Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 11, 2016, 05:32:43 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
92674 Posts in 2301 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] Print
Author Topic: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history  (Read 120890 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35894


« Reply #950 on: February 04, 2016, 09:43:16 AM »

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261681/hillary-classified-emails-included-names-daniel-greenfield
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4991


« Reply #951 on: February 04, 2016, 09:47:50 AM »

The Dems excuses are just so maddening.

She still has a security clearance.  Even Feinstein arguing this is overdone.

Just sickening.

And she lectures us in cybersecurity.  And the set up question at the set up town hall yesterday about her mother.  The joke is on all of us.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35894


« Reply #952 on: February 04, 2016, 10:12:13 AM »

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-04/clinton-s-security-clearance-is-under-scrutiny
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35894


« Reply #953 on: February 04, 2016, 11:10:27 PM »

I must say I am open to the idea of reimposing Glass Steagall.

==================

Hillary's Latest Arrogant Wall Street Lies
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on February 4, 2016
At a New Hampshire Town Hall on Wednesday night, Hillary Clinton claimed that Goldman Sachs/Wall Street is not donating to her campaign anymore, implying that they know just how tough she will be on them and won't support her anymore.

That's a big lie.

That huge bonanza is still pouring in. Big time. According to FEC reports, Hillary has received $21.4 million from the financial and insurance industry -- almost 15% of the total $157.8 million she raised. And she's still trolling them for big money. Last week, she left Iowa to attend a hedge fund money raiser in Philadelphia. She has several other Wall Street fundraisers scheduled, but postponed them until after the New Hampshire primary. The optics wouldn't be too good while Bernie is raising the issue.
 
But she'll be back when she thinks no one is looking.

It's worth noting that Hillary has received a total of $41 million in campaign money from those same folks since she first ran for the Senate in 2000. And the money keeps pouring in.

But it is not just campaign money that Wall Street send her way. They take care of the Clintons personally, too. Since 2013, Hillary has raked in about $3 million in Wall Street speeches.

The $625,000 Goldman Sachs Speeches

Hillary claimed that she took $625,000 in fees from Goldman for 3 speeches since she left the Secretary of State's office in 2013 because "that's what they offered."

That's what they offered?

No, that's what she demanded. That's the regular -- and outrageous -- speaking fee her agent listed. Ten other big banks handed over the same fee. Are we supposed to believe that they each came up with the same outrageous amount on their own? No, that was the price of admission.

And it was a good investment for Goldman Sachs. They know they'll get a good return on it. In one of her pricey speeches to the Wall Street powerhouse, Hillary soothed the friendly bankers, saying "we're all in this together." For Hillary, it's all in the family. Goldman Sachs Chairman Lloyd Blankfein is an investor in Chelsea's husband's hedge fund. Marc Mezvinsky used to work for Goldman.

And Bill cleaned up, too. According to the Associated Press, "during Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state, Bill Clinton earned $17 million in talks to banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, real estate businesses, and other financial firms. Altogether, the couple are estimated to have made over $139 million from paid speeches."

So the Clintons are no stranger to Goldman and Wall Street. In fact, the Clinton Foundation even rented office space from them at one point. That's what friends are for.

Just to help out, though, Goldman's Blankfein called Bernie Sanders "dangerous" on CNBC last week. He knows who he can count on.

What Will Wall Street Get in Return?

The central reform that populists want to impose to stop the big bank gravy train is the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act prohibiting banks from using federally insured deposits to make risky investments.  Hillary opposes reinstatement of the prohibition, which was repealed in 1999 when her husband signed the necessary legislation.  That repeal opened the floodgates for the bank speculation and enabled Goldman to have a very profitable IPO at the same time as the repeal was passing. It's also blamed for the 2008 crash. And, as Elizabeth Warren has pointed out, Hillary sided with the big banks on bankruptcy reform, she'll be there for them again.

Hillary: Every Secretary of State And President Does It

Hillary's campaign has come up with a new, but highly unconvincing, talking point on her speaking fees. Barbara Boxer floated it a few days ago and Hillary repeated it at the Town Hall. Time to try another one. That one won't fly. She told Anderson Cooper that every President and Secretary of State makes large speaking fees. But as Cooper retorted, those people were not running for President.

But she was.
 
Then came her next big lie: she wasn't sure that she would run for President.

Does anyone on earth really believe that she wasn't running for President? The only reason she didn't announce her candidacy was so she could grab those big fees. And the only reason for the big fees is that she might be President. That's what all the coyness was about.

Hillary lied again and again at the Town Hall and she did it will great arrogance.  She seemed extremely irritated that anyone would dare to challenge her. How dare anyone question her motives!

The late New York Times writer William Safire got it right twenty years ago -- Hillary Clinton is, as he said, a "congenital liar." She hasn't changed.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35894


« Reply #954 on: February 04, 2016, 11:17:20 PM »


Fact Checker
How did ‘top secret’ emails end up on Hillary Clinton’s server?
By Glenn Kessler February 4 at 3:00 AM

Clinton defends telling aide to send 'nonsecure' memo
Play Video1:06

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton maintains she never sent classified information via email as Secretary of State, as questions arise over her instruction to have a talking points memo sent to her in 2011 by a nonsecure system after it could not be sent by secure fax. (Reuters)

George Stephanopoulos: “You know, you’ve said many times that the emails were not marked classified. The non-disclosure agreement you signed as secretary of state says that that’s really not that relevant. It says classified information is marked or unmarked classified and that all of you are trained to treat all of that sensitively and should know the difference.”

Hillary Clinton: “Well of course and that’s exactly what I did. I take classified information very seriously. You know, you can’t get information off the classified system in the State Department to put on an unclassified system, no matter what that system is. We were very specific about that. And when you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”

— exchange on ABC’s “This Week,” Jan. 31, 2016


Many readers continue to ask questions about Hillary Clinton’s private email setup and whether she mishandled classified information. We have looked at this issue in the past, but the reader interest spiked again after the revelation that seven email chains contained “top secret” information and would not be released.

As the saga has dragged on, Clinton’s terminology has become ever more nuanced. When she first discussed her private-email arrangement in detail last March, her staff distributed a Q&A that flatly stated that no classified material was sent or received by Clinton at her private email address. Now she says the emails were not marked classified: “When you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”
Takeaways from Hillary Clinton’s e-mails
View Photos
Clinton has come under fire for using a private email address during her time as secretary of state. The emails are being screened and released in batches. Here are some things we’ve learned from them.

In the ABC News interview, she cited the opinion of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee: “There is no classified marked information on those emails, sent or received by me. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the intelligence committee, who’s had a chance to review them, has said that this email chain did not originate with me and that there were no classification markings.” (Feinstein did release such a statement.)

So what’s going on here?
The Facts

The nondisclosure agreement

Clinton did sign a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, in which she pledged to safeguard classified information whether “marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications,” as defined by Executive Order 12958. (That was later superseded by Executive Order 13526.)

Interestingly, in that executive order, the secretary of state is given the authority to classify and declassify information at the “top secret” level. In other words, Clinton had presidential authority to decide what State Department information was classified or not.

“It is not simply that she would ‘know the difference’ between classified and unclassified information — it was up to her to make the original determination,” said Steven Aftergood, director of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. “This authority, however, did not extend to information generated by other agencies, such as CIA.”

(Note: A number of readers have asked about an email in which Clinton asked to have classified markings removed regarding some talking points, and have it emailed unsecured. In theory, under the executive order, she had the authority to declassify the material, since it originated in the State Department. However, a congressional official said the indications are the material ultimately was transmitted appropriately.)

Classified and unclassified systems

The State Department has both classified and unclassified systems — known informally as the “high side” and the “low side.” The classified system has tight controls, often housed in what is known as a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF); it is not possible to “cut and paste” from the classified system into the unclassified system. Instead, one would have to extract the information from the classified system and then reenter it manually into the unclassified system. Thus far, no one has alleged that happened.

Instead, congressional aides say, the concern centers on the fact that secret information was revealed as part of an email exchange. In at least one case, the discussion started with an aide forwarding a newspaper article; then in subsequent exchanges, aides revealed sensitive details as they discussed (for instance) the shortcomings of that public report. Ultimately the email chain ended up in Clinton’s email box. If the email chain was released, some intelligence officials believe, it would confirm aspects of a secret program.

Clinton’s private email system was designed to deal with the unclassified communications, similar to the unclassified state.gov email account. Clinton claims it was for convenience; others suspect it was to prevent reporters or political opponents from easily obtaining her emails through the Freedom of Information Act.

“The use of a home server was the original problem that spawned all of these continuing concerns,” Aftergood said. “Everything that the secretary of state does or says is potentially sensitive, even if it is unclassified, and so it ought to have been protected accordingly. The home server also complicates or undermines records management and document preservation. It was a mistake.”

Clinton’s private email system was discovered when the House Select Committee on Benghazi sought her emails at the time of the 2012 attacks and initially was told none could be found. Ironically, if Clinton had operated from a state.gov account, the inquiry would have ended once the Benghazi emails were turned over. Instead, Clinton has been forced to turn over all of her work-related emails for public release — precisely the situation she presumably had hoped to avoid.

The ‘top secret’ communications

So how could information sent on an unclassified system turn out to be “top secret”? The answer is easy — when State Department officials review it in response to a request for public release.

“State’s upgrading process is retroactive,” said one congressional aide. “It’s not a sign of wrongdoing but rather the normal process used by State under all administrations before unclassified documents are made public (usually via FOIA). Often an unclassified email will be retroactively classified to protect foreign and diplomatic communications, for example.”

Yet for intelligence officials, the Clinton controversy has exposed serious shortcomings in how the State Department handles sensitive communications, another congressional aide said. In the view of intelligence officials, State Department officials have been sending highly sensitive information on the unclassified system — with the expectation that if a FOIA request is made, department officials could then redact the emails and prevent any classified information from becoming public.

In other words, at State, the basis for classification appeared to rest more with FOIA than the president’s executive order — which some intelligence officials believe is backward.

Indeed, when State released the first batch of Clinton emails, some in the intelligence community were upset at what had not been redacted in a pair of released emails. As a result, other members of the intelligence community demanded a seat at the table as future redaction determinations were made.

The various intelligence agencies since have been arguing about what should be disclosed, with at least seven email chains (22 separate emails) — and possibly more — labeled as unfit for any public disclosure. Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), a member of the House Intelligence Committee who says he has reviewed the emails, told Fox News on Feb. 3 that the emails “do reveal classified methods, they do reveal classified sources, and they do reveal human assets.” Other sources who have viewed the emails do not describe the emails as strongly, though one official said Clinton’s aides might have put their security clearances at risk.

Different government agencies often may disagree about the level of classification. One good example are the memoirs of former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and former vice president Richard B. Cheney. Both discussed a policy debate over North Korea. Cheney mentioned traces of enriched uranium on materials obtained from North Korea — which had been reported years earlier in The Washington Post — after receiving clearance to do so from the CIA. But to her frustration, Rice was not able to mention the uranium, though she wanted to, because the State Department refused to give her clearance — even though the information was already in the public domain.

In one famous case, journalist James Bamford in 1978 received 250 pages of previously classified documents regarding a Justice Department probe of illegal wiretapping performed by the National Security Agency. Two years later, the NSA convinced a new attorney general that the information should be reclassified. The government then demanded that Bamford return the documents or face prosecution. (He published the information anyway and no charges were brought.)

Update: NBC News reported that the State Department Inspector General concluded that classified information also had been transmitted over the personal email accounts of Clinton’s predecessors, Condoleezza Rice and Colin L. Powell.

Markings

Finally, we come to Clinton’s excuse — that none of the emails were marked classified. This is a bit of a red herring. Anything marked classified could not be sent through an unclassified system — and officials are supposed to know enough about the sensitivity of communications to recognize material that could be considered classified under the executive order.

The executive order, for instance, says all foreign government information should be presumed to cause damage if disclosed without authorization. In reviewing Clinton’s emails, for instance, the State Department redacted every page of a private communication to Clinton from then-British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

“It is entirely possible for previously unclassified information to be redesignated as classified, as long as it has not already been officially released to the public,” Aftergood noted. “It is also true that the question of public disclosure can drive a decision to classify information that had not been classified up to that point.”

The Pinocchio Test

Clinton is in a pickle here, largely of her own making.

The emails in question were sent on an unclassified system — as they would have been if she had followed standard protocol and used a state.gov account. Under State Department practice, a request for public release of her emails would have been subject to the same classification discussion currently underway. Any “top secret” communications would have been withheld.

However, if she did not have a private server, intelligence officials now would not be scrutinizing every single Clinton email for possible public release. That has heightened the scrutiny of what should not be disclosed — and what was discussed in the unclassified system in the first place.

The State Department’s unclassified system is not perfect — the Russians have hacked it — but Clinton’s home server was outside official control or supervision. Moreover, unlike state.gov, it did not have dedicated government security personnel responsible for it.

Clinton said, “When you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain thought that this was classified and that was not the case.” But that’s only half of the story. Even without markings, officials are supposed to recognize that information passed through an unclassified system might be deemed as classified and should take steps to protect it.

The Clinton campaign has argued that some intelligence officials are now engaged in a game of overclassification. That could well be the case; it’s impossible to know without access to emails that may not be released for years. But this debate would not even be taking place without the decision to set up the private server in the first place.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35894


« Reply #955 on: February 04, 2016, 11:40:47 PM »

Third post

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-judge-wants-explanation-from-state-department-on-newly-discovered-clinton-records/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7501


« Reply #956 on: February 05, 2016, 12:24:29 PM »

Keep in mind this rip is the MSM taking on their own coronated Queen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/04/4-words-on-goldman-sachs-that-hillary-clinton-is-going-to-really-regret/

 Four Words about Goldman Sachs that Hillary is going to regret

Hillary Clinton spent an hour talking to CNN's Anderson Cooper and a handful of New Hampshire voters in a town hall on Wednesday night. For 59 minutes of it, she was excellent —empathetic, engaged and decidedly human. But, then there was that other minute — really just four words — that Clinton is likely to be haunted by for some time to come.

"That’s what they offered," Clinton said in response to Cooper's question about her decision to accept $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in the period between serving as secretary of state and her decision to formally enter the 2016 presidential race.

The line is, well, bad.  More on that soon. But, the line when combined with her body language when she said it makes it politically awful for her.

Clinton is both seemingly caught by surprise and annoyed by the question all at once. Neither of those is a good reaction to what Cooper is asking. Both together make for a uniquely bad response.

Here's the thing: I'm not sure there is a great answer, politically speaking, for Clinton on the question of her acceptance of huge speaking fees from all sorts of groups — from colleges and universities to investment banks. She took the money because these groups were willing to pay it. And who wouldn't do the same thing in her shoes?

[Clinton, Sanders talk meaning of 'progressive' in first one-on-one debate]

The problem is that you can't say that if you are the front-running candidate for the Democratic nomination, a front-runner facing a more-serious-than-expected challenge from a populist liberal who has made your ties to Wall Street a centerpiece of his campaign.

So, yes, Clinton was in something of a box when Cooper put the Goldman question to her. But, let's not let her off so easily. Are you telling me that Clinton and her team had no idea that the speaking fees, which Bernie Sanders put into an ad in the final days before the Iowa caucuses, might come up in the course of an hour-long conversation in New Hampshire?

If so (and I don't believe this to be the case), that's total political malpractice. Rather, I think what happened is something similar to Clinton's reaction during a testy exchange a few months ago with reporters over her email server: She got annoyed and freelanced.

 
The server and the speaking fees are two story lines that Clinton clearly believes are ridiculous.  Sure, she shouldn't have used only a private email address and server while serving as secretary of state. But that error was a small one, not the sort of huge deal that Republicans and the media are trying to turn it into. And, sure, $675,000 is a lot of money to take for speeches but she is a former first lady, senator and secretary of state. It's not out of the ballpark that someone with that résumé would be compensated at such high levels.


That's what Clinton truly believes. And she's not good — as she made plain with her answer last night — at hiding her disdain/skepticism when questioned about it. But, politics is all about playing up your strengths and taking attention away from your weaknesses. The amount of money Hillary and Bill Clinton made from speech-giving — more than $25 million in 16 months — is a weakness. Period. It undercuts the idea that she is a committed fighter for wage equality or a voice of the 99 percent trying to level the playing field with the one percent
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4991


« Reply #957 on: February 05, 2016, 12:35:21 PM »

On Drudge the 'shock" that Rachel Maddow Hugged Hillary.

What is the surprise?

Isn't that what lesbians do?   wink
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35894


« Reply #958 on: February 05, 2016, 03:23:13 PM »

http://observer.com/2016/02/it-wasnt-just-sid-torrent-of-anti-israel-advice-found-in-hillarys-emails/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13271


« Reply #959 on: February 05, 2016, 04:42:34 PM »


Shocking!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35894


« Reply #960 on: February 05, 2016, 05:55:14 PM »

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/04/iowa-democratic-official-who-refuses-to-review-results-is-hillary-supporter/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35894


« Reply #961 on: February 07, 2016, 11:14:25 AM »



        Donald Trump’s Campaign, Billed as Self-Funded, Risks Little of His Fortune
        Donald Trump’s Immigration Message May Resound in New Hampshire
        Neighborly Ties Bind Some New Hampshire Voters to Bernie Sanders
        Marco Rubio Turns Toward the Personal on the Campaign Trail
        Agencies Battle Over What Is ‘Top Secret’ in Hillary Clinton’s Emails
        Hillary Clinton Lobbied on Health Care as Secretary of State, Emails Show
        Experiencing the Presidential Campaign: A Virtual Reality Film
        Play Video
        In Democratic Debate, Candidates Clash on Money’s Role
        News Analysis
        Hillary Clinton Is Again Put on the Defensive Over Perceived Ties to Wall...
        Marlow W. Cook, Senator Who Groomed Mitch McConnell, Dies at 89
        For Hillary Clinton, 6 Goals on To-Do List in New Hampshire
        First Draft
        Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Resists Releasing Transcripts From...
        First Draft
        Former N.A.A.C.P. President Endorses Bernie Sanders
        ‘Feel the Bern’? Maybe Not on Tinder
        First Draft
        Marco Rubio Is Endorsed by The Las Vegas-Review, Owned by Sheldon...
        Pentagon Releases Small Portion of Photos From Detainee Abuse Cases
        First Draft
        Ted Cruz’s Campaign Spread False Report in Iowa That Ben Carson...
        First Draft
        Bernie Sanders to Do ‘S.N.L.,’ With Larry David Hosting
        First Draft
        Donald Trump’s Snow Day Has Rivals Questioning His ‘Commitment’
        Bernie Sanders’s Kibbutz Found. Surprise: It’s Socialist.
        First Draft
        Chris Christie to Receive Backing of Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts
        New York City Council Votes to Raise Members’ Pay
        Ukrainian Ex-Premier’s Visit to Washington Highlights Obstacles Facing Peace Pact
        Twitter Steps Up Efforts to Thwart Terrorists’ Tweets
        The 2016 Race
        The Way Ted Cruz Won in Iowa Suggests Trouble Ahead
        View Slideshow
        HistorySource
        Sports Sharpen the Presidential Image
        When Presidential Candidates Go Too Far on Social Media: #FeetInMouth
        Looking Back at Donald Trump’s 2015
        Letter From Washington
        The Rise and Fall of the Bush Campaign
        95,000 Words, Many of Them Ominous, From Donald Trump’s Tongue
        From Fracking to Finance, a Torrent of Campaign Cash
        Buying Power
        A Wealthy Governor and His Friends Are Remaking Illinois
        Buying Power
        Inside the Billion-Dollar Battle for Puerto Rico’s Future
        Buying Power
        For the Wealthiest, a Private Tax System That Saves Them Billions
        First Campaigns
        Hillary Clinton Seeks to Recapture Spirit of 2000 Campaign
        First Campaigns
        Ad Helped Chris Christie Win a New Jersey Race, but Then He Had to...
        First Campaigns
        Rand Paul Rode Tea Party Fervor to Washington, Then Yielded
        First Campaigns
        Ted Cruz’s Senate Bid That Didn’t Stop at the Senate
        First Campaigns
        Lessons, and Parallels, in Jeb Bush’s Failed Run for Governor
        Opinion
        Sick and Tired of ‘God Bless America’
        Gray Matter
        In Iowa, Voting Science at Work
    Loading...

See next articles
See previous articles
The defense is more subtle than we may appreciate at the moment and our side needs to be ready for it.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/us/politics/agencies-battle-over-what-is-top-secret-in-hillary-clintons-emails.html?emc=edit_th_20160206&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0

Agencies Battle Over What Is ‘Top Secret’ in Hillary Clinton’s Emails

By STEVEN LEE MYERS and MARK MAZZETTIFEB. 5, 2016
Photo
Hillary Clinton appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January 2013, when she was secretary of state. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times



WASHINGTON — Some of the nation’s intelligence agencies raised alarms last spring as the State Department began releasing emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, saying that a number of the messages contained information that should be classified “top secret.”

The diplomats saw things differently and pushed back at the spies.

In the months since, a battle has played out between the State Department and the intelligence agencies — as well as Congress — over what information on Mrs. Clinton’s private server was classified and what was the routine business of American diplomacy, according to government officials and letters obtained by The New York Times.


At the center of that argument, the officials said, is a “top secret” program of the Central Intelligence Agency that is anything but secret. It is the agency’s long effort to track and kill suspected terrorists overseas with armed drones, which has been the subject of international debates, numerous newspaper articles, television programs and entire books.

The Obama administration’s decision to keep most internal discussions about that program — including all information about C.I.A. drone strikes in Pakistan — classified at the “top secret” level has now become a political liability for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Some of the skirmishes over Mrs. Clinton’s emails reflect the disagreements in a post-9/11 era over what should be a government secret and what should not. Nonetheless, 22 emails on Mrs. Clinton’s server were held back from a tranche made public last week. Those 22 emails were deemed so highly secret that State Department officials in this case agreed with the intelligence agencies not to release them even in redacted form.

The emails are included in seven distinct chains that comprise forwarded messages and replies, and in most cases involved discussions of the C.I.A. drone program, government officials said.

At a Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire on Thursday night, Mrs. Clinton dismissed the issue, as she has in the past. She said the government was overzealously classifying information after the fact, citing as evidence the State Department’s finding that two emails sent to Colin L. Powell’s private email account and 10 others sent to the personal accounts of aides to Condoleezza Rice when each served as secretary of state should now be classified years after the fact. It is against the law to have classified information outside a secure government account.

“This just beggars the imagination,” Mrs. Clinton said, going on to argue that the issue was merely an extension of Republican criticism over the attack against the American mission and C.I.A. annex in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012.

It remains unknown what exactly the 22 emails contain, given their classification as “top secret,” but the officials described them generally, on the condition of anonymity. The officials included people familiar with or involved in the handling of the emails in government agencies and in Congress.


Some of the emails include material classified at the highest levels, known as Top Secret/S.A.P., according to a letter sent to the Senate on Jan. 14 by the inspector general of the nation’s intelligence agencies, I. Charles McCullough III. That designation refers to “special access programs,” which are among the government’s most closely guarded secrets.

Several officials said that at least one of the emails contained oblique references to C.I.A. operatives. One of the messages has been given a designation of “HCS-O” — indicating that the information was derived from human intelligence sources — a detail that was first reported by Fox News. The officials said that none of the emails mention specific names of C.I.A. officers or the spy agency’s sources.

The government officials said that discussions in an email thread about a New York Times article — the officials did not say which article — contained sensitive information about the intelligence surrounding the C.I.A.’s drone activities, particularly in Pakistan.

The officials said that at least one of the 22 emails came from Richard C. Holbrooke, who as the administration’s special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan would have been intimately involved in dealing with the ramifications of drone strikes. Mr. Holbrooke died in December 2010.
Photo
People gathered at the site of a missile attack in the village of Tappi, Pakistan, near the Afghan border, in October 2008. The C.I.A.’s drone program remains classified, though its existence is widely known. Credit Haji Mujtaba/Reuters

Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state was first disclosed in March, and since then the State Department has slowly released 33,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton and her aides determined were work-related. None of the emails sent through Mrs. Clinton’s server were marked as classified, the officials said, and most were written by her aides and forwarded to her. That is also true of the emails forwarded to Mr. Powell and Ms. Rice, which until now have been in the department’s unclassified archives.

The handling of classified information on Mrs. Clinton’s server is now the subject of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as the State Department’s security and intelligence bureaus. According to the law and security procedures Mrs. Clinton agreed to follow when she became secretary, such material should not even have been sent over the State Department’s official but unclassified state.gov server.

At the same time, the officials said, some of the classifications being sought for the emails fall into a gray area between public knowledge and secrecy. In such instances, the original source of the information — and thus the level of its classification — can be disputed, and has been, vigorously at times, they said. Other emails have been the subject of rigorous debate over what constitutes a secret and what the nation’s diplomats can say about intelligence matters as they grapple with international crises.


“While the secretary of state has a duty to protect classified information, as all of us do in a position of trust, here she did not have the benefit of six-plus months of interagency classification reviews,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “The same information said by people in two different positions may receive two opposite classification determinations.” Though the State Department accepted the C.I.A.’s classification of the 22 emails, it has also sought to challenge accusations that it was negligent in handling secrets.

During the review, the State Department has rebutted claims by at least one intelligence agency that information in some of the emails ought to remain classified.

Some of those include the emails that led Mr. McCullough’s office to refer the matter to the Justice Department last summer, prompting the F.B.I.’s investigation. Mr. McCullough made the referral based on an assessment that four of 40 emails that it sampled early on in the process contained “top secret” information.


Now, after months of review, only one of those four turned out to be classified at that level. (The State Department counts that email among the 22 of last week.) A second of the four emails has been downgraded to “confidential,” the lowest level of classification. The third was released last fall.
Different Sources

The fourth involved an email sent by Kurt M. Campbell, the assistant secretary of state for Asian affairs, shortly after a North Korean ballistic missile test in July 2009. The email has not yet been made public, even in redacted form, but the State Department has challenged an assertion from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which gathers data through satellite images, that the email included information that came from a highly classified program.

In a letter this past Dec. 15 to Senator Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a State Department official said that the information could not have been based on N.G.A.’s intelligence because Mr. Campbell did not receive any classified intelligence briefings for what was a new job for him until a few days after the North Korean test.

More broadly, the memo stated, diplomats working at the State Department or in embassies around the world constantly receive and pass on information from unclassified sources — so-called parallel reporting — that can involve highly classified matters. That can make it difficult to determine with confidence whether information in any single email came from a classified source.

“When policy officials obtain information from open sources, ‘think tanks,’ experts, foreign government officials, or others, the fact that some of the information may also have been available through intelligence channels does not mean that the information is necessarily classified,” the department’s assistant secretary for legislative affairs, Julia Frifield, wrote in the December letter to Mr. Corker.


Another email whose classification has been disputed was dated April 20, 2011, and was among those that prompted members of Congress and Mr. McCullough’s office to begin a review of the State Department’s release of the emails by court order under the Freedom of Information Act.

It was from Timmy T. Davis, an officer in the State Department’s Operations Center, and it conveyed to Mrs. Clinton’s senior staff security concerns in Libya during the war against the country’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

At the time, J. Christopher Stevens, the future ambassador to the country, was secretly traveling there as an envoy to the opposition leadership and had telephoned the Ops Center, as it is known, to advise it about his situation on the ground.

Mr. Davis sent his message, marked “S.B.U.,” or “sensitive but unclassified” to two of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin and Jacob J. Sullivan, as well as to Alice G. Wells, an executive assistant to Mrs. Clinton who is now the ambassador to Jordan.

At issue were two sentences in the email referring to reports by Africom, the American military command for Africa, describing the movement of Colonel Qaddafi’s forces near the city of Ajdabiya. In a letter on Nov. 24 last year, Ms. Frifield detailed how the information in the email differed significantly from the suspected intelligence source and could well have been based on public briefings given the day before by NATO’s military about the course of the war.

“The conclusion that the information in the email was drawn from that intelligence product is unsubstantiated and on its face wrong, given the differences between the information in the email and the information in the product,” Ms. Frifield wrote.

Even in the case of the drone program, so much information about the strikes has filtered into public view that the C.I.A. did not object to every allusion to it, allowing at least vague references in the emails that the State Department has released so far.

In late October 2009, as she prepared for a trip to Pakistan, Mrs. Clinton asked her aides for good answers to questions she might expect while in the country about Blackwater, the private security company that Pakistanis had long suspected was secretly operating inside the country.

Ms. Abedin responded by email that the aides were working on an “answer sheet” for the tough questions she might get on the thorniest issues about American-Pakistani relations — including Blackwater, the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, and drones.

“You will have tonite or tomorrow am,” Ms. Abedin wrote.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35894


« Reply #962 on: February 07, 2016, 10:34:38 PM »

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/02/05/attention-gop-colin-powell-says-he-agrees-with-hillary-clinton-on-classified-emails/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13271


« Reply #963 on: February 07, 2016, 10:55:41 PM »


Not exactly a surprise at this point.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4991


« Reply #964 on: February 08, 2016, 05:46:56 AM »

Powell is covering himself since it was just reported he had a couple emails that he received on private email.   He doesn't know what is in Clinton's emails and has No business saying hers should be released to the public. 

He has lost my respect a long time ago.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35894


« Reply #965 on: February 08, 2016, 11:17:10 AM »

Goldman Sachs Loved Hillary's Speeches
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on February 5, 2016
What exactly did Hillary Clinton say to her Wall Street friends when they paid her $225,000 an hour? According to reports by attendees at the time, Hillary was warm and friendly and decried "bank-bashing."

Maybe that explains why she won't release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches.

According to Politico, she struck "a soothing note on the global financial crisis, telling the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we're all going to have to work together to get out of it."

The Goldman crowd loved it. "What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn't going to improve the economy -- it needs to stop." 

It turns out that the big money men have feelings, too.

One of them offered this. "It was like, 'Here's someone who doesn't want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game,'" said an attendee. "Like, maybe here's someone who can lead us out of the wilderness."

The verbatim transcripts that she routinely demanded could certainly tell a story. She charged the speech hosts $1250 for a stenographer. So the answers are there.

But, there's a problem: The transcripts remain Hillary's sole property, so don't expect to see them anytime soon.

She's has been repeatedly asked whether she'll release the transcripts. Generally, she ignores the question. The Washington Post requested them several times -- to no avail. Asked about it during the New Hampshire debate, she said "She'll look into it."

That's Hillary-speak for get lost.

Earlier, when a reporter from The Intercept asked her about releasing the transcripts at a campaign event, she laughed out loud.

Apparently that was a very funny request.

But here's what's not funny, Hillary: the Sanders campaign thinks it will become a big issue. Here's what Sanders' senior campaign strategist Tad Devine had to say:

"My advice would be: Don't look into it too long because it's not going to go away until they come out, okay?"

Them's fightin' words. And, judging by the press attention to the issue, Devine is right.

Stay tuned.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4991


« Reply #966 on: February 08, 2016, 01:22:43 PM »

It is one thing GS paying her a fortune in bribes but I don't understand why we don't hear why public universities are paying these people fortunes to speak.

With all the noise about the cost of colleges and then we hear them paying their favorite politicians with these kind of fees to speak?

And what about her promising all over the place college students all sorts of stuff while she herself goes around raping the universities for obscene speaking fees.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7501


« Reply #967 on: February 08, 2016, 04:53:36 PM »

Suddenly the transcripts of these speeches are a BIG deal.

As Crafty has suggested, Republicans had better get busy pointing out that their reforms will level the playing field currently tilted for special interests.

It's not the rich getting the favors, it's the friends of big government.  For a list, just see the Clinton speaking log.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35894


« Reply #968 on: February 09, 2016, 12:19:07 PM »

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/268456-pressure-on-lynch-to-step-aside-in-clinton-email-probe
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35894


« Reply #969 on: February 09, 2016, 04:25:38 PM »

Recently, Charles Krauthammer alluded that he  had no doubt some of the
30,000 emails Hillary deleted from her private e-mail  server very likely made
reference to the Clinton Foundation, which deletion  alone would be illegal
and a conflict of interest.  Here’s the back story  in its sickening and
menacing details, which ought to be front-page headlines  from now until
Election Day:

The Clinton Foundation is "organized crime"  at its finest

Here is a good, concise summary of how the Clinton  Foundation works as a
tax free international money laundering scheme. It may  eventually prove to
be the largest political criminal enterprise in U.S.  history.  This is a
textbook case on how you hide foreign money sent to you  and repackage it to be
used for your own purposes. All tax free.

Here's  how it  works:

1. You create a separate foreign "charity." In this  case, the Clintons set
it up in Canada. [!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

2.  Foreign  oligarchs and governments then donate to this Canadian
charity.  In this  case, over 1,000 did -- contributing mega millions. I'm sure
they did this out  of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in
return. (Imagine  Putin's buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to
send untold millions  to a Canadian  charity).

3. The Canadian charity then bundles these  separate donations and makes a
massive donation to the Clinton  Foundation.

4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian  charity claim
Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual  donors.

5. The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for  legitimate
good works programs.
Unfortunately, experts believe this is on  the order of 10%. Much of the
balance goes to enrich the Clintons, pay salaries  to untold numbers of
hangers on, fund lavish travel, etc.  Again, virtually  all tax free, which means
you and I are subsidizing it.

6. The Clinton  Foundation, with access to the world's best accountants,
somehow fails to report  much of this on their tax filings. They discover
these "clerical errors"  and  begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax 
returns.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4991


« Reply #970 on: February 09, 2016, 06:23:20 PM »

Quoting MLK :

"I have a Dream":

Bill And Hill AND Bennett AND Huma AND their accountants and perhaps others (Blumenthal,  etc) all go to jail in disgrace.

And she finally gets that orange jump suit.  I would be willing to chip in to donate it for her.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35894


« Reply #971 on: February 09, 2016, 11:56:37 PM »

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35894


« Reply #972 on: February 10, 2016, 09:56:17 PM »

second post

Hillary’s Cyber Loose Lips
Clinton’s email server was ripe for hacking. How much damage to the U.S. was done?
By L. Gordon Crovitz
Feb. 7, 2016 4:37 p.m. ET
727 COMMENTS

Hillary Clinton’s emails “do reveal classified methods, they do reveal classified sources, and they do reveal human assets,” a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Chris Stewart of Utah, told Fox News last week. That raises some pressing questions about the former secretary of state’s communications through her unprotected private email server:

Which foreign intelligence agencies tried to hack the computer server in the basement of the Clinton suburban home? Did any succeed? And if so, how did these countries use the hacked information against the U. S.?

The State Department last week confirmed that at least 22 of Mrs. Clinton’s 1,600 classified emails include information that is “top secret” or an even higher level of classification, known as “special access programs.” The latter applies to communications for which “the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional,” such as the names of sources and undercover officers.

Americans won’t see these highly sensitive emails, which were likely read in real time by intelligence agents from China, Russia and Iran. But one was described to NBC, which reported that it referred to an undercover CIA officer as a State Department official with the word “State” in scare quotes, signaling to readers the officer was not really a diplomat.

Mrs. Clinton asserted in last week’s Democratic presidential debate that she is “100% confident” she won’t be charged with a crime. She ignored the issue of hacking by foreign agents and complained about “retroactive classifications.” Yet she signed the standard nondisclosure agreement acknowledging her responsibility to keep classified information secret whether “marked or unmarked.” In one of her emails, she responded to a complaint that staffers were having trouble sending a secure fax by writing: “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

Mrs. Clinton tried to evade responsibility by claiming other secretaries of state committed the same sin, citing reports that Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice received a handful of potentially classified emails. But it was Mrs. Clinton alone who chose to set up and use only a personal email system for all her communications, knowingly risking access by foreign agents.

Unless the Clinton team wiped records from the server before producing it to be inspected, there should be logs indicating who tried to gain access—and who succeeded. In an era when cyber spies have penetrated many government departments, it is highly likely that foreign agents got into her homebrew server. The Associated Press reported that the way the computer in her home was set up would allow “users to connect openly over the Internet to control it remotely.”

Robert Gates, the former defense secretary, told radio host Hugh Hewitt recently that “the odds are pretty high” Russia, China and Iran hacked Mrs. Clinton’s emails. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in The Wall Street Journal last month that the intelligence community is “nearly certain that Mrs. Clinton’s server was hacked,” which would create blackmail opportunities against Mrs. Clinton and anyone she or her correspondents mentioned. U.S. intelligence agencies are now reviewing all their operations under the costly assumption that the cover of any program or person referenced in Clinton emails is blown.

Aside from the classified emails, there would be enormous damage if cyber spies gained access to all the digital communication involving the top American diplomat for the four years Mrs. Clinton held that office. Spies would have known the information available to the Obama administration and how its diplomatic strategies evolved over time. This might explain why Iran out-negotiated Washington on the one-sided nuclear deal, why Russia felt safe in its provocations, and why Beijing confidently claimed more of the South China Sea. And foreign governments would have access to all 60,000 emails, not just the 30,000 Mrs. Clinton chose to turn over.

Mrs. Clinton can’t plead ignorance. She gave numerous speeches as secretary of state detailing successful cyber attacks on much better-protected servers at government agencies and U.S. companies. Yet she made America’s secrets and diplomacy available on an unprotected server in her suburban home.

Voters will decide if someone whose judgment made hacking easy for the nation’s enemies can ever be trusted as commander in chief. Hacking and other cybersecurity risks should be pressing matters for debate among presidential candidates.

A book by Council on Foreign Relations scholar Adam Segal will be published this month titled “The Hacked World Order: How Nations Fight, Trade, Maneuver, and Manipulate in the Digital Age.” Meanwhile, Americans shouldn’t have to wait for Vladimir Putin’s memoirs to learn how foreign agents used Mrs. Clinton’s cyber loose lips to their advantage.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35894


« Reply #973 on: February 10, 2016, 10:17:15 PM »

Third post

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-email-jake-sullivan-secret-219013
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35894


« Reply #974 on: Today at 02:43:59 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-received-subpoena-from-state-department-investigators/2016/02/11/ca5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!