Mirror Finish Polishing ~ 1-816-529-6089 ~ sales@mirrorfinishpolishing.com ~ mirrorfinishpolishing.com For the best rate on home, auto, life or business/commercial insurance call me at 888-959-0955, cell 636-734-1310 or bricehazelwood@weiss-ins.com. Never Done Garage - donewhenimdead.com Peerless Automotive Reconditioning - 1155 W. Dennis Ave, Olathe Ks, 66061 - 913-893-1201 Mark H. Epstein ~ The Epstein Law Firm, LLC ~ 913-396-5123 Wilkes Automotive ~ wilkesautomotive.com ~ 246 Marion St, Olathe, KS 66061 ~ 913-254-7171 Skandalous Inc ~ www.skandalousinc.com DIY Auto Repair Inc ~ www.diyautorepairkc.com ~ 11509 Strangline Rd, Olathe KS 66062 ~ 913-226-3806 Your advertisement here! The Law Offices of Jeremiah Johnson, LLC ~ 104 E. Poplar, Olathe, KS 66061 ~ (913)764-5010 ~ www.kcatty.com - www.johnsoncountydui.com ~ jeremiah@kcatty.com Santa Fe Body, Inc ~ 8717 Lenexa Drive, Overland Park, KS 66214 ~ (913) 894-6090 House of Boost LLC Nude? HouseofHID.com - The #1 source for HID The Print Shop KC 816.200.6694 or Ryan@RMD-Photography.com the art of tyleR ~ http://tyleR.bigcartel.com ~ TYLERcoey.com ~ MUTTtoy.com ~ MUTTtoy@gmail.com W-K Chevrolet Buick Pontiac Cadillac GMC ~ 3310 W. Broadway, Sedalia, MO 65301 ~ 800-382-5088 ~ Cell 660-553-8928 ~ dustin@wkchevy.com ~ www.wkchevy.com

Go Back   KCSR - THE Kansas City Forum > General Forums > Politics, Religion, Current Events

Reply
Thread Tools
Unread 2015-10-23, 12:46 PM   #151
Ryan H.
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Frankfort, KY
Posts: 6,451
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 85
Thanks (Received): 45
Likes (Given): 178
Likes (Received): 231
Dislikes (Given): 67
Dislikes (Received): 11
Default

Phreak, the only way what you are describing to happen is if somebody that was on a marked PC, which means it is illegal to access non marked material, to do just that.

Word of mouth can't happen because you just don't talk about info unless the other person has the clearance AND HAS A NEED TO KNOW. The system/protocols are there to prevent something like this from happening unless it is done intentionally.
Ryan H. is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2015-10-23, 12:57 PM   #152
Karlen
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 32,552
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 887
Thanks (Received): 482
Likes (Given): 4078
Likes (Received): 4371
Dislikes (Given): 99
Dislikes (Received): 169
Default

I'm waiting for Elijah Cummings to really lose his shit and call Gowdy and his clown car posse a bunch of fucking idiots. He's getting close...so close.

Also, could someone punch that Jim Jordan retard in the dick for me? Between this shit show and the PP fiasco, he's just a clueless jackass that likes to talk over people.
Karlen is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2015-10-23, 02:04 PM   #153
carlos64030
Super Moderator
 
carlos64030's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 34,090
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 391
Thanks (Received): 284
Likes (Given): 2788
Likes (Received): 1588
Dislikes (Given): 16
Dislikes (Received): 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun y View Post
dang, u mad
LOL! I was reading that post and thinking how hostile and overly vulgar it was.
__________________


One owner, 1997 WS6 Trans Am - Far from stock.
carlos64030 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2015-10-23, 02:26 PM   #154
phreakdna
 
phreakdna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Leawood
Posts: 6,872
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 161
Thanks (Received): 116
Likes (Given): 401
Likes (Received): 633
Dislikes (Given): 8
Dislikes (Received): 36
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan H. View Post
Phreak, the only way what you are describing to happen is if somebody that was on a marked PC, which means it is illegal to access non marked material, to do just that.

Word of mouth can't happen because you just don't talk about info unless the other person has the clearance AND HAS A NEED TO KNOW. The system/protocols are there to prevent something like this from happening unless it is done intentionally.
word of mouth "can't" happen? isn't the correct word "shouldn't"?

as Chairman Gowdy recently found out, people make mistakes and that can involve people sharing classified info when it shouldn't have been shared.

again, I totally accept the possibility that this is exactly what FOACAD seems to believe it is - people forwarding the JFK docs or Area 51 blueprints as attachments ... but saying that there simply isn't anyway this could have happened in a manner similar to what I described/another way I haven't thought of yet, doesn't seem to be born out by the publicly released information (that I've seen). I get that it shouldn't happen that way but when it involves the possibility of people fucking up, I believe in humanity's chance to do something stupid until I've got decent proof in another direction.

especially considering one of the things that Gowdy had alluded to previously against Clinton was the mishandling of a classified source's name and he appears to have released that same source's name in that data dump he authorized. people fuck up - if they fuck up and its against the law, charge them, but to assume the most nefarious version before all the facts are in seems naive to me.
__________________
Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ”all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocricy. - Lincoln
phreakdna is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2015-10-23, 02:55 PM   #155
FOACAD
الكافر المشرف
 
FOACAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Blue Springs
Posts: 73,834
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 10
Thanks (Received): 570
Likes (Given): 36
Likes (Received): 3831
Dislikes (Given): 27
Dislikes (Received): 148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlos64030 View Post
LOL! I was reading that post and thinking how hostile and overly vulgar it was.
Then you, like him, didn't understand the point I was making and probably didn't read phreaks post that I was exaggerating.




Phreak, like I said, the main thing right now is that running this server and the classified info that was pushed to it should never have happened. That wasn't just a simple oversight thing and if you think it was then there is no use further discussing this because you'll never sway from her side.

At a minimum there are three potential laws broken which are actually serious in the Intel community. No it isn't Area 51, faked moon landing 9/11 coverup type shit, but in the Intel world it's still a big big deal.

If you had a clearance and went through what it takes to get it, then dealt with systems like SIPR and experienced how much shit you can get into for using it improperly then maybe you would get the magnitude of this and stop trying to downplay and deflect onto others.

You keep trying to play the "well someone else made a mistake so she's ok" card and it's bullshit. She didn't just make a mistake. She over saw something that should have never ever ever happened.

Just so you know, those potential charges I listed already in this thread, which that one line of that one paragraph supports, were charges that Manning received and were convicted of and wasn't because he leaked the info. It was simply because he used an unauthorized device to pull classified information and documents from a top secret system. Because he stored classified information on an improper device (HRCs server appears to fit that according to the IC IG) he received those charges and was convicted.
FOACAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2015-10-23, 03:11 PM   #156
phreakdna
 
phreakdna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Leawood
Posts: 6,872
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 161
Thanks (Received): 116
Likes (Given): 401
Likes (Received): 633
Dislikes (Given): 8
Dislikes (Received): 36
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FOACAD View Post
Phreak, like I said, the main thing right now is that running this server and the classified info that was pushed to it should never have happened. That wasn't just a simple oversight thing and if you think it was then there is no use further discussing this because you'll never sway from her side.

At a minimum there are three potential laws broken which are actually serious in the Intel community. No it isn't Area 51, faked moon landing 9/11 coverup type shit, but in the Intel world it's still a big big deal.

If you had a clearance and went through what it takes to get it, then dealt with systems like SIPR and experienced how much shit you can get into for using it improperly then maybe you would get the magnitude of this and stop trying to downplay and deflect onto others.

You keep trying to play the "well someone else made a mistake so she's ok" card and it's bullshit. She didn't just make a mistake. She over saw something that should have never ever ever happened.

Just so you know, those potential charges I listed already in this thread, which that one line of that one paragraph supports, were charges that Manning received and were convicted of and wasn't because he leaked the info. It was simply because he used an unauthorized device to pull classified information and documents from a top secret system. Because he stored classified information on an improper device (HRCs server appears to fit that according to the IC IG) he received those charges and was convicted.
so what you're saying is that the problem is the server (which I've never said was a-okay legally, just that the information could've ended up there without some nefarious scheme) not some shadowy scheme to "knowingly distribute(sic) classified information with markings intentionally stripped from them"?

if so, then what in the hell have you been fighting me about for two days? I never said the server wasn't a potential issue (I probably inferred/said that its a crappy one to nail her on since Jeb did it in Florida, Colin Powell did it as SoS, a majority of the Bush WH staff used private emails to avoid records laws, etc but that's a predominantly political, not legal, argument).

you've been yelling about documents with markings removed when I continually have come back at you asking for any kind of public information that doesn't allow for the possibility that the classified info found on her server wasn't a document without markings but rather was classified info that shouldn't have been there. the two documents from the IC IG both allow for the possibility that its classified info improperly shared, not just classified documents that someone removed classified markings from...
__________________
Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ”all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocricy. - Lincoln
phreakdna is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2015-10-23, 03:25 PM   #157
shaun y
Mr 49er
 
shaun y's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: الكافر المشرف
Posts: 15,787
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 164
Thanks (Received): 142
Likes (Given): 3421
Likes (Received): 1009
Dislikes (Given): 187
Dislikes (Received): 144
Default

This shit is too annoying for me to keep track of anymore.

What is the big deal from all this, is it the way Clinton relayed this information, or was it who she was giving it to that was the big ordeal?

It just seems to me like if this were some Petraeus situation, something would have come out by now about her giving away secrets to fuckbuddies and cronies. All I have heard though is how she was sending emails from her personal account or whatever.

So was she sending this shit to people that were ok to send it to, just did it in an inappropriate manner?

This is fucking gay.
__________________
shaun y is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2015-10-23, 06:18 PM   #158
carlos64030
Super Moderator
 
carlos64030's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 34,090
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 391
Thanks (Received): 284
Likes (Given): 2788
Likes (Received): 1588
Dislikes (Given): 16
Dislikes (Received): 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun y View Post
This shit is too annoying for me to keep track of anymore.

What is the big deal from all this, is it the way Clinton relayed this information, or was it who she was giving it to that was the big ordeal?

It just seems to me like if this were some Petraeus situation, something would have come out by now about her giving away secrets to fuckbuddies and cronies. All I have heard though is how she was sending emails from her personal account or whatever.

So was she sending this shit to people that were ok to send it to, just did it in an inappropriate manner?

This is fucking gay.
Well, it's kind of a big deal given the fact that you probably shouldn't be receiving classified info on a private, UNAPPROVED server. Then you throw into the mix that said server was setup to allow users to openly connect to it via the interwebs and control it remotely without having to use any secure credentials. I also remember reading something a while back about a Serbian hacker having scanned Clinton's server twice at the very least.
__________________


One owner, 1997 WS6 Trans Am - Far from stock.
carlos64030 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2015-10-23, 06:51 PM   #159
Karlen
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 32,552
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 887
Thanks (Received): 482
Likes (Given): 4078
Likes (Received): 4371
Dislikes (Given): 99
Dislikes (Received): 169
Default

Lol. You think just anyone could go to www.Hillary Clinton email.com and see classified emails?
Karlen is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2015-10-23, 07:51 PM   #160
carlos64030
Super Moderator
 
carlos64030's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 34,090
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 391
Thanks (Received): 284
Likes (Given): 2788
Likes (Received): 1588
Dislikes (Given): 16
Dislikes (Received): 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karlen View Post
Lol. You think just anyone could go to www.Hillary Clinton email.com and see classified emails?
Of course not, but it goes beyond that...
__________________


One owner, 1997 WS6 Trans Am - Far from stock.
carlos64030 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2015-10-23, 08:03 PM   #161
Karlen
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 32,552
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 887
Thanks (Received): 482
Likes (Given): 4078
Likes (Received): 4371
Dislikes (Given): 99
Dislikes (Received): 169
Default

Oh. Go on.
Karlen is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2015-11-09, 12:14 PM   #162
phreakdna
 
phreakdna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Leawood
Posts: 6,872
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 161
Thanks (Received): 116
Likes (Given): 401
Likes (Received): 633
Dislikes (Given): 8
Dislikes (Received): 36
Default

HUGE DISCLAIMER:
This report is based on an anonymous source - as such, it should be viewed with a deer-sized salt lick until more comes out. However, given that most of the condemnations (up to and including the high crimes convictions) were also based on anonymous sources, it seems worth a read:


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...ssified-215599
Quote:
Source: Key Clinton emails did not contain highly classified secrets - 'The initial determination was based on a flawed process,' a source says.

The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top-secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

After a review, intelligence agencies concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets, the source said. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an ongoing FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email setup.

Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III made the claim that two of the emails contained top-secret information; the State Department publicly stated its disagreement and asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office to referee the dispute. Now, that disagreement has been resolved in State’s favor, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

A spokesman for Clapper said the review of the emails has not been completed. "ODNI has made no such determination and the review is ongoing," Clapper spokesman Brian Hale said.

However, the source said State Department officials had already received instructions from intelligence officials that they need not use the strictest standards for handling the two emails in dispute – meaning that they aren’t highly classified.

Hale declined to comment on whether any changes had been made in recent days to the handling requirements for the disputed emails.

Intelligence officials claimed one email in Clinton’s account was classified because it contained information from a top-secret intelligence community “product” or report, but a further review determined that the report was not issued until several days after the email in question was written, the source said.

"The initial determination was based on a flawed process," the source said. "There was an intelligence product people thought [one of the emails] was based on, but that actually postdated the email in question."

A senior intelligence official told POLITICO last month that the disputes over the classification of Clinton's emails would take some time to adjudicate. "The process is ongoing and is likely to be a lengthy one due to the volume of material and the litigation aspects," said the official, who asked not be named.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said Friday he was unaware of any resolution of the classification issue regarding the messages McCullough's office said had been deemed "top secret."

"As far as I know we’ve received no final decision by the intelligence community with respect to these two emails," Kirby said at a daily briefing for reporters. "As far as we know, that process is ongoing."

One curious twist to the classification dispute is that it is not entirely clear who has authority to resolve it. State spokesmen have repeatedly said that the diplomatic agency has asked Clapper's office to review the issue, but the intelligence chief's office has never acknowledged the power to override an intelligence agency's determination on classification or to order State not to release information it considers unclassified.

There is an interagency committee to hear appeals on declassification issues, the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel. The group, run out of an office at the National Archives, usually considers disputes about historical information. Kirby said Friday he was unsure whether that panel was involved in the current dispute or why State raised its concerns with Clapper's office instead.

A top expert in classification procedures called the reported determination about the disputed emails "an astonishing turn of events."

"It's not just a mistake," Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists said of the initial "Top Secret" claim. "It was a transformative event in the presidential campaign to this point. It had a potential to derail Clinton's presidential candidacy."

Aftergood said Clapper's office should be credited for seriously reconsidering the earlier conclusions by intelligence agencies.

"Usually, when an agency commits itself to a judgment that is this consequential, the agency will tend to dig in its heels and insist — no matter what — it was right. What's unusual here is an agency said we reconsidered and we changed our mind. That's a difficult thing to do, and they're liable to be attacked for doing it," Aftergood said.

A spokesman for Clinton's presidential campaign welcomed the reported development, while allies said the news vindicates her.

"The inspector general’s determination always seemed arbitrary and questionable, and we are grateful that it appears the DNI may be confirming that," spokesman Brian Fallon said. "This would illustrate the subjective nature of the classification rules that are at the heart of this matter."

"DNI Clapper’s determination is further evidence that there was no wrongdoing by Secretary Clinton," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). "The classification process is complex and subjective, but this confirms Secretary Clinton did not send classified information through her email account. It’s time to put this issue behind us and move on.”

In an Aug. 11 memo to 17 lawmakers, McCullough said the two emails "include information classified up to TOP SECRET//SI/TK/NOFORN." The subject of the emails has never been publicly confirmed, but published reports have said one refers to North Korea's nuclear program and another to U.S. drone operations. The acronym "SI" in the classification marking refers to "signals intelligence," and a footnote in McCullough's memo references the work of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, which oversees U.S. spy satellites.

Kirby said in September that the agency believed State officials got some of the information in the disputed emails from sources different from the highly sensitive sources used by intelligence agencies.

"One thing that’s important to remember is that very often the State Department and the intelligence community acquire information from separate channels, and thus there can be more than one report about a certain issue or an event. And some of those reports can be derived wholly through unclassified means, and some are derived through classified means," Kirby told reporters.

Various officials have confirmed that none of the Clinton emails was marked classified, although hundreds have now been deemed as such by State, nearly all at the Confidential level — the lowest tier of classification.

McCullough's August memo said Congress would be provided "updates" on the situation. However, it's unclear whether any written notification of the withdrawal of the "Top Secret" classification has been shared with lawmakers. A spokeswoman had no immediate comment for this story.

State or other agencies may eventually determine that the emails in question contain classified information, but the recent action cleared State to handle the two emails in State's standard FOIA system, which is authorized only for information classified up to the "Secret" level — the middle of the three main tiers of national security information.

The two emails are part of a set of four emails McCullough's investigators flagged after obtaining access earlier this year to a sample of 40 emails among the 30,000 Clinton stored on a private server and provided to her former agency last December. "My office's limited sampling of 40 of the emails revealed [that] four contained classified [intelligence community] information that should have been marked and handled at the SECRET level," McCullough wrote to lawmakers on July 23.

Concerns about the four emails McCullough's investigators isolated appear to have set in motion a series of critical events in the email saga. State stepped up its efforts to have Clinton's private attorney David Kendall return thumb drives.

State decided back in May that one email in the Clinton collection contained "Secret" information about arrests possibly linked to the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi. At that time, Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy asked Kendall to delete all copies of that email and return all paper copies to the department. Kendall declined to delete the electronic copies because of outstanding preservation requests from inspectors general and congressional committees.

However, the classification of that email as secret did not set off the scramble that began in late July when the intelligence inspector general flagged the set of four from the sample of 40. The flagging of those four emails by the ICIG led to a formal referral to the FBI of a potential counterintelligence breach.

Within days, the FBI contacted Kendall asking him to turn over the thumb drive, which he did in early August. On July 31, Kennedy also sent urgent letters to lawyers for two top Clinton aides, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, asking that all the federal records in their possession be immediately returned to the government, along with all copies.

FBI Director James Comey has since confirmed his agency is conducting a review of the matter. An FBI spokeswoman declined to comment when asked what impact the classification developments would have on the agency's ongoing probe.

While disclosures of information classified at the "Secret" level can trigger an investigation, Aftergood said the conclusion that the two emails were not "Top Secret" could have some impact on how the FBI proceeds.

"That would tend to reduce the urgency of the initial referral," he said.
time will tell how this plays out but its interesting how little play this report got in the news and on the Sunday shows yesterday. it could just be that other news media think Politico's story/source is shit but its always interesting how the retract never seems to get as much coverage as the accusation.
__________________
Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ”all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocricy. - Lincoln
phreakdna is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-01-20, 02:15 PM   #163
FOACAD
الكافر المشرف
 
FOACAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Blue Springs
Posts: 73,834
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 10
Thanks (Received): 570
Likes (Given): 36
Likes (Received): 3831
Dislikes (Given): 27
Dislikes (Received): 148
Default

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...ret-ig-n499886

Quote:
Emails from Hillary Clinton's home server contained information classified at levels higher than previously known, including a level meant to protect some of the most sensitive U.S. intelligence, according to a document obtained by NBC News.

In a letter to lawmakers, the intelligence community's internal watchdog says some of Clinton's emails contained information classified Top Secret/Special Access Program, a secrecy designation that includes some of the most closely held U.S. intelligence matters.

Two American intelligence officials tell NBC News these are not the same two emails from Clinton's server that have long been reported as containing information deemed Top Secret.
IG report saying some pretty damning things.

Of course Hilarys team responded by saying this is just some republican conspiracy that's all bullshit. Same old story even with new info. If it's a conspiracy then the Obama pick for IG is in on it now as well as the FBI and the entire intelligence community working on this.

If this was anyone else lower down the chain they would have been indicted by now. She thinks this is a witch hunt against her but it's really her position and how close to the top she is that's keeping her out of jail.

Last edited by FOACAD; 2016-01-20 at 02:17 PM..
FOACAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-01-20, 03:59 PM   #164
77Nova
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 645
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 5
Thanks (Received): 16
Likes (Given): 23
Likes (Received): 85
Dislikes (Given): 0
Dislikes (Received): 0
Default

Yup. Sounds about right.

Sometimes I wonder what it would actually take to indict her... Probably never happen regardless of what they find.
77Nova is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-01-20, 04:17 PM   #165
Keboh
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Overland Park
Posts: 13,892
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 213
Thanks (Received): 254
Likes (Given): 2549
Likes (Received): 1709
Dislikes (Given): 24
Dislikes (Received): 47
Default

She should burn for this shit. We all know she won't, but goddamn is it scary that one of the most likely people to lead the free world next year was committing such high crimes, and that really doesn't seem to bother a lot of her supporters.
Keboh is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-01-20, 04:23 PM   #166
FOACAD
الكافر المشرف
 
FOACAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Blue Springs
Posts: 73,834
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 10
Thanks (Received): 570
Likes (Given): 36
Likes (Received): 3831
Dislikes (Given): 27
Dislikes (Received): 148
Default

The worst part imo, well there are a lot of "worst parts", but one that bugs me most is that her servers were wiped hundreds of times to delete and cover up anything. What they are finding is just tiny pieces of the whole.

So if they are still able to find emails containing information so classified that even the IG had to be read on for then what isn't being found but was there at one point?

This should be getting way more coverage but she's on the wrong side of the aisles for this to be a major issue.
FOACAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-01-20, 04:28 PM   #167
Keboh
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Overland Park
Posts: 13,892
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 213
Thanks (Received): 254
Likes (Given): 2549
Likes (Received): 1709
Dislikes (Given): 24
Dislikes (Received): 47
Default

I agree... partially because I would love for her to get bulldozed and Bernie to get the Dem spot in the upcoming election .
Keboh is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-01-20, 04:36 PM   #168
FOACAD
الكافر المشرف
 
FOACAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Blue Springs
Posts: 73,834
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 10
Thanks (Received): 570
Likes (Given): 36
Likes (Received): 3831
Dislikes (Given): 27
Dislikes (Received): 148
Default

That might be the only reason the administration isn't taking her out is because she's the front runner. If she wins and they indict her then they shoot themselves in the foot and lose the general.

If Bernie starts picking up states and seems like he might win then the justice dept might issue the kill shot with an indictment.
FOACAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-01-20, 04:41 PM   #169
Keboh
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Overland Park
Posts: 13,892
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 213
Thanks (Received): 254
Likes (Given): 2549
Likes (Received): 1709
Dislikes (Given): 24
Dislikes (Received): 47
Default

I think you're right. Hilldog is the DNC's perfect little poster child. It's disgusting how strongly they are blindly backing her. They have everything invested in her being in the next presidential election. If she starts losing favor, or Bernie starts taking over, I don't know if they would definitely throw her under the bus; they are pot committed at this point. If they do decide that Bernie may turn out to have a better chance of winning though, it wouldn't be too surprising if they turn her out to the wolves. God willing.
Keboh is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-01-20, 05:29 PM   #170
FOACAD
الكافر المشرف
 
FOACAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Blue Springs
Posts: 73,834
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 10
Thanks (Received): 570
Likes (Given): 36
Likes (Received): 3831
Dislikes (Given): 27
Dislikes (Received): 148
Default

My guess is if she starts to tank then they will indict and rush the process so that they can pardon her before Obama leaves office.
FOACAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-01-21, 10:10 AM   #171
evilpoptart
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Michael Jackson's House
Posts: 2,710
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 18
Thanks (Received): 78
Likes (Given): 167
Likes (Received): 491
Dislikes (Given): 5
Dislikes (Received): 15
Default

Weeeeeeee!!!
__________________
Poops on baby changing stations...
evilpoptart is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-03-03, 12:41 PM   #172
JDLM
Schutzstaffel
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Olathe
Posts: 167,182
Post Thanks / Like
Default

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer

A former aide to Hillary Clinton has been granted immunity in a criminal investigation, and the FBI is expected to question Clinton herself soon.




Esam Al-Fetori / Brian Snyder / Gary Cameron / Jim Young / Reuters / Brennan Linsley / Susan Walsh / AP / razihusin / Shutterstock Zak Bickel

All of Hillary Clinton’s emails are out there. Now, how bad will the fallout be?
On Monday, the State Department released the last batch of Clinton’s messages when she was secretary of state—a total of around 30,000. And late Wednesday, The Washington Post reported that the Justice Department has granted immunity to a former Clinton staffer to work with investigators, an indication of progress in the criminal case over the emails. Bryan Pagliano, the staffer, helped Clinton set up a server in her home in New York, which she used for her emails while running the State Department. Pagliano previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when called to testify by congressional committees. A spokesman said the Clinton campaign was “pleased” that Pagliano was cooperating, though what else are they going to say?
Clinton herself is likely to be questioned by the FBI sometime in the next few weeks. The Post reports:
As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents will likely 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.
Obviously this is not good news for Clinton. The question is just how bad it is.
Clinton is effectively fighting a two-front war. On one side, she’s running a political campaign for president. On the other, she’s working to defend herself against charges of wrongdoing in the email investigation, since criminal charges could effectively doom her campaign. The latest developments in the email case come just as things were starting to look good on the political side—Clinton has hit her stride in recent primaries and seems to have a solid edge over Bernie Sanders, her rival for the Democratic nomination.
What isn’t clear yet is who might face criminal charges: Clinton? Other aides? No one at all? There’s not yet any evidence of a grand jury being convened to handle the investigation.
The case of David Petraeus, the former CIA director who it was one speculated might run against Clinton, looms over the case, and its impact is unclear. The Post reports that Petraeus’s wrongdoing is seen as worse, and since he got off with a light sentence of two years’ probation and a $100,000 fine, officials felt it would be hard to go after Clinton. But Petraeus’s escape angered some in the Justice Department and FBI who alleged political interference, adding to the scrutiny in this case and the pressure for an independent process. The final decision rests with Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
The fact that Clinton was using a private server for her work email emerged in the course of the investigation into the September 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, which killed four Americans. None of the content of the emails so far has been especially damning about Benghazi or anything else—though there are some embarrassing moments, including Clinton’s seeming technological ignorance and the flattery of friends like Sidney Blumenthal. But a total of 65 emails were not released because they contain information classified “secret.” Clinton and her aides insist she did not send any classified information, and that anything that is now secret had its classification changed later. Others, including the inspector general for the Intelligence Community, have disagreed.
The emails have become a classic Clinton scandal. Even though investigations have found no wrongdoing on her part with respect to the Benghazi attacks themselves, Clinton’s private-email use and concerns about whether she sent classified information have become huge stories unto themselves. This is a pattern with the Clinton family, which has been in the public spotlight since Bill Clinton’s first run for office, in 1974: Something that appears potentially scandalous on its face turns out to be innocuous, but an investigation into it reveals different questionable behavior. The canonical case is Whitewater, a failed real-estate investment Bill and Hillary Clinton made in 1978. While no inquiry ever produced evidence of wrongdoing, investigations ultimately led to President Clinton’s impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice.
With Hillary Clinton leading the field for the Democratic nomination for president, every Clinton scandal—from Whitewater to the State Department emails—will be under the microscope. (No other American politicians—even ones as corrupt as Richard Nixon, or as hated by partisans as George W. Bush—have fostered the creation of a permanent multimillion-dollar cottage industry devoted to attacking them.) Keeping track of each controversy, where it came from, and how serious it is, is no small task, so here’s a primer. We’ll update it as new information emerges.
Clinton’s State Department Emails
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton checks her phone on board a plane from Malta to Tripoli, Libya. (Kevin Lamarque / Reuters / Zak Bickel / The Atlantic)What? Setting aside the question of the Clintons’ private email server, what’s actually in the emails that Clinton did turn over to State? While some of the emails related to Benghazi have been released, there are plenty of others covered by public-records laws that haven’t.
When? 2009-2013
How serious is it? Serious. Initially, it seemed that the interest in the emails would stem from damaging things that Clinton or other aides had said: cover-ups, misrepresentations, who knows? But so far, other than some cringeworthy moments of sucking up and some eye-rolly emails from contacts like Sidney Blumenthal, the emails have been remarkably boring. The main focus now is on classification. Sixty-five emails contain information that is now classified. The question is whether any of it, and how much of it, was classified at the time it was sent. Clinton has said she didn’t knowingly send or receive classified material on the account. The State Department and Intelligence Community have disagreed about that. In addition, the Intelligence Community’s inspector general wrote in a January letter that Clinton’s server contained information marked “special access program,” higher even than top secret. Some emails that Clinton didn’t turn over have also since surfaced.
Benghazi
A man celebrates as the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi burns on September 11, 2012. (Esam Al-Fetori / Reuters / Zak Bickel / The Atlantic)What? On September 11, 2012, attackers overran a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Since then, Republicans have charged that Hillary Clinton failed to adequately protect U.S. installations or that she attempted to spin the attacks as spontaneous when she knew they were planned terrorist operations. She testifies for the first time on October 22.
When? September 11, 2012-present
How serious is it? Benghazi has gradually turned into a classic “it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup” scenario. Only the fringes argue, at this point, that Clinton deliberately withheld aid. A House committee continues to investigate the killings and aftermath, but Clinton’s marathon appearance before the committee in October was widely considered a win for her. However, it was through the Benghazi investigations that Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server became public—a controversy that remains potent.
__________________
B68 | F82 |///M | S55B | NAV | LED | LKSW | S2MKA | S2VBA | S2VFA | S322A | S3AGA | S493A | S4MCA | S502A |
JDLM is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-03-03, 12:41 PM   #173
JDLM
Schutzstaffel
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Olathe
Posts: 167,182
Post Thanks / Like
Default

Conflicts of Interest in Foggy Bottom
Kevin Lamarque / Reuters / Zak Bickel / The AtlanticWhat? Before becoming Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills worked for Clinton on an unpaid basis for four month while also working for New York University, in which capacity she negotiated on the school’s behalf with the government of Abu Dhabi, where it was building a campus. In June 2012, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin’s status at State changed to “special government employee,” allowing her to also work for Teneo, a consulting firm run by Bill Clinton’s former right-hand man. She also earned money from the Clinton Foundation and was paid directly by Hillary Clinton.
Who? Both Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin are among Clinton’s longest-serving and closest aides. Abedin remains involved in her campaign (and she’s also married to Anthony Weiner).
When? January 2009-February 2013
How serious is it? This is arcane stuff, to be sure. There are questions about conflict of interest—such as whether Teneo clients might have benefited from special treatment by the State Department while Abedin worked for both. To a great extent, this is just an extension of the tangle of conflicts presented by the Clinton Foundation and the many overlapping roles of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
The Clintons’ Private Email Server
Jim Young / Reuters / Zak Bickel / The AtlanticWhat? During the course of the Benghazi investigation, New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt learned Clinton had used a personal email account while secretary of state. It turned out she had also been using a private server, located at a house in New York. The result was that Clinton and her staff decided which emails to turn over to the State Department as public records and which to withhold; they say they then destroyed the ones they had designated as personal.
When? 2009-2013, during Clinton’s term as secretary.
Who? Hillary Clinton; Bill Clinton; top aides including Huma Abedin
How serious is it? It looks more serious all the time. The rules governing use of personal emails are murky, and Clinton aides insist she followed the rules. There’s no dispositive evidence otherwise so far. The greater political problem for Clinton is it raises questions about how she selected the emails she turned over and what was in the ones she deleted. The FBI has reportedly managed to recover some of the deleted correspondence. Could the server have been hacked? Some of the emails she received on her personal account are marked sensitive. Plus there’s a entirely different set of questions about Clinton’s State Department emails. The FBI is investigating the security of the server as well as the safety of a thumb drive belonging to her lawyer that contains copies of her emails. And the AP reports that the setup may have made the server vulnerable to hacking. Given the shabby state of State Department cybersecurity, she might not have been any better off using the official system.
Sidney Blumenthal
Blumenthal takes a lunch break while being deposed in private session of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. (Jonathan Ernst / Reuters / Zak Bickel / The Atlantic)What? A former journalist, Blumenthal was a top aide in the second term of the Bill Clinton administration and helped on messaging during the bad old days. He served as an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and when she took over the State Department, she sought to hire Blumenthal. Obama aides, apparently still smarting over his role in attacks on candidate Obama, refused the request, so Clinton just sought out his counsel informally. At the same time, Blumenthal was drawing a check from the Clinton Foundation.
When? 2009-2013
How serious is it? Some of the damage is already done. Blumenthal was apparently the source of the idea that the Benghazi attacks were spontaneous, a notion that proved incorrect and provided a political bludgeon against Clinton and Obama. He also advised the secretary on a wide range of other issues, from Northern Ireland to China, and passed along analysis from his son Max, a staunch critic of the Israeli government (and conservative bête noire). But emails released so far show even Clinton’s top foreign-policy guru, Jake Sullivan, rejecting Blumenthal’s analysis, raising questions about her judgment in trusting him.
__________________
B68 | F82 |///M | S55B | NAV | LED | LKSW | S2MKA | S2VBA | S2VFA | S322A | S3AGA | S493A | S4MCA | S502A |
JDLM is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-03-03, 12:41 PM   #174
JDLM
Schutzstaffel
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Olathe
Posts: 167,182
Post Thanks / Like
Default

The Speeches
Keith Bedford / Reuters / Zak Bickel / The AtlanticWhat? Since Bill Clinton left the White House in 2001, both Clintons have made millions of dollars for giving speeches.
When? 2001-present
Who? Hillary Clinton; Bill Clinton; Chelsea Clinton
How serious is it? Intermittently dangerous. It has a tendency to flare up, then die down. Senator Bernie Sanders made it a useful attack against her in early 2016, suggesting that by speaking to banks like Goldman Sachs, she was compromised. There have been calls for Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches, which she was declined to do, saying if every other candidate does, she will too. For the Clintons, who left the White House up to their ears in legal debt, lucrative speeches—mostly by the former president—proved to be an effective way of rebuilding wealth. They have also been an effective magnet for prying questions. Where did Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton speak? How did they decide how much to charge? What did they say? How did they decide which speeches would be given on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, with fees going to the charity, and which would be treated as personal income? Are there cases of conflicts of interest or quid pro quos—for example, speaking gigs for Bill Clinton on behalf of clients who had business before the State Department?
The Clinton Foundation
A brooch for sale at the Clinton Museum Store in Little Rock, Arkansas (Lucy Nicholson / Reuters / Zak Bickel / The Atlantic)What? Bill Clinton’s foundation was actually established in 1997, but after leaving the White House it became his primary vehicle for … well, everything. With projects ranging from public health to elephant-poaching protection and small-business assistance to child development, the foundation is a huge global player with several prominent offshoots. In 2013, following Hillary Clinton’s departure as secretary of State, it was renamed the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
When? 1997-present
Who? Bill Clinton; Hillary Clinton; Chelsea Clinton, etc.
How serious is it? If the Clinton Foundation’s strength is President Clinton’s endless intellectual omnivorousness, its weakness is the distractibility and lack of interest in detail that sometimes come with it. On a philanthropic level, the foundation gets decent ratings from outside review groups, though critics charge that it’s too diffuse to do much good, that the money has not always achieved what it was intended to, and that in some cases the money doesn’t seem to have achieved its intended purpose. The foundation made errors in its tax returns it has to correct. Overall, however, the essential questions about the Clinton Foundation come down to two, related issues. The first is the seemingly unavoidable conflicts of interest: How did the Clintons’ charitable work intersect with their for-profit speeches? How did their speeches intersect with Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department? Were there quid-pro-quos involving U.S. policy? The second, connected question is about disclosure. When Clinton became secretary, she agreed that the foundation would make certain disclosures, which it’s now clear it didn’t always do. And the looming questions about Clinton’s State Department emails make it harder to answer those questions.
The Bad Old Days
Supporter Dick Furinash holds up cardboard cut-outs of Bill and Hillary Clinton. (Jim Young / Reuters / Zak Bickel / The Atlantic)What is it? Since the Clintons have a long history of controversies, there are any number of past scandals that continue to float around, especially in conservative media: Whitewater. Troopergate. Paula Jones. Monica Lewinsky. Vince Foster. Juanita Broaddrick.
When? 1975-2001
Who? Bill Clinton; Hillary Clinton; a brigade of supporting characters
How serious is it? The conventional wisdom is that they’re not terribly dangerous. Some are wholly spurious (Foster). Others (Lewinsky, Whitewater) have been so exhaustively investigated it’s hard to imagine them doing much further damage to Hillary Clinton’s standing. In fact, the Lewinsky scandal famously boosted her public approval ratings. But the January 2016 resurfacing of Juanita Broaddrick’s rape allegations offers a test case to see whether the conventional wisdom is truly wise—or just conventional.
__________________
B68 | F82 |///M | S55B | NAV | LED | LKSW | S2MKA | S2VBA | S2VFA | S322A | S3AGA | S493A | S4MCA | S502A |
JDLM is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-03-09, 03:07 PM   #175
JDLM
Schutzstaffel
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Olathe
Posts: 167,182
Post Thanks / Like
Default

Clinton emails: GOP sues, senators press attorney general



(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik). Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, center, flanked by the committee's ranking member Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., right, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, questions Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
By MICHAEL BIESECKER and ERIC TUCKER
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican senators pressed for more information Wednesday about an FBI investigation into the potential mishandling of sensitive information that passed through former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server, and their party sued for copies of the messages.



The Republican National Committee filed two lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Washington over access to electronic messages sent or received by the Democratic presidential candidate and her top aides during her time as the nation's top diplomat.


Both spring from Freedom of Information Act requests filed last year seeking copies of emails and text messages. In court filings, the GOP says it has not received any documents in response to the requests.


The GOP litigation brings the total to at least 34 civil suits so far involving requests for federal records related to Clinton's service as secretary of state between 2009 and 2013. The Associated Press is among those with a pending case at the Washington courthouse.


"For too long the State Department has undermined the public and the media's legitimate right to records under the Freedom of Information Act, and it's time it complies with the law," said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.


The State Department has released more than 52,000 pages of Clinton's work-related emails, but her private lawyers have withheld thousands more that they deemed to be personal communications unrelated to her job. Also left unresolved are questions about how Clinton and her closest aides handled classified information.


The AP last year discovered Clinton's use of the private email server, which had been set up in the basement of Clinton's New York home by former State Department staffer Bryan Pagliano, for her to use exclusively for her work-related emails while she was secretary.


The FBI for months has investigated whether sensitive information that flowed through Clinton's email server was mishandled. The State Department has acknowledged that some emails included classified information, including at the top-secret level. Clinton has said she never sent or received anything that was marked classified at the time.
The inspectors general at the State Department and for U.S. intelligence agencies are separately investigating whether rules or laws were broken.


Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Attorney General Lynch on Wednesday about media reports that the Justice Department had offered Pagliano immunity from criminal prosecution in exchange for his cooperation. Pagliano previously declined to testify before Congress, citing his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, the committee chairman, asked Lynch whether Pagliano's immunity offer carried over to congressional committees. Grassley, R-Iowa, wants to recall Pagliano to testify if he has received immunity.
Lynch declined to answer the question.


"We don't go into details with the agreements that we have with any witness on any matter in ongoing investigations," the attorney general said.


"The consistency with which the department handles ongoing matters, whether they involve a famous last name (or not), is something that we take very seriously," Lynch said. "We treat them the same, and that is how the public takes confidence in the investigations we conduct."
Lynch also said she had not discussed the email investigation with anyone at the White House and did not plan to do so.


__________________
B68 | F82 |///M | S55B | NAV | LED | LKSW | S2MKA | S2VBA | S2VFA | S322A | S3AGA | S493A | S4MCA | S502A |
JDLM is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:14 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.13.37
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright (c) 1993-2012, KCSR.org