Clinton's email excuses are falling apart

[Patroklos]

I would point out there are significantly more charitable possible interpretations such as if the talking points were created by the State Department in the first place, Hillary could have subsequently established in conversations outside the email chain with other staff that the contents did not actually need to be classified after all, so that's why she issued in instruction in the email. In that case the fault was being sloppy in explaining the reasons it was acceptable to be removing the markings in the email, but its certainly likely she didn't expect her emails to be looked at with a microscope at this point in her career.

This is not something Hillary gets to do, especially when a State is not the sole stake holder for that information and especially since State is rarely the classifying authority for information. They use a lot of classified information, they don't generate a lot of it relative to say the Pentagon or the NSA. They are not developing jet fighters or practicing ELINT for instance.but they use information from both of those in their work for say negotiating military sales or using collected inside info during negotiations. Using does not equal owning

[Gaidin]

They do have a whole damn agency in the intelligence community. Whether they're the classifying authority and how often and on what type of information is...debatable.

[Patroklos]

If you are referring to the INR it has 313 employees all told. That's compared to just the CIA's 21500. My characterization was generous to State.

[Exonerate]

I would point out there are significantly more charitable possible interpretations such as if the talking points were created by the State Department in the first place, Hillary could have subsequently established in conversations outside the email chain with other staff that the contents did not actually need to be classified after all, so that's why she issued in instruction in the email. In that case the fault was being sloppy in explaining the reasons it was acceptable to be removing the markings in the email, but its certainly likely she didn't expect her emails to be looked at with a microscope at this point in her career.

Even if there was a determination made that the info did not have to be classified, there are criteria and procedures to declassify material and there should be some paper trail to follow. Furthermore, all this presumes that the material in question originated from the State Department. Some other articles I've read claimed things like SIGINT were found in her emails - those are things she has no authority to declassify.

An alternate key point is its not at all clear the information was sent, so she could have simply gotten a response back on why it would be a bad idea and dropped it, which brings up the question if the email would actually show anything illegal regardless of your interpretation of its actual contents. Its certainly safe to say at a minimum a boss making an improper request of the method to transmit classified data is certainly not ordinarily prosecuted if no transmission actually occurs unless evidence surfaces that the goal of the transmission was to let the Russians access the data or something. (At least they would have to generally persist after being specifically told why it could not be done.) Yes depending on the details it certainly could represent bad judgement, and it could theoretically represent evidence to help establish a pattern of misconduct in a criminal case where other evidence is going to be more crucial, but the most incriminating interpretations do require a degree of speculation since we don't actually have the full details.

I would be interested in seeing any other examples of this occurring from Patroklos since this is the specific instance I am aware of.

It is simply not believable that the Secretary of State would need to be reminded that an illegal order is a bad idea. This isn't bad judgment, it's flat out disregard for rules. If your argument is "I instructed my staff to do something illegal but I'm innocent because they didn't do it!", I think you're on pretty damn thin ice.

[Gaidin]

If you are referring to the INR it has 313 employees all told. That's compared to just the CIA's 21500. My characterization was generous to State.

That doesn't mean they don't come up with their own damn intel. Because, after all, there's information THIS WOMAN has the Right coming after her for ala her email that by some legal nature is by default supposedly classified(I'm hardly versed) and yet here she is using this server. Who the hell knows then how they do this kind of contact then. But by THAT information's very nature the State Department has it's own intel that I'm pretty damn sure that other part's of the government would like to have for it's own purposes at times.

[Patroklos]

Did someone say State doesn't generate their own intel? I sure didn't. Pointing out that State produces relatively little intel is not the same thing as saying they produce no intel. The point is that State's own intel is a small portion of the classified information State uses, which means they are not likely to be the classification authority for most of what Clinton used on a day to day basis. Which is a good thing, because if the Secretary of State was relying on her 313 people to provide the intel for all the diplomacy of this country that would be extremely stupid.

As to her server, it having classified information was only part of the problem. You need to remember what information is classified or sensitive. The simply whereabouts of Hillary at any given time can be either or both. Knowing her daily routine is at the very least sensitive. It gets that nitty gritty. So even without going into the top rope TS:SCI obvious breaches of national security, most of the day to day activity you probably would brush off as irrelevant is actually OPSEC at the very least. Just for reference, the invoice I use to buy toilet paper for a ship might get me fired if an inspector found it in a non shred trash can as it might give insight, however small, into a ships operational schedule. People fail inspections for something that small all the time. People got fired. As I mentioned earlier junior sailors go to mast all the time for letting details of the next port visit slip in emails back home. Ships go into communications lockdown for weeks over such incidents. Good luck trying to explain that to your wife after she inexplicably doesn't hear from you for weeks. Good times.

[Lonestar]

Wasn't the specific law in question not passed until after she stepped down as Secretary of State? Because that was the explanation I'd heard.

It had a policy with the affect of law. If a normal scrub did that they wouldbhave gotten in deep trouble.

Clinton can't even pretend that she didn't know this was accepted Policy, after he was elected Obama was whining about how "they" weren't letting him use his Blackberry anymore. If POTUS listens to his Security Manager, why not Clinton? The obvious answer is that Clinton wouldn't take "you can't do that" for an answer... Or at least cultivated an environment where no one was willing to tell her that.

It really burns my ass how many people are twisting in order to defend this. You know what would happen if I did that, even if it was relatively innocuous? I'd lose my clearance, job, face fines, and possibly face jailtime. But because it's HRC she's being given a pass.

[Thanas]

Yeah, this is very unprofessional on her part.

[Gaidin]

I more get the feeling people just don't give a damn because they'd still prefer her over Bernie in spite of.

[The Romulan Republic]

I more get the feeling people just don't give a damn because they'd still prefer her over Bernie in spite of.

Bernie has a hell of a lot of popular support. Not overwhelming, at least not yet, but more than you're giving him credit for.

But their's still that lingering pathological fear of socialism in American politics. Plus Clinton has a certain number of die-hard supporters among the establishment Democrats and probably those who just want a female President.

[Ace Pace]

I more get the feeling people just don't give a damn because they'd still prefer her over Bernie in spite of.

Bernie has a hell of a lot of popular support. Not overwhelming, at least not yet, but more than you're giving him credit for.

But their's still that lingering pathological fear of socialism in American politics. Plus Clinton has a certain number of die-hard supporters among the establishment Democrats and probably those who just want a female President.

I'm going to repeat asking this. Is there "a hell of a lot" of popular support outside the white internet? Is there popular support among blacks? Old union workers? Other non liberal traditional Democrat voting groups?

[Gaidin]

Well, let me put it this way. For the federal elected offices there's no constitutional requirement for a clean record. Just the age, citizenship, living location(as such), and the vote(as defined). If she plays it correctly, this shit just won't matter. And that just can't be stressed enough. Sure, it might be a political football between her and the legislature. But legally, it just doesn't exist. Because why? Because the people said "We don't give a fuck." Now, two way streets are two way streets and the government is often self policing(see political football). As Congress, if it views it as big enough, can and has expelled members, or at least muscled them out via resignation(see link to Grimm). If it doesn't, it'll look the other way.

[The Romulan Republic]

I more get the feeling people just don't give a damn because they'd still prefer her over Bernie in spite of.

Bernie has a hell of a lot of popular support. Not overwhelming, at least not yet, but more than you're giving him credit for.

But their's still that lingering pathological fear of socialism in American politics. Plus Clinton has a certain number of die-hard supporters among the establishment Democrats and probably those who just want a female President.

I'm going to repeat asking this. Is there "a hell of a lot" of popular support outside the white internet? Is there popular support among blacks? Old union workers? Other non liberal traditional Democrat voting groups?

Haven't bothered to read the poll numbers? Yes, they can be contradictory, but some, at least, paint a pretty rosy picture for the Sanders campaign.

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pr ... on-in-iowa
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... shire-poll
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/politics/ ... ders-poll/
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/p ... mp-n498076

Yeah, just "...the white internet...", whatever that means.

And attempting to label Bernie Sanders as a white person-only candidate (with the accompanying implication that he is somehow the more racist choice despite his long history on civil rights) is honestly shameful.

By the way, I still remember when Hillary tried to use Obama's race against him in 2008, and I bet you quite a few black people do too.

Yes, Hillary Clinton has a lot of support from minority voters (not particularly deserved, in my opinion). But I do think Sanders can catch up in that arena. He's also gotten some prominent endorsements from non-white people.

https://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016 ... e-sanders/
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-s ... 01381.html

[Ace Pace]

Haven't bothered to read the poll numbers? Yes, they can be contradictory, but some, at least, paint a pretty rosy picture for the Sanders campaign.

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pr ... on-in-iowa
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... shire-poll
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/politics/ ... ders-poll/
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/p ... mp-n498076

Yeah, just "...the white internet...", whatever that means.

And attempting to label Bernie Sanders as a white person-only candidate (with the accompanying implication that he is somehow the more racist choice despite his long history on civil rights) is honestly shameful.

By the way, I still remember when Hillary tried to use Obama's race against him in 2008, and I bet you quite a few black people do too.

Yes, Hillary Clinton has a lot of support from minority voters (not particularly deserved, in my opinion). But I do think Sanders can catch up in that arena. He's also gotten some prominent endorsements from non-white people.

https://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016 ... e-sanders/
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-s ... 01381.html

Oh look, polls in states that are demographically white, a single national poll and a three way matchup. Better numbers than before, but far from convincing.

Bernie Sanders is far from a white person only candidate, but he is a person with little recognition outside of some circles (now improving) with little "draw" for others. Maybe he'll improve there but proclaiming that because of two three states he's going to beat the primary is...interesting.

[Gaidin]

I personally like the statistical analysis of polls better. But then the people that do that tend to predict Iowan for Clinton and New Hampshire for Bernie, which at the moment given the patterns is fair enough.

[The Romulan Republic]

Haven't bothered to read the poll numbers? Yes, they can be contradictory, but some, at least, paint a pretty rosy picture for the Sanders campaign.

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pr ... on-in-iowa
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... shire-poll
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/politics/ ... ders-poll/
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/p ... mp-n498076

Yeah, just "...the white internet...", whatever that means.

And attempting to label Bernie Sanders as a white person-only candidate (with the accompanying implication that he is somehow the more racist choice despite his long history on civil rights) is honestly shameful.

By the way, I still remember when Hillary tried to use Obama's race against him in 2008, and I bet you quite a few black people do too.

Yes, Hillary Clinton has a lot of support from minority voters (not particularly deserved, in my opinion). But I do think Sanders can catch up in that arena. He's also gotten some prominent endorsements from non-white people.

https://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016 ... e-sanders/
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-s ... 01381.html

Oh look, polls in states that are demographically white, a single national poll and a three way matchup. Better numbers than before, but far from convincing.

Bernie Sanders is far from a white person only candidate, but he is a person with little recognition outside of some circles (now improving) with little "draw" for others. Maybe he'll improve there but proclaiming that because of two three states he's going to beat the primary is...interesting.

I do not presume to claim that he will definitely win the primary, and I challenge you to find anywhere where I said that he would.

I do think he has a real chance, though, and that he'd be a better candidate than Secretary May Be Indicted Soon. And that, as you've now acknowledged, he is not simply a white person's candidate.

And those two states are bloody significant. They're the first two, and they will set the tone and build momentum and credibility for whoever wins them.

Iowa was Obama's big break, in case you've forgotten.

Edit: In any case, while I stand by "innocent until proven guilty", the email scandal hanging over Clinton is a compelling argument for Sanders all by itself. Which I believe is how this discussion of Bernie started.

[Mr Bean]

Listen don't bring Bernie into this, you need to understand something, per the reporting coming out of this the FBI found two CIA authored emails that Hillary Clinton ordered her staffer to remove the TS-SCI headings from and then send them to her on a unclassified system. She has no authority over CIA produced material for declassification, that act if proven in court is enough for the loss of any security clearance and ten years in Federal prison.

Gaidin said there's not recruitment for Federal workers to have a clean workers, what about Presidents from having an outstanding felony charge for illegible dissemination of classified information. To be clear this is the exact same thing that Cheney pulled and Obama never charged him on because they charged the aid with it instead and Cheney was doing it for clear political purposes.

[Gaidin]

Gaidin said there's not recruitment for Federal workers to have a clean workers, what about Presidents from having an outstanding felony charge for illegible dissemination of classified information. To be clear this is the exact same thing that Cheney pulled and Obama never charged him on because they charged the aid with it instead and Cheney was doing it for clear political purposes.

Er. Elected officials not workers. Two different things. Hilariously there's a cultural break in life when you're elected. Note the congressmen who are expelled are expelled for actions done as congressmen. The indicted congressmen forced to resign tend to resign for actions done before being elected. President? They may only be able to make her job hilariously difficult. They certainly can't impeach her as they were ranting about last year as that wasn't an action taken as President.

[The Romulan Republic]

Listen don't bring Bernie into this, you need to understand something, per the reporting coming out of this the FBI found two CIA authored emails that Hillary Clinton ordered her staffer to remove the TS-SCI headings from and then send them to her on a unclassified system. She has no authority over CIA produced material for declassification, that act if proven in court is enough for the loss of any security clearance and ten years in Federal prison.

My point is that this scandal makes her unsuitable as a nominee. That she could lose her security clearance and go to prison for ten years for it (theoretically, because I very much doubt she actually would) would seem to support that. So I'm not sure why you seem to think this is at odds with anything I've said.

Gaidin said there's not recruitment for Federal workers to have a clean workers, what about Presidents from having an outstanding felony charge for illegible dissemination of classified information. To be clear this is the exact same thing that Cheney pulled and Obama never charged him on because they charged the aid with it instead and Cheney was doing it for clear political purposes.

Then Cheney should have been charged too.

Maybe then Clinton wouldn't have thought herself immune.

Tolerance of corruption breeds corruption.

[Gaidin]

Then Cheney should have been charged too.

Maybe then Clinton wouldn't have thought herself immune.

Tolerance of corruption breeds corruption.

I may be totally misunderstanding higher forms of law(Constitution), but Vice President may fall under impeachment and may thus be under the House's purview.

[Mr Bean]

Then Cheney should have been charged too.

Maybe then Clinton wouldn't have thought herself immune.

Tolerance of corruption breeds corruption.

I may be totally misunderstanding higher forms of law(Constitution), but Vice President may fall under impeachment and may thus be under the House's purview.

You understand correctly with one provision, the modus operandi for impeachment of a sitting President or Vice President requires some reason. Federal charges by the FBI that the VP disseminated classified information would qualify as just one such reason for impeachment. The impeachment in this case being getting the VP out of government so he could face federal charges.

Again Bush as Obama could have then stepped in and declared "nothing to see here" and Cheney/Clinton would then walk free but charges being filed and the President being forced to make a statement on the record become... for lack of a better term, a matter of national record.

[Gaidin]

Well, the thing I'm seeing is that Cheney's actions were done as a sitting VP and could be screaming "not your purview! not your purview!" all day until it gets to SCOTUS as they point out that the ones under the FBI's direct investigative purview did get hammered. Meanwhile, Clinton, is able to be investigated, and theoretically is. However far they're able to take that, politically or otherwise given the sheer number of emails and time it would take and timing of the elections is...debatable.

[jwl]

All this is saying to me is that certain aspects of the US government are way too bureaucratic. She's the Secretary of State, she should be allowed to do whatever she likes with classified information.

[Mr Bean]

All this is saying to me is that certain aspects of the US government are way too bureaucratic. She's the Secretary of State, she should be allowed to do whatever she likes with classified information.

So in your world the Sec-State can take a CIA cable containing enough information to identify an in place Iranian intelligence agent and fax it to the Guardian?

Because unless you qualify that your fucking insane. It's even better because she can do whatever she wants with State Department classified information but she has exactly zero control of anything not inside State Department.

[Flagg]

Yeah, we can get around to dealing with this after we prosecute the people responsible for the Illegal War of Aggression in Iraq, Torture, Guantanamo...