A more accurate summary of the article would be that, according to Ken Dilanian of AP, Leslie McAdoo, a lawyer who frequently handles security-clearance cases, indicates there is yet no clear proof of criminal wrong doing.Astronuc said:Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton thus far
http://news.yahoo.com/far-legal-experts-see-no-criminal-trouble-clinton-154607712--election.html
Good news (so far) for Hilary, I guess. It certainly is not clear or apparent that classified information was delivered to an unauthorized person, which would be a clear violation, but only that classified material (some of which was unclassified at the time) was delivered to, stored on and transmitted from an unsecure server. I would have expected a person in her position to know about certain subject matter.
http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/hillary-clinton-hacked-email-server-wont-sell-turns-over-fbi/The person who hacked into Hillary Clinton‘s email server has pulled the emails off the block and turned them over to the FBI, RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned.
“After speaking with my lawyers” the hacker told Radar exclusively, “I was advised I could not legally sell these, and to get rid of them and turn in everything I had to FBI.”
How so? I see no mention in the link of classified information passed over private email accounts in the Bush administration, and there is supposed to be a wall between government business email and private email, not an abolition of private email.Hepth said:but something similar
It may be true that all government officials have private accounts about which nobody should be surprised. Indeed, its against the law for any to conduct private political operations with government resources (Hatch Act). President Obama's political agenda was handled by the group Organizing for Action, an organization supposedly fire-walled off from the White House to satisfy the law.Its quite surprising that 88 administration officials had RNC account ...
Fixedmheslep said:nomineecandidate
Damaged by increased doubt about her honesty and empathy, Hillary Clinton has lost a third of her support for the Democratic presidential nomination in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, while non-politicians Donald Trump and Ben Carson have surged on the GOP side, commanding more than half the vote between them in a crowded field.
The results are remarkable, particularly in the Republican contest: Even as Trump’s lead for his party’s nomination has grown, six in 10 Americans see him as unqualified to serve as president and as many say he lacks the personality and temperament to succeed in the job. His rating for empathy is far worse than Clinton’s; for honesty and trustworthiness, slightly worse.
It'll make for an interesting election next year.In the Democratic contest, Clinton's drop is dramatic, yet not enough to threaten her clear lead. She's supported by 42 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who are registered to vote, down from 63 percent in July, while Sanders has gained 10 points, to 24 percent, and Joe Biden's up by 9 points, to 21 percent. If Biden doesn't run, most of his support moves to Clinton, boosting her to 56 percent – exactly double Sanders' support in this case.
?Astronuc said:conservative
Donald Trump will get this country back on track. New deals with China, less political correctness, get blacks and whites talking, get a handle on immigration, perhaps pay down the $100k debt you and I have given our children. Even my 18 year old liberal son likes "the Donald" who can be human as well.Evo said:I have no idea what you're talking about.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-2016/index.htmlOn June 16, 2011, top Clinton aide Jake Sullivan wrote to Clinton to say she would get "tps" -- presumably short for "talking points" that evening. The subject of the email is redacted so it's not clear what topic these points covered.
The next morning, Clinton wrote back to say she hadn't received them yet, and after a few minutes Sullivan responded that staff were having issues sending the document in a secure fax but that they were "working on it."
"If they can't," Clinton replies, "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
So it would appear that she's been morphing the message, backpedaling with statements that weren't quite lies as information gets released that pushes her further and further into a corner. She may have had exactly what we've found out in mind when shaping the narrative and both of those bolded questions have now been answered:russ_watters said:Yes, I heard she said that, but it is my understanding that that claim is now proven false/obsolete and that's why the narrative has been changed:
That would explain the narrow wording I quoted in my post. She's squeezing herself into a tighter and tighter corner.
Yes, my understanding of the morphing of the narrative is (paraphrase):
"I didn't send any classified emails"
Then:
"I didn't send any emails that were classified at the time I sent them"
Then:
"I didn't send any emails marked as classified [even those that were classified at the time I sent them]"
The first two, if true, would indicate that there was no crime committed. The third is a crime, just not necessarily by her.
[separate post]
So now, the question is: why weren't the classified emails she sent/received marked classified and who removed the markings?
[separate post]
There is another subtlety of the new narrative that msnbc didn't catch and that is that one phrase says "sent" and the other "received". Not sure what she's after with that.
[emphasis added]
Sure -- so at this point, we apparently don't have the email itself. We don't know for sure that the crime was committed, just that Hillary ordered her subordinate to commit it. And yes, it is possible that the document wasn't classified but was sent over a secure system, but that doesn't actually help her much: regardless of the content of the message, she's defeating the secure system, violating security procedures.CNN said:A State Department official declined to comment on Grassley's statement, but told CNN earlier in the day that the department has "no indication at this time that the document being discussed was emailed to her."
"I'm not going to speculate about whether the document being discussed was classified," this official added. "Generally speaking, I can say that just because a document is sent via a secure method doesn't mean that it's classified. Many documents that are created or stored on a secure system are not classified."
A spokesperson for Grassley's office says it is working under the assumption the email was classified, since Clinton's aides would have had other ways to send the document to her if it wasn't, such as through email.
" ... we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.”
- Jeremy Bash, Pentagon chief of staff
I saw that as well, but haven't tried to read up on it yet. I would say the Benghazi thing itself is over (though I'm sure it will come up again during the election). The idea that there were forces that could have helped and weren't employed is just more of the same bungling of the incident we already know: another piece of wood for the fire. But as far as I can tell, none of the bad job performance during that incident was criminal, and this is.jim hardy said:try a search on that phrase
and
you'll have to draw your own conclusions
because so many reports are, well,
seemingly at odds.
“This was all planned in advance” to skirt rules governing federal records management, . . . .
The Harvard-educated lawyer points out that, from Day One, Clinton was never assigned and never used a state.gov e-mail address like previous secretaries.
That isn't necessarily the case. It is possible that the emails were not marked, but the subject matter fell under one of the categories deemed sensitive.russ_watters said:And that's apparently true. So now, the question is: why weren't the classified emails she sent/received marked classified and who removed the markings?
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the immediate staff of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also received classified national security information on their personal email accounts, according to a memo written by the State Department watchdog that was released Thursday.
When CNN anchor Anderson Cooper asked Clinton recently why she accepted $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for giving a grand total of three speeches, she stammered and finally said, “That’s what they offered,” as if she would have taken 25 bucks and a free sandwich, . . .
The whole subject puts Clinton on the defensive, since she’s taken millions in Wall Street donations in her career as Wall Street’s home-state senator and now presidential candidate.