General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe ridiculousness of the Hillary SoS email kerfuffle.
No matter how hard the Rethugs try to turn their crap into gold, it's still crap.
We've all heard about the two emails that were supposed to be TOP SECRET, one of which was about DRONES? That sounds serious, doesn't it. Wow.
Then we learn that it actually wasn't classified, Hillary didn't send it (it was forwarded to her) -- it was just a conversation some other officials had concerning a NEWS ARTICLE about drones.
And the other email was also another discussion forwarded to Hillary that included no information "lifted" from secret documents.
But we -- led by key parts of the media -- keep falling for this Rethug crap, hook, line, and sinker.
When are we going to learn? (And if you think these same creeps couldn't find ways to impugn other Presidential candidates if they wanted to, think again.)
Don't swallow their shit. Spit it out!
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/08/14/ap-exclusive-top-secret-clinton-emails-include-drone-talk
AP EXCLUSIVE: Officials say the top secret emails on Clinton's server weren't very sensitive
WASHINGTON (AP) — Neither of the two emails sent to Hillary Rodham Clinton now labeled by intelligence agencies as "top secret," contained information that would jump out to experts as particularly sensitive, according to several government officials.
SNIP
Clinton didn't transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes direct reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.
The drone exchange, the officials said, begins with a copy of a news article about the CIA drone program that targets terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. While that program is technically top secret, it is well-known and often reported on. Former CIA director Leon Panetta and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, have openly discussed it.
SNIP
But a second email reviewed by Charles McCullough, the intelligence community inspector general, appears more problematic, officials said. Nothing in the message is "lifted" from classified documents, they said, though they differed on where the information in it was sourced. Some said it improperly points back to highly classified material, while others countered that it was a classic case of what the government calls "parallel reporting" — receiving information the government considers secret through "open source" channels.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rock
(13,218 posts)If it originates with the CONservatives it's crap.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)seriously by serious adults....if there are any left in America.
At what point do the hired talking mouth pieces stop breathlessly forwarding every Republican lie...because it might be true?
All being viewed by a world both amazed and afraid of American mass stupidity and gullibility.
What an embarrassment American news media has become.
spanone
(135,844 posts)
brer cat
(24,578 posts)True, Mockery of all issues and sapped in Satire. John Stewart popularity. Tiresome when you want a few facts that might just be meaningful. Oh well, El Nino this winter, y'all be safe. Fire up some of those solar generators.
panader0
(25,816 posts)Very brave to join in the primary season....
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)If it was already a news article then not very classified. The GOP has yelled wolf so long until they are only believable to sources as FOX listeners and others who desire to smear Hillary. Just more static.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Freedom of Information request, some official decided to err on the "safe side" and classify things as secret that hadn't been secret before.
People who work with classified documents say this isn't uncommon at all, unfortunately.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The only RETROACTIVE part is applying classification markings to the email. The information was classified before the markings were applied.
And it doesn't matter the source. If you have a clearance, you have to treat it as classified. Even things like the stuff Manning or Snowden leaked that are freely available on the Internet.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)in response to the FOI request.
If you have such evidence, other than claims of Grassley or anonymous "sources," please provide it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Things don't magically become classified because of a FOIA request.
The FOIA request means someone takes a close look at it and says "Holy shit! This is classified!" and has to mark it and treat it as classified. Even the unmarked copies.
Again, the rules for people with security clearances are not the same as the rules for everyone else. That's why you have to sign a mountain of paperwork to put yourself under those rules.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)doesn't prove that they were applied CORRECTLY and with good justification. It is ludicrous to claim that an email discussing a news report represents an exceptional threat to national security.
The issue of the government over-using the classified label has long been recognized as a serious, democracy-threatening, problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moynihan_Commission_on_Government_Secrecy
The Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy, also called the Moynihan Secrecy Commission, after its chairman, U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was a bipartisan statutory commission in the United States. It was created under Title IX of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (P.L. 103-236 SEC. 900) to conduct "an investigation into all matters in any way related to any legislation, executive order, regulation, practice, or procedure relating to classified information or granting security clearances" and to submit a final report with recommendations. The Commission's investigation of government secrecy was the first authorized by statute since the Wright Commission on Government Security issued its report in 1957.
The Commission issued its unanimous final report on March 3, 1997. Among its key findings were the following:
Secrecy is a form of government regulation.
Excessive secrecy has significant consequences for the national interest when policy makers are not fully informed, the government is not held accountable for its actions, and the public cannot engage in informed debate.
Some secrecy is important to minimize inappropriate diffusion of details of weapon systems design and ongoing security operation as well as to allow public servants to secretly consider a variety of policy options without fear of criticism.
The best way to ensure that secrecy is respected, and that the most important secrets remain secret, is for secrecy to be returned to its limited but necessary role. Secrets can be protected more effectively if secrecy is reduced overall.
Apart from aspects of nuclear energy subject to the Atomic Energy Act, secrets in the Federal Government are whatever anyone with a stamp decides to stamp secret. This inevitably produces problems where even the President of the United States may make mistakes that might have been avoided with a more open system.
A new statute is needed to set forth the principles for what may be declared secret.
Senator Moynihan reported that approximately 400,000 new secrets are created annually at the highest level, Top Secret. That level is defined by law as applying to any secret that, were it to become public, would cause "exceptionally grave damage to the national security."1 In 1994, it was estimated that the United States government had over 1.5 billion pages of classified material that were at least 25 years old.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But since she's running a campaign, we don't just have to worry about a courtroom.
Finding TS/SCI in a sample of only 40 emails means this scandal will only be getting broader and more coverage.
Clinton signed a bunch of paperwork promising to treat classified information a certain way. She didn't. She did not report the classified emails when she received them, and did not store the classified emails properly.
A peon in the government would be fired for this, and probably face a criminal investigation (that may or may not result in charges). It's not some GOP bullshit. It's a big deal. And saying "It's nothing" over and over again will not make it go away.
Clinton and company are going to have to figure out how to run their campaign with this problem getting worse and worse. Because it will be getting worse and worse.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)You're really descending to the Rethug depths here, for some strange reason.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)No, you're just lopping off important details to fit your narrative.
A peon who received an email containing classified who did not report it and stored it at home would be in very deep shit. And with finding 2 in only 0.07% of the emails (assuming 1 page per email), there's going to be more found.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)they received an email from someone else about an article in the newspaper.
Go ahead. I know I'll be waiting forever.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)
I know people get fired for this, because I watched someone get fired for it. They did not issue a press release when they fired him.
Continuing to claim this isn't a big deal will not make it go away. Clinton and company need to prepare for the shitstorm and finally get ahead of this scandal.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and you believe that, you should be OUTRAGED.
Instead, you're criticizing Hillary.
Amazing.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Email something Manning leaked to someone with a security clearance. You have just ruined their day. Because they will have to report the security breach, and ensure the email is really deleted from every server it touched along the way.
Even though everyone on the planet can get the document from Wikileaks, it's still classified. So people with clearances have to treat it as classified.
Yes, people can get fired for this. That's why you have to sign a mountain of paperwork waiving large chunks of your first amendment rights, and get multiple briefings about classified information, how to handle it, what to do when there is a breach, and what is classified and what is not. So that you are fully aware that you can get fired for this.
As for "criticizing Hillary", she fucked up. It's going to hurt her campaign, a lot. She needs to figure out how to minimize the damage, and "NEWSPAPER!!!" will not do that.
However, you will continue to shout NEWSPAPER!!!!, not understanding why that means nothing.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)it ever was classified.
All we have are some Rethugs like Grassley and a bunch of anonymous sources.
Everyone who works in government or is even MINIMALLY AWARE knows that there is a great deal of over-classification of items that never should have been classified, but some analyst does it out of an over-abundance of caution.
This is likely to be one of those cases. If it happened at all.
Camel_Camel
(10 posts)Hold fast and hope the storm blows over...
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Because they were receiving emails with classified info and did nothing. An entire section that worked together.
4 officers, 2 senior NCO's. For all of them the loss of the clearance meant immediate termination of the deployment and the start of the removal from the military, because a valid clearance was a requirement for their rank and position.
The sender faced a court martial. I was gone before it happened but never saw any news on it so I bet he took a plea.
They don't play with this stuff.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Because that's what this is about. Nothing lifted from classified reports or labeled classified at the time.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I can tell you have never had a security clearance or dealt with this before because you keep harping on it the article thing- it doesn't matter.
If the NY times gained access to classified info, then someone emailed the news story to me that had that classified info, as someone with a clearance I have a legal obligation to report that security breach.
Full stop. No ifs, ands or buts. No "but it's in the paper".
My name is on some of the Wikileaks stuff because reports I wrote are in there (and since I know it's stuff of zero whistleblowing value it's why I don't consider Chelsea Manning a responsible whistleblower but a reckless leaker). I can't click on those links. I've had to warn the investigators doing my background re investigations and status changes that they will find my name on links they shouldn't open on an unclassified computer and they were glad I did. If someone emailed me a cut and paste of a report I wrote that Wikileaks published I would have to report that to my security manager.
If the NY Times published even one column of data from that report and it we emailed to me- I have to report it.
Once that leak is reported my local security manager will determine my course of action. If it was sent by a government employee or anyone with a clearance they will take action against them. If it got saved to my hard drive depending on what it was they may then mark the whole computer classified and have the hard drive sent for destruction at facilities that specialize in destroying classified data.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)be expected to read and take action on every one?
Even General Patreus (sp), who deliberately passed classified info to his biographer, was only convicted of a misdemeanor.
Media reports say that emails like this have been floating all around the internet -- that this type of thing has been going on for years, through all the administrations since emails came into use. Are all those people going to be accused or just Hillary?
This is all much ado about nothing.
Another partisan witch hunt, happily joined in on by some of the partisans here.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)She has reported that she READ hard copies of most email at secure locations. Her server was physically protected by the Secret Service, encrypted by a professional services (details are withheld), and that was only for "unclassified" material.
She had a different process for anything labelled classified.
In other words, for all intents and purposes she followed the rules. She had an army of lawyers and staff to make sure she followed the rules too.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-email-server-traced-to-home-based-service-ap/
In November 2012, without explanation, Clinton's private email account was reconfigured to use Google's servers as a backup in case her own personal email server failed, according to Internet records.
Then, in July 2013, five months after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton's private email server was reconfigured again to use a Denver-based commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is now owned by McAfee Inc., a top Internet security company.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I'm afraid that's you. She does not get to make up her own rules for handling classified information. No matter how many lawyers she has.
1) Whoever set up her server left the default encryption keys on the VPN device. So no, it was not secure.
2) These emails were found by looking at 40 emails on her "server for unclassified material". Which kinda makes it hard to stick to the claim that the server was only for unclassified material.
3) If she wanted to store classified on her server, she could have. But it would have required additional hardware, additional paperwork, and going through a review process that she did not do.
There are reasons that there is one process for handling classified across the entire government. She does not get to invent her own.
Anything that hit her email server that was classified was required to be reported to her security officer, and the email needed to be securely deleted from the server.
She didn't do that. Because they found these emails. In a sample of 40.
If there's 1 email per page she turned over to the State Department, and they did not get very lucky with this sample, that's around 2,750 TS/SCI emails on her server.
Whoops! There goes your claim about "secured by the secret service and encrypted". Even if it were a valid excuse, this destroys that claim.
At which point, they finally configured the VPN properly.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)that someone else forwarded TO HER information that may or may not be retroactively classified.
No one who isn't hyper-partisan, as you obviously are, would ever claim this shows she did anything wrong.
Do you really want to live in a world where people can sabotage other people's careers by FORWARDING articles about news accounts to them?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 14, 2015, 11:55 PM - Edit history (1)
Retroactively marked. It was always classified. And it was classified high enough to be TS/SCI.
There's a lot of seemingly trivial things that are SECRET, so it's not all that uncommon for someone to accidentally treat it as unclassified.
TS/SCI is obvious enough that your internal debate is "Is this SECRET, TS, or SCI?". Because except in very, very, very rare cases it is obvious that it should be classified at some level.
Reading. Try it sometime.
If someone forwarded her an article, she was required to report the classified information to her security officer and then securely delete the email.
She didn't report it to anyone, or it would not be a surprise to find classified. She did not securely delete it, because the emails were found.
Failure to report and storing the classified in an unclassified environment is what she is in trouble for. Not just receiving an email. This has been explained to you repeatedly in this thread, but you keep pretending it is only about receiving an email.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)from classified materials.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That information is what she failed to protect.
A newspaper article that quotes a document leaked by Manning will get people with security clearances in trouble. Because they have to report the breach, and ensure the information is properly deleted from their computer.
Yes, even if it's a newspaper article, and the classified document is available to anyone on the planet through Wikileaks. It's still classified, so people with clearances have to treat it as classified.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)retroactively classified. This has been repeatedly reported.
But you're hyper-partisan, so in your view she's always guilty-no-matter-what.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)2) These emails were found by looking at 40 emails on her "server for unclassified material". Which kinda makes it hard to stick to the claim that the server was only for unclassified material.
3) If she wanted to store classified on her server, she could have. But it would have required additional hardware, additional paperwork, and going through a review process that she did not do.
The server security was specifically kept from anyone, but it doesn't matter since 90% was sent to and from computers all over the world - that's why it didn't matter as regards unclassified email. At the time email was sent it was unclassified. After she left office, the server was protected to State satisfaction. After the required paper copies were sent and backups put in her lawyers hands, the server was wiped. Surely a legal mind understands that is following the rules.
There was NOTHING classified at the time she looked at it or received it - and you know that...reported over and over and over. She followed all rules.
She did have State approval (and White House) for her server set up. AFTER she left as SoS she reconfigured to whatever security she wanted, but there was security and encryption reported long before her emails became an issue. At this time, all that is reported is that the method is not public. Just about half of Washington knew she used that server:
Others who had Hillary's email were:
Among those in possession of the private address: Democratic pollster Mark Penn, Washington spinmeister Lanny Davis, Tony Blair’s wife Cherie, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, retired Gen. Wes Clark, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (though he, along with White House adviser David Axelrod, had to ask permission). Also trading emails with Clinton: Ambassador Scott Gration (later ousted from his post by Clinton’s team), Clinton childhood friend Voda Ebeling, Bill Clinton college roommate and newspaper publisher Brian Greenspun, education activist and philanthropist political donor Jill Iscol and former Hillary Clinton Senate chief of staff Tamera Luzzatto.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/state-dept-releases-new-tranche-of-hillary-clintons-emails-119624.html#ixzz3ikF64BZE
Here...read this too....
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The server is on the Internet. Anyone can access it. And after it was revealed, people did.
And they found it was not close to secure.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/clinton-s-e-mail-system-built-for-privacy-though-not-security
http://gawker.com/how-unsafe-was-hillary-clintons-secret-staff-email-syst-1689393042
You can go there yourself: http://clintonemail.com
Tip for the Clinton campaign: Putting a web server there with your position on this scandal might be a good idea.
No. It was not marked classified.
Not being marked is not the same as actually being unclassified.
It's not on the same planet as following the rules for classified information. It is about as far from "following the rules" you can get without personally handing the information to Putin.
Again, there was nothing marked classified. Not being marked classified does not make it unclassified.
You know this, but you're clinging to the fantasy that there is some sort of review that turns information into classified. The reverse is true. If there's any doubt, you mark it classified and then seek out if it should be unclassified.
If by "all the rules" you mean "broke every rule except for selling the information".
And part of that approval, if it existed, is to not have classified information on it. She did have classified information on it.
And that security was misconfigured to the point of being zero security.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)they should not be above normal people, but both the classification rules and the security issues appear to be. I know that the best defense against any internet breaches is actually what the Ruskies are going back to... paper, and carbon paper
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/kremlin-typewriters_n_3579184.html
Not that I would recommend some of this to State, but perhaps we should.
Ah... technology at times can byte you in the ass, and in this case, wittingly, or not, it is.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)People think it works like they see on TV/Movies/Books/etc. They forget that the writers of those things 1) don't know anything about the real classification system, and 2) are trying to create an exciting story. They get it wrong 99.9% of the time, because getting it wrong tells the story they want to tell.
But Clinton's fans need to find out how it really works if they want to have the vaguest understanding of what is coming.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)suffice it to say, if I write a story involving Wikileaks, he cannot see it. It does not matter how good it is. And he has been retired a while.
When you posted that bit, I live in a military town. Next time we have a story involving them, I will put the warning on top. I do not want to get anybody in trouble even by accident.
As to writers and movies and all that, guilty as charged. But I s'pose I can take a few liberties since the setting is in the 35th century, so I suppose a few things would change... but not the penchant for secrecy. That... never will change.
FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret"
FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System, And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton's Server Use
FACT: Experts Have Debunked Any Comparison Between Clinton's Email Use And David Petraeus' Crimes
FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton Herself
---------------
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/
A Politifact analysis also confirmed that Clinton's practices complied with laws and regulations, including support from the former director of a prominent government accountability organization: "In Clinton's defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account. Because these rules weren't in effect when Clinton was in office, 'she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time,' said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization."
Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.
When information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified if the State Department or another agency believes its public release could cause potential harm to national security, law enforcement or diplomatic relations.
After reviewing a sampling of the 55,000 pages of emails, the Inspectors General have proffered that a small number of emails, which did not contain any classified markings and/or dissemination controls, should have been classified at the time they were sent. The State Department has said it disagrees with this assessment.
Where was the server for her email located?
The server for her email was physically located on her property, which is protected by U.S. Secret Service.
What level of encryption was employed? Who was the service provider?
The security and integrity of her family's electronic communications was taken seriously from the onset when it was first set up for President Clinton's team. While the curiosity about the specifics of this set up is understandable, given what people with ill intentions can do with such information in this day and age, there are concerns about broadcasting specific technical details about past and current practices. Suffice it to say, robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing third party experts.
Was the server ever hacked?
No, there is no evidence there was ever a breach.
Was there ever an unauthorized intrusion into her email or did anyone else have access to it?
No.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Everything that Manning leaked is still classified. Anyone with a security clearance has to treat it as classified, even though it's more-or-less public.
You want to give someone with a security clearance a bad day, email them something Manning or Snowden leaked. They have to report the email, and then the rest of their day/week/month depends on how much of an asshole their security officer wants to be.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Because like you they speak from a position of experience.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)If someone sent you an email from the Snowden or Manning leak, how easy is it to tell that you're seeing classified information? Is it clearly marked? Are you just suppose to know from the information in the email?
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)Another fake scandal they have cooked up.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)6 months before any vote!
And those that you mention doing the GOP's bidding attacking Clinton with GOP and Fox supplied lies and speculation disguised as "maybe fact" - which has not gone unnoticed by the GOP - seem to be all encamped in one area..... if you take my meaning.
Rstrstx
(1,399 posts)The story has taken on a life of its own and the GOP is only too happy to let the anti-Clinton wing of the Democratic Party fall on their swords.
And the irony is that it has come completely as a bonus. The real reason the GOP was absolutely livid about her keeping her emails had nothing to do with national security, it was because they couldn't drag them out for their 928th Benghazi hearing, that's what really pissed them off. Then they saw the story had its own traction even amongst a few Democrats and they just let it take off.
There was a reason private email accounts were standard m.o. during the Bush administration, they make a lot of sense politically since they give less ammunition to your enemy. I'm sorry but politics is war and if you're naive enough to think the Republicans won't use everything you've ever written or spoken against you then you're a total idiot. If the Republicans' allies managed to dig up the obscurest recording of Hillary from the '70s about polygraph tests she had more than enough reason to suspect they would sift through every last sentence she had written in every single email ever sent out and twist it to make her look like the devil incarnate. That has been the whole political point of the Benghazi committees all along, it's to find something - anything - that lets them go after the Obama administration at first and Hillary now (she's the only political hostage worth taking at this point).
So here they have this story that is completely counter to their strategy, instead of their usual tactics of search and destroy now they're using what they can't find against her. It's actually brilliant, this way they can even play a few Democrats and the general media in addition to their usual tin-foil cap base.
Bernie's supporters will see these tactics soon enough should he ever move into a more threatening position.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)the GOP will turn on Sanders if he is ever leading national polls....you will need your DU friends then.
If you do not understand that then you are doing worse than no favor.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)every party has it's fringe or weak links and conspiracy theorists...although I admit most conspiracy theorists tend to fall in the libertarian party...all of us have some. I do not see more than a few supposed Sanders supporters promoting this crap.
Most of us are as sick of it as Hillary is.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The email thing is ridiculous, agreed?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)You insinuated very clearly that Bernie supporters are "wishing" Hillary will be taken down over this idiotic Gop e-mail sabotage, and are willing to join the GOP in this battle.
And as far as my opinion on the Hillary e-mail issue, my posts is pretty damn clear.
Hmmm...how about I turn the tables on you?
Be careful what you wish for Hillary supporters, what you join in on with the GOP vicious propaganda against Bernie (lets say "he's a damned socialist"
, will be something the GOP will turn on Hillary if she wins the primary....you will need your DU friends then.
Does that sound innocent? Really? Or does it sound like a stick in the eye?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)"You insinuated very clearly that Bernie supporters are "wishing" Hillary will be taken down over this idiotic Gop e-mail sabotage, and are willing to join the GOP in this battle."
Is anyone seriously claiming that SOME Bernie supporters are not doing exactly that? And giving oxygen to the idiotic daily GOP outrages that turn out to be lies and speculation disguised as fact, a day later, when the next smear is manufactured?
The examples are legion....granted many are Johnny Come Latelys, but no denying what I say is true.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)brer cat
(24,578 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)All non-existent scandals based on lies created by right-wing idiots, and latched onto by the so-called mainstream media that has no common sense.
moondust
(19,993 posts)Sad how low malicious assholes working for supergreedy psychopaths will go in their craving for wealth and power.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)People don't trust her.
They can lie about her and it will stick. She can claim anything she wants and it won't matter. She won't be believed.
She will never be on message. She will always be on defense. Swing voters won't turn out for her and the right wing nuts will turn out in droves against her.
She is a horrible candidate. Nobody should care that it is "her turn". The Presidency is far to important to gamble on someone with a fatal flaw. And don't kid yourself, having a clear majority of the country not trust you is a fatal flaw for a Presidential candidate.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-60-dont-trust-hillary-62-say-shell-do-anything-to-be-president/article/2570206
^snip^
Poll: 60% don't trust Hillary, 62% say she'll 'do anything' to be president
Voter trust in Hillary Clinton continues to drop as she struggles with a potential criminal investigation into improperly handling "top secret" information while secretary of state, according to a new poll.
The poll found that 60 percent do not trust Clinton (up from 56 percent last month), and that 56 percent do not believe Clinton shares their values.
What's more, the poll found that a growing number of people, now 62 percent, believe that the Democrat will "say or do anything" to win the presidency.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-14/hillary-clinton-s-trust-problem
^snip^
In Clinton We Trust. Or Maybe Not.
Hillary Clinton has a trust problem.
Her polls in head-to-head matchups with Republicans have fallen, and in a recent Quinnipiac University poll, only 37 percent of Americans considered her honest and trustworthy, compared with 52 percent for Jeb Bush. To be sure, other candidates in both parties have similar trust ratings, but the difference is that many people simply don't have an opinion about the trustworthiness of Scott Walker or Bernie Sanders. Only 6 percent of Americans are unsure about Clinton; the remaining 57 percent say they don't trust her. These numbers have held basically steady since April, but CNN suggests that she had good trustworthiness ratings before the scandal broke about the security of her e-mail when she was secretary of state. I cited the e-mail mess in April as evidence for my belief that the Clinton campaign was going to dredge up everything we hated about the Clintons when Bill was in office: the cavalier belief that rules are for other, smaller people; the aggressive image management; the financial scandals. Subsequent polling seems to have borne this out.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/17/politics/poll-2016-elections-hillary-clinton-trustworthy/
^snip^
Poll: Clinton's honesty and trustworthy problem extends to swing states
(CNN)A majority of voters in three key presidential swing states view Hillary Clinton as not honest and trustworthy, according to a new poll out Wednesday.
The Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll finds that by margins of 8 to 14 percentage points voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are skeptical of Clinton's trustworthiness.
In Florida, 51% of voters hold the negative view of Clinton, compared to 43% who feel she is trustworthy. In Ohio, 53% of voters find Clinton not trustworthy, compared to 40% who do. And in Pennsylvania, 54% of voters don't find her honest, while 40% do.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)That makes all the difference.
It doesn't stick.
dsc
(52,162 posts)Other than Trump, who was mostly mixed about him but did attack him for giving up the mic to BLM, can you find any GOP candidate attacking Sanders for anything?
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Or have you just gotten used to that?
dsc
(52,162 posts)I think that is hardly an unfair attack. But if that is all you have I can't see that as even roughly comparable to what they have done to Clinton.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)ever since the right tried and failed to take her husband down.
Don't you remember when they were accusing her of being involved in a MURDER of a friend?
Yes, the DISINFORMATION campaign against her has succeeded to some extent. But most Dems and most people can see who's behind it.
Strange that you don't.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Because she didn't back off an obvious lie until video surfaced which forced her to. Then she blames it on a lack of sleep (while running an attack ad about a 3:00 am phone call).
More recently there are things like her, and her campaign's, claim that she had a private email server in her home because she didn't want to carry two phones. Remember that insanity? Remember that it took Over A Week to produce that nonsense?
How about her 3 different positions on the TPP.
Or her telling someone that she will reveal her stance on the Keystone XL pipeline after she becomes President. (WTF was that?!)
Trust is earned. It appears that she either has no idea how to do that or simply can't be bothered to try.
Horrible candidate.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
quickesst
(6,280 posts)
......................
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)for in '08. Now I don't trust her.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)prop·a·gan·da
ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun
1.derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
What exactly is misleading about what I posted? Biased, maybe... but far less than someone defending who did what she did.
What I posted was 100% accurate, and was even watered down a little. I was going to add one more thing but didn't. I guess I will now.
Terrible candidate. Can you now see why people don't trust her or her campaign?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)never see it coming, but they can be seen...all of the Iowa GOP voters are victims of RW political propaganda systemically orchestrated, for example.
Trust really is the heart of the matter.
Using "trust" as a litmus test I have no problem with. I think both Clinton and Sanders and all the Democratic candidates, except Webb, can be "trusted" - however you want to define the word.
But you can trust more than one person at a time, there is not a numeric absolute maximum.
Obama has earned my trust, for example, never to be given away lightly.
And I trust Clinton because Obama trusts her, again, for good reason, a trust not blindly given, but earned and a trust given in trust, which can be withdrawn.
P.s I understand that "propaganda" is a word that has multiple very similar, but distinct, defintions and meanings, dependent upon the contest in which the word is used...a very flexible word.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I think she got her Sec. of State position just to appease her PUMA lunatics and to help unite the party.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)mcar
(42,334 posts) jeff47
(26,549 posts)People with security clearances can't talk about anything Manning leaked in an unclassified environment. Yep, you can get all of it freely on the Internet. They still can't talk about it because it's all still classified.
Clinton had a security clearance. So she had to play by the security clearance rules, not how you think it should work.
Finding TS/SCI means this went from something featured in a 30-second ad to something that will receive a serious investigation. It will not be going away. You can poo-poo it all you want, but it will not go away because of TS/SCI.
And 2 out of 40 emails had TS/SCI. If that rate holds up, that's around 2,750 emails with highly classified information. We better really hope they got lucky with that small sample.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)If they become classified information NOW, it would just prove how ridiculous and over-the-top the whole classification system is.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 14, 2015, 08:05 PM - Edit history (1)
Two things that would get mere mortals in the depths of the government to be fired, and then they get to enjoy a lengthy criminal investigation. That may or may not result in charges.
The source doesn't matter. The information is classified.
An article is published based on leaks, saying our super-secret airplane can fly at 3,125 mph. Send that to someone who has a clearance and is working on that project, and they get in trouble. Because despite coming from the media, that speed is still classified.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and you are correct, They do not even look at Wikileaks... and that reminds me, I should have a warning at the top of articles when I do cite Wikileaks.. which we do from time to time.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)2 emails contained top secret intelligence and satellite images.
• TK refers to Talent Keyhole, which is an intelligence community caveat indicating that the classified material was obtained via satellite.
• NOFORN, as the name implies, means that the materials can only be shown to Americans, not to foreigners.
In short: Information at the “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN” level is considered exceptionally highly classified and must be handled with great care under penalty of serious consequences for mishandling. Every person who is cleared and “read on” for access to such information signs reams of paperwork and receives detailed training about how it is to be handled, no exceptions—and what the consequences will be if the rules are not followed.
link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/12/the-spy-satellite-secrets-in-hillary-s-emails.html
jalan48
(13,870 posts)Hillary is the only candidate with extensive international relations experience. She can claim it as one of her strengths. They are taking one of her strengths and turning it against her. I support Bernie but this is how politics are done these days.
Rstrstx
(1,399 posts)Yet it's happening before our very eyes. They need to get out in front of this and get a lot more aggressive before it spins completely out of control.
This is certainly not a new melody and certainly not coming from the Sanders camp, Rove sang it the loudest but the tune itself is an old Republican favorite that dates back to at least the Atwater era of 1988.
madville
(7,412 posts)The inspector generals still want to review the other 54,960 emails they haven't been able to look at yet. Two out of 40 would mean there could potentially be 2,000-3,000 emails contains TS material.
The inspector generals are now working with the state department and DOJ/FBI to get access to the remaining 54,000+ emails they don't yet have access to.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)This is why Colin Powell had all his emails wiped after he left office.
pansypoo53219
(20,981 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)Even Gwen Ifill, gods help us! And the crap at DU just makes me nuts.
Thank you, pnwmom.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)
ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)For once I would like to see and end to hypocrisy.
Imagine that instead of Hillary, it was Richard Nixon. Then we'd see people here saying how bad it is.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Then the poop will hit the proverbial fan!
madokie
(51,076 posts)the gop should be brought up on charges of harassment.
Hillary is not my first choice but I'll happily vote for her over any or all of the 'CONs any day and twice on sunday.