was not simply 'upgraded' to classified in a routine bureaucratic exercise because it was previously unclassified.

Anything generated related to a SAP is, by it's mere existence, classified at the most extreme level, and everyone who works on a SAP knows this intimately and you sign your life away to acknowledge this.

What the Feds did in Hillary's case in making the material on her home-based server Top Secret SAP was to bring those materials into what is known as 'accountability .'

That is, the material was always SAP material but it was just discovered outside a SAP lock-down area or secure system and now it must become 'accountable' at the high classification level to ensure it's protected from further disclosure.

Hillary and her minions have no excuse whatsoever for this intentional mishandling of this critical material and are in severe legal jeopardy no matter what disinformation her campaign puts out. Someone will or should go to prison. Period.

(Sorry for the length of the post)

Sam3456 -> Mark Forrester 29 Jan 2016 19:22

yeah appointed by Obama...John Kerry. His state department. John is credited on both sides of the aisle of actually coming in and making the necessary changes to clean up the administrative mess either created or not addressed by his predecessor.

Within weeks of taking the position JK implemented the OIG task forces recommendations to streamline the process and make State run more in line with other government organizations. I think John saw the "Sorry it snowed can't have you this info for a month" for what it was and acted out of decency and fairness to the American people. I still think he looks like a hound and is a political opportunist but you can't blame him for shenanigans here

chiefwiley -> DoktahZ 29 Jan 2016 19:18

The messages were "de-papered" by the staff, stripping them from their forms and headings and then scanning and including the content in accumulations to be sent and stored in an unclassified system. Taking the markings off of a classified document does not render it unclassified. Adding the markings back onto the documents does not "declare" them classified. Their classified nature was constant.

If you only have an unsecured system, it should never be used for official traffic, let alone classified or special access traffic.

dusablon -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 19:05

Give it up.

She used a private server deliberately to avoid FOIA requests, she deleted thousands of emails after they were requested, and the emails that remained contained Top Secret Special Access Program information, and it does not matter one iota whether or not that material was marked or whether or not it has been recently classified appropriately.

chiefwiley -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 19:04

18USC Section793(f)

$250,000 and ten years.

dusablon -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 19:00

False.

Anything related to a special access program is classified whether marked as such or not.

dalisnewcar 29 Jan 2016 18:58

You would figure that after all the lies of O'bomber that democrats might wake up some. Apparently, they are too stupid to realize they have been duped even after the entire Middle Class has been decimated and the wealth of the 1% has grown 3 fold under the man who has now bombed 7 countries. And you folks think Clinton, who personally destroyed Libya, is going to be honest with you and not do the same things he's done? Wake up folks. Your banging your head against the same old wall.

fanUS -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 18:46

She is evil, because she helped Islamic State to rise.

Paul Christenson -> Barry_Seal 29 Jan 2016 18:45

20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.

21 - Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.

22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton 's advisory council personally treated Clinton 's mother, stepfather and Brother.

23 - Barry Seal - Drug running TWA pilot out of Mean Arkansas , death was no accident.

24 - John ny Lawhorn, Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.

25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guaranty. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.

26 - Hershel Friday - Attorney and Clinton fundraiser died March 1, 1994, when his plane exploded.

27 - Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the two boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. The initial report of death said their deaths were due to falling asleep on railroad tracks and being run over. Later autopsy reports stated that the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.

THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:

28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, 7/88.

29 - Keith McMaskle - Died, stabbed 113 times, Nov 1988

30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.

31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989. (Coroner ruled death due to suicide)

32 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to natural causes"?

33 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.

34 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives/Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.

THE FOLLOWING CLINTON PERSONAL BODYGUARDS ALL DIED OF MYSTERIOUS CAUSES OR SUICIDE
36 - Major William S. Barkley, Jr.
37 - Captain Scott J . Reynolds
38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
40 - Major General William Robertson
41 - Col. William Densberger
42 - Col. Robert Kelly
43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
44 - Steve Willis
45 - Robert Williams
46 - Conway LeBleu
47 - Todd McKeehan

And this list does not include the four dead Americans in Benghazi that Hillary abandoned!

Paul Christenson Barry_Seal 29 Jan 2016 18:42

THE MANY CLINTON BODY BAGS . . .

Someone recently reminded me of this list. I had forgotten how long it is. Therefore, this is a quick refresher course, lest we forget what has happened to many "friends" and associates of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

1- James McDougal - Convicted Whitewater partner of the Clintons who died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.

2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown (Washington, D. C.). The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment by Clinton in the White House.

3 - Vince Foster - Former White House Councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock 's Rose Law Firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide. (He was about to testify against Hillary related to the records she refused to turn over to congress.) Was reported to have been having an affair with Hillary.

4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane also died. A few days later the Air Traffic controller committed suicide.

5 - C. Victor Raiser, II - Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.

6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock on September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "dear friend and trusted advisor".

7 - Ed Willey - Clinton fundraiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day His wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.

8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock .. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock . Park's son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton . He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.

9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people which contained names of influential people who visited Prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas

10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to the Clintons ' Whitewater deals.

11 - Kathy Ferguson - Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson , was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones Lawsuit, and Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.

12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancée of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancée, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancée.

13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton 's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client, Dan Lassater, was a convicted drug distributor.

14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal, Mena , Arkansas Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot Wounds.

15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died Of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a Suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.

16 - Paula Grober - Clinton 's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.

17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter who was Investigating the Mean Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.

18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mean Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993, in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death. (May have died of poison)

19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington , Virginia apartment balcony August 15,1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guaranty scandal.

Thijs Buelens -> honey1969 29 Jan 2016 18:41

Did the actors from Orange is the New Black already endorsed Hillary? Just wondering.

Sam3456 -> Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 18:35

Remember as soon as Snowden walked out the door with his USB drive full of secrets his was in violation. Wether he knew the severity and classification or not.

Think of Hillary's email server as her home USB drive.

RedPillCeryx 29 Jan 2016 18:33

Government civil and military employees working with material at the Top Secret level are required to undergo incredibly protracted and intrusive vetting procedures (including polygraph testing) in order to obtain and keep current their security clearances to access such matter. Was Hillary Clinton required to obtain a Top Secret clearance in the same way, or was she just waved through because of Who She Is?

Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 18:32

Just to be clear, Colin Powell used a private email ACCOUNT which was hosted in the cloud and used it only for personal use. He was audited (never deleted anything) and it was found to contain no government records.

Hillary used a server, which means in electronic form the documents existed outside the State Department unsecured. Its as if she took a Top Secret file home with her. That is a VERY BIG mistake and as the Sec of State she signed a document saying she understood the rules and agreed to play by them. She did not and removing state secrets from their secure location is a very serious matter. Wether you put the actual file in your briefcase or have them sitting in electronic version on your server.

Second, she signed a document saying she would return any and ALL documents and copies of documents pertaining to the State Department with 30 (or 60 I can't remember) of leaving. The documents on her server, again electronic copies of the top secret files, where not returned for 2 years. Thats a huge violation.

Finally, there is a clause in classification that deals with the information that is top secret by nature. Meaning regardless of wether its MARKED classified or not the very nature of the material would be apparent to a senior official that it was classified and appropriate action would have to be taken. She she either knew and ignored or did not know...and both of those scenarios don't give me a lot of confidence.

Finally the information that was classified at the highest levels means exposure of that material would put human operatives lives at risk. Something she accused Snowden of doing when she called him a traitor. By putting that information outside the State Department firewall she basically put peoples lives at risk so she could have the convenience of using one mobile device.

Wallabyfan -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 18:10

Sorry you can delude yourself all you like but Powell and Cheney used private emails while at work on secure servers for personal communications not highly classified communications and did so before the 2009 ban on this practice came into place . Clinton has used a private unsecured server at her home while Sec of State and even worse provided access to people in her team who had no security clearance. She has also deleted more than 30,000 emails from the server in full knowledge of the FBI probe. You do realise that she is going to end up in jail don't you?

MtnClimber -> boscovee 29 Jan 2016 18:07

Are you as interested in all of the emails that Cheney destroyed? He was asked to provide them and never allowed ANY to be seen.

Typical GOP

Dozens die at embassies under Bush. Zero investigations. Zero hearings.
4 die at an embassy under Clinton. Dozens of hearings.

OurNigel -> Robert Greene 29 Jan 2016 17:53

Its not hard to understand, she was supposed to only use her official email account maintained on secure Federal government servers when conducting official business during her tenure as Secretary of State. This was for three reasons, the first being security the second being transparency and the third for accountability.

Serious breach of protocol I'm afraid.

Talgen -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 17:50

Department responses for classification infractions could include counseling, warnings or other action, officials said. They wouldn't say if Clinton or senior aides who've since left government could face penalties. The officials weren't authorized to speak on the matter and demanded anonymity."

You need to share that one with Petraeus, whos career was ruined and had to pay 100k in fines, for letting some info slip to his mistress..

Wallabyfan 29 Jan 2016 17:50

No one here seems to be able to accept how serious this is. You cant downplay it. This is the most serious scandal we have seen in American politics for decades.

Any other US official handling even 1 classified piece of material on his or her own unsecured home server would have been arrested and jailed by now for about 50 years perhaps longer. The fact that we are talking about 20 + (at least) indicates at the very least Clinton's hubris, incompetence and very poor judgement as well as being a very serious breach of US law. Her campaign is doomed.

This is only the beginning of the scandal and I predict we will be rocked when we learn the truth. Clinton will be indicted and probably jailed along with Huma Abedin who the FBI are also investigating.

HiramsMaxim -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 17:50

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf

OurNigel 29 Jan 2016 17:42

This is supposed to be the lady who (in her own words) has a huge experience of government yet she willingly broke not just State Department protocols and procedures, by using a privately maintained none secure server for her email service she also broke Federal laws and regulations governing recordkeeping requirements.

At the very least this was a massive breach of security and a total disregard for established rules whilst she was in office. Its not as if she was just some local government officer in a backwater town she was Secretary of State for the United States government.

If the NSA is to be believed you should presume her emails could have been read by any foreign state.

This is actually a huge story.

TassieNigel 29 Jan 2016 17:41

This god awful Clinton family had to be stopped somehow I suppose. Now if I'd done it, I'd be behind bars long ago, so when will Hillary be charged is my question ?

Hillary made much of slinging off about the "traitor" Julian Assange, so let's see how Mrs Clinton looks like behind bars. A woman simply incapable of telling the truth --

Celebrations for Bernie Sanders of course.

HiramsMaxim 29 Jan 2016 17:41

They also wouldn't disclose whether any of the documents reflected information that was classified at the time of transmission,

Has nothing to do with anything. Maybe the author should read the actual NDA signed by Mrs. Clinton.

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf

beneboy303 -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 17:18

If every corrupt liar was sent to prison there'd be no one left in Washington, or Westminster and we'd have to have elections with ordinary people standing, instead of the usual suspects from the political class. Which, on reflection, sounds quite good !

In_for_the_kill 29 Jan 2016 17:15

Come on Guardian, this should be your lead story, the executive branch of the United States just confirmed that a candidate for the Presidency pretty much broke the law, knowingly. If that ain't headline material, then I don't know what is.

dusablon -> SenseCir 29 Jan 2016 17:09

Irrelevant?

Knowingly committing a felony by a candidate for POTUS is anything but irrelevant.

And forget her oh-so-clever excuses about not sending or receiving anything marked top secret or any other level of classification including SAP. If you work programs like those you know that anything generated related to that program is automatically classified, whether or not it's marked as such. And such material is only shared on a need to know basis.

She's putting out a smokescreen to fool the majority of voters who have never or will never have special access. She is a criminal and needs to be arrested. Period.

Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 17:00

It's a reckless arrogance combined with the belief that no-one can touch her. If she does become the nominee Hillary will be an easy target for Trump. It'll be like "shooting fish in a barrel".

DismayedPerplexed -> OnlyOneView 29 Jan 2016 16:40

Are you forgetting W and his administration's 5 million deleted emails?

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the_george_w_bush_email_scandal_the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner/

Bob Sheerin 29 Jan 2016 16:40

Consider that email is an indispensable tool in doing one's job. Consider that in order to effectively do her job, candidate Clinton -- as the Secretary of State -- had to be sending and receiving Top Secret documents. Consider that all of her email was routed through a personal server. Consider whether she released all of the relevant emails. Well, she claimed she did but the evidence contradicts such a claim. Consider that this latest news release has -- like so many others -- been released late on a Friday.

It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the President should be communicating on a secure network controlled by the federal government. It is obvious that virtually none of these communications were done in a secure manner. Consider whether someone who contends this is irrelevant has enough sense to come in out of the rain.

[Dec 04, 2015] Heres Why the Media Stopped Reporting on Clintons New Emails

Notable quotes:

"... This week, though, the media appeared curiously incurious about the latest tranche of e-mails from the Clinton server. In the largest release yet, State unveiled 7,800 pages of e-mails, of which 328 e-mails were redacted for containing classified information. ABC News dutifully reported on that addition to the refutation of Clinton's claims, and noted that the number of e-mails that contained classified information has reached 999 in total – with about a third of the communications left unpublished for now. ..."

"... Very few news outlets found it newsworthy that the number of classified messages had jumped nearly 50 percent with this release, and none pondered what that meant to Hillary Clinton's credibility. ..."

"... The collective yawn from the media after this week's release gives us an indication of the level of media interest we can expect, as Hillary Clinton gets closer to the nomination. They want to keep that narrative going rather than look at the thousand ways Clinton lied about her e-mail system and risked national security in order to thwart legitimate oversight into the State Department's performance. ..."

finance.yahoo.com

This week, though, the media appeared curiously incurious about the latest tranche of e-mails from the Clinton server. In the largest release yet, State unveiled 7,800 pages of e-mails, of which 328 e-mails were redacted for containing classified information. ABC News dutifully reported on that addition to the refutation of Clinton's claims, and noted that the number of e-mails that contained classified information has reached 999 in total – with about a third of the communications left unpublished for now.

Oddly, though, the media outlet that broke the story didn't seem interested in pursuing that aspect of it. The New York Times report on the latest tranche didn't bother to mention that any e-mails had been classified. Its lead on the release instead noted that one e-mail which had been previously considered classified had been declassified for this release…which presumably kept Clinton from hitting 1,000 refutations to her claims.

The rest of the media didn't take much more of an interest in the implications of this development, either. Most of the focus fell on Philippe Reines' effort to get advice from the NFL for Clinton's "cracked head," as she self-effacingly described her concussion and its aftermath. Others found it amusing that Clinton was a fan of the TV series Homeland but didn't recall which channel to watch for it. Very few news outlets found it newsworthy that the number of classified messages had jumped nearly 50 percent with this release, and none pondered what that meant to Hillary Clinton's credibility.

This lack of interest seems to be of a piece with the narrative that emerged in late October, after the Democrats' first presidential debate and Clinton's testimony to the House Select Committee on Benghazi. They rushed to declare that time frame "the best ten days of the Clinton campaign," even though as Marco Rubio pointed out in a subsequent debate , the testimony actually demonstrated that Clinton lied about Benghazi.

In an e-mail uncovered in the scandal, she told her family within hours of the attack on the consulate that it was an organized terrorist operation, while insisting for the next two weeks that it was a spontaneous demonstration in response to an obscure YouTube video.

Still, ever since then the narrative has had Clinton recovering her bearings and moving past the e-mail scandal even as the FBI probe continues and more classified information is redacted. The collective yawn from the media after this week's release gives us an indication of the level of media interest we can expect, as Hillary Clinton gets closer to the nomination. They want to keep that narrative going rather than look at the thousand ways Clinton lied about her e-mail system and risked national security in order to thwart legitimate oversight into the State Department's performance.

[Oct 14, 2015] Security farce at Datto Inc that held Hillary Clintons emails revealed by Louise Boyle & Daniel Bates

Notable quotes:

"... But its building in Bern Township, Pennsylvania, doesn't have a perimeter fence or security checkpoints and has two reception areas ..."

"... Dumpsters at the site were left open and unguarded, and loading bays have no security presence ..."

"... It has also been reported that hackers tried to gain access to her personal email address by sending her emails disguised parking violations which were designed to gain access to her computer. ..."

"... a former senior executive at Datto was allegedly able to steal sensitive information from the company's systems after she was fired. ..."

Oct 13, 2015 | Daily Mail Online

Datto Inc has been revealed to have stored Hillary Clinton's emails - which contained national secrets - when it backed up her private server

It claims it runs 'data fortresses' monitored by security 24 hours a day, where only a retinal or palm scan allows access to its facilities

But its building in Bern Township, Pennsylvania, doesn't have a perimeter fence or security checkpoints and has two reception areas

Dumpsters at the site were left open and unguarded, and loading bays have no security presence

Clinton faces first Democratic debate tonight amid falling poll numbers and growing questions

The congressional committee is focusing on what happened to the server after she left office in a controversy that is dogging her presidential run and harming her trust with voters.

In the latest developments it emerged that hackers in China, South Korea and Germany tried to gain access to the server after she left office. It has also been reported that hackers tried to gain access to her personal email address by sending her emails disguised parking violations which were designed to gain access to her computer.

Daily Mail Online has previously revealed how a former senior executive at Datto was allegedly able to steal sensitive information from the company's systems after she was fired.

Hackers also managed to completely take over a Datto storage device, allowing them to steal whatever data they wanted.

Employees at the company, which is based in Norwalk, Connecticut, have a maverick attitude and see themselves as 'disrupters' of a staid industry.

On their Facebook page they have posed for pictures wearing ugly sweaters and in fancy dress including stereotypes of Mexicans.

Its founder, Austin McChord, has been called the 'Steve Jobs' of data storage and who likes to play in his offices with Nerf guns and crazy costumes.

Nobody from Datto was available for comment.

[Oct 13, 2015] Hillary Clintons private server was open to low-skilled-hackers

Notable quotes:

"... " That's total amateur hour. Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this" -- ..."

"... The government and security firms have published warnings about allowing this kind of remote access to Clinton's server. The same software was targeted by an infectious Internet worm, known as Morta, which exploited weak passwords to break into servers. The software also was known to be vulnerable to brute-force attacks that tried password combinations until hackers broke in, and in some cases it could be tricked into revealing sensitive details about a server to help hackers formulate attacks. ..."

"... Also in 2012, the State Department had outlawed use of remote-access software for its technology officials to maintain unclassified servers without a waiver. It had banned all instances of remotely connecting to classified servers or servers located overseas. ..."

"... The findings suggest Clinton's server 'violates the most basic network-perimeter security tenets: Don't expose insecure services to the Internet,' said Justin Harvey, the chief security officer for Fidelis Cybersecurity. ..."

"... The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks. It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such as secure VPN connections. ..."

Daily Mail Online

Investigation by the Associated Press reveals that the clintonemail.com server lacked basic protections

Microsoft remote desktop service she used was not intended for use without additional safety features - but had none

Government and computer industry had warned at the time that such set-ups could be hacked - but nothing was done to make server safer

President this weekend denied national security had been put at risk by his secretary of state but FBI probe is still under way

... ... ...

Clinton's server, which handled her personal and State Department correspondence, appeared to allow users to connect openly over the Internet to control it remotely, according to detailed records compiled in 2012.

Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn't intended for such use without additional protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over attacks from even low-skilled intruders.

.... ... ...

Records show that Clinton additionally operated two more devices on her home network in Chappaqua, New York, that also were directly accessible from the Internet.

" That's total amateur hour. Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this" -- Marc Maiffret, cyber security expert

One contained similar remote-control software that also has suffered from security vulnerabilities, known as Virtual Network Computing, and the other appeared to be configured to run websites.

The new details provide the first clues about how Clinton's computer, running Microsoft's server software, was set up and protected when she used it exclusively over four years as secretary of state for all work messages.

Clinton's privately paid technology adviser, Bryan Pagliano, has declined to answer questions about his work from congressional investigators, citing the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

Some emails on Clinton's server were later deemed top secret, and scores of others included confidential or sensitive information.

Clinton has said that her server featured 'numerous safeguards,' but she has yet to explain how well her system was secured and whether, or how frequently, security updates were applied.

'That's total amateur hour,' said Marc Maiffret, who has founded two cyber security companies. He said permitting remote-access connections directly over the Internet would be the result of someone choosing convenience over security or failing to understand the risks. 'Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this,' he said.

The government and security firms have published warnings about allowing this kind of remote access to Clinton's server. The same software was targeted by an infectious Internet worm, known as Morta, which exploited weak passwords to break into servers. The software also was known to be vulnerable to brute-force attacks that tried password combinations until hackers broke in, and in some cases it could be tricked into revealing sensitive details about a server to help hackers formulate attacks.

'An attacker with a low skill level would be able to exploit this vulnerability,' said the Homeland Security Department's U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team in 2012, the same year Clinton's server was scanned.

Also in 2012, the State Department had outlawed use of remote-access software for its technology officials to maintain unclassified servers without a waiver. It had banned all instances of remotely connecting to classified servers or servers located overseas.

The findings suggest Clinton's server 'violates the most basic network-perimeter security tenets: Don't expose insecure services to the Internet,' said Justin Harvey, the chief security officer for Fidelis Cybersecurity.

Clinton's email server at one point also was operating software necessary to publish websites, although it was not believed to have been used for this purpose.

Traditional security practices dictate shutting off all a server's unnecessary functions to prevent hackers from exploiting design flaws in them.

In Clinton's case, Internet addresses the AP traced to her home in Chappaqua revealed open ports on three devices, including her email system.

Each numbered port is commonly, but not always uniquely, associated with specific features or functions. The AP in March was first to discover Clinton's use of a private email server and trace it to her home.

Mikko Hypponen, the chief research officer at F-Secure, a top global computer security firm, said it was unclear how Clinton's server was configured, but an out-of-the-box installation of remote desktop would have been vulnerable.

Those risks - such as giving hackers a chance to run malicious software on her machine - were 'clearly serious' and could have allowed snoops to deploy so-called 'back doors.'

The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks.

It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such as secure VPN connections.

[Sep 17, 2015] Hillary Clinton had right to delete personal emails, says US justice department

Guardian presstitutes are ready to defend even indefensible Hillary Clinton behaviour.

Notable quotes:

"... I think that the moment she mixed personal and work related or classified information, she loses the right to claim that any of the emails were personal. Hence, all emails become connected to her work as SOS, and none of the emails can be deleted. None of her emails can be treated as personal anymore, they have now become government property. She had no right to delete anything. ..."

"... In Hillary's case, I suspect "personal emails" is a euphemism for ANY correspondence she does not want exposed in official governmental records, including that which could be used against her politically in the future, i.e. backroom deals, dubious policies, nefarious schemes, etc. ..."

www.theguardian.com
makaio 11 Sep 2015 23:26 8 9 This is disheartening and outrageous, with State and Justice skirting around the issues, and as one commenter said, covering for Hillary in a partisan way.
The departments have been largely silent on rules and legalities, and now they've evolved to tiptoeing. Pathetic.

The comparison of government server deletions versus private server deletions and wipes is inapt. Government employees and service members -- the millions who aren't as special as Hillary with private off-site servers for their work -- surely can delete any emails they choose, work or personal. But backup records are controlled by government IT departments, who ideally are following records-keeping regulations.

Not so with the queen's server and email setup. She's deplorable, as is this State and Justice mockery.

If the President continues to stand for this, I have no interest in voting. I haven't pulled him into my disgust with this topic until now ... Justice is full of crap. Berkeley2013 11 Sep 2015 23:37 7 8 Many things are intriguing about this scandal.
1. The media covers it but not in a comprehensive or responsible way. The NY Times barely touches it. Same with The Economist. The Post pushes it to those vacuous bloggers, DM and CC. The New Yorker is hiding under a rock.

2. You would expect all to write "Calls to Action" of some kind.

3. Some kind of legal clarifications is order--several, actually. All the Title 18 items need to be clarified for the public. Do they apply?

4. Damage analysis. What possible damage could have been done?

5. Role of the administration? How did this situation last for four years?

6. Are the deleted e-mails going to surface?

7. Cost. Why should public pay for the legal and administrative chaos of a rogue SoS? Berkeley2013 flatulenceodor67 11 Sep 2015 23:52 4 5 All these issues lead to more questions. In this case, who authorized the use? Who knew? Who responded to the existence of this rogue communications network? Who maintained? Which if any clearances did they have? Did they share any of what they knew with others? And this is just the most basic of this whole tsunami of needless problems. Just this avenue leads to millions of dollars of investigative hours. Many millions... flatulenceodor67 ShinjiNoShinji 12 Sep 2015 0:04 1 2 Well one federal Judge thinks so...
http://jonathanturley.org/2015/08/21/federal-judge-says-hillary-clinton-violated-government-policy-in-using-personal-server-while-secretary-of-state/ Berkeley2013 12 Sep 2015 0:03 2 3 The Guardian is being quite irresponsible here. You need to quote/date your sources and supply links to the full documents. Which case? When? Who? It looks to me as though you are just grabbing an article by a disreputable Metro DC publication that I am not going to dignify by naming.
Also, assuming that something like this story is accurate, why would DOJ do this?

Am not sure why you add a click-bait article to this complex topic--you should just stick with the tabloid, sports, Hollywood junk articles that fill your virtual space these days. tropic2 makaio 12 Sep 2015 2:11
2 3 She simply used a classified government email system, or more likely, approved hardcopy classified draft messages for a member of her staff to send with her approval.
No, she didn't use a government email system (classified or not). She used a private email system, completely outside the government.

And no, she didn't set up her own server for the purpose of having hard copies of message drafts. So far, she has suggested a range of different reasons:

- To have just one device for both her official and personal communications....which is a lie: she had two devices.

- She was "not thinking very much about it"... which is a lie: she had a private server installed in her house, a domain registered under a former aide's name, and key staffers conducting official government business on that server. And she paid $5000 to a former IT aide to set up the system. Report

makaio tropic2 12 Sep 2015 11:17 0 1 This conversation is pretty muddled.
In short, she wrongly used a private server and personal email address for the majority of her official work, which of course is not permissible for classified information, and questionable at best for unclassified content. And she has wrongly lied to the American public in response to related questions.

But just because she used her private account does not mean she did not have a largely inactive .gov address. And she also likely had a government address on a classified government system, which she or her staff likely used when receiving or sending marked classified information.
ga gamba 12 Sep 2015 1:55 1 2 Of course she had the right to delete to personal emails - keep in mind that had she used a gov't-provided account like almost all other State Department employees she would have had to follow the rules governing personal use of tax payer-provided equipment and services.
Ms Clinton certainly did not have the right to process classified information on a personal computer system. That's illegal. You'd think the top executive would know such things. zbrowne 12 Sep 2015 2:34 1 2 I think that the moment she mixed personal and work related or classified information, she loses the right to claim that any of the emails were personal. Hence, all emails become connected to her work as SOS, and none of the emails can be deleted. None of her emails can be treated as personal anymore, they have now become government property. She had no right to delete anything. Socraticus 12 Sep 2015 2:39 1 2 In Hillary's case, I suspect "personal emails" is a euphemism for ANY correspondence she does not want exposed in official governmental records, including that which could be used against her politically in the future, i.e. backroom deals, dubious policies, nefarious schemes, etc. Thirdparty Socraticus 12 Sep 2015 2:59 0 1 How very cynical of you! If ever there was an opening for a 'Mr. Clean' named Joe Biden, this is it. Hillary is plummeting in the polls. Biden is not in the race, yet he polls 20%. After his appearance on Colbert on Thursday evening, I think that if he were to declare, his support would double, at least. At 40%, he would be ahead of Hillary. In addition to being thoroughly unethical, Hillary is not liked even by those who work with her. ID9630461 12 Sep 2015 4:20 7 8 For many, Hillary's very existence is a crime, so no amount of exoneration by the Justice Dept... or indeed anyone else.... will change anything. The relentless attacks will continue, and many of us will continue to see them as a clear indication of how vulnerable the Republicans feel about their own Presidential prospects, with a campaign that's in complete disarray, and a front runner who seems determined to systematically alienate every single one of the demographic groups that the GOP had hoped to court this time around. Frankly, I'd be worried too if I were a Republican! Report

Tom Voloshen ID9630461 12 Sep 2015 5:04

3 4 The Justice Department run by a political democratic appointee says Hillary has "rights" I wonder.....Fast and Furious, NSA spying, Waco, refusal to disseminate information after numerous court orders as directed under freedom of information act etc etc.. So you say we we should stand behind whatever the justice department says....LOL. Seems they are even more guilt of lying and cover ups then she is. Tom Voloshen 12 Sep 2015 4:43 3 4 For almost all of us when using the company's equipment our emails become the property of the company. All mail on a company server is backed up for a period of time and it is the responsibility of the user to insure critical Emails are saved or archived properly to prevent them from being deleted thru periodic routine house keeping by the IT department. Being that all emails become company property and subject to review at any time by the company it seems quite obvious this was unacceptable to the Clinton's and could lead to problems similar to the Nixon fiasco on which Hillary cut her teeth just out of school. She as arrogant as she is decided she could ignore the the rules and keep all her communications to herself. She thinks if she says she did no wrong long enough people will give up. They usually do. While that still won't make her right it certainly makes her someone not to be trusted. wavigaru 12 Sep 2015 8:35 4 5 Here is the deal folks.... This person wants to be president and have the responsibilities that go along with the office. If she can't even be competent with the little data she was entrusted why should she be given more responsibility? Because she is a woman?
Why are we rewarding incompetence? Obama was re-elected despite the incredibly low labor usage, declining wage growth, and skyrocketing health care costs. He made it his mission to provide "affordable" care with the ACA, yet my rates doubled up to $500/month (compare this with my ever decreasing car insurance rates… only $25/month from Insurance Panda now). Yet we voted him in for 8 years? And we want to elect Hillary?

I am sorry but when you do a poor job at any job they don't promote you unless they just want to go out of business. Also what this woman did was a crime. Nixon was impeached for less, Edward Snowden did the same thing and is in hiding in Russia and the Government won't let him come home, and General Petraeus was forced to resign from his position in the CIA yet this woman is not facing any charges so far and is running for the highest office in the land. What is wrong with this picture? chiefwiley andthensome 12 Sep 2015 10:35 1 2 Read the entire section under 5 FAM 443.5. Nothing in the system is considered "personal" and there is no expectation of privacy expected or granted. Cherry picking or rephrasing a rule that anybody can read in two minutes is also no way to go about your day.
Every email has a sender and a receiver. Usually multiple servers are involved. Every email in the system is recorded at numerous points, even if deleted at the source or destination. A day or two with a talented engineer and a high speed search engine would recover just about all of it. No warrant would be required for anything with a government connection. -- only the will to do it or an order from the appropriate judge. DracoFerret 12 Sep 2015 9:53 3 4 a corrupt woman with such poor judgment and a Tory attitude toward the working class should not be president. No wonder Sanders is rising in the polls.
Let her go back to Arkansas makaio Thebirdsareback 12 Sep 2015 11:41 1 2 To Clinton's supporters ... here's a nice summary of everything she's done wrong on this subject, most of it intentional with no respect for most anyone.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2937114-155/lowry-how-hillary-can-really-come makaio nolashea 12 Sep 2015 16:16 1 2 She has purposely circumvented maintaining public records, dragged her feet in providing records as required, and botched public attempts to claim her actions have been aboveboard ... because they haven't been.
However legal or illegal, unbelievable gullibility is needed to assert she's done nothing wrong.

She's trying to play us, people of all political beliefs. And despite notable executive and media support, she's largely failing, as both public responses and her reactions have demonstrated. Woodenarrow123 12 Sep 2015 12:46 3 4 Another biased article that fails to include the context of the allegations (that Clinton had the right to delete emails) and consequently it provides a misleading impression.
This is NO vindication for Hillary Clinton - it is a defence filing in a case where the Judge Emmet Sullivan has already decided at an earlier hearing that Clinton has violated Government Policy with regard to the handling of emails.

As a result of his decision he ordered the State Department to tell the FBI to go through all the emails (that are recovered - assuming they can be recovered), both business and personal, on her home brew server to see if Hillary deleted any emails she should have handed over to him as part of the FOI case.

Now Clinton's people are up in arms - Why? Is it because she deleted embarrassing emails regarding Benghazi? Is it because the FBI (having been instructed by a Federal Judge) might end up reading emails relating to dodgy dealings at the Clinton Foundation?

In the deeply Politicised US Civil Service both the State Department and the Justice Department are objecting to the Judge's decision and are attempting to limit the inquiry.

For those that naively (or perhaps because they support Hillary) believe this is simply a political attack by GOP opponents - It is worth remembering the FBI investigation was launch by the Inspector General and decision to have ALL emails examined was made by a member of the Judiciary (appointed ironically by Bill Clinton).

Both parties cited above are independent of the GOP.

Also for the record Hillary did NOT delete the emails at the time - She deleted them some 18 months after leaving office (according to her lawyer some time after October last year) and AFTER several investigations had been launched.

If Hillary Clinton deleted info relating to matters under investigation after an investigation was launched (destroying evidence) then that is a felony offence.

Hillary understood the seriousness of the question when asked did she wipe the server - That is why she replied along these lines: With a cloth or something.

Again this is no vindication of Clinton - Instead it is a lame defence to a serious charge to a Federal Judge who has already decided in the matter. pattbaa 12 Sep 2015 15:10 0 1 What do you Brits know about the "Fast and Furious" scandal in the Dept. of Justice ? ; to have a perspective of how outrageous this was , consider this hypothetical situation.
In Manhattan , a narcotics squad interdicts a gang of drug dealers , a "shoot-out" erupts, and one of the squad members is murdered. The firearm that was used to commit the murder is seized , and an investigation reveals the "Source" of the murder weapon was-- the Office of the District Attorney on New York County!! ( Manhattan)

The D- A's Office was supplying drug criminals with firearms?; would never happen you might say. But that's EXACTLY what happened in the "Fast and Furious" scandal when Eric Holder was Attorney-General; the ATF division of the U. S. Dept. of Justice was selling firearms to members of Mexican drug cartels , and a Border Agent was murdered by a weapon supplied by the ATF division of the Justice Dept.

So much for the Dept. of Justice under the current President. The present A-G , Loretta Lynch , is loyal to the President and the Democratic Party , but not loyal to "Justice". Report

sour_mash pattbaa 12 Sep 2015 17:03

2 3 What do you know about Fast and Furious? Here is a good read for anyone that cares about facts or details:
http://fortune.com/2012/06/27/the-truth-about-the-fast-and-furious-scandal/ Ladislav Din 12 Sep 2015 17:06 1 2 Hillary in her own words:
"I believe in an open, transparent government that is accountable to the people. Excessive government secrecy harms democratic governance and can weaken our system of checks and balances by shielding officials from oversight and inviting misconduct or error. ... To me, openness and accountability are not platitudes _ they are essential elements of our democracy."

-- Hillary Clinton, May 2008 in response to Sunshine Week survey of presidential candidates.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clinton-tells-sunshine-week-shes-committed-to-restoring-open-government-56932142.html John Bluebeard 12 Sep 2015 21:11 0 1 When are these extreme right wing terrorists like NPR going to stop saying that Clinton IS NOT exactly telling the truth? http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/11/439456567/fact-check-hillary-clintons-email-defense-is-a-mixed-bag
Perhaps it is time to cut off all gov't funding of NPR. We all know the obvious truth-- Clinton has told the truth. Report

Carl Stewart John Bluebeard 13 Sep 2015 10:51

0 1 Well, it is refreshing to see someone with a sense of humor about this. Thanks, Mr Bluebeard A_Cappella 13 Sep 2015 9:44 1 2 Hillary just needs to lie the U.S. into a very costly war in terms of American and indigenous deaths, trillions of dollars and significant more destabilization in the Mideast.
That will mollify the Republicans. CitizenCarrier 14 Sep 2015 19:22 0 1 The State Department guidelines for emails had prohibited use of a private server since 2005.
Yet she still keeps saying that what she did was allowed.

Hillary's State Department fired U.S. Ambassador Scott Gration (Kenya) in part for using private emails to evade agency rules.

Hillary said the emails she deleted included private ones between her and her husband. Her husband's spokesman, within days, announced surprise at that, since Bill Clinton has only sent two emails in his entire life...and not to Hillary.

She is a liar. And a felon in violation of the Espionage Act.

[Sep 10, 2015] Hillary Clinton admits private email server was a mistake

Notable quotes:

"... The woman is a hawk and a warmonger. In a sane world she would be ineligible on her voting record and likely foreign policy, not down to some technicality about her email address. ..."

"... The fact that she posted almost identical language on Facebook as she used in the Muir interview certainly suggests that the "apology" was carefully written and likely tested in focus groups. ..."

"... Read the dreadful facts (warning: lolcatz spoiler): http://www.bubblews.com/posts/hillary-email-the-horrid-facts ..."

"... An FBI investigation whilst running to be your party's presidential nominee, let alone running for president in the real thing next year, is never a good look. ..."

"... Agreed. I don't much care about this "classified or not" kerfuffle. I am much more concerned about the Nixonian scrubbing of the email server, when Clinton KNEW her work emails were subpoenaed by the House Benghazi committee. That says GUILTY in no uncertain terms. And I don't think we're ever going to receive an "apology" for those deletions. ..."

"... More than a mistake I'm afraid. At best it is a career ending error of judgment. At worst a deliberate and cynical attempt to maintain personal control of data so none of it could come back to damage her presidential campaign. Anyway, she should be finished. ..."

"... Her "We came, we saw, ..." laughter is inappropriate, especially in light of the turmoil resulting from a power vacuum which we are still witnessing today. But I don't know the context of why everyone in the room is in such a jovial mood. ..."

"... She has no ability, but for deception, no intelligence, unless someone "advises" her beforehand, but she DOES have much experience at deception, and commitment only to herself. Certainly not presidential material. She should just drop and let Bernie take the lead. Of course, her dear friend Wasserman-Shultz, would not allow that to happen. ..."

"... It becomes a matter of criminal conspiracy because Clinton did not just use a private email address. This was a conspiracy to avoid monitored email and a matter of legal public record, arranged as a conspiracy between Clinton's desire to maintain secret communications hidden from the rest of government and the person who did the work of setting up the server with knowledge of how it would be used and the network administrators who allowed it to exist in what should have been a secured network location, knowing how it would be used. So not the childish lie of "I did it but I didn't mean to", but the reality of a conspired plan to thwart record keeping, discussed and implemented with purposeful intent and with no question that it was to hide intended criminal activity. ..."

"... Obviously her "apology" was dragged out of her and is completely insincere. This is the track record of H Clinton - arrogant; power hungry; untrustworthy; unscrupulous; unprincipled; 100% insincere; can't we do any better than this? ..."

"... HRC is aiding her own demonization and I honestly think she's going to lose to whomever/whatever clown emerges from the Right Wing. ..."

"... It's not about leaving an opening for her adversaries, it's is about destroying the public record of the Secretary of State. In the US, government communications belongs to the government and to the people. ..."

"... Sanders is the better person but he will never get nominated. So it's either Hillary or some GOP nutbag. Easy vote. Not optimal, but still an easy choice. ..."

"... the private server was not an error --it was a coup of genius-- since it allowed "the candidate" to hand over only the harmless emails after erasing(?) the damning ones (e.g., those with the quid-pro-quo negotiation of UKR-neonazi donations to the clinton foundation before the 2014 UKR coup d'etat). ..."

"... Hillary has learnt a lot from the old Bill. Denial first step: Bill, I did not have sexual relation with that woman. And I need to go back to work for the American people. ..."

"... Admission second step: Bill admitted in taped grand jury testimony on August 17, 1998, that he had had an "improper physical relationship" with Lewinsky. ..."

"... Clinton consistently acts with arrogant denial when confronted with wrong-doing, and throughout her career there have been repeated situations, each marked by the same denial, arrogance. ..."

"... She believes she'll be anointed and begrudgingly goes on the stump, showing no joy in meeting regular folks and getting huffy when reporters dare ask her questions. ..."

"... The US hasn't been a democracy since day 1. Never meant to be. It was/is a carpetbagger's club. The only thing that's changed is the voters are dumber and the pizazz is crappier (to match the candidates). Why is this even discussed? ..."

"... Then again we are talking about an oligarch aiming to retake the presidential office for her wing of the national aristocracy. What else would one expect. ..."

"... I read where Carl Rove deleted 13,000 emails during the bush horror years. It pisses me off that she apologized for this non-issue because of political pressure. I'm voting for Bernie. ..."

"... Mrs. Clinton has the most unappetizing combination of qualities to be met in many days' march: she is a tyrant and a bully when she can dare to be, and an ingratiating populist when that will serve. She will sometimes appear in the guise of a 'strong woman' and sometimes in the softer garb of a winsome and vulnerable female. She is entirely un-self-critical and quite devoid of reflective capacity, and has never found that any of her numerous misfortunes or embarrassments are her own fault, because the fault invariably lies with others. And, speaking of where things lie, she can in a close contest keep up with her husband for mendacity. Like him, she is not just a liar but a lie; a phony construct of shreds and patches and hysterical, self-pitying, demagogic improvisations." (p. 123) ..."

"... Snowden on Clinton: If an ordinary worker at the State Department or the Central Intelligence Agency were sending details about the security of embassies, meetings with private government officials, foreign government officials and the statements were made over unclassified email systems, they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it. (condensed quotation) ..."

Sep 08, 2015 | The Guardian

MasalBugduv -> MasalBugduv 9 Sep 2015 09:18

Killary? Ha ha. Well she is a bit of a warmonger, isn't she?

dawkinsbulldog 9 Sep 2015 08:50

The woman is a hawk and a warmonger. In a sane world she would be ineligible on her voting record and likely foreign policy, not down to some technicality about her email address.

It's like rejecting Pinochet as Chilean president because he once farted in mixed company.

TamLin -> Oldiebutgoodie 9 Sep 2015 07:43

Great post! For those who don't have time to watch the entire Jim & Hillary interview, the real fun begins just after the 24 minute mark, when Jim says of Iran, "...or they will be taken out", and Hillary responds by into an orgasm of laughter.

NottaBot steveji 9 Sep 2015 07:23

The fact that she posted almost identical language on Facebook as she used in the Muir interview certainly suggests that the "apology" was carefully written and likely tested in focus groups.

ProgRock 9 Sep 2015 07:22

Read the dreadful facts (warning: lolcatz spoiler): http://www.bubblews.com/posts/hillary-email-the-horrid-facts

callaspodeaspode 9 Sep 2015 07:16

An FBI investigation whilst running to be your party's presidential nominee, let alone running for president in the real thing next year, is never a good look.

Added to this is that if anything is calculated to motivate the movement conservative base to its highest ever turnout, it's Hillary Rodham Clinton running for president.

I'm mildly (only mildly) surprised there aren't more senior Democrats out there who can see what a liability she is.

Although I'll say this, if Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, the Republican candidate is going to end up with double the money from billionaires and corporate lobbyists, the cash normally being shared between the two candidates from the Republicrat Party.

Mind you, that will just prove Senator Sanders' point.

NottaBot -> ninjamia 9 Sep 2015 07:09

Agreed. I don't much care about this "classified or not" kerfuffle. I am much more concerned about the Nixonian scrubbing of the email server, when Clinton KNEW her work emails were subpoenaed by the House Benghazi committee. That says GUILTY in no uncertain terms. And I don't think we're ever going to receive an "apology" for those deletions.

thesweeneytodd -> Mark Forrester 9 Sep 2015 06:44

Some perspective please. Dubya caused total mayhem and catastrophe with his ill judged and utterly illegal war in Iraq. His lack of intervention in Katrina resulted in misery and death for many in New Orleans. The most unpopular US president perhaps of all time.

Hilary ran a private email server that was perhaps ill judged.

Like I say, some perspective please.

Mark Forrester 9 Sep 2015 06:38

More than a mistake I'm afraid. At best it is a career ending error of judgment. At worst a deliberate and cynical attempt to maintain personal control of data so none of it could come back to damage her presidential campaign. Anyway, she should be finished.

Oldiebutgoodie -> Oldiebutgoodie 9 Sep 2015 03:54

The interview about Diplomacy with Charlie Rose took place June 2012 - prior to the Benghazi fiasco.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpJWsryvVrc

Both James Baker and Hillary basically admit to forcing Assad out and causing 'regime change' in Syria.

Oldiebutgoodie -> makaio 9 Sep 2015 03:24

Nov. 2009
Hillary on Channel l3, NY's Charlie Rose show - Text of interview.
Subject: Iran, Afghanistan
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2009/11/20091110130524xjsnommis0.1892206.html#axzz3lDt0HNg2

Hillary & Jim Baker interviewed must see laughing about provoking war with Iran
October 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpJWsryvVrc

makaio -> TamLin 9 Sep 2015 01:38

Thanks for the previously unknown to me information.

Her "admission" is sarcasm, which is preceded by a quick note that she was not involved and her visit was unrelated.

Her "We came, we saw, ..." laughter is inappropriate, especially in light of the turmoil resulting from a power vacuum which we are still witnessing today. But I don't know the context of why everyone in the room is in such a jovial mood.

It's hard to get facts on the unfortunate and disastrous consequences of Gaddafi's assassination. I don't directly blame the U.S., but my sense in that our government wrongly gave it a go-ahead.

Timothy Everton -> Hin Leng 9 Sep 2015 01:32

She has no ability, but for deception, no intelligence, unless someone "advises" her beforehand, but she DOES have much experience at deception, and commitment only to herself. Certainly not presidential material. She should just drop and let Bernie take the lead. Of course, her dear friend Wasserman-Shultz, would not allow that to happen.

Rob Jenkins 9 Sep 2015 01:02

American politics is depressing again for me. All realistic candidates seem to be a retrograde step.

Clinton appears to be a moderate Republican from the 90s and has no feasible opponents whilst the GOP primary is a clown car filled with buffoons, crooks and religious zealots.

Where do you go now America?

Hin Leng 9 Sep 2015 00:58

Clearly America has caught a new cultural-political disease called "The Tall Poppy Syndrome". Cut down anyone with ability, intelligence, experience , commitment and vision. Find any excuse for doing it - email server, age, gender, hairstyles, anything whatsoever. Meanwhile give some blatantly nonsensical candidates for its presidency plenty of oxygen and headline space. Is this how an empire expire ? How a hegemon self-destruct ? It is worrying to the extreme.

vr13vr 9 Sep 2015 00:47

"I'm sorry about that. I take responsibility."

How is that taking responsibility after half a year of denial and fighting the allegations? Outside of the lingo of politicians, this doesn't even look like taking responsibility. A phrase, "I finally decided to admit the wrong doing," is much more appropriate at this point.

rtb1961 -> Asok Smith 9 Sep 2015 00:43

It becomes a matter of criminal conspiracy because Clinton did not just use a private email address. This was a conspiracy to avoid monitored email and a matter of legal public record, arranged as a conspiracy between Clinton's desire to maintain secret communications hidden from the rest of government and the person who did the work of setting up the server with knowledge of how it would be used and the network administrators who allowed it to exist in what should have been a secured network location, knowing how it would be used.

So not the childish lie of "I did it but I didn't mean to", but the reality of a conspired plan to thwart record keeping, discussed and implemented with purposeful intent and with no question that it was to hide intended criminal activity.

Merveil Meok 8 Sep 2015 23:36

Obama and Hillary Clinton were bitter rivals until the end of the primaries in 2008. When Obama suggested that Mrs. Clinton be his Secretary of State, I thought it was a trap and a dangerous proposition for Hillary's future bids to the presidency, because foreign policy was a mess after George W. Bush and anything going wrong in the world would be blamed on her. It looks like the GOP didn't need to work that hard.

p4451d 8 Sep 2015 23:08

Obviously her "apology" was dragged out of her and is completely insincere. This is the track record of H Clinton - arrogant; power hungry; untrustworthy; unscrupulous; unprincipled; 100% insincere; can't we do any better than this?

whereistheend 8 Sep 2015 23:00

I'd never vote for a Republican, but if she didn't have Bill Clinton's last name, she'd be out of the picture, and maybe Elizabeth Warren, or Bill Bradley, or Howard Dean (or Bernie) would have the nomination- any of those names could beat any Republican, but HRC is aiding her own demonization and I honestly think she's going to lose to whomever/whatever clown emerges from the Right Wing. Yes, I think she's going to lose to a clown, and that's depressing, and it's because she has no charm to handle her mistakes, and no judgment to avoid some of them (the 'wiping' comment was sickeningly stupid), and she's sucking up all the coverage so no one else is getting the air they need; most of the discussion is over this BS instead of actual issues and that's not all on Fox News.

Elias Vlanton -> seehowtheyrun 8 Sep 2015 22:47

It's not about leaving an opening for her adversaries, it's is about destroying the public record of the Secretary of State. In the US, government communications belongs to the government and to the people. This is not about what is illegal or not, it is about whether officials can be held accountable for their actions. By destroying the public record, Hillary Clinton wanted to avoid that accountability. That's the real travesty.

Kevin Reuter -> LostLake 8 Sep 2015 22:39

The corporate-run media would like us all to believe that Bernie doesn't stand a chance. Since he has such strong policy suggestions and is demanding such attention, the only possible way to stop him is to flood people's minds with rhetoric such as "he can't win!"

Hillary herself has now been championing policy ideas that Bernie started, such as repealing Citizens United, and $15 minimum wage!

LostLake 8 Sep 2015 21:55

Sanders is the better person but he will never get nominated. So it's either Hillary or some GOP nutbag. Easy vote. Not optimal, but still an easy choice.

sashasmirnoff -> erpiu 8 Sep 2015 21:09

As the "Guardian view" is unfailingly wrong on anything it opines on (proven track record), and it's fully endorsing this scum's candidacy, I can only conclude that she merits life in prison at the least, as opposed to high office. That no media organ is questioning her claim of the deleted emails as being purely "personal" speaks volumes as to the sorry state of journalism in this era, as you point out.
Great post!

erpiu 8 Sep 2015 20:28

the private server was not an error --it was a coup of genius-- since it allowed "the candidate" to hand over only the harmless emails after erasing(?) the damning ones (e.g., those with the quid-pro-quo negotiation of UKR-neonazi donations to the clinton foundation before the 2014 UKR coup d'etat).

yes, those erased emails that, let's see... the guardian never mentions, preferring to direct the suckers' attention to the leftover emails selected by billary for regular release. Great diversion job, guardian!

the NSA has hillary's erased emails! When is the MSM going to request that the NSA gives its copies of the erased h.clinton emails to the feds for official archiving and future declassification?

Confucion 8 Sep 2015 20:06

In an interview with ABC News's David Muir which aired on Tuesday, the former secretary of state said: "That was a mistake. I'm sorry about that. I take responsibility."

Hillary has learnt a lot from the old Bill. Denial first step: Bill, I did not have sexual relation with that woman. And I need to go back to work for the American people.

Admission second step: Bill admitted in taped grand jury testimony on August 17, 1998, that he had had an "improper physical relationship" with Lewinsky.

Hilary is the best Bill's disciple in his trickery, lies and contempt of people from whom they are seeking employment and benefit.

FugitiveColors kenalexruss 8 Sep 2015 19:56

That's wishful thinking. The Judge ordered a release of more emails every 30 days until they are all released. It won't be over in 3 months much less 3 weeks. They say til February. There are 55,000 emails and those are just ones she didn't delete. She deleted 35,000 emails that will dog her forever.

When she finally gives up the ghost, I hope you will consider voting for the honest, scandal free candidate.
Bernie Sanders.

EarthyByNature -> Davinci Woohoo 8 Sep 2015 19:54

It's about trust, stupid.
Not being able to trust the potential President of the United States is a huge issue, for everyone on the planet.

1) Clinton consistently acts with arrogant denial when confronted with wrong-doing, and throughout her career there have been repeated situations, each marked by the same denial, arrogance.

2) Everyone's entitled to make mistakes in life and to beg forgiveness. When it happens repeatedly trust evaporates. I am no longer able to trust Hillary Clinton, no more no less that any other behaving the same way, Dem or Republican.

allymaxy -> danceoutlook 8 Sep 2015 19:47

Re: the Secretary of State position: Hillary didn't have to campaign for the job, she was appointed. Her problem is she's making the same mistakes running for CinC that she made in 2008.

She believes she'll be anointed and begrudgingly goes on the stump, showing no joy in meeting regular folks and getting huffy when reporters dare ask her questions.

Remember the recent rope line where she corralled the press in a noose of ropes to keep them away from her?

She is a poor candidate - always was and she hasn't learned anything from losing. She repeats the same mistakes and only changes her policies when focus groups chime in.

If Elizabeth Warren declared tomorrow, Hillary would be long forgotten and not missed.

Joe Stanil -> JoeBursudge 8 Sep 2015 19:47

The US hasn't been a democracy since day 1. Never meant to be. It was/is a carpetbagger's club. The only thing that's changed is the voters are dumber and the pizazz is crappier (to match the candidates). Why is this even discussed?

Ziontrain 8 Sep 2015 19:24

"Full responsibility" would actually mean admitting that she lacks the integrity to be president and withdrawing her candidacy.

But we live in an era where there is no shame, so "full responsibility" is not more like "yeah, I did it. So what? Nothing changes".

Then again we are talking about an oligarch aiming to retake the presidential office for her wing of the national aristocracy. What else would one expect.

JoeBursudge -> NeverLie 8 Sep 2015 19:22

A carpetbagger in a dress. Tony Blair and the Clintons - just goes to show it isn't country specific.

Though he didn't know them, these are the people Kim Beazley Snr was talking about when he said [the Left] went from being represented by the cream of the working-class to being led by the dregs of the middle-class.

Let's face it: the mere fact that Trump and Clinton are being discussed as a possible President is all the proof you need that America's democracy is stuck with a broken model. It's doubtful that the average Yank is up to fixing it.

Not that we can talk, of course, our system is looking sicker by the day. That a fool like Abbott can commit our troops to war without Parliamentary discussion is a pretty clear signal that our 19th century democratic architecture, too, is in need of renovation, if not a complete re-build.

jozzero -> gwpriester 8 Sep 2015 19:20

I read where Carl Rove deleted 13,000 emails during the bush horror years. It pisses me off that she apologized for this non-issue because of political pressure. I'm voting for Bernie.

OneTop 8 Sep 2015 18:42

Christoper Hitchens summed up HRC as well as anyone.

Mrs. Clinton has the most unappetizing combination of qualities to be met in many days' march: she is a tyrant and a bully when she can dare to be, and an ingratiating populist when that will serve. She will sometimes appear in the guise of a 'strong woman' and sometimes in the softer garb of a winsome and vulnerable female. She is entirely un-self-critical and quite devoid of reflective capacity, and has never found that any of her numerous misfortunes or embarrassments are her own fault, because the fault invariably lies with others. And, speaking of where things lie, she can in a close contest keep up with her husband for mendacity. Like him, she is not just a liar but a lie; a phony construct of shreds and patches and hysterical, self-pitying, demagogic improvisations." (p. 123)

Berkeley2013 williamdonovan 8 Sep 2015 18:35

Thank you; there are many more but this is a good start.

As the story unravels, many of there earlier HC rationalizations will require scrutiny--things that seemed innocuous to the average person will require intense scrutiny.

"I deleted e-mails that were personal."

This sounds anodyne enough on first read. Who wants to read billet doux between B and H?

Once people realize that she had no right to mix personal and professional and it certainly wasn't up to any one person what to delete, then even bigger troubles will start for the former SOS.

Sooner or later some of the deleted e-mails will begin to circulate.

At that point...

David Egan 8 Sep 2015 18:15

What gets me about this whole issue is the fact that she is still maintaining that "she did what was allowed" which is a bold faced lie!!! All she is doing right now is continuing to "circle her wagons" around this issue.... I'll bet right now she is trying to figure out how to bribe Pagliano to take the fall for her, stating that she knew nothing about what he did to maintain her ILLEGAL email account. They both knew it was ILLEGAL!!! Clinton and Pagliano should be brought up on charges, the sooner the better!!

Her utter contempt for the investigation makes me laugh, she really thinks she did nothing wrong, and to say something as totally ignorant like "It was allowed by the State Dept. and the State Department CONFIRMED that" is beyond belief and borderlines the definition of psychosis. The State Department is actively investigating Shrillary and her accomplice Bryan Pagliano. I'll bet Pagliano goes to prison.....Any takers?

CNNEvadingTheTopic 8 Sep 2015 18:11

Stand With Bernie, compare, follow, spread the word, donate, help in campaign.
https://berniesanders.com/ (Meet Bernie, Learn Issues/Events, Volunteer, Donate…)
https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders
https://twitter.com/berniesanders (#FeelTheBern)
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident (Become Part Of A Bernie Community)
https://www.reddit.com/r/CodersForSanders (Help Create Bernie Websites & Apps)
http://voteforbernie.org/ (How To Vote In Primaries For Bernie By State, Learn Deadlines)
http://feelthebern.org/ (Bernie On The Issues)
Bernie2016tv = https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_yPTb_MIzNt725QKVW_y9A
http://www.bernie2016.tv / (Discuss Bernie & View Campaing Rallies)

Bernie 2016, Feel The Bern!

zyxzyxzyx 8 Sep 2015 18:05

Snowden on Clinton:

If an ordinary worker at the State Department or the Central Intelligence Agency were sending details about the security of embassies, meetings with private government officials, foreign government officials and the statements were made over unclassified email systems, they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it. (condensed quotation)

Clinton on Snowden:

I think turning over a lot of that material-intentionally or unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained-gave all kinds of information, not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups and the like.

macktan894 8 Sep 2015 17:54

Poor Hillary. If she had just said this in the beginning instead of all the bs about how what she did wasn't a prosecutable offense and then tried to defend her behavior by comparing herself to the Republicans, she might have nipped much of this in the bud. Instead, she stonewalls for months, re-enacts her husband's insistence that "he didn't have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinsky," and arrogantly believes that voters will accept that all this is a vast right wing conspiracy that no one gives a hoot about.

Now she admits sorrow over her choice after practically being beat down about it. The main point is that people don't want to re-elect the same o same o. I for one am not looking forward to ranting on a forum about what happened to this promise, to that one. Oh, right. The Republicans. I don't want to hear another Dem try to persuade me that cutting measly social security and Medicare benefits are the way to save the system while at the same time the budget for defense, foreign aid, and mass govt surveillance go up so much that much of it is redacted.

I've heard too much of this before and have no interest in hearing it again. Vote for Bernie Sanders who believes open and transparent govt is worth a little inconvenience.

williamdonovan 8 Sep 2015 17:41

Great now tell it to the Judge. Because as I have stated from the very start these acts were and are Illegal. And Hillary Clinton new it at time she the secret server set up or should have known it.

Title 18, U.S. Code Section 641 - Public Money, Property or Records
793 - Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information
794 - Gathering of Delivering Defense Information to Aid Foreign Govt.
798 - Disclosure of Classified Information
952 - Diplomatic Codes and Correspondence
1905 - Disclosure of Confidential Information
2071 - Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation of Records

Title 50, U.S. Code
Section 783 (b) - Communication of Classified Information by Government Officer or Employee 783(d) - Penalties for Violation

Title 42, U.S. Code
Section 2272 -Violation of Specific Sections
2273 - Violation of General Sections
2274 - Communication of Restricted Data 2275 - Receipt of Restricted Data
2276 - Tampering With Restricted Data 2277 - Disclosure of Restricted Data

[Aug 18, 2015] Mom and pop shop Clintons private emails housed on server in a bathroom closet - report

It is not true that server was ever was located in "Bathroom closet". But the nickname stick...

Notable quotes:

"... At the time I worked for them they wouldn't have been equipped to work for Hilary Clinton because I don't think they had the resources, they were based out of a loft, so [it was] not very high security, we didn't even have an alarm," ..."

"... "I don't know how they run their operation now, but we literally had our server racks in the bathroom. I mean knowing how small Platte River Networks... I don't see how that would be secure [enough for Clinton]." ..."

"... Last week, Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough III told Congress that at least five emails from Clinton's private server contained classified information. ..."

"... "top secret," ..."

"... "I'm not sure how that all happened, all I know he was saying he had the opportunity to make quite a bit of money doing it," ..."

"... "Our internal network was extremely secure. At the time Inca St was a relatively obscure location, second floor office. The technology we had in place was pretty good. The security we had in place at the office was really good to protect our well-being." ..."

"... "what changed after I left the company I have no idea, I really could not comment on that. I don't know." ..."

"... "subject to a criminal investigation for the potential release of classified material." ..."

Aug 18, 2015 | RT America

A small IT management firm employed by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton kept its servers containing her private emails in a bathroom closet of its loft-apartment office, according to a new report, in another absurd twist to the Democrat's 2016 run.

TagsElection, Hillary Clinton, Politics

Platte River Networks, based in Denver, Colorado, was hired in mid-2013 by then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to maintain her old email server, according to the company's lawyer.

Until this summer, Platte River Networks' office was a loft apartment in downtown Denver, and the servers were stored in a bathroom closet, former employees told the Daily Mail.

The company recently told ABC News it is "highly likely" a full backup copy of the server was made, meaning emails deleted by Clinton could still exist.

Clinton handed the servers to federal investigators last week. Experts believe more than 60,000 emails deleted by Clinton could be recoverable.

Clinton, presumed the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, tasked Platte River Networks with protecting her personal email account long before any scrutiny surfaced over Clinton's handling of classified information on private servers.

One former employee described Platte River Networks as a "mom and pop shop" that seemed unlikely to be a go-to cybersecurity firm for a top government official to house state secrets. Few employees knew that Clinton was a client, the Daily Mail reported.

"At the time I worked for them they wouldn't have been equipped to work for Hilary Clinton because I don't think they had the resources, they were based out of a loft, so [it was] not very high security, we didn't even have an alarm," said Tera Dadiotis, a customer relations consultant between 2007 and 2010.

"I don't know how they run their operation now, but we literally had our server racks in the bathroom. I mean knowing how small Platte River Networks... I don't see how that would be secure [enough for Clinton]."

Platte River Networks moved into a larger workspace earlier this year.

Last week, Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough III told Congress that at least five emails from Clinton's private server contained classified information. The messages, dating from 2006 and 2008, contained signal intercepts and surveillance photos from Keyhole satellites operated by the CIA and the Pentagon. Two of the emails were labeled "top secret," according to Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley.

Clinton has said nothing in the content of the emails was classified at the time that she received them. According to court documents more than 300 emails have been flagged for "further inspection."

How did Platte River Networks, a small but reputable IT management company in Denver, receive such a prized contract? Ex-employees said David DeCamillis, the company's vice-president of sales and marketing, was active in Democratic Party circles and may have pursued her business.

Platte River co-founder Tom Welch said DeCamillis hoped to rent his home to vice president candidate Joe Biden during the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver, according to Daily Mail. But Biden didn't take the deal, said Welch, who sold his third of the company in 2010.

"I'm not sure how that all happened, all I know he was saying he had the opportunity to make quite a bit of money doing it," Welch said.

Since Clinton's server did not encrypt emails, critics have also raised concerns over the possibility that hackers may have obtained classified information from her official correspondence. The Clinton campaign maintains there had been no breaches in security.

Welch said the company's servers were secure when he was involved.

"Our internal network was extremely secure. At the time Inca St was a relatively obscure location, second floor office. The technology we had in place was pretty good. The security we had in place at the office was really good to protect our well-being."

He added that "what changed after I left the company I have no idea, I really could not comment on that. I don't know."

New polls coming out of New Hampshire and other early primary states suggest Clinton would lose not just to her primary rival for the party nomination, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, but also to some Republican contenders. Her favorability and trustworthiness ratings continue to be low.

A poll by Monmouth University, released before the server handover, showed that 52 percent of respondents thought the emails should be "subject to a criminal investigation for the potential release of classified material."

READ MORE: Headache for Hillary as classified emails draw FBI probe

[Aug 16, 2015] Liar, Liar, Pantsuit On Fire

Notable quotes:

"... And we are expected to believe that there were no data backups? So if in the (Not too uncommon) event that she had a hard drive fail, the US Secretary of State would have been totally unable to function? ..."

"... The fact that she chose not to do so strongly suggests that she made the choice knowing in advance that she was always going to delate anything she wanted. ..."

"... Civil Forfeiture is the thing the Clintons fear the most. Hillary could do a Martha Stewart on her head just as long as she knew ther'd be a couple hundred mil waiting for her when she got out. Bill is a trinket. ..."

"... The archivist for state makes that decision. A half a dozen statutes she ignored and trust me she knew better. Using private email she was supposed to either forward it to her govt account (she didn't have) or print out a hard copy and present to archivist within 20 days. The other gem when she put out the memo not to use personal emails to everyone in state, while she was using personal emails....a goodie. ..."

"... You obviously didn't live through Bills Presidency.... Clintons THRIVE on scandal... they overload the publics senses with so much scandal people start to believe none of it is true. ..."

"... I wonder if she doesn't actually escape this. The intelligence community takes security very seriously, and her crimes are both serious and numerous. Her breaches were so reckless and incompetent (both the deliberate and unintentional ones) that the odds that all of her emails have been compromised by at least Russia and China (and who knows who else) are just under 100%. The IC knows this already. So while laws are normally for the little people I have a hard time believing the IC will look the other way when, were she to win the office, it's a near certainty she's going to get blackmailed, and blackmailed effectively. ..."

Zero Hedge

TeamDepends

... won't care because truth is subordinate to the cause.

philipat

And we are expected to believe that there were no data backups? So if in the (Not too uncommon) event that she had a hard drive fail, the US Secretary of State would have been totally unable to function?

Yeah, sure....And also, having decided to operate as she did, then ALL of the data on that server belongs to the Government and it is for the Government, not Hilary, to decide what is personal and can be returned to her.

Many of us in business use two email accounts, one for business and one (Generally in the cloud) for personal mails so not backed-up with Company data.

The fact that she chose not to do so strongly suggests that she made the choice knowing in advance that she was always going to delate anything she wanted.

I also wonder which data is potentially the most embarassing for Hills, is it the details of the CIA operation in Benghazi or her correspondence with Huma?

TruxtonSpangler

Believe me yet that shes throwing the election, giving her superpac money to Fauxcahontas in exchange for not being investigated when Warren is Pres?

philipat

Now that WOULD be ironic because most of that money came from Wall St and the same Banks that Pocahontas would (Hopefully) go after......

TheReplacement

You don't know that Fauxbaby made her money representing those Wall Streeters in court? All this drama is just entertainment for the masses. It means nothing. No matter who wins, the bankers will still be in control.

Wake up. Ain't nobody gonna go after anybody unless it is us.

TruxtonSpangler

Fauxcahontas wont go after wallstreet, that's all populist rhetoric. Same shit, different politician. This time is different!

macholatte

Civil Forfeiture is the thing the Clintons fear the most. Hillary could do a Martha Stewart on her head just as long as she knew ther'd be a couple hundred mil waiting for her when she got out. Bill is a trinket.

Is that the smell of another Presidential Pardon?

Obama and the Clintons: Top Dems mingle on Martha's Vineyard

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_CLINTON_OBAMA?SITE=AP...

PlayMoney

with a couple of decades with the feds you are correct she cannot determine what to delete.

The archivist for state makes that decision. A half a dozen statutes she ignored and trust me she knew better. Using private email she was supposed to either forward it to her govt account (she didn't have) or print out a hard copy and present to archivist within 20 days. The other gem when she put out the memo not to use personal emails to everyone in state, while she was using personal emails....a goodie.

JustObserving

The NSA has something on everyone on this planet. Bernie is doomed for his position on Snowden:

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said Edward Snowden was defending Americans' freedoms when he leaked classified information about the National Security Agency's intelligence gathering.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/06/snowden-clemency-sa...

FireBrander

You obviously didn't live through Bills Presidency.... Clintons THRIVE on scandal... they overload the publics senses with so much scandal people start to believe none of it is true.

Funny.... twice I typed "Clintons" and then 'sc' and the autocomplete suggested 'scandal' :)

ebworthen

"I did not have sex with that Woman."

you enjoy myself

I wonder if she doesn't actually escape this. The intelligence community takes security very seriously, and her crimes are both serious and numerous. Her breaches were so reckless and incompetent (both the deliberate and unintentional ones) that the odds that all of her emails have been compromised by at least Russia and China (and who knows who else) are just under 100%. The IC knows this already. So while laws are normally for the little people I have a hard time believing the IC will look the other way when, were she to win the office, it's a near certainty she's going to get blackmailed, and blackmailed effectively.

Plus, how is the IC going to maintain info security discipline when everyone sees that someone basically crapped all over every law/policy related to classified material, but got off because of who she is. That's not going to go over well even someone as revered as Gen Petraeus gets prosecuted for a fraction of what Hillary did.

[Aug 09, 2015] Hillary Clinton State Department Emails, Mexico Energy Reform, and the Revolving Door

Notable quotes:

"... By Steve Horn, a Madison, WI-based Research Fellow for DeSmogBlog and a freelance investigative journalist. He previously was a reporter and researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy. Originally published at DeSmogBlog . ..."

"... Originally stored on a private server , with Clinton and her closest advisors using the server and private accounts, the emails confirm Clinton's State Department helped to break state-owned company Pemex 's (Petroleos Mexicanos) oil and gas industry monopoly in Mexico, opening up the country to international oil and gas companies. And two of the Coordinators helping to make it happen, both of whom worked for Clinton, now work in the private sector and stand to gain financially from the energy reforms they helped create. ..."

"... The appearance of the emails also offers a chance to tell the deeper story of the role the Clinton-led State Department and other powerful actors played in opening up Mexico for international business in the oil and gas sphere. That story begins with a trio. ..."

"... David Goldwyn , who was the first International Energy Coordinator named by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009, sits at the center of the story. As revealed by DeSmog, the State Department redacted the entire job description document for the Coordinator role. ..."

"... The emails show that, on at least one instance, Goldwyn also used his private " [email protected] " (Goldwyn Global Strategies) email address for State Department business. ..."

"... It remains unclear if he used his private or State Department email address on other instances, as only his name appears on the other emails. But Cheryl Mills, a top aide to Secretary Clinton at the time, initiated the email that he responded to on his private account. ..."

naked capitalism
By Steve Horn, a Madison, WI-based Research Fellow for DeSmogBlog and a freelance investigative journalist. He previously was a reporter and researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy. Originally published at DeSmogBlog.
Emails released on July 31 by the U.S. State Department reveal more about the origins of energy reform efforts in Mexico. The State Department released them as part of the once-a-month rolling release schedule for emails generated by former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now a Democratic presidential candidate.

Originally stored on a private server, with Clinton and her closest advisors using the server and private accounts, the emails confirm Clinton's State Department helped to break state-owned company Pemex's (Petroleos Mexicanos) oil and gas industry monopoly in Mexico, opening up the country to international oil and gas companies. And two of the Coordinators helping to make it happen, both of whom worked for Clinton, now work in the private sector and stand to gain financially from the energy reforms they helped create.

The appearance of the emails also offers a chance to tell the deeper story of the role the Clinton-led State Department and other powerful actors played in opening up Mexico for international business in the oil and gas sphere. That story begins with a trio.

The Trio

David Goldwyn, who was the first International Energy Coordinator named by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009, sits at the center of the story. As revealed by DeSmog, the State Department redacted the entire job description document for the Coordinator role.

Goldwyn now runs an oil and gas industry consulting firm called Goldwyn Global Strategies, works of counsel as an industry attorney at the law firm Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, and works as a fellow at the industry–funded think tanks Atlantic Council and Brookings Institution.

The emails show that, on at least one instance, Goldwyn also used his private "[email protected] " (Goldwyn Global Strategies) email address for State Department business.

It remains unclear if he used his private or State Department email address on other instances, as only his name appears on the other emails. But Cheryl Mills, a top aide to Secretary Clinton at the time, initiated the email that he responded to on his private account.

[Jul 27, 2015] Clinton Favorability Plunges, Sanders Surges Amid Classified Emails Scandal

www.zerohedge.com

Zero Hedge

Despite all her proclamations of new fairness doctrines, false promises of her truthfulness, and exclamations of 'everyday Americanism' Hillary Rodham Clinton is seeing her favorability ratings collapse. As populist as she dares to be, in the face of her donating captors, it appears the everyday American just isn't buying it as Gallup reports just 43% Americans view her favorably (down from 66% just a few years ago) while none other than Bernie Sanders is bounding up the popularity ladder, rising from 12% to 24% favorability in recent weeks.
Via Gallup,
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' favorable rating among Americans has doubled since Gallup's initial reading in March, rising to 24% from 12% as he has become better known. Hillary Clinton's rating has slipped to 43% from 48% in April. At the same time, Clinton's unfavorable rating increased to 46%, tilting her image negative and producing her worst net favorable score since December 2007.

JustObserving

just 43% Americans view her favorably

Isn't that 44% too many?

Obama is always the most admired man in this world in Gallup polls

We will never run out of idiots in the land of the free.

Psychopath Hillary sees great humor in Gaddafi's gruesome death: We came, we saw, he died
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

ebworthen

Time for another "dark horse" (pun intended) DEM candidate to steal Hillary's thunder.

Younger, female, and with hints of pan-sexuality...Susan Rice?

Ralph Spoilsport

This guy at the NY Post thinks she's toast. He thinks Valerie Jarret was the leak about the emails and that the White House let her do it.

http://nypost.com/2015/07/26/hillary-has-a-dangerous-enemy-in-the-obama-...

Berspankme

I am sure the leaks come from the white house too. They own the MSM and nothing gets printed without white house okay. They don't want hilary and they are determined to deep six the bitch

LetThemEatRand

"Sanders is still an unknown to a majority of Americans, with just 44% able to rate him compared with Clinton's 89%."

I wonder why. Even ZH barely covers him. I've seen probably 10 Trump stories in the last week here, several Clinton stories, and zero (hedge) Sanders stories until now.

theTribster

Yep, exactly what I've been thinking. Would be nice to see a little love in Bernie's drection, a man with integrity (and lots of it) and some good ideas - but mostly a guy that listens to and works for us.

LetThemEatRand

My interest in Bernie is the same as Trump. They are both spoilers, and they say some truth in the process (Trump very obviously ignores the Fed and is a NeoCon, and Bernie has the problem of thinking taxation is the answer to everything). I'd like to see the MSM and certainly alternative media like ZH give both good coverage so people can hear what they are saying. Maybe someone worth electing would emerge if the vote for the banker candidates were truly split among both Teams.

CHC

I would absolutely LOVE to see Hillary just totally crash and burn! I'd be delighted if she's actually charged with violating a federal law - that would be so damn awesome. That would definitely do something to restore a little faith in our judicial system, but I'm definitely not holding my breath on that. CRASH AND BURN YOU TELETUBBY!

LetThemEatRand

Assume for a moment that Trump is the Ross Perot of the Red Team candidate this election (think George Bush against Bill Clinton). Sanders could play the same role for Hillary or other Blue Team candidate, splitting the Blues. MSM including Fox and other supposedly conservative media can't get enough of Trump (same for ZH for that matter). Not so much for Bernie. What does that tell you about who "they" want to win.

Baby Eating Dingo22

Funny how Sanders gest bashed here

He represents everything that most here clamor for

1.He is not a sell-out to party or lobbyists
2.He has been honest and consistent about his position his entire career
3.He will out the Fed
4.He will out the banksters
5.He will FINALLY aim the printers where they should have ben aimed 10 years ago. Directly at Americans and not to Wall Street

The ones that don't support him seem to think that someone should come in and stop the printing and we'll be on way to recovery. That's wrong. We're broke 20 times over. The debt's NEVER being paid back.

Let Bernie print until the reset. At least the banksters and Fed will be cut down to size and the 99% can prosper in the meantime

theTribster

Agrred. There is a lot more to this country's problems then our financial system, military - healthcare - good jobs - judicial - corruption everywhere, etc. There is no reason he can't win - it isn't all about money, he needs enough to communicate nationally which he has and more is coming. An amazing fact, there is a national Bernie meeting on the 29th, I looked at how many places around my zip (outside Philly within 50 miles) where the meeting was being held - 192! That's incredible. I then looked at our other locations (Wildwood Crest, Key Colony Beach) and both had 96 and 52 respectively. That is amazing, there is a lot more to Bernie then we know - the polls are corrupt (no surprise) as is the media - Lies and omissions...

Berspankme

Bernie and Trump tapping into pissed off americans

Nutflush60

George Will once called George Wallace's 68 campaign a warnings signal for Deomcrats. Both parties are now warnedt there are lot of angry people out there.

She has the money and organization, but I think the phoniness of Hillary will be so evident to her borderline supporters as time goes on,

Would love to see Kasich pick up mometum for the Repubs.

Bazza McKenzie

Jarrett is busy doing that. The Obama crime family is in the process of obliterating the older Clinton crime family. Then they'll pop up Joe as the Obama family's candidate.

Clinton can either sulk off with her corrupt millions or get charged. That's the path they're taking her down. And that's why the MSM is running stories critical of Clinton. They would be too afraid to do so if they thought there was any chance of her getting the nomination and being elected.

holdbuysell

To dog pile on the rabbit:

Hillary Clinton Exposed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mYW5nmS9ps&feature=youtu.be

PlayMoney

This is why we need her http://sweetness-light.com/archive/barbara-olson-on-hillarys-cattle-futures

[Jul 24, 2015] Justice Dept. Is Asked to Investigate Clinton Email by MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MATT APUZZO

Jul 24, 2015 | nytimes.com

Two inspectors general asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Hillary Clinton mishandled sensitive information on a private account, senior officials said.

[Jul 24, 2015] Hillary Legal Troubles

Notable quotes:

"... "It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them." But since Clinton privatized her server, it's a fair point that the potential is there. ..."

www.nytimes.com

"Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account" [New York Times].

National security stuff, of course, not privatization or corruption.

"It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them." But since Clinton privatized her server, it's a fair point that the potential is there.

[Jul 10, 2015] Hillary Clinton emails reveal Cherie Blair acted as go-between for leading Qatari and the-then US Secretary of State

Notable quotes:

"... When Mrs Clinton finally agreed to meet with Middle East royal, who Mrs Blair referred to as "My friend from Q", she replied to the green light, stating: "Great… when I see what a difference you are making it reminds me why politics is too important to be left to bad people ..."

Jul 10, 2015 | independent.co.uk

The wife of the former British prime minister, Tony Blair, lobbied Mrs Clinton, then US Secretary of State, for a "woman-to-woman" meeting in the American capital with Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser al-Missned.

Sheikha Mozah's son is the current ruling emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamin bin Hamad al-Thani.

Using the close relationship that her husband and Bill Clinton built up during their respective years in Downing Street and the White House, Mrs Blair exchanged a series of 19 emails in 2009 asking Mrs Clinton to help Sheikha Moser improve Qatar's relationship with the US.

Although the meeting was aimed primarily on the Qatari royal's charitable interests, Mrs Blair admitted to the US Secretary of State that "I am sure the conversation would not be confined to these interests [disability charities] but would be about the US/Qatar relationship generally."

When Mrs Clinton finally agreed to meet with Middle East royal, who Mrs Blair referred to as "My friend from Q", she replied to the green light, stating: "Great… when I see what a difference you are making it reminds me why politics is too important to be left to bad people."

[Mar 30, 2015] IRS Scandal Deja Vu Hillary Clintons Email Server Wiped Clean

Notable quotes:

"... This appears to have taken place after the first production request had come in, which means that Clinton may well be guilty of destruction of evidence. ..."

"... it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department." ..."

"... It is time for the Committee to stop this political charade and instead make these documents public and schedule Secretary Clinton's public testimony now. ..."

www.zerohedge.com
Mar 28, 2015 | Zero Hedge
If, as one claims, one is innocent of i) using a personal email account to send out confidential information and/or to take advantage of one's political position to abuse opponents and ii) deleting said confidential emails against government regulations, what would one do when faced with a government subpoena demand? If one is the IRS' Lois Lerner, one would claim, against subsequently revealed facts, that a hardware error led to a permanent loss of all demanded emails, even though by email protocol definition, said emails are always stored on at least one off-site server. Or, if one is Hillary Clinton, one would just format the entire server.

This, according to the Hill, is precisely what Hillary Clinton has done as the recent clintonemail.com scandal continues to grow bigger and impair ever more the already frail credibility and decision-making skills of the former first lady and democratic presidential hopeful. According to the head of the House Select Committee on Benghazi says former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has erased all information from the personal email server she used while serving as the nation's top diplomat.

"We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said in a statement Friday.

What difference does it make if she deleted all her emails?

Apparently a lot.

The key question is when said server formatting took place. This appears to have taken place after the first production request had come in, which means that Clinton may well be guilty of destruction of evidence. He said while it's "not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department."

What's worse, the evidence destroyed officially is US government property, since it was all created when Clinton was an employee of Uncle Sam.

Last week, Gowdy sent a letter to Clinton's attorney asking that the email server be turned over to a third party in the hopes that an investigation could recover about 30,000 emails that her team deleted before turning the rest over to the State Department.

Gowdy said "it is clear Congress will need to speak with the former Secretary about her email arrangement and the decision to permanently delete those emails."

"Not only was the Secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server, ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest," Gowdy said.

Those intent on defending the former Secretary of State, such as the panel's top Democrat, Elijah Cummings may have their work cut out for them but that doesn't stop them from trying: Cummings said the letter the select committee received from Clinton's attorney detailing what happened the server proves she has nothing to hide.

"This confirms what we all knew - that Secretary Clinton already produced her official records to the State Department, that she did not keep her personal emails, and that the Select Committee has already obtained her emails relating to the attacks in Benghazi," he said in a statement.

"It is time for the Committee to stop this political charade and instead make these documents public and schedule Secretary Clinton's public testimony now."

Clinton has maintained that the messages were personal in nature, but Gowdy and other Republicans have raised questions over whether she might have deleted messages that could damage her expected White House run in the process.

"I have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department," Clinton said during a press conference in New York earlier this month.

Sadly, there is nothing but her word to go by at this moment: a word whose credibility has now been fatally compromised by her recent actions.

She said she had culled through more than 60,000 emails from her time at State and determined that roughly 30,000 of them were public records that should have been maintained.

Gowdy said given Clinton's "unprecedented email arrangement with herself and her decision nearly two years after she left office to permanently delete" information, his panel would work with House leadership as it "considers next steps."

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Gowdy and other members of the Benghazi panel in the past have hinted that the full House could issues a subpoena for Clinton's server.

The Hill concludes by treating the population to the next upcoming kangaroo court: House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has suggested his panel could hold hearings over Clinton's use of private email, emphasizing his panel's jurisdiction over violations of the Federal Records Act.

Will anything change as a result? Of course not, because the real decision-maker has already hedged its bets. Recall Blankfein has already indicated that despite his strong preference for a democrat president, one which would perpetuate the Fed's policies, "he would be fine with either a Bush or Clinton presidency." Which in a country controlled and dominated by lobby interests, and which happens to be the "best democracy that money can buy" is all that matters.

Au Member

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LihB7ZoGf4c

All you need to know about this toxic duo right there.

[Mar 30, 2015] Private Emails Reveal Ex-Clinton Aides Secret Spy Network

Notable quotes:

"... Emails disclosed by a hacker show a close family friend was funneling intelligence about the crisis in Libya directly to the Secretary of State's private account starting before the Benghazi attack. ..."

"... This story was co-published with Gawker . ..."

"... Update, March 27, 6:48 p.m.: This story has been updated to include responses from the FBI and the State Department. ..."

"... Clinton family confidante Sidney Blumenthal supplied intelligence to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered by a secret network that included a former CIA clandestine service officer, according to hacked emails from Blumenthal's account. ..."

March 28, 2015 | State of the Nation

Emails disclosed by a hacker show a close family friend was funneling intelligence about the crisis in Libya directly to the Secretary of State's private account starting before the Benghazi attack.

This story was co-published with Gawker.

Update, March 27, 6:48 p.m.: This story has been updated to include responses from the FBI and the State Department.

Starting weeks before Islamic militants attacked the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, longtime Clinton family confidante Sidney Blumenthal supplied intelligence to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered by a secret network that included a former CIA clandestine service officer, according to hacked emails from Blumenthal's account.

The emails, which were posted on the internet in 2013, also show that Blumenthal and another close Clinton associate discussed contracting with a retired Army special operations commander to put operatives on the ground near the Libya-Tunisia border while Libya's civil war raged in 2011.

Blumenthal's emails to Clinton, which were directed to her private email account, include at least a dozen detailed reports on events on the deteriorating political and security climate in Libya as well as events in other nations. They came to light after a hacker broke into Blumenthal's account and have taken on new significance in light of the disclosure that she conducted State Department and personal business exclusively over an email server that she controlled and kept secret from State Department officials and which only recently was discovered by congressional investigators.

The contents of that account are now being sought by a congressional inquiry into the Benghazi attacks. Clinton has handed over more than 30,000 pages of her emails to the State Department, after unilaterally deciding which ones involved government business; the State Department has so far handed almost 900 pages of those over to the committee. A Clinton spokesman told Gawker and ProPublica (which are collaborating on this story) that she has turned over all the emails Blumenthal sent to Clinton.

The dispatches from Blumenthal to Clinton's private email address were posted online after Blumenthal's account was hacked in 2013 by Romanian hacker Marcel-Lehel Lazar, who went by the name Guccifer. Lazar also broke into accounts belonging to George W. Bush's sister, Colin Powell, and others. He's now serving a seven-year sentence in his home country and was charged in a U.S. indictment last year.

The contents of the memos, which have recently become the subject of speculation in the right-wing media, raise new questions about how Clinton used her private email account and whether she tapped into an undisclosed back channel for information on Libya's crisis and other foreign policy matters.

Blumenthal, a New Yorker staff writer in the 1990s, became a top aide to President Bill Clinton and worked closely with Hillary Clinton during the fallout from the Whitewater investigation into the Clinton family. She tried to hire him when she joined President Obama's cabinet in 2009, but White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly nixed the idea on the grounds Blumenthal was a divisive figure whose attacks on Obama during the Democratic primary had poisoned his relationship with the new administration.

It's unclear who tasked Blumenthal, known for his fierce loyalty to the Clintons, with preparing detailed intelligence briefs. It's also not known who was paying him, or where the operation got its money. The memos were marked "confidential" and relied in many cases on "sensitive" sources in the Libyan opposition and Western intelligence and security services. Other reports focused on Egypt, Germany, and Turkey.

Indeed, though they were sent under Blumenthal's name, the reports appear to have been gathered and prepared by Tyler Drumheller, a former chief of the CIA's clandestine service in Europe who left the agency in 2005. Since then, he has established a consulting firm called Tyler Drumheller, LLC. He has also been affiliated with a firm called DMC Worldwide, which he co-founded with Washington, D.C., attorney Danny Murray and former general counsel to the U.S. Capitol Police John Caulfield. DMC Worldwide's now-defunct website describes it at as offering "innovative security and intelligence solutions to global risks in a changing world."

In one exchange in March 2013, Blumenthal emailed Drumheller, "Thanks. Can you send Libya report." Drumheller replied, "Here it is, pls do not share it with Cody. I don't want moin speculating on sources. It is on the Maghreb and Libya." Cody is Cody Shearer, a longtime Clinton family operative-his brother was an ambassador under Bill Clinton and his now-deceased sister is married to Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott-who was in close contact with Blumenthal. While it's not entirely clear from the documents, "Moin" may refer to the nickname of Mohamed Mansour El Kikhia, a member of the Kikhia family, a prominent Libyan clan with ties to the Libyan National Transition Council. (An email address in Blumenthal's address book, which was also leaked, was associated with his Facebook page.)

There's no indication in Blumenthal's emails whether Clinton read or replied to them before she left State on February 1, 2013, but he was clearly part of a select group with knowledge of the private clintonemail.com address, which was unknown to the public until

Gawker published it this year. They do suggest that she interacted with Blumenthal using the account after she stepped down. "H: got your message a few days ago," reads the subject line of one email from Blumenthal to Clinton on February 8, 2013; "H: fyi, will continue to send relevant intel," reads another.

The memos cover a wide array of subjects in extreme detail, from German Prime Minister Angela Merkel's conversations with her finance minister about French president Francois Hollande–marked "THIS INFORMATION COMES FROM AN EXTREMELY SENSITIVE SOURCE"-to the composition of the newly elected South Korean president's transition team. At least 10 of the memos deal in whole or in part with internal Libyan politics and the government's fight against militants, including the status of the Libyan oil industry and the prospects for Western companies to participate.

One memo was sent on August 23, 2012, less than three weeks before Islamic militants stormed the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi. It cites "an extremely sensitive source" who highlighted a string of bombings and kidnappings of foreign diplomats and aid workers in Tripoli, Benghazi and Misrata, suggesting they were the work of people loyal to late Libyan Prime Minister Muammar Gaddafi.

While the memo doesn't rise to the level of a warning about the safety of U.S. diplomats, it portrays a deteriorating security climate. Clinton noted a few days after the Benghazi attack, which left four dead and 10 people injured, that U.S. intelligence officials didn't have advance knowledge of the threat.

On September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, Blumenthal sent a memo that cited a "sensitive source" saying that the interim Libyan president, Mohammed Yussef el Magariaf, was told by a senior security officer that the assault was inspired by an anti-Muslim video made in the U.S., as well as by allegations from Magariaf's political opponents that he had CIA ties.

Blumenthal followed up the next day with an email titled "Re: More Magariaf private reax." It said Libyan security officials believed an Islamist radical group called the Ansa al Sharia brigade had prepared the attack a month in advance and "took advantage of the cover" provided by the demonstrations against the video.

An October 25, 2012 memo says that Magariaf and the Libyan army chief of staff agree that the "situation in the country is becoming increasingly dangerous and unmanageable" and "far worse" than Western leaders realize.

Blumenthal's email warnings, of course, followed a year of Libyan hawkishness on the part of Clinton. In February of 2011, she told the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva that "it is time for Gaddafi to go." The next month, after having described Russian reluctance over military intervention as "despicable," Clinton met with rebel leaders in Paris and drummed up support for a no-fly zone while in Cairo. On March 17, 2011, the UN Security Council voted to back Libyan rebels against Gaddafi.

It's this buildup, which Clinton still proudly recalled in her 2014 memoir, that Blumenthal appears to join in on 2011. In addition to the intel memos, his emails also disclose that he and his associates worked to help the Libyan opposition, and even plotted to insert operatives on the ground using a private contractor.

A May 14, 2011 email exchange between Blumenthal and Shearer shows that they were negotiating with Drumheller to contract with someone referred to as "Grange" and "the general" to place send four operatives on a week-long mission to Tunis, Tunisia, and "to the border and back." Tunisia borders Libya and Algeria.

"Sid, you are doing great work on this," Drumheller wrote to Blumenthal. "It is going to be around $60,000, coverting r/t business class airfare to Tunis, travel in country to the border and back, and other expenses for 7–10 days for 4 guys."

After Blumenthal forwarded that note to Shearer, he wrote back questioning the cost of the operation. "Sid, do you think the general has to send four guys. He told us three guys yesterday, a translator and two other guys. I understand the difficulty of the mission and realize that K will be repaid but I am going to need an itemized budget for these guys."

"The general" and "Grange" appear to refer to David L. Grange, a major general in the Army who ran a secret Pentagon special operations unit before retiring in 1999. Grange subsequently founded Osprey Global Solutions, a consulting firm and government contractor that offers logistics, intelligence, security training, armament sales, and other services. The Osprey Foundation, which is a nonprofit arm of Osprey Global Solutions, is listed as one of the State Department's "global partners" in a 2014 report from the Office of Global Partnerships.'

Among the documents in the cache released by Lazar is an August 24, 2011, memorandum of understanding between Osprey Global Solutions and the Libyan National Transition Council-the entity that took control in the wake of Qadaffi's execution-agreeing that Osprey will contract with the NTC to "assist in the resumption of access to its assets and operations in country" and train Libyan forces in intelligence, weaponry, and "rule-of-land warfare." The document refers to meetings held in Amman, Jordan between representatives of Osprey and a Mohammad Kikhia, who represented the National Transition Council.

Five months later, according to a document in the leak, Grange wrote on Osprey Global letterhead to Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro, introducing Osprey as a contractor eager to provide humanitarian and other assistance in Libya. "We are keen to support the people of Libya under the sponsorship of the Ministry of Finance and the Libyan Stock Exchange," Grange wrote. Shapiro is a longtime Clinton loyalist; he served on her Senate staff as foreign policy advisor.

Another document in the cache, titled "Letter_for_Moin," is an appeal from Drumheller to then-Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan offering the services of Tyler Drumheller LLC, "to develop a program that will provide discreet confidential information allowing the appropriate entities in Libya to address any regional and international challenges."

The "K" who was, according to Shearer's email, to be "repaid" for his role in the Tunisia operation appears to be someone named Khalifa al Sherif, who sent Blumenthal several emails containing up-to-the-minute information on the civil war in Libya, and appears to have been cited as a source in several of the reports.

Contacted by ProPublica and Gawker, Drumheller's attorney and business partner Danny Murray confirmed that Drumheller "worked" with Blumenthal and was aware of the hacked emails, but declined to comment further.

Shearer said only that "the FBI is involved and told me not to talk. There is a massive investigation of the hack and all the resulting information." The FBI declined to comment.

Blumenthal, Grange, and Kikhia all did not respond to repeated attempts to reach them. Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton had no comment on Blumenthal's activities with Drumheller.

Whatever Blumenthal, Shearer, Drumheller, and Grange were up to in 2011, 2012, and 2013 on Clinton's behalf, it appears that she could have used the help: According to State Department personnel directories, in 2011 and 2012-the height of the Libya crisis-State didn't have a Libyan desk officer, and the entire Near Eastern Magreb Bureau, which which covers Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Libya, had just two staffers. Today, State has three Libyan desk officers and 11 people in the Near Eastern Magreb Bureau. A State Department official wouldn't say how many officers were on the desk in 2011, but said there was always "at least one" officer and "sometimes many more, working on Libya."

Reached for comment, a State Department public affairs official who would only speak on background declined to address questions about Blumenthal's relationship to Clinton, whether she was aware of the intelligence network, and who if anyone was paying Blumenthal. Asked about the Tunisia-Libya mission, the official replied, "There was a trip with the secretary in October of 2011, but there was also a congressional delegation in April, 2011. There were media reports about both of these at the time." Neither trip involved travelling via Tunis.

[Mar 21, 2015] The NSA's plan: improve cybersecurity by hacking everyone else by Trevor Timm

The key problem with new NSA toys and methods is that they will be replicated, possible on a better technological level. Then what ?

Mar 21, 2015 | The Guardian
The National Security Agency want to be able to hack more people, vacuum up even more of your internet records and have the keys to tech companies' encryption – and, after 18 months of embarrassing inaction from Congress on surveillance reform, the NSA is now lobbying it for more powers, not less.
NSA director Mike Rogers testified in front of a Senate committee this week, lamenting that the poor ol' NSA just doesn't have the "cyber-offensive" capabilities (read: the ability to hack people) it needs to adequately defend the US. How cyber-attacking countries will help cyber-defense is anybody's guess, but the idea that the NSA is somehow hamstrung is absurd.

The NSA runs sophisticated hacking operations all over the world. A Washington Post report showed that the NSA carried out 231 "offensive" operations in 2011 - and that number has surely grown since then. That report also revealed that the NSA runs a $652m project that has infected tens of thousands of computers with malware.

And that was four years ago - it's likely increased significantly. A leaked presidential directive issued in 2012 called for an expanded list of hacking targets all over the world. The NSA spends ten of millions of dollars per year to procure "'software vulnerabilities' from private malware vendors" – i.e., holes in software that will make their hacking much easier. The NSA has even created a system, according to Edward Snowden, that can automatically hack computers overseas that attempt to hack systems in the US.

Moving further in this direction, Rogers has also called for another new law that would force tech companies to install backdoors into all their encryption. The move has provoked condemnation and scorn from the entire security community - including a very public upbraiding by Yahoo's top security executive - as it would be a disaster for the very cybersecurity that the director says is a top priority.

And then there is the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (Cisa) the downright awful "cybersecurity" bill passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee last week in complete secrecy that is little more than an excuse to conduct more surveillance. The bill will do little to stop cyberattacks, but it will do a lot to give the NSA even more power to collect Americans' communications from tech companies without any legal process whatsoever. The bill's text was finally released a couple days ago, and, as EFF points out, tucked in the bill were the powers to do the exact type of "offensive" attacks for which Rogers is pining.

While the NSA tries to throw every conceivable expansion of power against the wall hoping that something sticks, the clock continues to tick on Section 215 of the Patriot Act – the law which the spy agency secretly used to collect every American's phone records. Congress has to re-authorize by vote in June or it will expire, and as Steve Vladick wrote on Just Security this week, there seems to be no high-level negotiations going on between the administration and Congress over reforms to the NSA in the lead-up to the deadline. Perhaps, as usual, the NSA now thinks it can emerge from yet another controversy over its extraordinary powers and still end up receiving more?

Chad Castellano -> Kevin OConnor 21 Mar 2015 13:58

Actually it doesn't matter if it is an American phone or computer. The NSA actually has no laws stopping them from doing this to foreign companies. The tens of thousands of computers they hacked in this article are computers outside US jurisdiction. And they have put hardline taps on companies overseas. So right now the only computers or phones with any legal protections are the ones in the U.S. The rest of the world is a legal target for the NSA. Always have been.

What we need is to disband the NSA and replace it with a 100% transparent agency not made up of megalomaniacs.

Kevin OConnor 21 Mar 2015 13:46

After reading this article , you need to ask yourself...
Anybody want to buy an American computer ?
How about an American phone ?
No ?

Hmm...I see an economic problem here ...

Mike5000 21 Mar 2015 13:34

The West has transitioned from democracies and republics to criminal empires run by spook gangs.

With total information comes total blackmail capability. Lawmakers and judges are puppets.

Fictional 007 was licensed to kill. Real spook gangs get away with murder, kidnapping, torture, blackmail, commercial espionage, narcotics, and arms trafficking.

ondelette -> zelazny 21 Mar 2015 12:29

Do tell. And when did stopping teenagers from joining ISIS become a problem of analyzing vacuumed foreign intelligence data? Do you really want the government to be the party making decisions for teenagers and sorting them out into ones who should be changed and ones who are safe the way they are? Based on surveillance?

The purpose of the government isn't to act as in loco parentis in place of idiots who don't know what to do with a child once it's not a cute baby anymore.

thankgodimanatheist -> zelazny 21 Mar 2015 11:41

You are assuming that the real powers in the world want to stop Daesh (ISIS) and other groups like that.

What if it is all a drama (a bizarre disgusting TV reality show) to keep us (the 99.9999999%) scared (terrorized) so we allow them to spend more money on arms (including more money for the NSA) and forget about real issues such as the fact that in the USA the net worth of the 6 children of Sam Walton is more than that of 50% of us (while our real incomes goes down every day - for the 95% of us) and in the world 80 people's net worth is more than that of 50% of the world population.

Be afraid, don't think, be very afraid...
That's their mantra!

Gary Paudler 21 Mar 2015 11:18

Not that surprising, when was the last time the Department of Defense did something that wasn't entirely offensive on some other country's soil?

mikedow -> Delaware 21 Mar 2015 11:15

You can left-click on that pop-up and nuke it if you have Adblocker. I had fun with Rusbridger's Coal Divestment Promo, by blasting it.

Eric Moller 21 Mar 2015 11:02

Why discuss anything .. The GOP has already shown a willingness to hand the NSA illegal powers under the table so to speak .. and even if the deadline for section 215 of the ( Benedict Arnold Act) expires it's not a problem ..

One thing Obama and Congress can agree on is the Continuation of our Tax dollars being spent on our Government spying on us .. The People .. They seem to be in lock step on that illegality .. Kinda like the Hitler High step ..

Quadspect -> zelazny 21 Mar 2015 11:00

Theoretically, NSA, in all its cyber-omniscience, watched arms smuggling by various governments into countries with factions that wanted to kill each other, watched the increasing justifiable fury at being droned and bombed and politically and economically interfered with that caused formation of terrorist groups --- Hardly an institution bent on protecting the 99 percent. NSA is up to Something Else Other Than National Security.

zelazny 21 Mar 2015 09:58

The NSA has learned that despite its ability to vacuum up massive amounts of data, it lacks the intelligence to sort it out and analyze it. Garbage in, garbage out.

Take for example the inability of the GCHQ or the NSA to stop teenagers, including teen age girls, from attempting, and actually succeeding, in joining ISIS and other groups.

They may have everyone's information, but they can't sort out the "good" guys from the "bad" guys.

So instead, they will do what the USA always has done -- attack the innocent to make sure they pose no threat, even if they never would pose a threat.

robtal 21 Mar 2015 09:40

Let the NSA do all the hacking they want if your so out of it you put sensitive stuff anywhere on a computor your loss.

Eccles -> whatdidyouexpect 21 Mar 2015 09:25

Using the standard US definition of terrorism they have had them for some decades. Using them, for example, to program missile targets, control drones, communicate, and hack fellow UN diplomats.

And your point is?

[Mar 14, 2015] Clinton defence of personal email server fails to placate critics

Mar 14, 2015 | The Register

Phil Barnett, a VP at mobile device management vendor Good Technology, questioned Clinton's data management practices.
"Personal and highly sensitive corporate data are very different and should be treated as such," Barnett said. "But that's not to say you can't have them on the same device. The user experience must be high quality to keep data secure – if your corporate security model is too heavy, people will find a way around it.
"Separating and containerising sensitive data allows one device to do both jobs while balancing usability and security. And the more sensitive the data, the more critical this approach becomes," he added.
The affair has created issues around using personal vs. government issued e-mail addresses, as well as the preservation requirements that apply to each case. The incident has also thrown up regulatory, compliance and storage/e-discovery issues.
Mark Noel, a former litigator for Latham & Watkins who went on to co-found an electronic discovery software firm before moving onto Catalyst Repository System, is more sympathetic to Clinton's DIY email set-up, arguing that there's a good chance that historically significant data will be recovered one way or another.
"The use of a personal email account doesn't necessarily mean there's any intent to hide things," Noel said. "It's very common for busy professionals to try to funnel everything into one email account or one device, because multiple devices or accounts are too much of a pain to deal with and take up way too much time. When the government or corporate system isn't set up to allow that kind of efficiency, people often craft their own solutions purely for the sake of getting their jobs done."
Emails sent or received by Clinton might still be accessible even if here or her staff either deleted or lost them for any reason. There are always copies at the other end, the managing director of professional services at Catalyst Repository System pointed out.
"Analysts who are complaining that 'there's no way we can know if there's anything missing' aren't quite right," Noel said. "We do this all the time in civil litigation and government investigations. Emails tend to leave copies on every server they touch, so even if a sender doesn't keep a copy of it, the receiver's email system probably did. If Ms. Clinton emailed other government issued accounts, those emails are very likely preserved – just in a different location."
Gaps in the record might also be revealed via practices common in commercial litigation, according to Noel.
"Additionally, there are other types of analysis, such as 'gap analysis' that can reveal whether email is likely missing, based on the usual pattern and quantities of email and whether there appear to be 'holes' in the emails that are preserved. These types of analyses are also quite common in civil litigation and government investigations where it is suspected that someone is intentionally hiding or deleting evidence," he concluded. ®

[Mar 14, 2015] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/14/hillary-clinton-arkansas-friends

From comments:: She's not a computer tech and hasn't got a clue as to whether security was breached. If the hackers can invade gov't websites (wikileaks) and major corporations, it's not only possible but very likely that her security was breached.

Mar 14, 2015 | The Guardian

flatulenceodor67 -> J.K. Stevens 14 Mar 2015 12:33

"She was on a secured server and has already confirmed that security was not breached."
What an ASININE statement believing a compulsive/corrupt KNOWN LIAR! I guess it takes one to know one.

Spanawaygal -> J.K. Stevens 14 Mar 2015 12:12

She's not a computer tech and hasn't got a clue as to whether security was breached. If the hackers can invade gov't websites (wikileaks) and major corporations, it's not only possible but very likely that her security was breached.

[Mar 14, 2015] How your phone and fitness band could end up giving evidence against you by Ben Lovejoy

Your email records are a goldmine. There's the obvious stuff – who you were in contact with when, and what was said – but there's so much more than that to be gleaned. ...Your phone does regular, automatic backups to Apple or Google servers, and with the right software, anyone can download and access them.

February 24, 2015 | The Guardian

A criminal suspect can't be forced to divulge their phone passcode, a US circuit court judge ruled in October 2014. Yet law enforcement officials can compel a suspect to provide a fingerprint – which they can then use to unlock the phone and obtain data which may prove the case against them.

In an ongoing Canadian civil case, activity data from a Fitbit fitness band is being used to determine the truthfulness of an accident victim's claim that she is less active now than before the accident.

And in another civil case, where a plaintiff argued that his injuries meant he was no longer able to operate a computer for lengthy periods of time, a court ruled that the defendants had a right to access metadata from his hard drive that showed how often the claimant had used his PC.
Keeping in mind David Cameron's suggestion in January that there should be no such thing as private messaging, how much of this is reasonable? How do we strike a balance between the privacy of the individual and the state's interest in justice being served?

It might be reasonably argued that the degree of intrusion should be proportional to the seriousness of the accusation. But this principle can easily take us into very grey territory.

Suppose the police and intelligence services are investigating a terrorist attack – a tube bombing. Ten people died: it's clearly a very serious crime. The authorities know that the bomb was placed on the station platform sometime between 7:13am, when CCTV footage shows the bag definitely wasn't there, and 7.23am, when the explosion occurred. Is it reasonable to pull the Oyster data from 7am to 7.23am, to identify all the people who entered the station between those times and cross-reference with police and security services files to search for anyone known or suspected to have terrorist links?

What if they do that and draw a blank? They will now want to know more about all those people who entered the first tube station between 7am to 7.23am. More than 250 people per minute enter a busy station during rush hour, so that's 5,750 suspects. They're pretty sure from the CCTV footage that the suspect is male, so they narrow it down to 2,875 people. And that's all there is to go on so far. One of those men is our bomber, the other 2,874 of them are innocent.
Is it reasonable to get a blanket court order to examine the ISP and mobile phone records of all 2,875 people? With that many people, all the authorities are going to do is run a simple search of the metadata – the who-contacted-who part – and see if any of them have been in contact with any known or suspected terrorists. They're not spying on your sexts to your girlfriend or emails from your credit card company querying a missed payment, they're just looking at who you might have been in touch with.

No matches. But the explosive used in this attack was found to have been stolen from a demolition company in Leeds one week before the attack. A court order to run a search of the 2,875 suspects' email records for train bookings to or from Leeds during that week is readied, and their car registration numbers are obtained, to see whether any of them were logged on any ANPR systems on the M1 during that time. That's all. No other email content will be looked at, nor any other details of their driving history; just those two straightforward searches. Fair enough?

The suspects are narrowed down to 47 people whose cars were spotted at least once on the M1 at some point between London and Leeds during that week. There is got nothing else to go on, so the authorities now need to take a deeper dive into the online lives of those 47 people.

What could that involve? Most of us leave a pretty comprehensive digital footprint these days. Your fitness bank or sleep-tracking app logs the time that you woke up. Your ISP logs show which websites you visited, even which stories you read on Guardian.com over breakfast.

Phone GPS and wi-fi logs can enable your movements to be tracked to within tens of metres: your route to the tube station can easily be mapped. Oyster data logs the details of the subsequent tube journey: stations, dates, times.

Your email records are a goldmine. There's the obvious stuff – who you were in contact with when, and what was said – but there's so much more than that to be gleaned.

Ever had a password reminder emailed to you for iCloud or Google? Deleted the mail but failed to empty your trash can? Not an issue if you switched on two-factor authentication, but if you didn't, the authorities now have remote access to the content of your phone. The entire content. Your phone does regular, automatic backups to Apple or Google servers, and with the right software, anyone can download and access them.

Your contacts. Your calendar. Your photos. Your notes. And more.

Collating the addresses of your contacts with your Oyster data tells us who you've been visiting, and how often. The authorities would soon know more about those 47 people than almost any of their friends.

What if they had been left not with 47 suspects but 200? 500? Where do we draw the line?

What if, instead of an actual bombing, it was an aborted attempt at the same, but without hard-and-fast proof – how does that change the equation of what is and isn't acceptable?

These will always be difficult judgment calls, but while the individual decisions may need to be made in secret, it does not mean that the principles governing these decisions should themselves be secret or – worse – left to the whim of individual judges in individual cases.

It may not be possible to formulate hard-and-fast rules covering every eventuality, but there is every reason to set out clear and transparent guidelines within which decisions can be made – and no reason why the debate to determine these guidelines should not take place in public and in parliament.

[Mar 12, 2015] Hillary Clinton is now the face of shadow IT

Notable quotes:

"... Usually, employees who decide to engage in shadow IT don't have bad intentions. They do so because what they're getting from corporate IT isn't good enough: Corporate-issued devices and apps are clunky, enterprise security measures ruin the user experience, IT is too slow to respond to requests. ..."

"... Battling on another front, CIOs should reach out to shadow IT vendors with an olive branch. While it's reactionary to slam vendors for bypassing IT, this won't stop them from selling directly to employees. Instead, CIOs should focus on building a relationship with vendors so that their services can spread throughout the organization on a long-term basis rather than sold to individuals and business units on an ad hoc basis, Riley says. ..."

"... Even if the political furor over Clinton's private email system subsides and continued debate shows shadow IT as a common practice -- "Colin Powell, Rick Perry and Jeb Bush used private email" for government business, Riley says -- this doesn't mean there aren't severe consequences. ..."

"... CIOs hope these fears have lasting effects, at least in the workplace. Clinton proved that she wasn't able to get away with her personal email system, and the fallout to her career can be great. Her situation should sound a warning to employees about the dangers of shadow IT. ..."

"... "The message is, if you try to circumvent us, then you're going to cause pain for yourself," Riley says. "But if you work with us, we're more than willing to give you whatever you need." ..."

Mar 12, 2015 | www.cio.com
"Heavy-handed approaches are not going to eliminate shadow IT, it'll just go farther underground," says Deputy CTO Steve Riley at Riverbed, an enterprise software vendor. "There's no positive outcome for being a disciplinarian about something like this. You might end up with services that are even more dangerous, where people now actively seek to circumvent policies."
Usually, employees who decide to engage in shadow IT don't have bad intentions. They do so because what they're getting from corporate IT isn't good enough: Corporate-issued devices and apps are clunky, enterprise security measures ruin the user experience, IT is too slow to respond to requests.

CIOs need to change this perception but not in an antagonistic way. Riley advises CIOs to work with employees in areas where shadow IT tends to start and spread, such as file sharing and instant messaging. It's easier to rein in data from five services than 30, Riley says.

Battling on another front, CIOs should reach out to shadow IT vendors with an olive branch. While it's reactionary to slam vendors for bypassing IT, this won't stop them from selling directly to employees. Instead, CIOs should focus on building a relationship with vendors so that their services can spread throughout the organization on a long-term basis rather than sold to individuals and business units on an ad hoc basis, Riley says.

CIOs can use Clinton case as a teachable moment

Ironically, the Clinton case might help CIOs fight against shadow IT by spurring employees to police themselves. Even if the political furor over Clinton's private email system subsides and continued debate shows shadow IT as a common practice -- "Colin Powell, Rick Perry and Jeb Bush used private email" for government business, Riley says -- this doesn't mean there aren't severe consequences.

There will likely be inquiries about whether or not Clinton broke the law. Her reputation as someone to be trusted has been tarnished. Her peers might think twice about lending their support if she put her political party at risk. If a smoking-gun email surfaces or a national security breach comes to light, Clinton will be under fire.

CIOs hope these fears have lasting effects, at least in the workplace. Clinton proved that she wasn't able to get away with her personal email system, and the fallout to her career can be great. Her situation should sound a warning to employees about the dangers of shadow IT.

"The message is, if you try to circumvent us, then you're going to cause pain for yourself," Riley says. "But if you work with us, we're more than willing to give you whatever you need."

[Mar 10, 2015] Killary Clinton faces new questions over personal emails she 'chose not to keep' by Jon Swaine

This case convincingly demonstrates to the world not only that Hillary is an a very weak politician, but also that she is uncapable to attract decent experts.

10 March 2015 | The Guardian

The former secretary of state said she had preserved official communications but her office said she 'chose not to keep her private, personal emails'

Hillary Clinton failed to quell mounting criticism over her controversial private email account on Tuesday evening after her office suggested she had erased more than half of her emails before turning them over for release to the American public.

In a statement released after a press conference intended to end a week-long controversy, Clinton's office said that she did not preserve 31,830 of the 62,320 emails she sent and received while serving as Barack Obama's secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
"After her work-related emails were identified and preserved, Secretary Clinton chose not to keep her private, personal emails that were not federal records," her office said, in a defiant nine-page explanation for the unusual arrangement that has put her under political fire.
Republicans accused Clinton of blocking transparency. It could not be confirmed whether the deleted archives included messages sent and received by Clinton relating to her family's philanthropic foundation. Donations to the foundation by foreign governments and corporations are the subject of a separate ongoing controversy.
The continuing saga threatened to complicate the plans for her expected second campaign for the US presidency, which were thought to be in their final stages in advance of an announcement in April.
Criticism has grown since it was revealed last week that Clinton did not use an official government email address during her four years at the State Department. She instead conducted all official business using a private address under the ClintonEmail.com domain.
Clinton conceded at a press conference in New York on Tuesday afternoon that she had erred and "it would have been better" to have used separate email accounts for work and personal matters. However, she insisted she had used a single account on one mobile phone for "convenience", adding: "I thought using one device would be simpler, and obviously, it hasn't worked out that way."
The former secretary's office said she had turned over all 30,490 of her sent and received emails that related to her work to the State Department. They manually searched her archive, the statement said, first by finding all emails involving people with government email addresses, then searching for some people by name and for topics such as Libya.
All these are expected to be published. "You will see everything from the work of government, to emails with State and other administration colleagues, to LinkedIn invites, to talk about the weather – essentially what anyone would see in their own email account," her office said.
In further defiant remarks on the emails that Clinton will not turn over, her office insisted that none contained material relevant to her work in four years leading Foggy Bottom.
"These were private, personal messages, including emails about her daughter's wedding plans, her mother's funeral services, and condolence notes, as well as emails on family vacations, yoga routines, and other items one would typically find in their own email account, such as offers from retailers, spam, etc," it said.
But the Republican party, which accused Clinton of "putting our national security at risk for 'convenience'" by operating the private email server, said there could be no independent verification that Clinton had preserved all messages related to her work.
"Because only Hillary Clinton controls her personal email account and admitted she deleted many of her emails, no one but Hillary Clinton knows if she handed over every relevant email," Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in a statement.
Clinton rejected suggestions that an independent monitor could review her email server to examine emails not turned over. "I believe that I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private," she said at the press conference.
Despite separately indicating all personal messages were erased, she said the server "contains personal communications from my husband and me". Clinton's spokesman did not respond to an email seeking clarification on what precisely had been erased.
Other critics pointed to remarks made by Clinton at an onstage interview last month, in which she said she used both an iPhone and a Blackberry. Discussing devices later in the conversation, Clinton said, "I don't throw anything away, I'm like two steps short of a hoarder." It was not clear when Clinton began using two devices.
The statement from Clinton's office addressed other questions raised by the news of her email server – several relating to security and her interaction with foreign governments. The statement said her team's review of Clinton's email archive "revealed only one email with a foreign (UK) official". It clarified that "during her time at State, she communicated with foreign officials in person, through correspondence, and by telephone".
Clinton said during her press conference that she had never used the email account to send classified material. She insisted that the server had been secure by being placed on property protected by the secret service and claimed to know that the system had never been breached.

[Mar 08, 2015] Clinton email domain shows effort for security and obscurity, say experts

Notable quotes:

"... Doesn't the FBI, NSA, or some part of Homeland Security vet what government agencies are doing with their computer security? ..."

"... And how could Obama not know about this, unless he never exchanged e-mail with Hillary, which seems unlikely. ..."

"... I also wonder why Kerry would not question the absence of Clinton's correspondence when he took office? Doesn't he, as the successor, have to establish a historical record? Wouldn't her communications be part of that process? ..."

"... The main focus of the controversy comes because she could have deleted any emails she wanted to. ..."

"... Funny, we're back to paper as the only secure way to communicate anything (as in Roman Polanski's The Ghost). ..."

"... Despite the fact that digital record keeping continues to advance, the record keeping requirements go back to the early 50's and there is simply no reason that she should now be in possession of these records instead of either the State Department or the National Archives. ..."

"... The fact that she has criminally violated at least a dozen US Federal laws has nothing to do with the fact that she is lower than pond scum. God help us if she gets elected to POTUS! ..."

"... Her dishonesty and corruption already have been well documented for many decades, and she has proven that despite all her "image makeovers", she is the same untrustworthy person we always knew she was. ..."

"... It is not her decision to create her own web accounts to avoid public scrutiny. This is exactly what is wrong with Washington. No accountability or transparency. ..."

"... Bottom line if official State Department business was being routed through a personal email system she needs to go down for it. I work a mundane middle class job as a data analyst and my employer would be furious and fire me instantly if I routed work related emails and attachments through my personal email so why should Hillary get off the hook? ..."

"... The fact that the email traffic isn't encrypted makes this strictly amateur hour. ..."

"... The fact that the email isn't immediately controlled and discoverable by the govt is appalling enough. The fact it's apparently secured using small business standards just makes it worse. ..."

"... Was there any footnotes or exceptions noted concerning use of a private email server ? If not, then we should get our money back from auditing contractor. If they didn't discover and report it as an exception, then they should be barred from federal contracting for gross incompetence or complicity in this deception. ..."

"... "Dick Cheney in a pantsuit" is gonna live forever, or at least as long as she remains in the public arena ..."

"... Not having encryption (google smtps), which is easily determined if the mail server is still running, is a very bad sign. ..."

"... If Clinton is using Internap right now, that should be the subject of ridicule, not praise. ..."

"... People lost their jobs when Hillary was in charge over there for doing the EXACT SAME THING. ..."

"... The ruling elite plays by their own rules. ..."

"... Actually, the rules were there before. ..."

"... It is the Department's general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized AIS, which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information. ..."

Mar 08, 2015 | The Guardian

captainjohnsmith 2015-03-07 18:06:55

Questions, questions. Doesn't the FBI, NSA, or some part of Homeland Security vet what government agencies are doing with their computer security? Wouldn't that have turned up Hillary's private scheme? And how could Obama not know about this, unless he never exchanged e-mail with Hillary, which seems unlikely.

kgb999again -> BeckyP

Hillary Clinton was not serving as a politician. She was serving as a high official in a non-elected office of the U.S. Government. She is required by law to maintain accessible records within the government of every meeting and communication she conducted - for both accountability and historic legacy reasons.

If she wanted to behave as a politician, she shouldn't have accepted the role of Secretary of State.

macktan894

The basic question is still: why would she do such a thing? Why would she insist that all her email and that of her principal staff be handled by this private server?

And I guess I would also wonder how this could go undetected and unscrutinized for so long? Why would not anyone receiving email from the Clinton people wonder why they were getting email from an account that was non government in its address?

I also wonder why Kerry would not question the absence of Clinton's correspondence when he took office? Doesn't he, as the successor, have to establish a historical record? Wouldn't her communications be part of that process?

I recall when Obama won the nomination in 2008, he had a meeting with Clinton re her appt to sec of state. He was surprised when she turned up with a "contract" that listed items she needed him to agree to if she were to join his administration. Was this server business in that contract?

Why do I have these questions but reporters do not?

thegradycole -> macktan894

Why does anybody do it? Jeb Bush used a personal server while he was governor of Florida and then handed over 275,000 emails, of course just like Clinton he didn't release those that he determined were of a personal nature. Kerry is the first SOS to use the official .gov server.

The main focus of the controversy comes because she could have deleted any emails she wanted to. But I always thought that nothing could really be deleted. If they have the server don't they have everything?

This whole thing better be more than the usual it-looks-bad-but-we-can't-find-anything. It gets to the point where the appearance of impropriety becomes a conspiracy, they add "gate" to it and it has a life of its own. If there's something there let's see it. Scott Walker and Chris Christie have similar problems as their emails are part of criminal investigations.

Funny, we're back to paper as the only secure way to communicate anything (as in Roman Polanski's The Ghost).

BradBenson -> chiefwiley 8 Mar 2015 06:48

Well yes, in theory. In actual practice Freedom of Information Requests were always treated with disdain by the agencies. Since I left Government in 1999, it has gotten much worse.

You are absolutely correct that she should not be mixing official and private business or the servers, which carry them. All of her official correspondence should have been retained in a Government Server.

Despite the fact that digital record keeping continues to advance, the record keeping requirements go back to the early 50's and there is simply no reason that she should now be in possession of these records instead of either the State Department or the National Archives.

FloodZilla 8 Mar 2015 06:43

The fact that she has criminally violated at least a dozen US Federal laws has nothing to do with the fact that she is lower than pond scum. God help us if she gets elected to POTUS!

Anne Vincent 8 Mar 2015 03:19

If she was too insecure to utilize the US Government's own computer system, then she is too insecure to reside in the White House or to work as a US Government official. She needs to "move on".

Her dishonesty and corruption already have been well documented for many decades, and she has proven that despite all her "image makeovers", she is the same untrustworthy person we always knew she was.

David Egan 7 Mar 2015 22:34

Mayer added that speculation that Clinton had created a "homebrew" internet system was "plainly inaccurate", at least when talking about the current configuration of the service.

Newsflash!!! Hillary had no business, legal or otherwise, to create her own network!!

This way she has total control over the e-mails that she wants to make public.... GET IT.....??

David Egan -> anthonylaino 7 Mar 2015 22:28

I agree!!! The elitist one percent have made billions and knowingly sent tens of thousands of people to their deaths, just for a buck (ok, well, lots of bucks) and to further their jack boot on the throat of the average citizen from any country...

Financial Bondage For Everyone!!!!

Zooni_Bubba 7 Mar 2015 20:58

Maybe Clinton had security and maybe she didn't. It is not her decision to create her own web accounts to avoid public scrutiny. This is exactly what is wrong with Washington. No accountability or transparency. When someone under investigation gets to decide what to supply, they not the authorities control the evidence.

Stephen_Sean 7 Mar 2015 20:25

Bottom line if official State Department business was being routed through a personal email system she needs to go down for it. I work a mundane middle class job as a data analyst and my employer would be furious and fire me instantly if I routed work related emails and attachments through my personal email so why should Hillary get off the hook?

Dems better start looking for an alternative. Hillary isn't the one you want answering the phone at 3am.

Trixr -> Miles Long 7 Mar 2015 19:54

From a technical point of view, saying it's a 'high security' system is cobblers. Anti malware is the LEAST you can do for email security in a corporate system. Having a domain registered in one location and traffic coming from another means absolutely nothing in these days of shared hosting and dynamically-provisioned server farms. No-one puts their personal details on a WHOIS these days. I don't, and I just have a dinky little personal domain.

The fact that the email traffic isn't encrypted makes this strictly amateur hour.

The fact that the email isn't immediately controlled and discoverable by the govt is appalling enough. The fact it's apparently secured using small business standards just makes it worse.

And this 'expert' is an idiot, or not giving the full story.

John Hemphill -> imipak 7 Mar 2015 19:12

Just curious if know by chance, how did the State Department do in their last couple ot FISMA audits ?

Was there any footnotes or exceptions noted concerning use of a private email server ? If not, then we should get our money back from auditing contractor. If they didn't discover and report it as an exception, then they should be barred from federal contracting for gross incompetence or complicity in this deception.

ElmerFuddJr -> MakeBeerNotWar 7 Mar 2015 18:37

"Dick Cheney in a pantsuit" is gonna live forever, or at least as long as she remains in the public arena.!.

MakeBeerNotWar -> ElmerFuddJr 7 Mar 2015 18:48

- yes but one risks the label of misogynist by her many followers. Cheney is a true psychopath tho and Clinton could reach being one thus why the Dems who really care about our country need to find an alternate candidate so HRC will not be given the chance to start another idiotic fraud war that benefits Wall $t, I$rael and the MIC.

GuardianIsBiased127

What a bunch of liberal spin by ABC. I've run mail servers for 20 years. Scanning for viruses etc is trivial and every email provider does it. Not having encryption (google smtps), which is easily determined if the mail server is still running, is a very bad sign.

macktan894 -> GuardianIsBiased127

Agree. Saying that her system scanned for viruses and was therefore "secure" is a laugh. My computer scans for viruses, too, as do most computers. We all know that does not equate with topnotch security. I also use an Apple. Still, the NSA or any other cyberterrorist can easily hijack my computer if that's the goal.

ludaludaluda

"internap" is not a good company by any measure -- my company has been a client for years.

If Clinton is using Internap right now, that should be the subject of ridicule, not praise.

bbuckley

Look, let's be clear. People lost their jobs when Hillary was in charge over there for doing the EXACT SAME THING.

Where's the email that has Hillary wanting these poor people being brought back to work. Hillary has in the past spoken of the danger of using a private domain.

This is once again the rules don't apply to Clintons. And I'm going to tell Ya all something: the investigators will be going to gmail, or yahoo, or whoever, and making 100% sure they get it all. I truly do not care for this woman. I find her to be a shifty giant egoed elitist. However, I'm not ready to yell guilty. Decency and fair play require that I see the pudding before I declare the truth. But, she damn well knew the rules, so why hide the emails? It won't be a mystery lover, that's for sure. She didn't want them seen, there's gotta be a reason for that.

Danish5666

The ruling elite plays by their own rules.

Kelly Kearns -> Miles Long

Actually, the rules were there before.

12 FAM 544.2 Automated Information System (AIS)
Processing and Transmission
(CT:DS-117; 11-04-2005)

November 4, 2005 above.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf

Kelly Kearns -> imipak

"12 FAM 544.3 Electronic Transmission Via the Internet
(CT:DS-117; 11-04-2005)
a. It is the Department's general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized AIS, which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information. The Department's authorized telework solution(s) are designed in a manner that meet these requirements and are not considered end points outside of the Department's management control. "

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf

[Mar 07, 2015] Email scandal Hillary Clintons impulse to secrecy by Ruth Marcus

Quotes: ...Indeed, Clinton herself was once worked up about this very issue. "We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," she said back then. ...So far, the explanation from Clintonworld about the failure to comply with this basic rule of modern archiving has been inadequate and unpersuasive. ...This has the distinct odor of hogwash. First, the basic rule that government business is to be transacted from government accounts doesn't have a well-we'll-capture-it-anyway exception.

Notable quotes:

"... "We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," she said back then. ..."

"... the email domain clintonemail.com that she appears to have been using was created on Jan. 13, 2009, the very day Clinton's confirmation hearings began. ..."

"... So far, the explanation from Clintonworld about the failure to comply with this basic rule of modern archiving has been inadequate and unpersuasive. ..."

"... First, the basic rule that government business is to be transacted from government accounts doesn't have a well-we'll-capture-it-anyway exception. ..."

"... What is the legitimate reason for conducting official business on a personal back-channel? Why, if not for purposes of secrecy, would Clinton choose to operate that way? ..."

March 3, 2015 | delawareonline.com

Hillary Clinton may not have a serious opponent for the Democratic nomination – except herself.

The Clintons' unfortunate tendency to be their own worst enemy is on display, again, with reports that, as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton conducted official business solely from a personal email account.

This is a problem – and not only because it presents a particularly unflattering contrast with the move by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to release a flood of official emails. It illustrates Clinton's reflexive impulse to secrecy over transparency, a tendency no doubt bolstered by the bruising experience of her White House years, yet one that she would be well advised to resist rather than indulge.

Indeed, Clinton herself was once worked up about this very issue. "We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," she said back then.

So what to make of the revelation that Clinton avoided official email entirely while at State? This had to be a deliberate decision. After all, the issue of the Bush emails was still in the news.

And, as The Washington Post's Philip Bump reports, the email domain clintonemail.com that she appears to have been using was created on Jan. 13, 2009, the very day Clinton's confirmation hearings began.

To back up: The Federal Records Act requires agencies to maintain records of official business, including emails. The National Archives, which oversees such collection, had this to say in 2013 about the use of personal email accounts:

"While agency employees should not generally use personal email accounts to conduct official agency business, there may be times when agencies authorize the use of personal email accounts, such as in emergency situations when federal accounts are not accessible or when an employee is initially contacted through a personal account. In these situations, agency employees must ensure that all federal records sent or received on personal email systems are captured and managed in accordance with agency recordkeeping practices."

Italics mine.

So far, the explanation from Clintonworld about the failure to comply with this basic rule of modern archiving has been inadequate and unpersuasive.

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill "declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department business from her personal account," reported The New York Times, which broke the story.

This has the distinct odor of hogwash. First, the basic rule that government business is to be transacted from government accounts doesn't have a well-we'll-capture-it-anyway exception.

Second, the government records to be retained aren't only intra-agency communications. If Clinton is emailing with world leaders or others about official business, the entire point of the Federal Records Act is to ensure that those communications are captured for history.

This should have been clear. Certainly, the intersection of email and federal records law has been evolving. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell writes about his effort to use "the then-newfangled email system" to communicate with counterparts overseas. His successor, Condoleezza Rice, rarely used email to transact business but employed her government address when she did.

What is the legitimate reason for conducting official business on a personal back-channel? Why, if not for purposes of secrecy, would Clinton choose to operate that way?

That Clinton has recently turned over 55,000 pages of email records in response to an overdue burst of documentary housekeeping by State does not excuse her lack of compliance while in office.

That her proto-campaign describes her activities as complying with "both the letter and spirit" of the rules would be jaw-dropping, if it weren't so sadly familiar.

Ruth Marcus' email address is [email protected].
Is Hillary Clinton's challenge that she's been set up for failure, or for success?
We may need a new metaphor to describe the situation Clinton faces now.
See also

Hillary Clinton, too cautious for her own good Her secretive ways with official e-mail repeats the same mistake she has made for nearly a quarter-century. Dana Milbank | Opinions | Mar 6, 2015

What Democrats are missing about Hillary Clinton The Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal is not just about rule-breaking. Jennifer Rubin | Opinions | Mar 6, 2015

The 'Texts from Hillary' meme isn't so funny anymore. An image that evoked Clinton as a boss has taken on new meaning following her e-mail controversy. Hunter Schwarz | Politics | Mar 6, 2015

House committee subpoenas Clinton emails in Benghazi probe. A House committee investigating the Benghazi, Libya, attacks issued subpoenas Wednesday for the emails of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who used a private account exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state - and also used a computer email server now traced back to her family's New York home. Associated Press | Technology | Mar 5, 2015

House committee subpoenas Clinton emails in Benghazi probe. A House committee investigating the Benghazi, Libya, attacks issued subpoenas Wednesday for the emails of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who used a private account exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state - and also used a computer email server now traced back to her family's New York home. Associated Press | Technology | Mar 4, 2015

White House says Clinton did not heed e-mail policy. Hillary Clinton's official e-mail habits once again draw attention to her penchant for secrecy - a trait that has created political problems since her years as first lady.

[Mar 07, 2015] Under the Radar, Big Media Internet Giants Get Massive Access to Everything About You By Jeffrey Chester

March 5, 2015 | alternet.org

A White House-backed bill would give the corporate elite control over how our data is used.
Editor's note: The following is the latest in a new series of articles on AlterNet called Fear in America that launched this March. Read the introduction to the series.
The Internet and our digital media are quietly becoming a pervasive and manipulative interactive surveillance system. Leading U.S. online companies, while claiming to be strong supporters of an open and democratic Internet, are working behind the scenes to ensure that they have unlimited and unchecked power to "shadow" each of us online. They have allied with global advertisers to transform the Internet into a medium whose true ambition is to track, influence and sell, in anever-ending cycle, their products and political ideas. While Google, Facebook and other digital giants claim to strongly support a "democratic" Internet, their real goal is to use all the "screens"we use to empower a highly commercialized and corporatized digital media culture.

Last Thursday was widely viewed as a victory for "Internet Freedom" and a blow to a "corporatized" Internet as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) endorsed a historic public utility framework for Network Neutrality (NN). It took the intervention of President Obama last year, who called for "the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality," to dramatically transform the FCC's plans. Its chairman, Thomas Wheeler, a former cable and telecom lobbyist, had previously been ambivalent about endorsing strong utility-like regulations. But feeling the pressure, especially from the president, he became a "born again" NN champion, leading the agency to endorse "strong, sustainable rules to protect the Open Internet."

But the next day, the Obama White House took another approach to Internet Freedom, handing the leading online companies, including Google, Facebook, and their Fortune-type advertising clients, a major political victory. The administration released its long-awaited "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights" legislation. The bill enables the most powerful corporations and their trade associations to greatly determine what American privacy rights will be. By giving further control over how data are gathered and used online, the administration basically ceded more clout to a corporate elite that will be able to effectively decide how the Internet and digital applications operate, today and in the near future.

How do privacy rules impact the openness of the Internet, and the ability to promote and sustain progressive and alternative perspectives? While much of the public debate on pervasive data mining has focused on the role of the NSA and other intelligence agencies that were exposed by Edward Snowden, there has not been as much discussion on the impact of the commercial data system that is at the core of the Internet today. Google, Facebook, and others use our data as the basis of an ever-expanding global system of commercial surveillance. This information is gathered from our mobile devices, PCs, apps, social networks, and increasingly even TVs-and stored in digital profiles. These far-reaching dossiers-which can be accessed and updated in milliseconds-can include information on our race/ethnicity, financial status, health concerns, location, online behavior, what our children do, whom we communicate with on social media, and much more.

The major online companies are continually expanding their commercial data gathering practices. They now merge and use our online and offline data (what we do online and information collected from store loyalty cards, etc.); track us across all the devices we use (PCs, mobile, etc.); and amass even more data about us supplied by a vast network of data broker alliances and partnerships (such asFacebook with its myriad of data partners, including Acxiom and Epsilon). A U.S. digital data industry "arms race," with companies vying to own the most complete set of records on every consumer, has also led to a wave of mergers and acquisitions, where companies that have already compiled huge datasets on Americans (and global consumers) being swallowed up by even larger ones.

Leading corporations are investing vast sums to harvest and, in their own words, make "actionable" information we now generate nearly 24/7. So-called "Big Data" technologies enable companies to quickly analyze and take advantage of all this information, including understanding how each of us uses online media and mobile phones. A score of "Math Men and Women"-led advertising-technology companies have pioneered the use of super fast computers that track where we are online and, in milliseconds, crunch through lots of our data to decide whether to target us with advertising and marketing (regardless of whether we use a PC or mobile device and, increasingly, using our geolocation information).

These machines are used to "auction" us off individually to the highest bidder, so we can be instantly delivered some form of marketing (or even political) message. Increasingly, the largest brands and ad agencies are using all this data and new tactics to sell us junk food, insurance, cars, and political candidates. For example, these anonymous machines can determine whether to offer us a high-interest pay day loan or a lower interest credit card; or an ad from one political group versus another.

But it's not just the ability to harvest data that's the source of increased corporate clout on the Internet. Our profiles are tied to a system of micro-persuasion, the 21st century updating of traditional "Madison Avenue" advertising tactics that relied on "subliminal" and cultural influence. Today, online ads are constructed by connecting our information to a highly sophisticated digital marketing apparatus. At places like Google's BrandLab, AT&T's Adworks Lab, or through research efforts such as Facebook IQ, leading companies help their well-heeled clients take advantage of the latest insights from neuromarketing (to deliberately influence our emotions and subconscious), social media monitoring, new forms of corporate product placement, and the most effective ways to use all of our digital platforms.

The online marketing industry is helping determine the dimensions of our digital world. Much of the Internet and our mobile communications are being purposely developed as a highly commercialized marketplace, where the revenues that help fund content go to a select, and largely ad-supported, few. With Google, Facebook, major advertisers and agencies all working closely together throughout the world to further commercialize our relationship to digital media, and given their ownership over the leading search engines, social networks, online video channels, and how "monetization" of content operates, these forces pose a serious obstacle to a more democratic and diverse online environment.

One of the few barriers standing in the way of their digital dominance is the growing public concern about our commercial privacy. U.S. companies have largely bitterly opposed proposed privacy legislation-in the U.S. and also in the European Union (where data protection, as it is called, is considered a fundamental right). Effective regulations for privacy in the U.S. would restore our control of the information that has been collected about us, versus the system now in place that, for the most part, enables companies to freely use it. But under the proposed Obama plan, Google, Facebook and other data-gathering companies would be allowed to determine the rules. Through a scheme the White House calls a "multi-stakeholder" process, industry-dominated meetings-with consumer and privacy groups vastly outnumbered and out-resourced-would develop so-called self-regulatory "codes of conduct" to govern how the U.S. treats data collection and privacy. Codes would be developed to address, for example, how companies can track and use our location information; how they compile dossiers about us based on what we do at the local grocery store and read online; how health data can be collected and used from devices like Fitbit; and more. This process is designed to protect the bottom line of the data companies, which the Obama White House views as important to the economy and job growth. (Stealing other people's data, in other words, is one of America's most successful industries). Like similar self-regulatory efforts, stakeholder codes are really designed to sanction existing business practices and enable companies to continue to accumulate and use vast data assets unencumbered. The administration claims that such a stakeholder process can operate more effectively than legislation, operating quickly in "Internet time." Dominated by industry as they are, stakeholder bodies are incapable of doing anything that would adversely impact their own future-which currently depends on the ability to gather and use all our data.

The administration's bill also strips away the power of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which now acts as the leading federal watchdog on privacy. Instead of empowering the FTC to develop national rules that enable individuals to make their own privacy decisions, the bill forces the agency to quickly review (in as little as 90 days) the proposed stakeholder codes-with little effective power to reject them. Companies become largely immune to FTC oversight and enforcement when they agree to abide by the self-regulatory policies their lobbyists basically wrote. In a rare rebuke to the administration, the FTC, leading Congressional Democrats, and the majority of consumer and privacy organizations rejected the White House's privacy plan. But the administration does not appear to be willing, for now, to change its support for the data companies; and as we know, Silicon Valley and their business allies have strong support in Congress that will prevent any privacy law from passing for now.

To see how the online lobby has different views on Internet Freedom, compare, for example the statements of the "Internet Association"-the lobbying trade organization that represents Google, Facebook, Amazon and dozens of other major online data-gathering companies-on last week's two developments. It praised the FCC NN decision for creating "strong, enforceable net neutrality rules … banning paid prioritization, blocking, and discrimination online." But the group rejected the Administration's privacy proposal, as weak as it was, explaining that "today's wide-ranging legislative proposal outlined by the Commerce Department casts a needlessly imprecise net." At stake, as the Internet Association knows, is the ability of its members to expand their businesses throughout the world unencumbered. For example, high on the agenda for the Internet Association members are new U.S. brokered global trade deals, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which will free our digital giants from having to worry about strong privacy laws abroad.

While the NN battle correctly viewed Comcast, Verizon, and other cable and phone giants as major opponents to a more democratic digital media environment, many of the online companies were seen as supporters and allies. But an "open" network free from control of our cable/telco monopolies is just one essential part for a more diverse and public interest-minded online system. Freedom must also prevent powerful interests from determining the very structure of communications in the digital age. Those companies that can collect and most effectively use our information are also gatekeepers and shapers of our Internet Future.

The NN victory is only one key step for a public-interest agenda for digital media. We also must place limits on today's digital media conglomerates, especially their ability to use all our data. The U.S is one of the only "developed" countries that still doesn't have a national law protecting our privacy. For those concerned about the environment, we must also address how U.S. companies are using the Internet to encourage the global public to engage in a never-ending consumption spree that has consequences for sustainability and a more equitable future.

There is ultimately an alignment of interests between the so-called "old" media of cable and the telephone industry with the "new" online media. They share similar values when it comes to ensuring the media they control brings eyeballs and our bank accounts to serve them and their advertising clients. While progressive and public interest voices today find the Internet accessible for organizing and promoting alternative views, to keep it so will require much more work.
Jeffrey Chester is executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy ( www.democraticmedia.org).

[Mar 06, 2015] Hillary Clinton is learning another hard lesson in presidential campaigning

From comments "It reflects on her character and her belief she is above the rules that the rest of us must obey." Is not those qualities the qualities of a female sociopath?

Notable quotes:

"... Two months ago, a team of Clinton people combed through a vast stack of her emails – from the period covering 2009 to 2013, when she served as America's top diplomat. Having reviewed the emails, they handed over 55,000 pages to the State Department. ..."

"... Hillary Clinton behaves very strangely on the background of Obama's statements about cybersecurity. ..."

"... Anyway she has something to conceal. I don't want Hillary to become our president. ..."

"... It reflects on her character and her belief she is above the rules that the rest of us must obey. ..."

"... Additionally, wouldn't John Kerry have needed to review the communications of his predecessor? Typically when one starts a new job,reviewing the files of one's predecessor is the way you get up to speed. ..."

"... How soon we forget...bush (aka Karl Rove) used a private account for gov bus, and somehow 100s were 'lost'. Have they been found and turned over yet? ..."

"... Was the secret server secure? ..."

"... Besides -- given Snowden's revelations -- if we were tapping Merkel's phone, NSA probably has all of Hillary's emails. ..."

"... They aren't her property. If she's that fearful, she should just stay retired and not work for an open govt such as ours. ..."

"... The muckrakers-the most famous of whom was Sinclair Lewis-were early twentieth-century American journalists who exposed corrupt politicians and robber-baron industrialists. ..."

"... It is a service provided by Optimum, which offers both website and e-mail hosting. ..."

"... Your right, she is a hypocrite… but at least she's not responsible for a few hundred thousand dead humans and 5 million refugees not to mention the countless maimed and many tortured like the Bush Officials. Yet. ..."

Mar 06, 2015 | The Guardian

Hillary Clinton has been on the defensive this week over the revelation that she exclusively used a private email account while serving as secretary of state. The presumptive 2016 presidential candidate has tried to douse the flames, but key questions about the controversy remain unaddressed.

Where are the missing emails?

Two months ago, a team of Clinton people combed through a vast stack of her emails – from the period covering 2009 to 2013, when she served as America's top diplomat. Having reviewed the emails, they handed over 55,000 pages to the State Department.

... ... ..

That begs the question: how many pages did she not hand over? More importantly, what did they contain?

... ... ...

But we still don't know who those advisers were, and whether they had any training in the art of preserving official records.

So: who vetted the Clinton emails? Why should they be trusted to preserve something as precious to the nation as its historic records?

... ... ...

Why was email vetting even permitted?

The question of who vetted Clinton's emails before their transfer to the State Department raises another question: why was this allowed in the first place?

Since 2009, US government rules have been very clear on this subject. The National Archives and Records Administration stated categorically in that year – the first of Clinton's term as secretary – that "agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

Alas: why did senior State Department officials allow Clinton to override clear official rules? What role did Clinton herself play in circumventing the regulations?

Was the secret server secure?
We now know that Team Clinton set up its own domain name, ClintonEmail.com, shortly before Hillary Clinton took up the job as secretary of state. It was linked to a "homebrew" server at her home in Chappaqua, New York.
Given that Clinton was dealing with highly sensitive diplomatic issues, and that President Obama has declared cybersecurity a top priority for the nation, one might have expected additional protection.

But simple tests conducted by experts suggest that the server's security shield was not particularly sophisticated – though neither was that of the State Department.

What was done to protect Clinton's private server from hacking attacks? Were any vulnerable loopholes cut off? Were state secrets at risk?

Republicans accuse Clinton of 'scheme to conceal' emails from public view
State Department officials do not expect 50,000 pages of email to be released for several months, as Clinton – a lone tweet aside – chooses to stay silent
Why did she do it?

Perhaps the most intriguing question that still hangs in the air – and one that the public may never have satisfactorily answered, much to the chagrin of Benghaziphiles – is the simplest: why would Hillary Clinton decide, in effect, to privatise her own official emails? Was it an innocent move made for the sake of convenience – one which Clinton supporters have emphasised was made by her predecessors and by leading Republican politicians?

Or: were the private emails a conscious manoeuvre? As watchdogs at the Sunlight Foundation put it: "There is shock at what Secretary Clinton did because the most likely explanation of her intent seems clear – she created a system designed to avoid accountability, potentially in violation of the law."

jebhanson986

Hillary Clinton behaves very strangely on the background of Obama's statements about cybersecurity. We are used our authorities and special services are watching us through internet. FBI and other may read our e-mails, look through our accounts in social networks.

Actions of Hillary are too unpatriotic against the background of her applications for participation in presidential elections 2016. It is already known fact she was sponsored by foreign residents. It is crime.

Anyway she has something to conceal. I don't want Hillary to become our president. I know believe her as well as Obama. They have too many skeletons in the closet.

TheMediaSux

"Perhaps the most intriguing question that still hangs in the air" - "why would Hillary Clinton decide, in effect, to privatise her own official emails?"
That's also the easiest question to answer. And my five year old nephew figured it out: so people won't find out what was in the emails.

Theodore Svedberg -> osprey1957

It is not just the right that is alarmed over Hillary's actions but also many progressive Democrats. This is definitely not a manufactured scandal created by the Republicans but one created by Hillary herself. It reflects on her character and her belief she is above the rules that the rest of us must obey.

macktan894

These are the basic questions I have. Should all elected and appointed govt officials have the right to privatize govt business, in effect removing it from the sunlight that democracy requires? I really don't understand why she would do something like this, why she thought conducting business using secure govt servers would be such a bad idea. Nor do I get how she got away with making govt records her personal property.
Additionally, wouldn't John Kerry have needed to review the communications of his predecessor? Typically when one starts a new job,reviewing the files of one's predecessor is the way you get up to speed.
Is anyone able to ask her these questions?

GrammaW -> macktan894

How soon we forget...bush (aka Karl Rove) used a private account for gov bus, and somehow 100s were 'lost'. Have they been found and turned over yet?

AistheWay -> macktan894

I agree with you about the gov't privatizing what should be public and transparent dealings. This issue is a major concern that requires immediate legislation. For example the outsourcing of prison "care". I have spoken to ex-inmates who have served time in these private correctional facilities and to my disgust found out that they (private prison company) basically denied inmates, of most if not all, of the rights mandated by federal/state statutes regarding prisoner treatment.

Under the guise of budget savings and tax cuts our politicians are once again attacking citizen's rights.

macktan894 -> AistheWay

Don't get me started on the criminal justice system. I'll just say here that what's going on in Ferguson is happening all over the country, mainly to poor people no matter the race. And it is disgusting. I suggest emergency donations to the ACLU since the govt clearly has no inclination to correct this injustice.

SteveLight

This is not analysis -- this is muck raking.

Was the secret server secure?

I'd say it was a far sight more secure than a government server. Frankly, I would not trust a government server. The more we know about cyber intrusions, the more I would argue government emails are at risk.

Besides -- the first thing Hillary detractors would do is look for quotes they could take out of context.

Besides -- given Snowden's revelations -- if we were tapping Merkel's phone, NSA probably has all of Hillary's emails. They may not want to divulge that fact but I will bet dollars to doughnuts that her emails are under government wraps right now.

terrible analysis -- is Guardian slipping? I don't see the Guardian in the same high regard as I did, say 12 month ago. Who left?

macktan894 -> SteveLight

It's not her decision to make. She may have some political fears about her job, but if her fears were that great, then she shouldn't have taken the job. She cannot privatize sensitive govt records. They aren't her property. If she's that fearful, she should just stay retired and not work for an open govt such as ours.

MaxBoson -> SteveLight

The muckrakers-the most famous of whom was Sinclair Lewis-were early twentieth-century American journalists who exposed corrupt politicians and robber-baron industrialists.

So If you want to call Ed Pilkington a muckracker, go ahead, it's a compliment I'm sure he will appreciate, even if he hasn't raked in any mud yet- the New York Times did that when it published the e-mail revelations. What the author has done is pose some very interesting questions, which, by your choice of the word "muckraking," you seem to think pose a danger to Hillary Clinton. I think they do, too.

Corinne Marasco

Incredibly lazy reporting.
The server is not in Chappaqua. It is a service provided by Optimum, which offers both website and e-mail hosting. And, you can use any e-mail domain you like. http://www.ip-tracker.org/locator/ip-lookup.php?ip=24.187.234.187
Climb off the Edward Snowden Gravy Train, Guardian. Get back to doing real reporting.

macktan894 -> Corinne Marasco

Well, that's even worse. A Secretary of State shopping for a website and email hosting service to manage the govt.'s official records. Was this company certified by the govt as secure to handle the govt.'s sensitive official records?

chiefwiley -> macktan894

If people got personal, political, State Department, and Clinton charitable e-mails all from a single non-government account, that would deliver an interesting hidden message, too. It's all intermingled and interconnected with the Clintons.

Elton Johnson -> Corinne Marasco

"The server is not in Chappaqua."
I didn't realize they searched her home to determine this. Do you have a link to the story where they did?

JJHLH1

Now it makes sense why Hillary continued to receive all those foreign contributions during her time as Secretary of State. She could make deals via e-mail and then destroy the evidence and nobody would know.
And her homebrew e-mail server was guarded by Secret Service agents using taxpayer dollars.
This story has larger implications other than severely harming her 2016 prospects. A home server is much more vulnerable to security attacks compared to one run by professionals with experience. As Sec. of State her emails would contain sensitive information. Her behavior places the U.S. at risk. Not a bright move on her part, but then again she failed the D.C. Bar exam so I guess it's not unexpected.

Elton Johnson

Those emails are not hers. They belong to all of us. Stop apologizing for her.

MillbrookNY

You couldn't be involved in this many blunders and scandals unless you were trying.

Regardless of how smart HRC may be, she is a magnet for scandals and blunders. If you are always having to explain why what you didn't isn't technically wrong, you're doing the wrong things. Stop expecting to get a pass every time, HRC.
en again she failed the D.C. Bar exam so I guess it's not unexpected.

Elton Johnson MillbrookNY

Her "intelligence" is a myth. She wants to be President yet she can't even come out and speak to the people on this matter?
She can't even manage her own mess, how can she be entrusted to manage the country?

JJHLH1 Elton Johnson

Hillary isn't very bright. Just look at all the gaffes she makes like saying they left the White House "dead broke".
She failed the D.C. Bar exam in 1973. Over 2/3 pass it. That's why she ended up in Arkansas.

williamdonovan

I'll bet that Obama & Kerry where recipients of email from her account. Of course there is a cover story and cover up. Here it is in Black and White. (It is a felony)

Title 18 §641. Public money, property or records

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted-

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The word "value" means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 725; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), (L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §606(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511; Pub. L. 108–275, §4, July 15, 2004, 118 Stat. 833.)

Homeland security? Start by looking inside Government where a the real criminals hide.
The biggest threat to our Republic is the very people who swore to serve it.

NSubramanian 12h ago

"Why was email vetting even permitted?"

Yes. In the context of Obama's desire for Net security, this is a crucial question and it deserves an honest reply.

However, where Hillary Clinton goes, the question seems to follow: "Was the vetting permitted? "Was the vetter authorised to vet?", destined never to be answered.
During her 2008 campaign for nomination, Hillary Clinton claimed greater fitness to be Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces because as the First Lady, she had fielded those dreaded 3 ' O Clock calls on the Red Phone which always meant nothing but trouble, apparently to vet them for seriousness before passing on the call to the President.

Neither Hillary nor her team chose to answer the logical question which an incredulous America asked "Who had authorised the First Lady to answer calls which came on the Red Phone?"

Husband Bill chose wisely to stay out of it.

AmericanGrunt

She and her minions are obviously trying to hide how easy it was for she and her sisters (Rice, Power and Albright) to lie their way to an unprovoked war against Libya simply by baiting really dumb men always eager to have their military go destroy stuff and kill people. That war was initiated with nothing but a UN resolution specifying only an intent "to protect innocent life" from something that "might" happen, but was in fact intended from the very beginning to effect violent "regime change" by US military force (along with the usual British and French co-conspirators) under a phony "NATO" cover.
These women were able to circumvent the US Constitution and the US Congress based on an "emergency human rights" excuse that was entirely bogus. They did it solely to get a free ride on the naïve "Arab Spring" bandwagon and give Ms Clinton a "foreign policy accomplishment" for her planned 2016 presidential campaign. The only way to get the resolution passed by the UN Security Council - solely to establish a "humanitarian no-fly-zone" - was for those women and their minions to boldly lie to the American people, to the UN Security Council, to the Russians and to the Chinese, and then misuse the American people's military for their own self-serving domestic political agenda.
As soon as the resolution was passed, France and the UK, along with the US, went on the direct attack against Libyan forces trying to maintain some semblance of order in their own country, and killed far more people than those Libyan forces "might" have. It was indeed "clever" to attack a country only AFTER it had given up its weapons of mass destruction and was essentially defenseless against the far superior forces of "NATO" – which sent a powerful message to both Iran and North Korea about what happens AFTER you give up your nukes, what happens AFTER you play by all the rules demanded by the Americans.
And a whole range of "macho" men, even eager to send their military forth to destroy stuff and kill any suspicious people in sight, stupidly took the bait and joined the bandwagon like the predictable fools they are. All the "Four Sisters" had to do was toss some red meat over the kennel fence. And just behold the death and destruction they wrought with their bombs and the totally lawless playground for fanatical crazies they created right at Europe's underbelly. With zero adult consideration to "what comes next", it was all entirely predictable, thoroughly shameful, and completely self-defeating emotional nonsense by people trying to operate far beyond their competence levels.
How can a guy like Vladimir Putin witness the ignominious death of Gadhafi in a sewer pipe and NOT wonder if he and his own country are next? How can he not consider that it was a "defensive" anachronism still called "NATO" that relentlessly attacked another sovereign country for eight months – the same "NATO" ever eager to push its arrogantly offensive nose right up to the Kremlin gate? Why would he sit and wait for it to come, especially after being so shamefully lied to by those American women? The main thing that a single super-power status does for the women who own it is obviate the need for them to think.
There probably won't be a lot of people interested in pouring over THOSE embarrassing e-mails. Far too much potential for EVERYONE to get egg all over their own faces, the same people who for generations have reveled in righteous indignation over the unprovoked bombing of Pearl Harbor. It all makes me ashamed to be a professional American soldier.

Theodore Svedberg AmericanGrunt

Very good set of reasons why Hillary should never be President.

harryboy

In 2007 as a Senator she thought differently - Hillary Clinton Bashes Bush Officials for Secret Email Accounts
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/03/flashback-hillary-attacks-bush-officials-for-secret-email-accounts-video/

WeThePeople harryboy

Maybe she's also been secretly trying to start another war for arms profiteering, oil grabbing and Empire like the Bush Officials did...

harryboy -> WeThePeople

Or maybe shes just a hypocrite

WeThePeople -> harryboy

Your right, she is a hypocrite… but at least she's not responsible for a few hundred thousand dead humans and 5 million refugees not to mention the countless maimed and many tortured like the Bush Officials. Yet.

[May 03, 2014] Ask Slashdot What To Do With Misdirected Email

The fact that gmail ignores dot in email address treating [email protected] and [email protected] has interesting security implications. The same for treating [email protected] and [email protected] as identical. As one commenter noted "Oh and Google needs to admit they fucked up and fix it, I'm pretty sure that guys info I got could lead to some sort of lawsuit."

Jan 13, 2014 | Slashdot

An anonymous reader writes "My Gmail account is of the form (first initial).(middle initial).(common last name)@gmail.com. I routinely receive emails clearly intended for someone else. These range from newsletters to personal and business emails. I've received email with various people's addresses, phone numbers and even financial information.

A few years ago I started saving the more interesting ones, and now have an archive of hundreds of emails directed at no less than eight distinct individuals. I used to try replying to the personal ones with a form response, but it didn't seem to help.

To make matters worse, I frequently find I can't use my email to create a new account at various sites because it's already been registered. Does anyone else have this problem? Is there any good way to handle this?"

Animats

Get a real mail account (5, Insightful)

Get a real mail account and get off Gmail/Hotmail/other free service. You get what you pay for.

MarioMax

Re: Get a real mail account (4, Informative)

This. Domains are cheap, and hosting/forwarding is cheap. Plus you get some level of personalization.
Also easier to remember. [email protected] is catchy while [email protected] is generic and easily forgotten.

Nerdfest

Re: Get a real mail account (4, Insightful)

Exactly. This also covers the case where your ISP or Microsoft or Google does something that you can't abide by. It decouples you from your provider.

You can move to a different email hosting service or even run your own without much inconvenience. It also looks a little more professional than having a HotMail account.

Anonymous Coward

Re: Get a real mail account

Absolutely. I must have avoided the melee since I domained back in '95. Gmail was interesting for porn accounts and whatnot, but now mailinator is better.

Gmail isn't good for anything anymore except privacy violations.

MarioMax

Re: Get a real mail account (1)

I've used my own domain for 9 years with paid hosting thru a major host. Personally I can't stand webmail and stick to traditional POP3 email and for that purpose it suits me. But it is easy enough to set up domain forwarding to services like gmail if you choose (most likely for a fee).
The nice thing about buying a domain is you can pretty much set up unlimited email addresses under the domain for any purpose you choose, or use a single email address as a "catch-all" for said domain. Web services like Facebook won't know and won't care.
As for specific hosting recommendations, they are all about the same in terms of terrible service and support, but I encourage you to research and decide for yourself.

Anonymous Coward

Re: The only plausible solution... (0)

Is to change your name

You'd be surprised at the amount of misaddressed email I get at [email protected]. It's rather astonishing, I do say.

aardvarkjoe

Re:Abandon Your Real Name (1)

As for the rest of your problem, just set up a second Gmail address with a nonsensical middle name (first initial).turnip.(common last name)@gmail.com and have it forward to your "real" gmail address. Problem solved.

This is actually a good idea even if you don't have the problem that the original poster had. I created a new gmail account with that general idea a little while back which I use for things like online retailers. It makes it really easy to filter those emails out of my personal inbox, which can be a pain sometimes otherwise.
The [email protected] addresses would let you do something similar, but they've got a couple serious drawbacks -- many (in my experience, probably "most") websites will reject an email address with a + sign, and also it exposes your actual personal address. Using a separate gmail address solves those.
I do wish that Google would come up with a proper disposable email address solution.

mvar

Re:Name? (1)

This. As for misdirected email, i had a similar problem a couple of years back when someone decided to use my email (no real name) for his facebook account. As it seems email confirmation is optional and the guy made a full profile, added friends etc xD

watermark

gmail plus sign postfix

Well, I have a solution to your "email has already been registered" issue.

Gmail will treat [email protected] as the same address as [email protected], both will go into the [email protected] account.

Give the site an email address with a plus sign postfix like that and it should detect it as a new unique address.

Some sites don't allow the plus symbol in email addresses (even though it's a valid character), so mileage may vary.

whoever57

Re:gmail plus sign postfix (2)

MANY sites don't allow the plus symbol in email addresses (even though it's a valid character), so mileage may vary.

FTFY.
Seriously, having used "plus-addressing" for many years, I can attest to the fact that many websites won't accept it.
I know of one site where I did register years ago, but their de-registration page won't accept the "plus-address" that I used to register (rakuten.com, I'm looking at you).

chill

Yes (4, Funny)

Yes, I have this exact same problem. However, I do not keep other people's e-mail.
I have been able to track down the correct people to whom the e-mails belong. In two cases, the people are lawyers and the e-mails contained either personal or confidential information.

Another case is a general contractor, and I've received quotes from subcontractors, blueprints and general correspondence.

In one case it was a confirmation of tickets for a theme park. (I debated showing up as soon as the park opened and claiming the tickets, but ethics got the better of me.)
These people now reside in my address book. I forward the e-mail in question over to them, and CC a copy to the sender.

Anonymous Coward

What is the problem?

To make matters worse, I frequently find I can't use my email to create a new account at various sites because it's already been registered.

Why not make a password reset for them (unless they have "security questions") and change the email? Then you can create your own account. It is not your problem that some hobo can't enter their own e-mail address when registering accounts.

As for the unwanted email, tell the sender politely that they have sent personal/confidential information to you, an unsuspecting third party with a similar address. Then throw any future mail from them away. I have gotten some mail like this, but they all rectified their mistake and stopped sending to me. If they wouldn't, it isn't my problem (apart from pressing the "junk email" button in my MUA).

Anonymous Coward

Even worse: Facebook does not validate e-mails (0)
So I got somebody else's Facebook notifications. From time to time, I get some e-mail from Facebook stating the e-mail address has not been verified (with no description on what to do if you are not the intended recipient). I hoped this situation would die with time, but it is already five months since I got the first e-mail.
At some stage in the past, I also got some e-mails from ebay about a seller and a buyer discussing transaction e-mails. These ones did actually die.
In both cases, the e-mail account the messages should go was not the one I tend to give out. Google allows for different spellings on the same account. Your e-mail account may be achieved by following permutations:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
And this is not a bug, it is a feature.

hawguy

I have the same problem (4, Funny)

I use my first initial+last name as my email address and get mail destined for a half dozen people. One person is an elderly gentleman in the midwest, I've given up any hope of getting him to stop giving out my email address. I only get a half dozen or so a month so it's not too bad.
I usually send a form letter to emails where it looks like a person might read the response (as opposed to newsletters, etc). For those emails where I don't think a human will read the response, I usually just hit the Spam button, unless there's a quick and easy to find unsubscribe link.
Sometimes when an email has a signature that says that if I receive a copy of the email in error I must delete all copies, in my reply, I ask whether they want to work on a time and materials basis or a fixed price $500 contract for me to track down and delete the email from all devices that it may have been delivered to (having emails go to a phone, tablet, several computers, imap download + backup means a fair amount of work to find and delete it everywhere). So far none have been willing to pay. I wonder if I could accept their demand to delete all copies of the email as implicit authorization to do the work and then bill them for the work.

Anonymous Coward

I like mail redirectors. Everyone but true spammers will respond to you redirecting all the mail from their domain back to the support address for that domain. Preface it with, "you must have lost this, I am helping., HERE" And resend the email. Maybe twice to make sure it isn't lost. Works every time.

Anonymous Coward

me too (0)

my gmail is [email protected] and i have this problem all the time. i have on occasion looked up the person using my email by searching the phone book for people with my name around the address of the local businesses and people that frequently email me... usually it appears the people are 60+ but when someone used my email to start a twitter account it was someone in his 30s based on the picture he used on the account. i did like someone above said and used email based password reset and posted on the account that the person was using the wrong email address and that the account should be removed from their friend list or whatever twitter does.
in general i am really annoyed by the email i constantly get, though the other week i did get some tickets to an indoor trampoline place that sounded fun... sadly the place was 2500 miles away. most the people using my account i think are leaving off the random number or swapping out a _ for an inconsequential . that leads me to getting their emails.

Anonymous Coward

I have the same issue (0)

I have had several emails from job applications to registrations on shopping sites to my gmail. I reply telling the person that they have contacted the wrong person, and advise them to contact the intended recipient by another means.
I once got a schedule for a church rota for somewhere in the states, and when I replied saying I wasn't the person in question they asked me to forward it to them! I'm not quite sure how they expected me to do this.
This misaddressing of emails is probably really confusing the NSA email contact database though.

Anonymous Coward

Had this issue (0)

Someone was registering for sites using my GMail address without the dot I use. They registered for a site and an email came through confirming their details, including phone number.
I phoned up and asked him politely to not use my email address.
He accused me of hacking his account he has used for 2 years.
I explained I have had the account since GMail was 'invite only'.

Got swore at loads, so hung up and set up a rule so that mail without the dot is ignored and trashed. Problem solved!

mdenham

Re: Had this issue

For what it's worth, GMail treats all e-mail addresses that are identical other than dots as the same e-mail address internally, so [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected] are all going to be the same account.
I've noticed that forum spammers like to use that trick to get around "each account must have a unique e-mail" settings on certain types of forum software.

hism

Unsubscribe or filter (1)

I have the same problem. There's at least two dozens distinct individuals who have had emails erroneously addressed to my inbox.
For automated emails that offer an easy link to unsubscribe or dissociate my email address from that account, I use the provided link. Those are pretty easy.
Sometimes people register for paid services that send a monthly bill and it comes to my email address. They may or may not be of English origin. For these, I just add a filter or rule to my email provider or client to just delete them or move them. Communicating with someone, possibly in another language, possibly requiring lots of bureaucratic red tape, is not really worth it. If they care about it enough, it's their responsibility to fix it.
The most annoying case is when a large group of friends start an email thread with a whole bunch of different people in the "to" or "cc" field. Asking them to correct the email address is pretty much an exercise in futility, since all it takes is one person to hit 'reply to all' and your email address is back on the thread. For these, I just block every recipient on the thread.
I've never had the problem of someone already having registered my email. One way around it would be to set up another email address that just forwards to your actual email address.

Anonymous Coward

Yep, I have this issue

1) If I can track down the person, I try to contact them and let them know they have they're using the wrong email
2) If it's a real person sending the email (like when one person have out my email for his house refinance stuff), I email the person back asking them to contact via phone or whatever the person and tell them they have the wrong email address
3) If a person in #2 does so and i keep receiving new emails because the person doesn't learn, I ask someone again like in #2, though this time I recommend they stop doing business with, or throw out the job application, or whatever because the person is so stupid that they can't even figure out their own address
4) I've been know to find the person via their relatives and ask them to inform the person that they're using the wrong email
5) For sites where registrations were done, I simply go to the site, click Forgot Password, get a reset, go in, and change the information so it's no longer to my email address. Often I change the address to STOP+USING+[MY+ADDRESS]@gmail.com. Sometimes logging in to the account has the benefits of getting me their address and/or phone number to contact, which I've done.
6) In cases where I've changed the email address and they've had tech support change it back to mine, I go back in to the account and change ALL the info to mine, so now it become my account and they can no longer use it or get any access to it.

xrayspx

I've just been dealing with this (1)

I use a personal domain for my actual mail, but have accounts at all the major free mail sites too, just for spam or whatever.

I started getting mail to my Yahoo account which wasn't spam, but clearly not for me, as part of a group of people participating in a medical imaging conference. For a while I just blew it off, but eventually the organizer mailed my actual non-yahoo address by mistake as well. So I decided to be swell about it and let her know that I'm not the person she's trying to reach. She said "Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to do (yourname)@yahoo.com, thanks!", and so I told her "well no, that's also me, sorry". I proceeded to tell her an address which would work for her intended recipient (work email for the person she was trying to mail, who isn't me).

Basically she refused to believe she has been sending to the wrong address, and said "I had no idea two people could have the same email address, I guess Yahoo must allow it or something". At that point, I gave up and just let it go again. It's not high-volume enough to matter.

koan

Me too (1)

They can't reply or get your reply because they can't log in, I went so far as to track one person down via an ad sent to them, I have also received someone's complete information, SSN, etc. In the end I just drag them to the trash.

Oh and Google needs to admit they fucked up and fix it, I'm pretty sure that guys info I got could lead to some sort of lawsuit.

weave

Happens to me a lot with my own domain (4, Insightful)

I own a very short domain name where the first part of the name is the same as many organization's name.
e.g., if it was example.com then others have example.co.uk or exampleinc.com etc and I get a LOT of their email because I wildcard my domain for email and people just assume that example.com will work
As I get them, I add a postfix rule to reject that specific username but I still get stuff, including very confidential stuff.
I haven't advised these organizations because I fear they'll just turn around and try to dispute to get my domain or accuse me of criminal interception or whatever. So I just delete them and they can wonder why they never got a reply.
Rule #1: "Email is not a guaranteed service."
Rule #2: "Email is not secure. Stop sending confidential stuff through it"

kiick

Get your own domain name (1)

I had various problems with email address collisions as well. Then when I had to change ISPs, I decided to get my own domain name. It's a little different when you own your own email address. If you register a domain, you can be [email protected] or such. Then you just forward from your actual email host to the registered email address. It's only a few dollars a year. Then YOU decide who gets an email address for your domain, and you can have whatever policy you want to avoid collisions.

Garin

bah, you guys are no fun (2)

Y'all are missing out on a good time.

I have a gmail account with the first name dot last name set up. As you can imagine I get quite a few messages for people who forget to tell their friends about their middle initial. However from context, I can often tell which of my name-sharing buddies the email was intended for. Over the years I have actually gotten to know a couple of them, which is fun.

I don't bother trying to tell the senders about the mistakes, they usually do nothing, oddly. The recipient, however, tends to get on it effectively.

It's quite interesting do talk to them. What's in a name?

Anonymous Coward

Worst is Barnes and noble, nook

They won't take your email address off if some uses it by mistake, you are stuck getting perpetual updates

ShaunC

This happens to me a lot, too

A few months back, I received an email on my Gmail from the agent of an NFL player. The agent was apparently looking to help his client negotiate a contract, and conveniently attached a draft of said contract. I went and updated the NFL player's Wikipedia entry stating that he was going into free agency and looking for a gig. Hey, I could have done a lot worse, like placing bets using inside info or something.
Many, many years ago, I had the screen name "File" on AOL. There was some sort of ancient productivity suite (maybe Notes, or 123, or something) where you would cc a message to "file" in order to keep a local copy, and many AOL users presumed their email service worked the same way. Oh sweet Christ, the things that landed in my inbox there over the years..

lamber45

Haven't had this issue with GMail, but with other (2)

My GMail (and Yahoo! as well) username is (first name)(middle name)(last name), all fairly common [in fact at my current employer there are multiple matches of (first name)(last name), and my father has the same (first name)(last name) as well], and I have not had this problem with either service. Perhaps using initials instead of full names is part of it; or your last-name may have different demographic connotations.
I did, however, recently have that problem with a Comcast account. When the tech visited our home for installation, he created an account (first name)(last name) @comcast.net . I didn't actually give it out anywhere, yet within a few months it was filled with a hundred or so messages for someone in another state. I did try responding to one item that seemed moderately important, and whoever got the response [the help-desk of some organization] didn't seem to grasp that I had no connection with the intended recipient. Since I hadn't advertised it anywhere, it was easy to change the username, to (my first initial)(wife's first initial)(my last initial)(wife's last initial)(string of digits) @comcast.net. While this address appears to have been reused, apparently Comcast no longer allows address reuse; I tried using a previous ID that I had used a long time ago, and it was not available.
Since you ask for advice, I recommend two courses of action:

1. As long as you still have access to that address, when you receive anything that is clearly misdirected and potentially of high value, deal with it politely. Don't use a "form response", instead personalize the response to the content of the message. CC the intended recipient on the response, if you are able to divine who it is. Once you've dealt with the matter, delete the whole thread. For newsletters, try following an "unsubscribe" action, if that's not available mark as spam.

2. Consider an exit strategy from your current e-mail address, no matter how much is attached to it. See the Google help posting "Change your username". For the new address, try a long nickname or full first name instead of first initial; or maybe add a string of numbers, a city your contacts will recognize, or a title. Give your important contacts plenty of advance notice, post the new address with the reasons you're switching [perhaps with a list of the confusing other identities as well] on your "old" Google+ profile. After a reasonable time (say six months or a year), delete your old account. Make sure you change your address at all the "various sites" you've registered at before doing so, in case you need to use a password reset function.

Anonymous Coward

Periods don't count (0)

Also, note that the periods in your name don't make any difference. Email addressed to [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] go to the same mailbox.

... If you are certain that everyone will use the periods just as you specified then it is pretty easy to add a filter which separates the mail into different folders based on the position of the periods. That can automatically filter email addresses that aren't formatted to your liking.

[Oct 02, 2013] Google Accused of Wiretapping in Gmail Scans

Federal wiretap law exempts interception of communication if it is necessary in a service provider's "ordinary course of business," which Google said included scanning e-mail. That argument did not fly with Judge Koh.

"In fact, Google's alleged interception of e-mail content is primarily used to create user profiles and to provide targeted advertising - neither of which is related to the transmission of e-mails," she wrote in last week's ruling.

... ... ...

Also last week, Google asked the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reconsider a Sept. 10 ruling that a separate wiretapping lawsuit could proceed. That one involves Google Street View vehicles that secretly collected personal information from unencrypted home computer networks.

[Aug 13, 2013] NSA surveillance: the long fight to close backdoor into US communications

"NSA staff and private contractors have unfettered access to this information. I have a hard time believing that not one of them has used that access to information for personal or political gain."

The Guardian

ExPatIdentity

@Kevin_byDesign, it's not just possible, it's probably happened already.
We know that at least some (and based on Edward Snowden's so-far quite reliable information, many) NSA staff and private contractors have unfettered access to this information. I have a hard time believing that not one of them has used that access to information for personal or political gain.

This system makes insider trading, industrial espionage, blackmail, and extortion an almost inevitable outcome.

Kevin_byDesign

When we start using the NSA records against Politicians & Banks to expose fraud, THAT is when you will see laws curtailing its use.

gezzerx0 -> Kevin_byDesign

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Joseph Goebbels

... ... ...

REMEMBER: POLITICIANS AND DIAPERS SHOULD BE CHANGED OFTEN AND FOR THE SAME REASON.

The amendment failed, by a vote of 13-2. The only votes for the measure came from Wyden and Udall.
The 13 members need to be replaced & prosecuted under Title 18 Sec. 242 to the fullest extent that the law allows !

[Aug 13, 2013] NSA spying on email content at super-fast speeds still violates Fourth Amendment By Ms. Smith

Looks like they mirror ports on ingress routers...

08/12/13 | networkworld.com

...Charlie Savage at The New York Times focused on one paragraph from "top secret" FISA court documents previously published by The Guardian. It mentioned that the NSA "seeks to acquire communications about the target that are not to or from the target." More specifically, the "about the target" surveillance means the NSA is "temporarily copying and then sifting through the contents of what is apparently most e-mails and other text-based communications that cross the border."

Computer scientists said that it would be difficult to systematically search the contents of the communications without first gathering nearly all cross-border text-based data; fiber-optic networks work by breaking messages into tiny packets that flow at the speed of light over different pathways to their shared destination, so they would need to be captured and reassembled.

A government official speaking to the NYT on the condition of anonymity said the NSA makes a "clone of selected communication links" to gather information' from email and text-based communications that cross the border. A computer searches for "identifying keywords or other 'selectors' and stores those that match so that human analysts could later examine them. The remaining communications, the official said, are deleted; the entire process takes 'a small number of seconds,' and the system has no ability to perform 'retrospective searching'."

... ... ...

If Americans' communications singled out for further analysis are deemed "relevant," then "the agency can retain it and disseminate it to other agencies, the rules show." Yet during President Obama's "surveillance speech," he stated, "I want to make clear once again that America is not interested in spying on ordinary people."

... ... ...

But The Atlantic wrote, "Team Obama is collecting information on everybody! It isn't being done willy-nilly, but deliberately and comprehensively." The Guardian added, "The NSA is searching everything now - in real time and without suspicion - merely on the chance that it finds something of interest."

Regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), President Obama stated, "One of the concerns that people raise is that a judge reviewing a request from the government to conduct programmatic surveillance only hears one side of the story, may tilt it too far in favor of security, may not pay enough attention to liberty."

"But a judge's job is not balancing liberty and security as if there is an objectively correct degree of 'tilt' that they can settle upon," argued The Atlantic. "Judges are there, first and foremost, to ensure that the Constitution is not violated, and then to be sure that the law is being followed. The rule of law is the most important safeguard that secures the life and liberty of Americans, and any legal regime that permits the Constitution to be violated in secret is 'tilting' away from long term security."

"Whether the NSA inspects and retains these messages for years, or only searches through them once before moving on, the invasion of Americans' privacy is real and immediate," warned The Guardian. "There is no 'five-second rule' for fourth amendment violations: the US constitution does not excuse these bulk searches simply because they happen in the blink of an eye."

Indeed, just because the search happens as if conducted by a government-hired superhero with superhuman speed does not make the search "reasonable," therefore meaning it is unconstitutional and violates your Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches.

[Jun 28, 2013] 11 Really Dumb Things You Do With Your Email

finance.yahoo.com

As political battle lines are drawn over the case of Edward Snowden and the NSA's sophisticated program of electronic surveillance, it's easy to forget our simplest and most common vulnerability to spying eyes: email.

Just in the past few months, databases at LivingSocial and Evernote were hacked, exposing roughly 100 million email addresses to identity thieves. Facebook allegedly exposed 6 million users' emails to unauthorized users, a "glitch" the company admitted was not detected for a year. All this comes on the heels of mega-breaches like the one at Epsilon , which provides marketing services for more than 2,500 financial and lifestyle companies. Epsilon admitted hackers stole "only" 2 percent of its customer data. But since its databases may contain upwards of 250 million email addresses, that means "only" 5 million people were placed at risk.

So what's the big deal, you may ask? Email has grown up. It's no longer a convenient secondary conduit for saying hello to friends. It's plugged directly into our lives. Messages sitting in our email accounts can expose not just our address and contact numbers, but also our bank and brokerage account numbers, credit card information, online financial transaction receipts and confirmation of forgotten or changed passwords in all of our other accounts. That's why email is now the single most common vector of attack for fraud, according to the Federal Trade Commission. It's ubiquitous. It's laden with valuable data. And scammers know their chances of getting caught are slim to none.

Bottom line: The best way to stay safe is to aggressively protect yourself. No one else can guard your email better than you. Here are the top 11 things you can do right now to reduce your risk of getting your email either hacked or scammed.

1. Checking your email on an unsafe network.

A computer in an Internet café, library or any other business may be loaded with malware to steal your passwords. Public WiFi systems are vulnerable too, even at places like coffee shops, airports, hotels and conference centers that require passwords, since any ID thief can afford a $3 cup of coffee and get the same password.

What to do: Unless the computer and network you're using belongs to you or your employer, don't sign into email. (While your employer's network may give you more security, it may not assure your privacy, as many employers reserve the right to review email on their computers and network.)

2. Staying signed in.

Signing into email every time you pick up your phone can be a real pain in the butt. Deal with it. By staying constantly signed in, a hacker can gain immediate access to the most important information of your life.

What to do: Signing out is inconvenient. Do it anyway.

3. Repeating your email login name and password.

Just this year, hackers cracked databases containing the passwords of up to 50 million LivingSocial users, and another 50 million users of Evernote. If the password to your checking, credit card, social media or any other account ends in @gmail.com, @yahoo.com or any other email address, those thieves possess an important piece of your identity puzzle. Since many people mistakenly use the same password or User ID for multiple accounts, identity thieves know the skeleton key that may fit many doors.

What to do: Never use your email address and corresponding password for any other accounts. Beyond that, don't use passwords based on things like your birthday, your kid's name or your street. The more random, the better.

4. Not deleting old emails properly.

Many people never delete old messages in their inbox, or delete their caches of trashed and sent emails (though most email systems purge deleted email after 30 days). Those messages may contain addresses, account usernames and passwords, contact information for all your friends, financial data and a host of other sensitive information.

What to do: Delete sent, trashed and old messages. Delete email with any sensitive information (like your tax paperwork, health insurance applications, etc.) immediately after sending it.

5. Falling for a "guaranteed" loan or credit card offer.

If an email promises a loan or credit card worth a guaranteed amount of money at a low interest rate, it's a scam. Nobody will give you credit without first checking your credit report.

What to do: In credit as in life, there are no guarantees. Don't click on links in these messages, and delete them posthaste.

6. Clicking on ambiguous emails from "friends."

Since hackers have raided our email contact lists, even messages from our best friends could be vectors of attack. Hackers often pose as friends stuck penniless in Europe or Asia and in need of an immediate wire transfer, or friends imploring us to "Check out this funny video!" with links stuffed with spam or laden with malware. Sometimes the tipoff is an email from a "long-lost friend," or a close buddy using a very old account. Some of these emails come with no text at all… just a link.

What to do: Read emails from enemies closely, and emails from friends even more closely. If you receive a suspicious email from a friend, don't click on any links or download any files. Delete the email, and call your friend. If it turns out the email was legit, he or she can resend it.

7. "Verifying" personal information via email.

It could be your bank or credit card company asking to verify your account information. Or it could be from UPS or FedEx trying to "confirm" your address for a missed delivery. It could even be from the IRS claiming you owe them, or they owe you, money. None of these institutions send personalized emails, and none ask you to "verify" personal information by email.

What to do: If an institution handles important things like money or packages, it doesn't use email to communicate, and certainly not to confirm personal information. Delete the suspicious email, and call the business or institution in question to inquire about the matter at hand.

8. Talking to strangers about money.

Many scams involve sending money to people we've never met. There's the "Wall Street insider" with the hot investment tip, the foreign company that needs you to cash a check or process transactions, the marketing company asking you to be a secret shopper or offering an irresistible work-at-home or franchising opportunity, the email chain letter inviting you to "get in early" on a pyramid scheme, the Irish Lottery, even the lawyer of a deposed politician trying to get his money out of the country (this age-old ruse is actually growing more sophisticated, with better-written emails and virulent malware). Every one of them is a scam.

What to do: If someone you've never met offers you money, run… that is, delete!

9. Getting tricked into thinking your credit card has been stolen.

You may receive an email that says "Thank you for your recent order!" Except - you never ordered anything. You assume your credit card has been stolen and in a panic, you open the email and click the button that says "Cancel Order." Congratulations, you just became an ID theft target.

What to do: Think twice before clicking any button, link or attachment in an email – even if it's from a business you know, or one from which you have ordered something. If you need to cancel, call the company and cancel, or do so on their website. If you're really worried that you've been victimized, you can check each of your credit reports for free once a year at AnnualCreditReport.com, or you can use Credit.com's free Credit Report Card monthly for an easy to understand overview of the information in your credit file.

10. Donating to fake charities.

After Hurricane Sandy and the giant tornado in Oklahoma, fraudsters sent emails requesting donations for relief efforts. The money went instead to scammers all over the world.

What to do: Only donate to established, well-known aid groups, and do so on their website or over the phone. Don't navigate to these sites from emails, and don't call the phone number in the email. Look those up.

11. Clicking on too-good-to-be-true travel deals.

Many of us receive legitimate emails alerting us to cheap flights, hotels and cruises. But when the offers seem just unbelievably low, and they come from companies and email addresses you don't know, don't get sucked into the waterspout.

What to do: What's that old line about something seeming too good to be true? If some new travel site is running a special deal, rather than click a link in an email, search for the deal on the Web. Find out if anyone has reported it as a scam. If it checks out, then you can dip your toe in.

There's no silver bullet here (even if you do all of these things). If you are on the wrong database at the wrong moment and the wrong person gains access, you may still have your personal information stolen. That said, the better you can minimize your exposure and operate cautiously, the longer you can hold off the Cyber Barbarians at the Gates.

[Jan 03, 2013 ] What's In Steve Ballmer's Inbox

Slashdot

timothy on Thursday January 03, @08:50AM

Barence writes "When Microsoft last year launched Outlook.com, the company carelessly left the [email protected] address vacant. It was snapped up by the editor of PC Pro, giving an insight into the type of emails the public sends to the Microsoft CEO. Among the messages sent to the account are complaints about the Windows 8 interface, a plea from someone who was 'literally driven crazy' by Windows Server product keys, and someone who wants Windows Phone's calendar to remind him when he's being paid. There's also a more sinister complaint from someone who claims they were the victim of racial discrimination when applying for a job at a Microsoft Store."

[Feb 10, 2012] Florida Man Charged in Celebrity Email Hacking Case BY ANDREW MORSE

WSJ.com

LOS ANGELES-Federal authorities Wednesday arrested a Florida man for allegedly hacking into email accounts of Hollywood celebrities including Scarlett Johansson, Mila Kunis and Christina Aguilera, and posting personal information on the Web, including nude photos.

Christopher Chaney, 35 years old, was arrested at his Jacksonville, Fla., residence by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and charged with 26 counts of computer hacking, wiretapping and aggravated identity theft, U.S. Attorney André Birotte Jr. ...

[Feb 10, 2012] Hollywood hacking case victims include Johansson

Yahoo!

A man was charged with hacking into celebrity email accounts in a computer invasion scheme that led to the posting of private and revealing information, including nude photos of actress > Scarlett Johansson , on the Internet, federal authorities said Wednesday.

Christopher Chaney, 35, of Jacksonville, Florida, was arrested without incident as part of a yearlong investigation of celebrity hacking that authorities dubbed "Operation Hackerazzi."

There were more than 50 victims in the case, including Mila Kunis, Christina Aguilera and actress Renee Olstead, authorities said. Others were named only by initials and investigators wouldn't disclose if they were famous, but said victims named in the indictment agreed to have their identities made public.

"It helps get out the message that cyber-hacking is a real threat," U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte said of the case, describing those who engage in such activity as "scum."

Chaney made his initial court appearance in a Florida courtroom Wednesday and was released on $10,000 bond. He was charged with 26 counts of identity theft, unauthorized access to a protected computer and wiretapping. If convicted, he faces up to 121 years in prison. An email left for Assistant Federal Public Defender Maurice Grant II was not immediately returned.

Celebrities and people in the news have long been targets of privacy invasion but concerns have redoubled in the Internet age.

In Britain, publisher Rupert Murdoch closed down the News of the World this year after contentions that the tabloid routinely hacked into people's phones in the hunt for exclusive stories. The paper, which had published for 168 years, faced allegations of systematically intercepting private voicemail of those in the news - including a teenage murder victim.

Authorities said Chaney was responsible for stealing nude photos taken by Johansson herself and were later posted on the Internet. Chaney offered some material to celebrity blog sites but there is no evidence that he profited from his scheme, said Steven Martinez, assistant director in charge of the FBI's Los Angeles office.

"Celebrity information is highly marketable," said Martinez, who added his office continues to receive complaints about celebrities having their personal information breached.

Representatives for Johansson, Kunis and Aguilera did not immediately respond to calls and emails seeking comment.

Chaney hacked Google, Apple and Yahoo email accounts beginning last November through February, then hijacked the forwarding feature so that a copy of every email received was sent, "virtually instantaneously," to an email account he controlled, according to an indictment handed up Tuesday by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles.

He allegedly used the hacker names "trainreqsuckswhat," ''anonygrrl" and "jaxjaguars911," and also used the victims' identities to illegally access and control computers. Chaney is accused of damaging email servers that caused losses of at least $5,000 per instance.

Authorities wouldn't say whether Chaney was able to access email accounts via cell phones, but he was able to figure out secure passwords to various celebrity accounts through information that had been made public.

Chaney "mined through publicly available data and figured out passwords and security questions," Martinez said.

A message seeking comment was left on an answering machine for a Christopher Chaney in Jacksonville. There was no answer at a telephone listing for another Christopher Chaney.

Investigators said they hoped the celebrity-infused case will jumpstart those who don't value online security enough to protect their personal information and create more secure passwords that can't be easily figured out by would-be hackers.

"Taking these steps will go a long way in protecting yourself from the financial and emotional costs of having someone intrude on your private life and potentially steal your identity," Birotte said.

[Feb 10, 2012] How to Protect Your Email from Hackers

lifehacker.com
According to Wired, hacking VP-hopeful Sarah Palin's email account was easy: all the hacker needed was Palin's birthdate, ZIP code, and the name of her high school - all of which are no more than a Google search away.
In fact, password security questions may have always been the weakest link in email security, since anyone with an acquaintance's knowledge or access to the internet can divine answers to most of your security questions within minutes. So how can you make sure your email account is secure?

Obscure the Answers to Your Security Questions
Password retrieval tools are there for a good reason, and most of them aren't going anywhere. You can do your best to choose the most obscure questions when you're signing up for a new account, but you still can't guarantee that that information is outside of the reach of anyone. The real key lies in obscuring your answers. We've covered how to choose memorable-but-obscured answers to security questions before using blogger danah boyd's method, but here's a quick recap:
The basic structure is: [Snarky Bad Attitude Phrase] + [Core Noun Phrase] + [Unique Word] Although these are not my actual phrases, let's map them for example:

Snarky Bad Attitude Phrase = StupidQuestion

Unique Word = Booyah

Thus, when I'm asked the following question: What is your favorite sports team? My answer would be: StupidQuestion SportsTeam Booyah
The only question in Palin's account that offered any difficulty asked where she met her spouse. The hacker correctly guessed Wasilla High, Palin's high school. If Palin were to have followed the technique above, the answer could have looked more like InsecureQuestion Spouse Awesome. Of course you're not limited to the technique above by any means, and you could build your own system to provide unique but secure answers (more secure than your ZIP code by itself, at least). Simply adding and remembering PIN of some sort for every answer would go a long way. (e.g., 5429 Wasilla High).
Choosing a Secure Password
While security questions are a major weak link, passwords are just as easy to break if you aren't using a strong one. Again, we've covered how to choose and remember great passwords in the past, and there are even several strong password generators available to help you pick a secure password. If you prefer to choose the password yourself, don't use simple words, especially by themselves. As security expert Bruce Schneier points out:
...a typical password consists of a root plus an appendage. A root isn't necessarily a dictionary word, but it's something pronounceable. An appendage is either a suffix (90 percent of the time) or a prefix (10 percent of the time). So if you want your password to be hard to guess, you should choose something not on any of the root or appendage lists. You should mix upper and lowercase in the middle of your root. You should add numbers and symbols in the middle of your root, not as common substitutions. Or drop your appendage in the middle of your root. Or use two roots with an appendage in the middle.
All of your new passwords will be much more difficult to hack, but they're also very difficult to remember. Luckily there isn't all that much to it. All you need is to find yourself a solid password manager to keep track of the details for you. Check out our roundup of the five best password managers for more.

[Feb 10, 2012] Proxy server trail leads FBI to Palin email hacker by Humphrey Cheung

September 19, 2008 | TG Daily
Anchorage (Alaska) – FBI agents are using proxy server logs to track down the hacker who broke into Sarah Palin's Yahoo email account. The hacker gained access to the Republican Vice Presidential candidate's account by resetting the password. He then posted details of his adventures up on a popular online forum, but that information is now leading reporters and federal investigators to the suspect – a Tennessee university college student and son of state democratic representative Mike Kernell.
A few days ago, someone going by the name of "Rubico" gloated on 4chan.org that he managed to hack into Sarah Palin's Yahoo account. He forced a password reset by answering questions about Palin's birthdate, zip code and where she met her spouse, Wasilla High School. Of course, by being the Republican candidate for Vice President, this information is all very easily found on the Internet. After answering the questions, Rubico reset the password to "popcorn" and read through Palin's emails.

And it seems he was pretty thorough, saying he read, "ALL OF THEM" on the boards. He even posted up screenshots of the Yahoo email page, complete with the full URL (we'll talk about that later). Rubico says he didn't find anything incriminating and the emails were actually fairly mundane family pictures and correspondence. But his jubilation turned into horror as he realized that he didn't take proper precautions in covering his tracks.

Rubico used a proxy server that shields the source IP address from website logging scripts. While this sounds great, Rubico posted, "Yes I was behind a proxy, only one, if this sh** ever got to the FBI I was FU****"

In his gloating, Rubico posted up screenshots of the Yahoo account complete with the full URL which included the proxy server url (ctunnel.com) appended with a unique identifier. For example, we used ctunnel.com to surf to YouTube and the URL reads - http://ctunnel.com/index.php/1010110A/58a5cd1e8ab47088982c83282fd768456e... So it doesn't take a genius to go through the logs and match up the ID to the appropriate IP address and BAM, you got the hacker.

But aren't proxy servers supposed to anonymize your information? Yes and no. Dan Goodin over at The Register talked to Gabriel Ramuglia, the owner of the ctunnel.com proxy server that Rubico allegedly used. Ramuglia is upset about the ordeal because his service was never meant to be used for illegal activities and says Rubico definitely broke his site's terms of service. Ramuglia added that every incoming IP address is logged with the time and destination website.

Ramuglia told Goodin that he hasn't a chance yet to examine his logs, but added that there is a good chance that it will lead to the hacker. Since the interview, he's received a call from the Anchorage Alaska FBI field office and agents there are highly suggesting that he not lose the logs.

But it gets even better. White hat hackers didn't even need proxy information to find the culprit because they discovered that the Rubico forum handle was linked to [email protected]. A few searches on Google and YouTube further links this email address to 20-year-old David Kernell, a student at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville. His father is Democratic Tennessee state representative Mike Kernell.

As you can expect, the Yahoo account has been frozen and all the incriminating forum posts on 4chan.org have been deleted. But this didn't stop Wired.com from printing some of the posts. Don't you just love it when hackers brag about the "leet" skills?

[Jul 11, 2011] News of the World Investigation Expanded to 9-11 Victims -

Slashdot

"Police are questioning whether a change in News International's email retention policy was part of an effort to conceal widespread phone hacking by the News of the World, a scandal which is threatening Rupert Murdoch's planned takeover of BSkyB.

The trawl for emails and the questioning of changes in News International's email retention policy has important implications for IT security and corporate governance professionals, and is likely to see organizations examining their own policies and reminding their staff on acceptable usage and best practice for email."

Trepidity for the wrong reasons

is likely to see organizations examining their own policies and reminding their staff on acceptable usage and best practice for email

It'd be pretty sad if the lesson people take from the News Corp fiasco is: man, their IT staff should've really been more on the ball about making sure no evidence of the crimes they committed was accidentally retained.

Jah-Wren Ryel Re:for the wrong reasons

It'd be pretty sad if the lesson people take from the News Corp fiasco is: man, their IT staff should've really been more on the ball about making sure no evidence of the crimes they committed was accidentally retained.

It's been an open secret for well over a decade now that email retention policies are purely legal dodges. There is no other reason to automatically delete such massive stores of institutional memory except for the possible legal threat they may pose. It isn't like email storage requirements are a practical limitation - any company with terabytes of email is going to have an IT budget so large that those costs will be lost in the noise.

And, while I don't have a link at hand, I recall a case a couple years ago where the government was pursuing charges that a large corp's email retention practices were a deliberate form of destruction of evidence - despite all of the lawyerly sign-offs and standardised corporate practices verbiage. I wish I did have a link because I'd like to know how that case turned out.

darien.train: There's blood in the water....

And a lot of it too. Everyone can smell it and the revelations are only in their infancy. I always thought Murdoch was a blight on the news industry and a poster child for the evils of media consolidation but this scandal shocks even me. This is mafia-level shit.

MightyMartian: Re:There's blood in the water....

It's getting actually downright scary. Apparently there's evidence that a member of the Queen's security team was taking bribes for information on the doings and whereabouts of members of the Royal Family. Let's keep in mind here that the Queen is the head of state of the UK and fifteen other Commonwealth Realms, and this is a massive breach of security.

Imagine for a moment what would be happening right now to any newsroom that had managed to penetrate the Secret Service and was gaining information on the President's whereabouts, or that of his wife and children. The Secret Service would be tearing the newsroom to pieces, reporters and editors, Christ, even the bloody janitors and the guy that flips the water bottles, would be sweating it out under a bright light bulb in front of guys in suits and sunglasses.

Ok, ok. (Score:5, Insightful) by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) writes: on Monday July 11, @11:15AM (#36720740) Journal Can we finish locking the News of the World staff in their headquarters and burning it to the ground, along with anybody found to have aided or abetted them(given that their contacts with the Met and right up to the PM are well known, this probably includes a few people in addition to their shady PIs...) and get on to an important matter:

Why are phones, particularly the VM box that is more or less an automatic part of today's cell phone, so damn vulnerable? The Telcoes seem to have no trouble tracking our activities in great detail if those activities are something for which we can be billed, and they also seem eminently willing to cooperate with law enforcement. Why, then, do I have absolutely no way of knowing when, and from where, my VM box was called into, and why would the VM box of a phone that is subject to police investigation be accessible from the outside at all?

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a bunch of tabloid flacks roasted in their own slime; but if voicemail hacking and phone intercepts by random PIs are that easy, we have a problem that needs to be solved by better security, not just crushing malefactors after the fact...

[Aug 31, 2006] Draft Special Publication 800-45A, Guidelines on Electronic Mail Security

Adobe PDF (1,912 KB)
Zipped PDF (1,068 KB)
A new version of NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-45, Guidelines on Electronic Mail Security, is now available for public comment. The draft document, SP 800-45A, is a revision of the 2002 guideline and structured similarly, although a good deal of the material has been rewritten and augmented with new information. The guide is intended to aid organizations in the installation, configuration, and maintenance of secure mail servers and mail clients. Administrators of electronic mail and other infrastructure services are encouraged to provide feedback on all or part of the document. NIST requests submission of public comments on the draft on or before October 6, 2006.

Comments may be sent to [email protected].

SmtpRC - Smtp Relay Checker by Spencer Hardy - Thursday, July 18th 2002 14:08 EDT

About: SmtpRC is a fully configurable, multithreaded open mail relay scanner. It supports scanning of IP blocks, and can print the results to a Web page. It is intended for Systems Administrators to check IP blocks under their control. >v 0.9.4b

Changes: A new function to allow an email template to be specified on the commandline, and some small bugfixes.

To download the latest version of SmtpRC go Here.

The SmtpRC FAQ can be found Here

The Sourceforge project page can be found Here

Usage of O Privacy Options=goaway

From: GvS (gvs_at_RINET.RU)
Date: Mar 09 1999

Next message: Chris Johnson: "Re: Digital Unix 4 protected password database."

Previous message: John RIddoch: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

In reply to: Brett Glass: "SMTP server account probing"

Next in thread: Stefan Monnier: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi there!

On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Brett Glass wrote:

BG> In this attack, an SMTP server is probed for common names, presumably
BG> so that spam can the be targeted at them. The attacking machine
BG> connects and issues hundreds of RCPT TO: commands, searching a long
BG> list of common user names (e.g. susan) for ones that don't cause
BG> errors. It then compiles a list of target addresses to spam.

The most common protection method against this attack is to restrict
the number of recipients per message as defined in sendmail.cf:

O MaxRecipientsPerMessage=NN

It doesn't protect from name probing, but protects from overhead in
conjunction with O ConnectionRateThrottle and O MaxDaemonChildren
options.

BG> I'm surprised that I haven't seen this one on the Bugtraq list yet.

I do not think it's bugtraq issue really. This attack can easily be
prevented with configuration methods.

SY, Seva Gluschenko, just stranger at the Road.
GVS-RIPE: Cronyx Plus / RiNet network administrator.

--- IRC: erra
* Origin: Erra Netmale (gvs_at_rinet.ru) [http://gvs.rinet.ru/]

From: John E. Martin (jem_at_LAINET.COM)
Date: Mar 09 1999

Next message: John RIddoch: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

Previous message: James Clement: "Digital Unix 4 protected password database."

In reply to: Brett Glass: "SMTP server account probing"

Next in thread: Valdis.Kletnieks_at_VT.EDU: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

Reply: Valdis.Kletnieks_at_VT.EDU: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

Reply: Brett Glass: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

Reply: Security Research Labs: "Linux Blind TCP Spoofing"

Reply: Keith Woodworth: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

Reply: Ryan Permeh: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

Reply: Max Schubert: "Winfreeze.c for Solaris ..."

Reply: Chris Tobkin: "Winfreeze.c for Solaris ..."

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

>In this attack, an SMTP server is probed for common names, presumably
>so that spam can the be targeted at them. The attacking machine
>connects and issues hundreds of RCPT TO: commands, searching a long
>list of common user names (e.g. susan) for ones that don't cause
>errors. It then compiles a list of target addresses to spam.

This is a good reason for sendmail users to add the following to their .cf
files:

O PrivacyOptions=goaway

This will prevent VRFY and EXPN commands from functioning at all and
releasing correct addresses.

>Unfortunately, the attack -- besides allowing the perpetrator to spam
>users -- also brings SMTP servers to their knees. This happens most
>often if the server maintains lists of user names in a database where
>looking up a name requires substantial disk activity or computational
>overhead.

While the 'goaway' option may not prevent the program from continuing to
verify addresses, it will keep your users address from being picked up by
the program.

Perhaps someone with better sendmail experience could come up with an idea
to automatically disconnect connections that are issuing more than 25 VRFY
statements at a time?

Cheers,
John E. Martin

From: Scott Fendley (dsf_at_comp.uark.edu)
Date: Mar 09 1999

Next message: Jon Morgan: "Re: Digital Unix 4 protected password database."

Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

In reply to: Valdis.Kletnieks_at_VT.EDU: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

Next in thread: Alexander Bochmann: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

Reply: Alexander Bochmann: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Couldn't you just compile sendmail with tcp_wrapper support, and have a
script parsing your logs so that if someone manages to get n # of pokes at
your system then their Ip address and/or DNS server will be placed in the
hosts.deny. Then as an admin you remove those that need to be removed
after the problem user has been properly slapped or you could possibly run
an automatic removal of k # of hours (or days). I think some of our good
programmers out there could easily write up something thtat will help
prevent these users from even getting to sendmail and causing it to fork
or anything.

Anything I am missing here?

Scott

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999 Valdis.Kletnieks_at_VT.EDU wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Mar 1999 09:36:04 PST, you said:
> > Perhaps someone with better sendmail experience could come up with an idea
> > to automatically disconnect connections that are issuing more than 25 VRFY
> > statements at a time?
>
> Wrong solution. They'll just reconnect and try another 25. All you've bought
> then is an extra fork() of the sendmail daemon every 25 pokes. Remember,
> these people don't give a s**t if they waste your resources...
>
> Maybe what's needed is a new ioctl on a socket, so you can do this:
>
> if (vrfy_cnt > 25) {
> ioctl(net_socket,SO_NOSENDFIN);
> clkose(net_socket);
> }
>
> so you can free up the socket at YOUR end, and intentionally fail to
> send the FIN packet, so the OTHER end gets to wait for a timeout.
>
> Yes, yes, yes, I *KNOW* it's Evil and Against The RFCs. But it's tempting. ;)
>
> --
> Valdis Kletnieks
> Computer Systems Senior Engineer
> Virginia Tech

From: Jose C. Oon (korn_at_SINARAN.CSD.CSAM.COM.MY)
Date: Mar 09 1999

Next message: James Lick: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

Previous message: John D. Hardin: "Re: Linux Blind TCP Spoofing"

Maybe in reply to: Brett Glass: "SMTP server account probing"

Next in thread: Tobias J. Kreidl: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

.....snip.....
> Unfortunately, the program was designed to defeat the "goaway" option by
> using RCPT TO: commands instead of VRFY commands. What's needed is
> the ability to kill the connection after more than two or three recipient
> names have generated errors.

This is a good idea where a predetermined number of errors in RCPT
should warrant the sendmail process to abort and terminate. But on
the other side, it'll interrupt normal mail messages delivery, hence,
causing lots of retries. Default of 3-5 days.

I'd suggest to add some intended delays, for instance:
when there's a RCPT error, the attacked sendmail daemon will
delay say 30 seconds, before it accepts another RCPT TO or other command.
Of course eventually the sendmail will time out and drop the
connections when necessary.

--Joseph
Bugtraq: Re: SMTP server account probing
From: James Lick (James.Lick_at_CORP.SUN.COM)
Date: Mar 09 1999

Next message: Aleph One: "Administrivia"

Previous message: Jose C. Oon: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

In reply to: David Gale: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

Next in thread: Aleph One: "Administrivia"

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, David Gale wrote:
> Using /usr/dict/words on my linux box and the TCL code below I ran this
> attack against a sendmail (8.9.2) mailserver which uses virtual user
> tables and a lengthy aliases database.

The way your code is implemented, you send a RCPT and wait for a response
before sending the next RCPT. Due to latency, this algorithm is very
inefficient and results in not much load on the server. The "attack" in
question does not pause between RCPT commands, but rather sends them as
fast as possible and looks at the results later. Also it tries quite a
bit more the few thousand words in /usr/dict/words.

Jim Lick
Forwarding a message from Brett Glass:
> Unfortunately, the program was designed to defeat the "goaway" option by
> using RCPT TO: commands instead of VRFY commands. What's needed is
> the ability to kill the connection after more than two or three recipient
> names have generated errors.

Just modify your SMTP daemon to return the appropriate error code for
all RCPT TO requests after #25. They can continue to probe forever but all
probes will return false. It might be a good idea to also put a short
delay into the responses to probes (like 1 second).

If the other end actually tries to send a message after doing all this
probing, route the message to /dev/null (or drop it in a directory for
later examination).

Larger sites may wish to alter the threshold at which defence actions are
initiated.

Nick.
>Bugtraq: Re: SMTP server account probing
From: Brian Behlendorf (brian_at_HYPERREAL.ORG)
Date: Mar 09 1999

Next message: Keith Woodworth: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

Previous message: Nick Andrew: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

In reply to: Brett Glass: "Re: SMTP server account probing"

Next in thread: Security Research Labs: "Linux Blind TCP Spoofing"

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 09:36 AM 3/9/99 -0800, John E. Martin wrote:
>
> >While the 'goaway' option may not prevent the program from continuing to
> >verify addresses, it will keep your users address from being picked up by
> >the program.
> >
> >Perhaps someone with better sendmail experience could come up with an idea
> >to automatically disconnect connections that are issuing more than 25 VRFY
> >statements at a time?
>
> Unfortunately, the program was designed to defeat the "goaway" option by
> using RCPT TO: commands instead of VRFY commands. What's needed is
> the ability to kill the connection after more than two or three recipient
> names have generated errors.

I would recommend against doing this. There are many legitimate large
mailing lists out there that are very likely to use multiple RCPT headers
in a single transaction to save bandwidth, and the odds of getting more
than two or three bounces from closed accounts are fairly good, so this
would break valid SMTP conversations. Besides, the address harvesters
will simply reopen a second connection.

Brian

Recommended Links

The 25 Most Common Mistakes in Email Security - IT Security

Palin's personal email account hacked, contents leaked - SC Magazine

Sarah Palin E-mail Hack Suspect Indicted - Security - Attacks

Famous Hacker Attacks The Googleplex - Softpedia

The mugged in London scam - Prevent thieves from breaking into your email account (5-18-11)

Google matched content

Softpanorama Recommended

Top articles

[Sep 23, 2020] Another sign of the crisis of legitimacy of neoliberal elite: FBI Agent Who Discovered Hillary's Emails On Weiner Laptop Claims He Was Told To Erase Computer Published on Sep 23, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

[May 11, 2019] Doug Ross @ Journal A TIMELINE OF TREASON How the DNC and FBI Leadership Tried to Fix a Presidential Election [Updated] Published on Jan 04, 2018 | directorblue.blogspot.com

[Jul 15, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis HILLARY CLINTON S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evide Published on Jul 15, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

[Jul 15, 2018] Peter Strzok Ignored Evidence Of Clinton Server Breach Published on Mar 06, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

[Jan 02, 2018] What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears Published on Jan 04, 2018 | lrb.co.uk

[May 23, 2017] Trumped-up claims against Trump by Ray McGovern Published on May 17, 2017 | www.baltimoresun.com

[May 23, 2017] Are they really out to get Trump by Philip Girald Published on May 16, 2017 | www.unz.com

[Jul 12, 2016] DNI Clapper Denies Paul Ryan Request to Block Clinton From Classified Intel Briefings Published on www.nbcnews.com

Sites

Etc

Society

Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

Quotes

War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

Bulletin:

Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

History:

Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

Classic books:

The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

Most popular humor pages:

Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D

Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

Disclaimer:

The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

Last modified: November 07, 2020