Guess who initiated the investigation into Clinton's emails? John Kerry

[paulthompson]

For all those Hillary supporters who say the investgation into Clinton's emails is a right-wing witchhunt...

Just today, I came across the surprisingly little known fact that it was Secretary of State John Kerry who initiated the review of the State Department inspector general into Clinton's emails:

April 2015: State Department Inspector General Steve Linick begins an inquiry into Clinton's emails at John Kerry's request. The New York Times will later reveal, "Secretary of State John Kerry asked Mr. Linick’s office to conduct a review after the disclosure [in March 2015] that Mrs. Clinton had exclusively used a computer server installed in her New York home for official and personal email correspondence from 2009 to 2013..." The State Department inquiry started by Linick will eventually develop into an FBI investigation. (The Washington Post, 8/14/2015) (The New York Times, 3/10/2016)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Short_Version_-_Part_2#entry040015linickbegins

Linick, by the way, was appointed by Obama. Then Linick found enough disturbing evidence of poorly handled classified information that he brought in Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough, who by the way was also appointed by Obama. Then the two of them did this:

July 6, 2015: Two department watchdogs refer the Clinton email case to the FBI. Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough and State Department Inspector General Steve Linick jointly send the FBI a "security referral," asking the FBI to investigate Clinton's private emails and server. This grew out of McCullough and Steve Linick reviewing some of the over 30,000 Clinton emails handed over to the State Department in late 2014. (The Los Angeles Times, 3/27/2016) (The Washington Post, 8/14/2015) However, according to another account by CNN in August 2015, the FBI had already begun investigating Clinton's emails in late May 2015, so presumably this referral would only have spurred on that effort. (CNN, 8/20/2015)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Short_Version_-_Part_2#entry070615referredtofbi

FBI Director James Comey has been personally overseeing the investigation since it began. This is what Obama had to say about Comey when he nominated him to head the FBI:

June 21, 2013: President Obama nominates James Comey to be the next director of the FBI; Comey starts a ten-year term. While announcing the nomination, Obama comments, "To know Jim Comey is also to know his fierce independence and his deep integrity. ... He doesn't care about politics, he only cares about getting the job done. At key moments, when it's mattered most, he (stood) up for what he believed was right. He was prepared to give up a job he loved rather than be part of something he felt was fundamentally wrong." Comey had been the deputy attorney general during the Bush administration. Obama's comment about giving up a job is reference to a 2004 incident where Comey (and others) threatened to resign unless President Bush canceled a surveillance program before its legal authorization expired. Bush gave in and canceled the program. (The White House, 6/21/2013) Comey is approved by the Senate later in June and starts his ten-year term as FBI director on September 4, 2013. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 9/4/2013) Comey will later be in charge of the FBI when it investigates Clinton's email scandal.

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Medium_Version_-_Part_2#entry062113comeynominated

And it's been known for months that it's a serious investigation. For instance, this:

November 10, 2015: The FBI's inquiry into Clinton's emails has turned into a "full-blown investigation." Politico reports, "The FBI's recent moves [regarding Clinton's private emails] suggest that its inquiry could have evolved from the preliminary fact-finding stage that the agency launches when it receives a credible referral, according to former FBI and Justice Department officials interviewed..." The FBI has been conducting interviews and gathering documents. Tom Fuentes, former assistant director of the FBI, says, "This sounds to me like it's more than a preliminary inquiry; it sounds like a full-blown investigation. When you have this amount of resources going into it... I think it's at the investigative level." (Politico, 11/10/2015)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Short_Version_-_Part_2#entry111015fullblown

And this:

May 11, 2016: FBI Director James Comey says the FBI is conducting an "investigation" into Clinton's emails and server, not a "security inquiry." Speaking to reporters, he adds, "We're conducting an investigation ... That’s what we do. ... It's in our name [the Federal Bureau of Investigation]. I'm not familiar with the term 'security inquiry.'" Clinton and her spokespeople have repeatedly referred to it as a "security inquiry" or a "security referral." Comey also says that he feels "pressure" to complete the Clinton investigation soon, but "I don't tether to any external deadline," such as the Democratic convention in July 2016. He otherwise deflects questions about the investigation, saying it is on-going. (Politico, 5/11/2016) (The New York Times, 5/11/2016) (The Hill, 5/11/2016)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Short_Version_-_Part_2#entry051116notinquiry

Yes, Comey is a Republican, but Obama nominated him after Comey had been out of government for several years. Obama could have picked anybody; it wasn't like Comey was reappointed or was next in line. Look at the high praise Obama has given him.

And yes, Republicans love to make political hay about this investigation, but it's been initiated and led by Obama appointees every step of the way. I just thought I'd mention that to correct the record.

Oh, and by the way, there's something else I noticed today in that March 10, 2016, New York Times article that mentioned that Kerry was the one that started the ball rolling: "Mr. Linick has since completed two reports on the issue, and a final report is expected late this month or next." Taking that literally, the report should have come out by May 10. Obviously it's been delayed some, but it'll be interesting to see what that report has to say when it does come out, since that's a separate thing from the FBI investigation.

Also, as an aside, my timeline added a new feature yesterday, which you can see above. Each entry now has a "share" button. If you click on it, it'll copy the text of the entry into your computer's clipboard. Then you can paste it into a DU forum post or whatever, and it'll include a link at the bottom that takes the reader right to that entry so they can check on the source articles for themselves.

[Skink]

1. Team of Rivals

[grasswire]

74. PEOPLE: Please don't be drawn into disruption on this thread.

Just don't respond to trolls or disruptors.

[pdsimdars]

96. Threads like this are a great opportunity to refine your ignore list.

If you come across a troll, that is, someone who seems only to throw wrenches in the works and not actually discuss the issue. . . . well, that's what God and the good people at DU gave us "ignore" for. Use it. It cleans things up very nicely.

[JesterCS]

237. My ignore list went from a couple

To over 100 probably.

[pdsimdars]

241. I think I probably have around 300

The longer I read here, the less patience I have with people who just want to be a pain in the ass and contribute nothing to the conversation. Enough of that.

[GreatGazoo]

158. Kerry has nothing to gain personally in this.

Possibly this investigation was started early and directed to "friendlies" to get this cleared up before the GE, a version of a limited hangout. (?)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

211. I doubt that

[brush]

2. Keep wishing and hoping.

[catnhatnh]

13. The poster is an archivist, not a partisan

but you keep imputing any motives you care to. It says a ton more about you than it does about Paul...

[brush]

19. Hah! If you think that you're not too astute. That post is nothing but a Clinton attack.

[catnhatnh]

25. Okay,

prove I'm not too astute and point out the parts you dispute as untrue.


















I'm waiting...

[brush]

32. This site's purpose is to help Dem candidates get elected, not to tear them down.

We don't need posts designed to do just that.

[paulthompson]

41. That's why I'm trying to do

I'm trying to get a Democrat elected in November. And I believe the best way to do that is to nominate literally anyone but Clinton, since she's the only one fatally wounded with an active FBI investigation on her tail.

It's not too late to change, if the news that comes out gets bad enough. Note that in 1972 the Democrats dropped Eagleton as the vice presidential pick two weeks AFTER the Democratic convention due to some previously unknown news coming out about him. But we've not reached the convention or even the end of the primaries yet.

Just because there are a lot of Clinton supporters here who refuse to see the storm that is coming doesn't mean I have to be one of them. There's more than enough evidence out there to show that there's a strong chan<script id="gpt-impl-0.36926093728928755" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_88.js"></script>ce the FBI will recommend Clinton's indictment, and the smart Democratic move would be to prepare for that. But like the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Some people refuse to see, no matter what.

[brush]

146. It's not going to happen but if it did we'd all be screwed as the repugs would win in a landslide

No way anyone from the then tainted Democratic Party wins, be it Sanders or Biden or whoever. And down-ticket candidates, forget it for 2016 and 2018 — possibly 2020.

The corporate media would go wild with such a time bomb, gleefully running such an unprecedentedly huge story non-stop, in concert with the repugs' 24/7 ads funded by Koch and Adelson billions that would tar the whole party as corrupt. The ads would also go after Sanders' Marxist and Trotskyite past.

We wouldn't stand a chance.

It would be a blood bath and Trump in a walk come November, so wishing for it to happen is really wishing for political suicide.

[Qutzupalotl]

204. I disagree. Clinton's problems are her own, not the entire party's.

No one is wishing for an indictment, except some who are following this hope the FBI will make a recommendation BEFORE the convention. If they recommend charging her after the convention, then yes, we're sunk.

But there is an enormous danger in simply ignoring the investigation, pretending it's a partisan witch hunt. Obviously the FBI sees a reason to continue or they would have concluded by now.

[brush]

210. You make some good points.

I agree with all of them except 'Clinton's problems are her own' as the repugs with all their millions for ad buys would paint the entire party as corrupt. They wouldn't limit their attacks to Clinton who, in the scenario we're talking about, would be a former candidate.

No way they wouldn't connect her problems with the rest of the party.

They'd paint the entire party, and Sanders, as corrupt and unelectable because of it.

And they wouldn't stop there — enter the attacks on Sanders' Marxist and Trotskyite background ties.

So we should stop with the "wishing for an indictment" meme as sometimes when you get what you hope for, it turns out to be not so great.

And I do understand that you're not one of the a-wishing and a-hoping crew.

[RichVRichV]

227. I'll point out your hypocrisy, but you'll ignore it or deflect.

"This site's purpose is to help Dem candidates get elected, not to tear them down."

"enter the attacks on Sanders' Marxist and Trotskyite background ties."

[brush]

232. If you call it hypocrisy to point out that Sanders has baggage too, okay, but I'm . . .

well aware of the months and months of attacks calling Clinton a corrupt, lying, corporate whore, and all the rest of it.

Did you get the point of the post at all, that if Clinton is indicted, no way Sanders or Biden or Warren, anyone with a (D) beside their name, would get anywhere near the White House because our party would be irreparably tarred as corrupt by the time 24/7 repug ads, funded by Koch and Adelson billions got through with us?

[RichVRichV]

233. Hillary isn't the party and the party isn't Hillary.

Her indiscretions fall on her and her alone. It would have no effect on other candidates since it was totally of her doing and not of the party as a whole. If you were being honest with yourself you would recognize that.


If you really want to paint the party as corrupt then go into the general with a corrupt candidate when there are uncorrupt options. And I'm speaking in general, not just this election.


And yes, saying we shouldn't attack Democrats in one breath then immediately attacking another in the next (and with no evidence to back it even) is hypocritical.

[brush]

234. Sad! Naivete is not a good look. You actually don't think the party would be affected . . .

by it's leading candidate being indicted?

Check back into reality, please.

[RichVRichV]

235. Not if the indicted person isn't the candidate.

I'm not naive, you're stuck in a bubble. I've watched politicians get indicted then candidates from the same party get elected to the same position. The electorate doesn't put the sins of a candidate on the party as a whole unless the party backs up the candidate. Contrary to what you believe the political universe doesn't revolve around Hillary Clinton.

[brush]

236. Seems you still don't get it.

I'm not strictly talking about Clinton. If Sanders, ore even Trump got indicted, their party would suffer because they represent the party.

Not rocket science.

[RichVRichV]

238. History says you're wrong.

Lots of politicians have been indicted and convicted and the process keeps rolling along without a hiccup. In Illinois I've seen plenty of governors indicted with no effect down ticket in the state on both sides of the isle.


The one thing that would hurt the party is stubbornly backing an indicted candidate (if it ever reaches that point).


Final point, until she secures the nomination at the convention she's not the party lead, she's just another candidate running.

[brush]

239. Not a nominee for president before and election. You have to know there would be . . .

highly negative consequences for that party.

[RichVRichV]

240. What you're using is called conjecture.

You have no evidence to back your claim. It's based soley upon your belief.


What's ironic is your trying to argue that the candidate you support may end up bringing the party down. It must make you proud.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

212. Trump doesn't stand a chance against Bernie

[fasttense]

102. That is Not the purpose of DU or this forum

It is to bring like minded people togeather to discuss Democratic politics without right wing crazies constantly attacking.

It is Not to get your favorite politician elected. It is a Discussion Board. Not a campaign headquarters. If you want your favorite to get elected, go volunteer to work on their campaign. But don't expect this board to get your gal into office.

[brush]

135. Newsflash: It is to get Dems elected.

[floriduck]

185. You HAVE to be kidding. Are you actually saying neither candidates supporters aren't supposed to

justify why their candidate is better for the country? How utterly laughable that fail is.

[brush]

187. Read up on the original purpose of the site.

[floriduck]

188. Read what is actually happening and has been happening.

[frylock]

189. Hey, that's great, but...

you never did point out the parts you dispute as untrue.

[Fawke Em]

149. So truth has a Bernie bias?

[paulthompson]

21. The poster

Actually, I am a Sanders supporter. I'm not trying to hide that. But I'm a Sanders supporter in large part because after I started looking into Clinton's email scandal, I realized she'd committed a series of serious crimes. How could I support Clinton after coming to that conclusion?! And how could I not wish the Democrats would nominate Sanders instead of someone being actively investigated by the FBI?

The key is that I try my best to just present the facts in the timeline I'm making. Anyone here, including Clinton supporters, should feel free to suggest changes and/or additions if they feel I haven't been fair and objective. So far, nobody has done that yet. But I'm open to specific constructive criticism from anyone.

[creeksneakers2]

230. Are you saying John Kerry was the first to come up with this?

I think he got it from the Benghazi committee which is highly partisan. He did what any secretary would do when someone from his agency is accused of a crime, he referred it to the IG.

I for one, could say much of your one timelines is based on a International Business Times article that alleges Hillary approved the Saudi Arms deal because of Clinton Foundation donations. The article is full of holes and ignores that the Saudi arms deal was a major administration wide initiative. Their evidence is crap if you looked into it. For one thing, its casts suspicion on the deal by stating that the deal was opposed by Israel. That's misleading at best and a lie at worst. While Israel made tactical objections to the deal at first, their concerns were addressed and they were also promised more sophisticated weapons than the Saudis got. Israel dropped its objections early on. That's just one of the holes in your source. All they really have is that Hillary approved an arms deal and before she was secretary the Saudis donated to the foundation. Nothing further than that was established.

[paulthompson]

18. It's a two-way street

You can say that Sanders supporters are "wishing and hoping" that something will come of the investgation. But one can also say that Clinton supporters are "wishing and hoping" that something will not come out of it.

I've looked at the evidence very thoroughly and I believe the evidence is overwhelming that Clinton should be indicted on a number of charges. For instance, if the same set of facts applied to a low level appointee, there's no doubt in my mind that person would be indicted. It's just a matter of whether political considerations will prevent justice from taking its course. I don't know about that, since I'm not privy to whatever behind the scenes intrigues might be taking place.

To give just one example of the trouble Clinton is in, the Justice Department made an immunity deal with Clinton's IT guy Bryan Pagliano. We know he was in legal trouble because while he worked in the State Department he had to sign a document once a year stating that he had no outside job. He did sign that each year despite the fact that he had an outside job the whole time managing Clinton's private email server. The penalty for lying on that form is five years in prison.

Thus, the FBI gave up a slam dunk conviction... for what? It's standard procedure to get the "little fish" to turn in order to get the "big fish." Pagliano worked directly for Clinton. There was no "middle man" or anyone else involved. So who would they be targeting in that immunity deal if not for Clinton?

I could go on. There are about six different areas the FBI could focus on for Clinton's indictment, not just the classified information in her emails. If you don't think this spells trouble for Clinton, then you haven't paid enough attention.

[brush]

20. Like I said, keep wishing and hoping. It's not going to happen.

[virtualobserver]

73. Obama isn't corrupt.....and neither are his appointees.

if that is what you are banking on.

[Samantha]

75. I am a Sanders' supporter as well but I do not think this impacts his candidacy one way or another

I will explain that below, but there is something more important to discuss first.

I live 15 miles outside of DC and have worked in some very interesting arenas. I also have been a political junkie for decades. I have zero problems separating political issues from national security issues. Although this is the political capital of the world, our national security is our highest priority. People tend to forget Washington, D.C. was also attacked on 9/11, and our resolve to never let something like that happen again tremendously intensified.

Many people in this area work in the national security arena and/or have close friends and relatives connected to the field. So when something is perceived to be an internal threat to our national security, which obviously is what has happened during this debacle, we expect that problem to be dealt with in the manner prescribed by law, politics be damned.

If one has taken the time to actually read the emails Anonymous dumped on the net, read Guccifer's interviews, and absorb all the other information we have the opportunity to peruse, there is no question felonies have been committed. For instance, when one reads an email that has the true name of an agent as opposed to his code name, it is readily apparent that is a serious breach of law. And when one hears that the Clinton server had a list of all agents, their real names as well as their code names, and that that list was opened to being hacked, and then when one reads that Guccifer gave a copy of the server contents to three different countries, Russia, China and one other, that is mind-boggling. So it does not seem open for discussion as to whether or not crimes were committed because they are readily apparent, and from the legal discussion experts have presented in the area of keeping operatives' identities safe, the absence of deliberate intent to harm is not an issue since criminal negligence exists.

I just don't see simply from reading all of the evidence that was put out into the public domain (and God only knows what else exists in the evidence the FBI has obtained that we have no knowledge of) how anyone can dispute that incredibly serious crimes have been committed. Those crimes are self-evident in the documents put out in the public domain.

The fallout from the FBI investigation and the DOJ decision does not impact the Sanders campaign because the Establishment will not allow him to be the Democratic nominee for President if it can stop it (which I believe they have a plan to do). If Hillary has to leave the contest because of these issues, the Democratic party leaders will drop-kick another candidate in the race so quickly it will make our heads spin. Probably Biden. If this happens before the nominee is determined at the convention, Hillary will give the replacement her pledged delegates; if it happens after the convention and Hillary is the actual nominee, they will simply name the new nominee and on to the GE we will go.

While all these things we have been discussing are important, the TPP is still out there and that is a priority to President Obama. Sanders openly campaigns against it so the Hillary replacement will have to be in favor of it. That is why I said at the start -- this investigation and its determination will have zero impact on Sanders standing. The only way Sanders becomes President will be if he finds a way to prevail at the convention on his own and then bests Trump in the GE, which I am sure he can do.

You have done an excellent job at putting everything together, and I thank you and your team for that. I just get a little worked up when I read or hear people say this matter is just another right-wing conspiracy, which of course you did a great job refuting.

Sam

ps sorry to have rambled on in this discussion, I just get worked up about people not taking it seriously....

[rhett o rick]

22. Exactly. Those that have come out to support Sen Sanders are wishing and hoping to end the culture

of corruption that some seem so comfortable with. Clinton is a integral player in that corruption. I am guessing that doesn't matter to you. While millions live in poverty, some support the wealthy. Why? Authoritarian Adulation. Tell me otherwise. Tell me why Democrats support Clinton-Sachs profits over the poor. Shame

[brush]

35. Come on. Stop with the sour grapes. Sanders has lost. You're gonna have to learn to deal with it.

[rhett o rick]

160. The hubris and arrogance of the Corporate Wing of our Party and their minions will be

their downfall. Sanders hasn't lost and that's why the Corporate side has to keep repeating it over and over trying to convince themselves. We've exposed the culture of corruption of big money influence in our government and we will keep fighting to the convention, thru the convention and beyond. The corporate bullies try to get the People to acquiesce before them, to sit down and shut up, but we won't. We will fight until our democracy is reestablished.

[brush]

166. He hasn't lost? Math must not be your strong point.

I do hope his movement continues though and establishes an actual structure so it doesn't evaporate like Occupy did.

There's a fundraising structure in place already. Working towards getting progressives elected in 2018 is a goal many can get behind.

Why that could even be the makings of an actual party to work within, and not attack from within.

[senz]

63. You have always spoken up for what is right and what is good

and I appreciate it, rhett o rick.

[merrily]

80. +1 Wonderful post, senz!

[rhett o rick]

157. And you also have spoken up for those that struggle in the middle and working classes.

We need to keep the pressure on.

[CorporatistNation]

3. Let's See What Happens! I Do Not Believe Comey Will Risk His As Well As The FBI's Reputation By

choosing NOT to indict Hillary as she surely must be due to the nature of her actions duly noted here and elsewhere.

[840high]

50. There would be pure wrath

from intel people, too.

[Fawke Em]

151. That's your key.

They are already hopping mad. I work with these people every day. It's no secret that even Dems in Intel want something done about this. It makes them all look bad.

[rusty fender]

57. A grand jury indicts,

Not the FBI.

[pdsimdars]

98. Someone else said that if the FBI doesn't indict then they will have to explain how it is legal

to have almost 2200 classified documents, 22 of which are at the highest level of Top Secret, on a private, unsecure, non-government server in your home. I'd love to hear that explained. Especially when people are in prison for removing a single classified document.
And there are many, many other questions like this that they would have to explain.

[MisterP]

192. right, Comey would be opening himself to a veritable hornet's nest of irate judges

the Judicial Watch civil suit is only the beginning

[rhett o rick]

162. Comey is establishment, nuff said. nm

[JI7]

4. it's Benghazi which has turned into a right wing witch hunt, the email thing does need to be

investigated but the right wing part is where people start implying things about it for their own political purposes.

things like how she should be indicted.

[JudyM]

216. How right wing is it when we state facts that come out of it?

[2banon]

5. That's interesting, and it makes complete sense

bookmarking and Recommending!

Thanks!

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Thanks. Keeping my own time line

[2banon]

7. oh by the way...

Oh, and by the way, there's something else I noticed today in that March 10, 2016, New York Times article that mentioned that Kerry was the one that started the ball rolling: "Mr. Linick has since completed two reports on the issue, and a final report is expected late this month or next." Taking that literally, the report should have come out by May 10. Obviously it's been delayed some, but it'll be interesting to see what that report has to say when it does come out, since that's a separate thing from the FBI investigation.

Did you see Dianne Feinstein's public statement posted here yesterday or the day before, where she publically encourages HRC to reveal her emails or it may eventually hurt her? I thought that was an astonishing comment to make publically, considering the source.

She KNOWS something, and I'm wondering if it's related to this report that hasn't yet been made public?

[paulthompson]

23. Misunderstanding

I saw that somewhere in the past day or two, but that's a misunderstanding. The Feinstein comment you mention actually dates from March 8, 2015. The scandal broke on March 2, and Feinstein was referring to the fact that Clinton hadn't commented on it yet. (She would, two days later.) So Feinstein's comment was only about the timing of events in that particular week, which is pretty much a moot point now.

[2banon]

49. Gotcha, I hadn't seen the date that statement was made when it was posted here a day or two ago

mentioned it in another thread and was corrected.

totally out of context with the current situation.

[Uncle Joe]

45. I believe this is why so many of the establishment Democrats and corporate media conglomerates have

become so passionate as of late for Bernie to drop out of the race.

They know this is serious and should Bernie drop out and have fewer pledged delegates than if staying in, it would more difficult for him to get enough super-delegates to garner the nomination.

The fewer pledged delegates that Bernie has, the easier it would be for them to bring in someone else to replace Hillary before the convention if she is indicted or even recommended for indictment by the FBI.

[2banon]

48. ahh. slip sliding Biden in as replacement.

starting to make more sense..

[Uncle Joe]

52. Maybe Boxer?

[2banon]

55. I was thinking Boxer last Saturday, after that disgusting display in Nevada.

Why the hell was Barbara there, she's not running for office. but maybe she is.

[Pastiche423]

213. Barbara is 75

That's a year older than Bernie. Plus she's been on track to retire for some time.

[2banon]

214. I realize she's retiring, that was my point. Why the hell was she in Nevada?

what's the point in shilling for HRC, Boxer doesn't need to campaign for another election, UNLESS of course she IS involved in a quasi campaign for the VP.slot.

Of course there other ways quid pro quo, doesn't need to be the VP maybe she wants a board of directors position on one of the slush fund, money laundering Foundation or other.

[cliffordu]

77. ^^^this^^^

[840high]

51. Yes saw that.

[cheapdate]

8. Isn't it super cool

that The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline is a real thing?

What a valuable public service!

"Bernie or Bust!", I suppose.

[JimDandy]

38. So saith a member of the "Hillary at any cost" team. n/t

[cheapdate]

44. Nope. Democrat.

[JimDandy]

67. You are both a Democrat AND a Hillary supporter

Even if for employment reasons you don't/won't explicitly state that, it is apparent to me, from your body of posts over the last couple years, that you are.

[cheapdate]

115. Wrong. I have stated countless times

my fundamental ethical and political differences with Hillary Clinton. I diidn't vote for her in 2008 and I didn't vote for her in the primary in 2016.

I am 100% opposed to Republican politics and I will not do anything that strengthens or empowers them in any way. I'm voting for the Democratic Party's candidate in 2016, whoever he or she may be. I will be supporting and defending that candidate, whoever he or she may be. I am glad to state my differences with Hillary Clinton, but I will not be attacking either candidate, which is self-defeating to my primary imperative to prevent the Republicans from gaining the White House.

[Fumesucker]

9. This thing has more layers than a matryoshka doll

And every one is spinning at 90 degrees to the next one..

Let's just say I don't think Hillary is universally beloved by those she considers possible impediments to her forthcoming coronation.

[NewImproved Deal]

10. Cool! Why should Kerry take the fall for Clinton Machine sleaze and corruption?

[Baobab]

11. Good for him

professionalism

[amborin]

12. Great research!

[silvershadow]

14. Everyone knows he's a DINO.

[2banon]

15. Remember when Kerry was engaged in early negotiations wrt Iran's Nuclear capabilities, sanctions

news reports regarding a security breach of the negotiations.

Anyone remember the timeline? and I'm wondering if Sid Blumenthal was involved in that breach. and anything related might be in the emails, despite she was no longer SoS

[grasswire]

30. oboy

I have had the feeling that something bigger is below the surface.

Keep your eyes open, kids.

[Scootaloo]

78. I don't remember that. Is there documentation?

I do remember Clinton herself being very critical of hte Obama-Kerry approach to both Syria and Iran... Which is a big part of why I can't understand why anyone would support her. Do people really want more war i nthe middle east? Do they really want to go backwards with Iran? Ugh.

[2banon]

131. In the early to mid stages of the Iran Negotiations under Kerry, there were reports of leaks

I have a fuzzy memory of the timeline and I think it was Kerry who made the leak factor public. I suppose that much is searchable vis a vis google or wiki.

It just a late night thought there may be a connection to the ongoing investigations. But to be honest I haven't committed to memory the timeline and other details of the investigations and all of the subsequent.connected events.

[karynnj]

175. At one point, once Netanyahu was being kept informed, he was leaking selective and misleading

information. That was in the later stages though. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4632558,00.html

[2banon]

205. I'd wager a month's SS that Bebe & Sid were involved

the question is if anything like that has been found, will it be revealed regardless if it isn't considered some sort of breach? Not saying that it's earth shattering important, but I do recall comments from Kerry's camp that the leaks had jeopardized aspects of the negotiations.

Hillary has made her opposition wrt peace negotiations with Iran.
She used rhetoric dropping the big one on Iran to bring them to heal was the only way to go signalling to Netanyahu they were on the same page.

She and Dick Cheney, John Bolton and the rest of the Neo Cons are in simpatico when it comes to blood thirsty foreign policy goals and agenda.

Yes I do know Dick Cheney has criticized HRC, and has come out to endorse Trump, but I think it's all about good cop bad cop bullshit. After all, they think a lot alike. They would have made a great team.

[karynnj]

206. I wouldn't go there

First of all, we know that the one time where she really could have sunk the deal was when the vote in Congress was going to happen. Obama, Kerry and Moniz had to work very hard to insure that the Republicans would not win the vote that would have killed the deal after all of Kerry's hard work. Clinton soon after the deal was made, congratulated Obama on the deal and said she was in support.

AIPAC worked very very hard to scuttle it. Many usually non partisan Jewish groups were also enlisted - to their discredit - including ones like Haddassah, which is loved for the humanitarian work it does. Every Democratic Senator was very very heavily lobbied for their vote.

Now imagine that Clinton really wanted to destroy the deal. Do you think it unlikely that the prohibitive favorite for President could not have swayed a handful of votes to kill it? Remember that Iran has a very negative image here. It was a hard lift as it was for Obama.

[2banon]

207. Good points.

I remember HRC congratulating Obama, but I have to say there was a projection of insincerity that I can't really put my finger on right now. I do recall how her official congratulatory remarks somehow rang hollow with me at the time. Could be my own distrust of her intentions while SoS on the entire matter. Her public condemnations of Iran, always pounding the fist, threatening severe actions, which was open to question as what kind of actions, deliberately.

Ill grant your points you make here still stands, however.

[seafan]

168. Reported in WP June 10, 2015

Data-collecting spyware reportedly found at Iran nuclear talk venues, WP, June 10, 2015

Sophisticated spyware believed linked to Israel infected computers at luxury hotels used as venues for nuclear negotiations with Iran, a Russian cybersecurity firm said Wednesday, but the extent of any possible data breach was not immediately known.

Moscow-based Kaspersky Lab did not specifically identify Israel as the mastermind behind the complex — almost undetectable — virus it stumbled across in early spring during a routine test.

But Eugene Kaspersky, chairman of the company, told a news conference in Moscow that it was most likely “state-sponsored malware” whose stealth and data-grabbing technology he described in Hollywood movie terms: “Kind of a mix of ‘Alien,’ ‘Terminator’ and ‘Predator.’ ”

.....

Kaspersky said the attempted intrusion bore all the markings of an improved version of the Duqu malware, which was first identified in 2011 and is believed to be related to the Stuxnet computer worm. In 2010, Stuxnet infiltrated the systems at Iran’s uranium-enrichment sites and caused significant setbacks.

At the time, Iran blamed Israel — and, by extension, its ally the United States — for the Stuxnet virus.

While no definitive origins have been established, many Internet security experts in the past have said Duqu appears to have been developed and deployed by Israel. Stuxnet was the work of U.S. and Israeli experts, current and former U.S. officials have said.

[2banon]

208. Oh, that's right.. malware, Stuxnet clone.

appreciate the reminder.

[antigop]

16. Thanks, Paul. K&R. nt

[riderinthestorm]

17. John Kerry, that RWNJ trying to manufacture another scandal against Hillary

Oh wait...


Thanks Paul for keeping us up to speed on this.

[2banon]

53. you had me for a sec.. :)

[moriah]

24. Kerry was doing his job. The people demanding all the waste on the Benghazi hearings, however...

... admit their reasons were to destroy Hillary and take credit for uncovering the email server.

So six of one, but Hillary isn't wrong that RWers are put to get her.

[grasswire]

29. you are right.

Hillary isn't wrong that RWers are out to get her.

However, it is ALSO true that her actions deserve the highest level of investigation, because there is plenty of indication of misconduct (if not criminality).

[moriah]

39. Any public official deserves scrutiny, absolutely, when an ethical question comes up.

Which is why, as I said, Kerry was just doing his job.

[senz]

26. John Kerry was high on the Clinton Hit List.

They considered him a major traitor and hate him.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/195192-kerry-kennedy-top-clintons-traitor-list

[dchill]

33. I believe it was someone named "John Podesta" who, in 2004...

recommended that Kerry not pursue a recount in Ohio, because there were not enough votes to justify it. There were, and many knew it. Podesta, always a Clinton operative, was "clearing the stage" for the eventual 2008 HRC campaign.

Presto! John Podesta, 2016 Clinton Campaign Chairman. Dirty trick? Nah - just non-beanbag, right? If Kerry had a gut, he should have trusted it. We'd all have been better off.

[senz]

42. Ah, that's right! I remember reading about it. She wanted him out of the way

so she could run for president.

Yes, if he hadn't trusted them we would be better off. I've gone over several such "if only" scenarios with promising Democrats of the time -- Gary Hart, Jerry Brown, etc.

But it's nice to know that not everyone is afraid of the Clintons.

Kerry has been a noticeably better SOS than Clinton. This has probably given him some satisfaction. Also, I'm sure he and Obama talk about things.

Makes me feel a little safer. (Please, John and Barack, protect us!)

[dchill]

46. I think that the Clintons' forte is end runs.

And I think that part of HRC's 2008 "deal" with Obama was that DWS would remain as DNC chair. This is how we got where we are, and the only explanation for her being in the race at all. Bernie Sanders is the ONLY real fly in the ointment of her elected office political ambitions. A truly formidable fly, all things considered.

[senz]

59. Actually

I wish they'd both just go away. They don't respect what government is supposed to be. They don't respect the American people. They manipulate everything and everyone to their own wishes which just happen to be money and power. They're classic villains. I think she's way crazier than her husband. I hope some of the powers that be disapprove of what they're doing. (Well it sounds like Kerry does and maybe Obama.)

Bernie is amazingly courageous and good. I hate it when shallow people make fun of him for not being slick and smooth.

Sorry, this whole mess gets to me sometimes.

[dchill]

64. Totally agree.

I think "classic villains" is spot on.

[grasswire]

66. you have been a warrior for truth, senz

There is a good core group of us here, patriots all, just seeking truth -- and having to fight against censorship to even discuss the matter.

[mmonk]

101. It all gets to me as well.

[grasswire]

65. peeling the layers of the onion

who knows what we will yet find?

[dchill]

68. Gas masks may be in order.

Not sure I'm kidding.

[grasswire]

72. I know people who are making sure to hunker down...

...throughout the summer and fall. No travel. Canned goods and water. Really. Seriously.

[Scootaloo]

79. Starting to look like the only "vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"

...is the one owned and operated by Bill and Hill Clinton.

[Fawke Em]

155. Or, as Guccifer said, "open like an orchid on the Internet."

[karynnj]

109. I am positive it gave him no satisfaction

This hurts Obama's administration. I don't think this is new information and one thing it did was to allow Kerry and the State Department to say that the investigation was being led by the IG and they were not interfering it. This is a lower level version of Obama not interfering with the DOJ and FBI.

Both Obama and Kerry want a Democrat to win 2016 as much as anyone here. Many things they worked hard for are at risk.

It bothers me that Kerry, who has been a clean, good government person was left such a mess by Clinton, a truly thoughtless person who does whatever she wants. Not leaving her email, when there were already requests, was a stupid risk that gained nothing.

[seabeyond]

110. Issa started it in 2012. Kerry did not. The OP is flat out wrong. NT

[karynnj]

111. Kerry went to the IG recommending the State IG investigate

The OP is not claiming Kerry was the first to start any investigation or mention her email. The OP is accurate and is a good addition to his time line.

Many things happen in parallel. The various Congressional hearings, the suits based on FOIA that did not get all they reasonably should have, the SD IG investigation, the Intelligence community IG investigation, and the FBI investigation.

The first two are the most public and have provided many leaks and many stories. One of the FOIA cases will interrogate HRC top staff last week and this week. They are what you are hearing about.

The other three are far quieter and why I am still worried that this issue may not go away. Very correctly, none of them are being run by partisans on either side. In the State Department, where JK recommended an IG within a few months of becoming SoS after HRC did not for her whole term leaving the position open, it is completely correct that this should have been handed over to the IG.

[ucrdem]

114. Yes, "initiated the investigation" means first to start it, and 2012 is not parallel to 2015.

This swiftboat is unseaworthy and we all know it.

[karynnj]

118. There are investigationS - the S is important to understanding what was said

The other OP did not say that this was the start of the entire issue -- it says that this is how the SD itself decided to do its internal investigation. The only thing new was that the NYT names John Kerry, himself, as the one who asked the IG to do so.

By the way there is no swiftboat here. In 2004, the Republicans lied about Kerry's status as a war hero, with awards for bravery - which he earned risking his young life. They disputed the Naval record -- and the media gave them plenty of time and space. The Kerry team proved several accusations were lies, but they just went on to the next set of lies and the media let them rather than rejecting them as not reliable. I assume you are saying it is HRC who is swiftboated here - as Kerry is said to have done the most prudent, reasonable thing a head of a department could do at that point - something that parallels what Obama did with the DOJ and FBI. However, where the SBVT lied about Kerry, these are multiple investigations into something that Hillary Clinton herself admits to having done.

You make a point that Issa or his staff had the prescience to include a question that asked what other email accounts she used. This was because so few HRC emails had been given in response to inquiries. However, that question did not "start" the email issue. The SD responded to that inquiries shortly after Kerry became SoS ignoring that question. My guess is that the first draft of those responses was written while HRC was still Secretary or was based on information supplied by her people. At any rate, nothing came out of that until March 2015.

In March 2015, the first most of us heard about HRC's email was the NYT article. I KNOW that you will respond that that article included some mistakes. (which you likely call smears or lies ) However, the article was completely accurate on what was important. HRC had a private server, she commingled SD and personal email, and she archived none of it with the SD when she left.

I would date the beginning of HRC's "damn email" problem to be that NYT article. Now, when that article came out, Issa, who had been sidelined on Benghazi by his fellow Republicans who preferred Growdy -- sprang up and pointed out that he HAD asked the right question and the SD had not given him the answer. It was likely after that March 2015 NYT article, that the FBI, the SD IG and intelligence IG all started. It also RESTARTED many FOIA - including the one where various Clinton people are currently being deposed. The reason they are being deposed, a very unusual occurrence for FOIA requests, is because there is the additional question that Clinton's State Department worked to thwart FOIA requests by not archiving the secretary's email.

So, in summary, the start of the SCANDAL was neither Issa's question nor Kerry's request, but the NYT article. The start of the PROBLEM was the 2008/2009 decision by HRC herself to use a private server AND not archive email - either real time, monthly, yearly, or at the end of her term, with the SD.

[ucrdem]

121. OP is flatly wrong and the rest is a screwy "timeline" that make no sense chronologically

or otherwise. Go ahead and bail but it's never going to float.

Email-gate began with a 2012 letter from Darrel Issa to Clinton regarding her use of private email.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512032952

[karynnj]

171. If emailgate began in 2012, it was dormant until March 2015

There are always multiple timelines that can be defended as "the" timeline, but all of them have some merit.

1) One would start with the actions that later became questioned - that time line starts in 2008

2) Then there is yours, Issa wrote a letter in 2012 and the SD responded in 2013. If this is a timeline --- what is the NEXT point.

3) Another that we don't have would be the scandal as it would have been seen by a career SD professional assigned to meet FOIA and Congressional inquiries and this person's line of management up to the Secretary. We could see the requests for FOIA and the Congressional requests. We can see that they responded slowly. We know that by early 2014, they had found there was a problem and had "negotiated" with Clinton to get the email back. We know that Clinton gave them 55000 pages of email (on paper) in late 2014 and we know it took about 6 weeks to process them into the computer. We know that the outline of what happened in 2014 became public knowledge in the NYT article in March 2015. Everything after that is easily documented.

4) Another starts with the beginning of it being seen as a scandal - start with the NYT article, that triggered the Clinton response and people knowing about it.



In fact, a complete time line would start with the first of these, mention the second one to get the two things that happened there (the letter and response), then get the complete accurate details of 3, followed by 4 being the PUBLIC beginning of this being a scandal.

You can say this started with 1) Clinton setting this up, 2) Issa asking, or 3) the NYT getting and distributing the story confirmed by Clinton.

[ucrdem]

179. Oh please. I leave you to your new lord of the flies. nt

[seabeyond]

116. We see that the Op gave false information and instead of owning it, you are trying to make it work?

I am surprised.

Fact, Kerry did not initiate the investigation and it was a RW smear from Issa.

[karynnj]

127. A right wing smear -- you mean that Hillary Clinton did not have a private server and did not

fail to archive any of her email - other than things archived by recipients? While true that without the demand for HRC records that came out of Benghazi this may never have surfaced, this is something HRC did -- likely out of her paranoid sense of privacy. One reason this hurts her as much as it did is because it resurfaces things like the dissapearing Rose Law records. For those of us who accepted that they could have been displaced, this similar hiding records makes it harder to think so. It is noteworthy that one of the strongest defenses of HRC's honesty (Jill Abramson's) argues that it is really that she is secretive.

Kerry asked the STATE DEPARTMENT IG to investigate what happened in the State Department. This is what the SD IG is there for and he likely would have opened an investigation without Kerry's blessing. One thing it does bring up is that HRC failed to name a SD IG to be confirmed for the entire 4 years she was in office.

I have no problem if you ask the OP to include the words "SD IG" before investigation in his title. He does include it up front in his post so the information is at worse misleading.

However, it more misleading to say that Issa started it --- though Issa would LOVE being able to claim that. In fact, nothing happened after the SD failed to address that issue in the responses they gave -- other than that the Republicans sidelined him in favor of Gowdy. Obviously, the Republicans did NOT sense he had started anything in 2012/2013.

I think the NYT article was the break through moment as far as it becoming a scandal goes.

Now, obviously the REAL start was in 2008 when HRC and the people around her thought this was a good idea. Then add some date when she was exiting her position, where she made a decision (if only by not opting to set up a process to do otherwise) to not give the SD her email. In addition, there are unknown dates where the SD made the decision to demand the emails rather than cover up, when HRC agreed after "negotiations" to return them, and when the SD got them - I think in November 2014. This REAL timeline continues with the NYT article leading to HRC answering questions and cavalierly asking the SD to put them all on line. (Leading to the incredible chutzpah of her later citing this as her being unusually transparent!)

[ucrdem]

129. The investigation started with a Republican on a GOP committee. Blaming Kerry is grotesque. nt

[karynnj]

173. I am not blaming Kerry, I am blaming HRC. Kerry did nothing wrong here nt

[ucrdem]

181. Fine. Own it. nt

[karynnj]

184. Rather HRC should own it --- she caused this problem!

[seabeyond]

132. And again, it started as RW conspiracy, the same with Bengahzi. I won't pretend otherwise. Why are

you?

[karynnj]

139. The email issue started when the NYT, not a right wing publication, wrote its article

In fact, it started when HRC left the SD without leaving the email that she knew was needed to answer inquiries and FOIA requests that already existed.

I won't credit an Issa question that was not answered when the SD responded in March 2012 .... and there was silence until the NYT article in March 2015. The ONLY thing that question opens up is who answers that interrogatory - and what did they know at that point. It is possible that none of the career people knew -- and the Clinton people, who did, did not volunteer the answer.

Not to mention, Congress DOES have an oversight function and Clinton, by hiding her email, was thwarting that. I have NO sympathy for HRC her - this is a mess of her own making. I care more for the problems she left Kerry and Obama - both of whom have better things to do than answer questions from the media about HRC's email.

[ucrdem]

140. Issa launched the investigation in 2012. The NYT is completely irrevelevant.

They happened to report Issa's 12/13/2012 letter.

[karynnj]

156. Please link to any hearings and articles in 2013 and 2014 concerning this

In fact, Issa asked, it was reported, there was no significant answer ..... and it dropped into oblivion. I do not see any credible timeline that suggests that that question led to later investigation on anything. One clue that the Republicans themselves did not see anything there is that they sidelined Issa and gave the investigation to Gowdy.

What surprises me is that no one here or in the media has asked what caused this to surface in 2015 -- and no, I do not know the answer there because there are few hints as to where that story came from.

However, it is THAT story that led to HRC responding and to HRC calling for all emails to be made public ... etc.

[ucrdem]

174. Red herring. The point is clear: Issa, not Kerry, started the email witchhunt in 2012, not 2015. nt

[karynnj]

177. The red herring is that you call this a witch hunt and try to argue that it logically started with

Issa. I note that you can find nothing from 2013 or 2014 - and you know as well as I do that it was NOT an issue until March 2015 here, on twitter or anywhere else.

The problem started when HRC left SD without leaving her email when she knew their were legal (even if RW and we do not like them) inquiries that they should have been subject to. I hate that was willing to compromise the integrity of Kerry and others -- just for her inconvenience.

[seabeyond]

141. And to pretend this is all Clinton when she merely followed footsteps is equally bullshit. Nt

[karynnj]

147. No other SoS did all her email on a private account and none had a private server

Email is a reasonably new communication method, so there are not many Secretaries of State who were likely to have communicated much using it as a replacement for written memos. Therefore, those footsteps lead back no further than Powell. Allbright and Warren Chrisopher seem not to have used email - and Allbright said she would not have approved a private server - even as she defended HRC. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-email-server-214136

Powell says he used PRIMARILY his .gov account. He says that he occasionally used his private account. He said that that use was mainly organizational setting up internal meetings. Rice says that she did not use email for SD work. As far as I have seen, no one has found any email from Rice that contradicts this. (There are stories that speak of some Powell emails and some from top Rice staff being reclassified as classified. Secretary Kerry, who uses his .gov account has his SD staff regularly check his private email to insure that anything that he gets there is archived.

Looking at these three, Kerry is doing what should be done, while using email; Rice seemed to avoid the question of how to use email by not using it. I believe Allbright that she did not use it and, though surprised that Rice didn't, I believe it as there has been a long time where it could have been proven wrong but hasn't been. So, the only peer that is remotely close to HRC's actions is Powell - and he is MILES away.

He mostly used .gov when he used email -- she NEVER did. He also did NOT set up a private server.

[seabeyond]

148. Private acct of an X President. Sorry, just not something for me to get all excited about. Nt

[karynnj]

153. What of FOIA and Congressional oversight?

Note I said NOTHING about security.

[seabeyond]

154. What of it? Sanders, Powell, Rice, Albright and most all others, says Meh. That tells me something.

People excited Clinton gets indicted so their candidate wins doesn't get much respect from me. All this time hunting and nothing lends support to the .... Meh.

[Fawke Em]

159. In other words...

[seabeyond]

161. No. I have been informed and the conclusion I have come to is there is nothing at this point, so I

do not keep trying to push an agenda to promote an indictment because it is the only way my losing candidate can win.

[karynnj]

164. I do not think that Clinton will be indicted

In fact, note that if the concern is FOIA, any case would be CIVIL, not criminal and recourse is getting the information needed.

As I said, I think this has led to reviving the story of the Rose Law records and the entire view that Clintons are willing to short cut rules when they think it helps them. This feeds why she is not seen as trustworthy.

There are two levels going on here.

One is purely political. You want this story to go away because you think it hits Clinton's favorability. I agree that it does. However, I think the best response here is an honest one that - as HRC said herself admits this was not a good idea. Where she has been less forthright is on accepting that there is and should be oversight of the administration by the Congress and media. Both have that right by law -- and hiding the SD work product made that impossible.

The thing that REALLY annoys me is that even handing the SD the email electronically when she left would have eliminated this issue. There was NOTHING in those emails that was as big a negative as the email story itself --- and not all the emails would have even been included in the discoveries.

The other level is governing. That is what this OP is partly speaking of. When this blew up, Kerry rightfully requested that the SD IG look into this and to look into current practices and to make recommendations going forward. The SD IG investigation is now on hold at the request of the FBI - http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/274930-state-dept-puts-hold-on-review-of-clinton-emails-deferring-to-fbi The SD IG, the Intelligence Community IG and the FBI are all doing their job.

When you argue that this is all meh -- you ignore that the IGs and FBI are not exactly doing this for fun or for their health. This is a mess and the timing is terrible.

[seabeyond]

169. Reality, She did the same as Albright, Rice and Powell. Now that has been brought up, and none of

three are being investigated, the argument is "private" server. Powell did use private, per his own admission. But, since it was an X President email, I am pretty confident the security was had.

Now Clinton says bad idea. Sure, ok. She apologized to all, though at the time of making the decision, the info she was going off of, her decision was perfectly reasonable.

Years later, I am supposed to be bothered. I am not. I get the Sanders supporters really really think I ought to. I am not.

FBI are doing exactly what they have to and what is always done with the Clinton's. A thorough investigation. And again, it comes up with nothing.

The demand would not have been made of another. As we see no investigations, literally, with the others.

Btw, though i continued to follow it, I thought Benghazi bullshit too.

[karynnj]

172. An ex-President's email is not subject to FOIA and Congressional inquiries - SD .gov is

Lack of transparency is why this was done. I resent that Clinton left Obama and Kerry with this mess. All she had to do to avoid this would have been to give her email to the SD when she left. By commingling it with personal, it tells me she NEVER intended to do so.

I have a problem with that.

[seabeyond]

176. The time she walked in, different rules and different time. For you all to be so outraged over this

to me is an unwillingness to be open to her reality at the time, and simply looking at something to be outraged about. There is nothing here that is a smoking gun. If this conversation were to be had at the time she was doing as she was, no one, .... NO ONE would have said a thing. Kerry walks in, four years later, four tech years later, and changes were made. People were sending and receiving emails from this address knowing full well what it was and not a person had a problem with it.

All those facts tell me it is not a big deal.

If it was against the law, or rules, she would have been directed to change it long ago, or indicted long ago. My guess is people would have had her correct it, if any one had even considered it. Which no one did. That should tell you something. but, it doesn't because it is much better to create Clinton as devious, and to prayer for an indictment against a Democrat, because Sanders lost in all other ways. The only hope.

[karynnj]

183. No one getting her email knew that she was not archiving it and I assume most did not think twice

about the address. Most I assume asked staff for her email, it was put in their address book, they used it and it worked.

Not to mention, she KNEW there were inquiries and she gambled that they would never know that there were other emails. In early batches made public, email picked up from the other side did not include her email address - it was replaced with "Hillary Clinton".

I watched the early House (and Senate) hearings with Kerry when the issue of getting Clinton's emails came up because committees wanted all of them before she was brought in again. Kerry said that he had asked staff to do it as fast as possible mentioning there were many important things he preferred to answer questions on - so he wanted this done. Now, I know that the staff could never succeed in finding all that email --- and HILLARY CLINTON knew that and made no effort from her end to help on this.

That means to me - she is the person most responsible for this still being an issue.

Not to mention, some of the early emails suggest that people DID tell her no on some of this -- and she blew them off.

[polly7]

182. Meh.

amborin (16,178 posts)
46. she was caught in lies at that hearing:

although the Obama White House believed Blumenthal had spread false rumors about Obama during the 2008 campaign, and although Obama had banned Blumenthal from any State Dept business, SOS Clinton kept up a steady and solicited correspondence with Blumenthal behind Obama's back:

And despite ample evidence on the public record for months that Clinton repeatedly asked Blumenthal to keep sending her updates on Libya and other matters, she repeated previous assertions that his advice was unsolicited.

"I did not ask him to send me the information that he sent me," Clinton said.

"You wrote to him, 'Another keeper, thanks' and 'Please keep them coming....Greetings from Kabul and thanks for keeping this stuff coming,'" Gowdy shot back.

Clinton then shifted slightly, conceding that she urged Blumenthal to keep up the flow. "They started out unsolicited and, as I said, some were of interest," she said.

snip

.....You said they were -- you said they were unsolicited," the chairman said.

While Clinton minimized the significance of what Blumenthal sent along, she did not dismiss it entirely, and she defended forwarding the information to aides who sometimes scrambled to respond to the unusual dispatches.

"Some of it I found interesting....

snip

....Allegations relating to Blumenthal's role in that campaign are what kept him from joining the State Department in 2009. Obama aides were convinced that Blumenthal spread false personal and policy rumors about Obama during the battle between Clinton and Obama for the Democratic nomination. While Clinton had more authority to name State Department personnel than any other Obama Cabinet member, Blumenthal was blacklisted--effectively banished by the White House.

When Gowdy asked about Blumenthal's rejection, Clinton didn't dispute it, but said she couldn't remember or didn't know who at the White House put the kibosh on her regular correspondent.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-sidney-blumenthal-emails-benghazi-hearings-215083#ixzz42cF2UM5y

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-sidney-blumenthal-emails-benghazi-hearings-215083#ixzz42cEb3aOA
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook



Hillary was taking State Dept Advice from Blumenthal and others with Business interests in Libya:

Plus, all the while, Blumenthal was working for the Clinton Foundation:




International New York Times May 20, 2015 Wednesday

Clinton friend's memos on Libya draw scrutiny to politics and business

NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
Clintons last occupied the White House, Sidney Blumenthal cast himself in varied roles:

speechwriter, in-house intellectual and press corps whisperer. …..Now, as Hillary Rodham Clinton embarks on her second presidential bid, Mr. Blumenthal's service to the Clintons is again under the spotlight. ……

….. a series of memos that Mr. Blumenthal - who was not an employee of the State Department - wrote to Mrs. Clinton about events unfolding in Libya before and after the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

According to emails obtained by The New York Times, Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, took Mr. Blumenthal's advice seriously, forwarding his memos to senior diplomatic officials in Libya and Washington and at times asking them to respond. Mrs. Clinton continued to pass around his memos even after other senior diplomats concluded that Mr. Blumenthal's assessments were often unreliable.

But an examination by The Times suggests that Mr. Blumenthal's involvement was more wide-ranging and more complicated than previously known, embodying the blurry lines between business, politics and philanthropy that have enriched and vexed the Clintons.

While advising Mrs. Clinton on Libya, Mr. Blumenthal, who had been barred from a State Department job by aides to President Obama, was also employed by her family's philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation, to help with research, ''message guidance'' and the planning of commemorative events, according to foundation officials. During the same period, he also worked for organizations that helped lay the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton's 2016 campaign.

Much of the Libya intelligence that Mr. Blumenthal passed on to Mrs. Clinton appears to have come from a group of business associates he was advising as they sought to win contracts from the Libyan transitional government.

The venture, which was ultimately unsuccessful, involved other Clinton friends, a private military contractor and one former C.I.A. spy seeking to get in on the ground floor of the new Libyan economy.

The projects …..would have required State Department permits, but foundered before the business partners could seek official approval.

The Libya venture came together in 2011 when David L. Grange, a retired Army general, joined with a new New York firm, Constellations Group, to pursue business leads in Libya. Constellations Group, led by a professional fund-raiser and philanthropist named Bill White, was to provide the leads……



bvar22 (39,613 posts)

"Cleaning Up Hillary’s Libyan Mess"---Robert Parry, April1, 2016


Cleaning Up Hillary’s Libyan Mess

"Hillary Clinton’s signature project as Secretary of State – the “regime change” in Libya – is now sliding from the tragic to the tragicomic as her successors in the Obama administration adopt increasingly desperate strategies for imposing some kind of order on the once-prosperous North African country torn by civil war since Clinton pushed for the overthrow and murder of longtime Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

The problem that Clinton did much to create has grown more dangerous since Islamic State terrorists have gained a foothold in Sirte and begun their characteristic beheading of “infidels” as well as their plotting for terror attacks in nearby Europe.

<snip>

Clinton’s ultimate vulnerability on Libya is that she was a principal author of another disastrous “regime change” that has spread chaos not only across the Middle East and North Africa but into Europe, where the entire European Union project, a major post-World War II accomplishment, is now in danger.

Clinton may claim she has lots of foreign policy experience, but the hard truth is that much of her experience has involved making grievous mistakes and bloody miscalculations."


(Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.)

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/01/cleaning-up-hillarys-libyan-mess/


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016148246


Star Member IdaBriggs (10,210 posts)

"This fire needs gas." (Sidney to Hillary, 10/26/2012)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511517415

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511493611

amborin (16,178 posts)

More Very Unsavory Data from Clinton Libya Emails: The objective was LIbya's Billions of Dollars

The brief visit of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Libya in October 2011 was referred to by the media as a “victory lap.” “We came, we saw, he died!” she crowed in a CBS video interview on hearing of the capture and brutal murder of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi.

But.....Libya was relegated to the back burner by the State Department, “as the country dissolved into chaos, leading to a civil war that would destabilize the region, fueling the refugee crisis in Europe and allowing the Islamic State to establish a Libyan haven that the United States is now desperately trying to contain.”

Hillary totally "misinterpreted" the intelligence on Qaddafi, and went against the advice of Biden, Gates, and many otehr senior State Department officials who had in-depth knowledge of Libya (which she sorely lacked):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511490184

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1880685


thesquanderer (4,953 posts)

Hillary: Obama "trusted my judgment" -- and he got screwed.

Bernie has often said that, while Hillary has plenty of foreign policy experience, her foreign policy judgment is questionable, which generally brings him to Iraq. Hillary's comeback line is that, despite having made the wrong call on the IWR, Obama trusted her judgment enough to make her SOS. So how did that end up working out for him?

As the thorough retelling in the New York Times last weekend showed, Hillary's views were probably the deciding factor in Obama's decision to support the intervention in Libya.

Mr. Gates, among others, thought Mrs. Clinton’s backing decisive. Mr. Obama later told him privately in the Oval Office, he said, that the Libya decision was “51-49.” “I’ve always thought that Hillary’s support for the broader mission in Libya put the president on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach,” Mr. Gates said.

This is further supported in the email discussed at In These Times, where on 3/19/11 Anne-Marie Slaughter (Hilary's former director of policy planning at the State Department) wrote:

“I cannot imagine how exhausted you must be after this week, but I have NEVER been prouder of having worked for you”... “Turning POTUS around on this is a major win for everything we have worked for.”

Philosophically, it probably comes down to this: In a questionable scenario, she would rather try than not try. Again from the NYT article:

Mrs. Clinton repeatedly speaks of wanting to be “caught trying.” In other words, she would rather be criticized for what she has done than for having done nothing at all.

“She’s very careful and reflective,” Ms. Slaughter said. “But when the choice is between action and inaction, and you’ve got risks in either direction, which you often do, she’d rather be caught trying.”

In other words, err on the side of interventionism. Is that really the philosophy we want in the White House?

Hillary may pooh-pooh it, but I think Obama's "Don’t do stupid stuff" beats "I'd rather be caught trying." If you're not darn sure of a more positive outcome, I'd rather not have the blood on my hands, thank you.

And it gets worse: When offered possible ways to de-escalate, she wasn't interested. Referenced somewhat in the Times piece, but in more detail in a Salon article:

Qaddafi’s son Seif wanted to negotiate a ceasefire with the U.S. government, opening up communications with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Clinton later intervened and asked the Pentagon to stop talking to the Qaddafi regime.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich wrote a letter to Clinton and Obama in August 2011, warning against the war. “I have been contacted by an intermediary in Libya who has indicated that President Muammar Gadhafi is willing to negotiate an end to the conflict under conditions which would seem to favor Administration policy,” the Democratic lawmaker said. His plea was ignored.

A Pentagon intelligence official told Seif Qaddafi that his messages were falling on deaf ears. “Everything I am getting from the State Department is that they do not care about being part of this,” he explained.

“Secretary Clinton does not want to negotiate at all,” the U.S. intelligence official added.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511410437


Going behind her own President's back to employ through her Foundation lyin' "keep em coming!" Blumenthal on that hidden server to destroy a sovereign nation whose only crime was to keep the brutal IMF from controlling all of Africa, keep the military bases out, protect Libya's water, provide women with equal rights, everyone with health-care, etc. etc. An atrocity she pushed ...... against Obama's wishes with Sid Blumenthal's input (representing both the Clinton foundation and investors in a failed Libya - on her private server with no ability for scrutiny). "Hillary was relying on BOGUS intel from Blumenthal......and her rogue foreign policy team. Blumenthal had been BANNED from advisory status by OBAMA himself. And Blumenthal was ginning up private business of his own in Libya. The same is true of Blumenthal's source -- former spook ginning up private business in Libya."

Hilary accepted the bogus intel and then pressured Obama to attack.

Setting back the rights of women decades/centuries in Iraq and Libya, and now with IS and Boko Haram being let loose directly through these actions, all over the region. To be kidnapped, murdered, raped, tortured, burned alive.

Using her Foundation, again, not under scrutiny for anyone higher up to see, to allow the world's worst human rights abusers to get weapons they're currently using in war crimes to murder small children in Yemen. She certainly knew how to hide emails concerning millions of dollars in weapons sales to Human Rights abusers through that Foundation.

And so much more made possible by the privacy she had for herself and her contacts .......... but nothing to see here. Just, meh.

[democrattotheend]

219. I thought it was Carville who convinced Kerry not to seek a recount in Ohio

Another Clinton partisan. I remember reading that he tipped off his Republican wife that Kerry was thinking of contesting the results.

[dchill]

220. Possibly, they double-teamed him.

[bjo59]

27. Such a really fantastic resource you created!

[grasswire]

28. Holy moly, Paul.

I ran across something else like that today about Kerry and Clinton and the emails.

[liberal_at_heart]

31. Wow. I think you just blew the lid of off of something there! Great work!

[Hiraeth]

34. Impressive body of work, thanks for posting it. K&R

[yodermon]

36. ...and Comey investigated the Clintons for Whitewater, yet Obama appointed him anyway.

Here's what Comey had to say about Hillary back then:

In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement.

Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”

I call this a "pattern of behavior".

Oh, the kicker: Obama nominates him 3 months after the Guccifer revelations about her non-.gov email.

I can only imagine what Hillary thought of that turn of events.

[RufusTFirefly]

37. If I remember correctly, Kerry was supposed to be PBO's original SoS

But Obama had to rescind the offer in order to give the spot to Hillary.

[Ned_Devine]

228. I thought so too

I was so disappointed that he picked her after the racist campaign she ran against him. It seemed like some kind of Lando Calrissian/Darth Vader deal at the time...and it was!

[gordianot]

40. Notice also how Sanders has moved away from using the email server a campaign issue.

He has had plenty of opportunity.

In the final stage I expect specific emails to be used by Republicans even without an indictment. There are probably a lot of sleepless nights at DOJ and elsewhere.

[paulthompson]

43. Sanders' strategy

Sanders' strategy has been to wait until the FBI is done, and he's been consistent about that all along. He never "moved away" from anything. Remember his "damn emails" comment? Here's a recent comment by Jane Sanders about it:

April 28, 2016: Jane Sanders says "it would be nice" if the FBI concludes its Clinton investigation soon. She is the wife of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. She says, "It's an FBI investigation... we want to let it go through without politicizing it and then we'll find out what the situation is and that's how we still feel." She adds with a laugh, "I mean, it would be nice if the FBI moved it along." (CBS News, 4/29/2016)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_7#entry042816janesanders

I think that's a sound strategy. The reports I've seen make it pretty close to certain that the FBI will be done well before the Democratic convention. For instance, a week ago The New York Times said the FBI should be done within the month. So we'll see what happens then.

[grasswire]

69. remember his meeting with Obama?

What was the chronology of that as regards the "damn emails" comment from him?

It would be pretty delicious karma if forces were aligned to combat this pattern that Comey found.

[Peace Patriot]

82. I'm pretty sure the "damn emails" was early on, in the 1st or 2nd debate...

...and Sanders visit to the Obama at the White House was after that.

Just stopped to look it up. "Damn emails" was in the 1st debate, on or just after Oct. 13, 2015 (the date of all the google articles on the 1st debate).

Sanders visit to the White House was much later. I'm going to look it up. I saw Sanders visit to the White House recently tied to the bullet hole that was shot into Sanders headquarters in Nevada, maybe on his 1st visit to Nevada (probably Las Vegas)? Commenter said he got Secret Service protection after that. But I don't think that's right. A presidential candidate does not have to go to the White House to get Secret Service protection. A phone call will do. (Nor does a national security briefing need a visit to the White House. I'm pretty sure that presidents don't personally conduct national security briefings for presidential candidates.)

White House visit was January 27, 2016, three months after the "damn emails" comment. Sanders hadn't yet won the NH primary (where he demolished Clinton; Sanders NH won with 60+% of the vote).

It remains a mystery why Obama wanted a one-on-one with Sanders in the midst of the early campaign (Jan. 27, 2016).

[grasswire]

83. thanks for that research. :-) nt

[PufPuf23]

47. Very good work paulthompson. That is some reveal that the investigation

started from John Kerry.

I have gone on record that I do not believe that Hillary Clinton will be indicted not because of her actions but because of her accumulated privilege.

Clinton my well be in (deserved) serious trouble with consequences.

[Glamrock]

54. Wait wait

I forget, is Kerry a "true Democrat" or a right wing plant?

[Tavarious Jackson]

56. Now if I still lived under the Bernie mentality

I would throw Kerry under the bus.

I don't know his reasons but I suspect his intentions were good.

[Glamrock]

58. Exactly

He saw wrongdoing/possible law breaking and called the authorities. Not what I'd call a rightwing smear.

[agracie]

60. Riveting read, Paul - thank you for doing this.

[senz]

61. So much care and work, paul.

Thank you for this.
I hope you know what a patriot you are.

[Ichingcarpenter]

62. Excellent Work Paul

Aug 18, 2015

Hillary Clinton joked to reporters Tuesday in Las Vegas about whether she "wiped" her email server clean before giving it to the FBI..........

“What? Like with a cloth or something?” she asked, then laughed. “I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”






Clinton told reporters she is sure she never sent or received 'material that was marked or designated classified' through her private email account

Such a marking or stamp, she said, 'is the way you know whether something is' classified

the Senate Intelligence Committee fired back: 'The way you decide if something is classified, when you're the secretary of state, isn't looking for a stamp. It's looking at the contents'


The Intelligence Community's inspector general had notified senior members of Congress that two emails randomly sampled from Clinton's server contained sensitive information that was later given a "Top Secret" classification, while two others contained classified information at the time they were sent.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-jokes-wiping-email-server-cloth/story?id=33165517

That' the episode that really got me and hooked my attention to this affair.

[Peace Patriot]

85. Yes, her deliberately lying about HER ROLE AS THE CLASSIFIER OF DOCUMENTS...

... caught my eye, too. Of course some weren't "classified." SHE was supposed to classify them! It's, like, FUNDAMENTAL, to the Secretary of State's job to know what is sensitive and what is not. And when she started getting pilfered NSA documents from Sydney Blumenthal...jeez!

She's just so bewildered and mystified by how electronics works and how classification works....

My mind is boggled by this. How can she be president? From what I understand, she couldn't even qualify for a security clearance! You have to know and understand email and other electronic protocols for sensitive materials, and by God you have to know the classification rules, as well as the FOIA rules, just to get a low level security clearance.

Without even going into WHY she set up a private server--what was she trying to hide and from whom--she broke so many protocols and rules on the handling of government documents, that she couldn't qualify for a low level job in any sensitive government agency, let alone boss of all of them!

[Ichingcarpenter]

89. If one goes back and looks at that interchange with reporters

and turn off the sound and just watch the body language its Bizarre.But also her comments were.

Let alone her snipe about cleaning her server with a cloth and then acting she's a housewife not knowing about technology or classification when as Senator she served on these committee while in the Senate



Committee on Armed Services (2003-2009)[2]
Subcommittee on Airland

The Airland Subcommittee has primary jurisdiction over all issues related to the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Navy and Marine Corps tactical aviation programs; however, it does not include strategic forces, strategic airlift issues, and special operations programs. The subcommittee also oversees the Army and Air Force Reserves, and the National Guard.




Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities


The Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee has jurisdiction over Department of Defense policies and programs to counter emerging threats (such as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, illegal drugs, and other threats), information warfare and special operations programs, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and Department of Energy non-proliferation programs. The subcommittee also oversees sales of U.S. military technology to foreign countries, and defense and military research and development efforts through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.


Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support


The Readiness and Management Support subcommittee has oversight of military readiness, including training, logistics and maintenance, defense environmental programs, business operations and working capital funds, real property maintenance, military construction, Base Realignment and Closure, Armed Forces Retirement Home, readiness procurement and military depots, shipyards, ammunition plants, and arsenals.



She was also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe[6]

The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), also known as the U.S. Helsinki Commission, is an independent U.S. government agency created by Congress in 1975 to monitor and encourage compliance with the Helsinki Final Act and other Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) commitments. It was established in 1975 pursuant to Public Law No. 94-304.

The Commission consists of nine members from the U.S. House of Representatives, nine members from the United States Senate, and one member each from the Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce. The positions of Chairman and Co-Chairman are shared by the House and Senate and rotate every two years, when a new Congress convenes. A professional staff assists the Commissioners in their work.

The Commission contributes to the formulation of U.S. policy toward the OSCE and the participating states and takes part in its execution, including through Member and staff participation on official U.S. delegations to OSCE meetings and in certain OSCE bodies. Members of the Commission have regular contact with parliamentarians, government officials, NGOs, and private individuals from other OSCE participating states.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Assignments




Think about that for a moment.......... these Senate assignments have closed sessions for national security reasons.

[bbgrunt]

70. kick, Thanks Paul, excellent work!

[grasswire]

71. Anyone got a direct line to Thom Hartman or Mike Malloy?

There's a bigger, deeper story here.

[KoKo]

199. Mike Malloy interviewed Paul Thompson, here:

Paul Thompson (author: Clinton Email Timeline) guest on Mike Malloy tonite (on now: 9:25 PM EST)
Malloy Show live link --> http://livestream.com/accounts/8522627/events/3012767


The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline
http://www.thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline

[Attorney in Texas]

76. Vast Right Wing Kerryspiracy

[merrily]

81. I have, from the start, believed the investigation was kabuki, but I hope I am mistaken.

Thank you for your excellent work, Paul.

[grasswire]

84. This is what I think about that.

It is possible that there is a much, much deeper investigation going on. I always knew that the Clintons were tossing out limited hangouts. We saw Comey knock the "inquiry" one down last week. Someone needs to directly ask her some questions again. What will she say now that she can't say "security review?"

After reviewing that Kerry info, I think we are going to be surprised soon, by something we haven't known.

[Lars39]

86. The new word might be "probe",

per edits to wiki article:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512032522

Insomnia sucks, but it can be so very informative.

[grasswire]

87. I don't have insomnia.

I just hate to go to bed when there's something to read or research.

:wave:


I hate to use the word "probe" when talking about Hillary and BILL.

[Lars39]

113. Heh, I totally understand. :-)

[blm]

198. Kerry doesn't 'do' limited hangout. He's a pro and an honest broker.

The most diligent anti-corruption lawmaker of the last 50 years.

Most DUers posting here in recent years haven't a clue who Kerry is (thanks to their reliance on bullshit media portrayals, left and right) and why he actually IS one of the most consequential leaders of the last 5 decades.

Some here think the DC power players have to stop Sanders? DC power players absolutely HAD to stop Kerry from gaining powers of the Oval Office.

[Peace Patriot]

88. I think it's still a toss-up.

Even if Kerry initiated the investigation, it could still be a protection operation (protection of Clinton as a 'player' among the rich and powerful). Her protectors could have thrown it to the FBI to intimidate the RW morons in Congress and get them to back off, while the FBI dallies around with their report (and/or AG Loretta Lynch, a Clinton supporter, delays their report) until she's wrapped up the nomination, THEN it becomes a "political" issue which the FBI and DoJ can claim is not their venue (as Patrick Fitzgerald did re: VP Cheney and outing CIA agents). This certainly fits with Obama's infamous line, "We must look forward not backward" on the crimes of the rich and powerful (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al).

HOWEVER, there is plenty of reason to believe that neither Obama nor Kerry would protect Clinton. Not just past bad history but current events. For instance, it appears to me that Kerry as SoS under Obama has been working to UNDO some of the grave damage that Clinton did in the ME, by "regime change" in Libya (called "Hillary's War" in Washington DC, I've read) and in Latin America ("regime change" in Honduras). The Iran nuclear deal, and the opening to Cuba, both seem aimed at calming down hostility to the U.S. in those regions, and were both the exact opposite of what Clinton (and her Neo-Con mentors) would want.

Obama has to think of his legacy at this point, too. If he protects Clinton at the expense of the CIA, the NSA and the FBI, then the taint of corruption and incompetence falls on him, not just her. If he stays neutral and just lets things play out, then he doesn't get slimed (or not severely slimed).

This is what I mean by it's still a toss-up. I really can't decide either way. There are strong reasons to think that it is a protection operation and very strong reasons against it.

Also, while she has made herself exceedingly rich, in a very short time, by pandering to every uber-rich entity that wants a piece of the White House, she may not be all that powerful. All those donors only want her if she gains the power to make good on the payoffs. That IS a reason for those donors to want the FBI (and Bernie Sanders) to go away. They've made big investments in her. But since the FBI is still at work with serious intent (as far as we can tell, given Comey's remarks the other day), and Sanders has pledged to stay in it until the convention, her support among the rich and powerful may deteriorate. Would they then go with a known entity, an upfront New Dealer, to try to keep the underclass in control, and try to limit the reforms, or go with a highly unpredictable weirdo with no public policy experience whatsoever, who comes up with ideas like building a wall? They may well think Sanders is the safer candidate for their purposes.

I have to laugh as I say this. But delegates are not the only item that will be transferred to someone else, if Clinton is indicted. There are also the Corrupt Media propaganda horns that are controlled by big global money. What will they do? They already have buyer's remorse after having created Trump, the candidate, out of nothing. And they will do what big global money tells them to do. If BGM decides that they can't sell Biden or whoever to an aroused public, they may back Sanders--not with money; he would never accept it--but with fair enough 'news' coverage to help him demolish Trump.

[KoKo]

150. Very interesting points....

As to the MSM...there's already been a bit of a turn in the past few days to covering Bernie more fairly which has made me wonder why. In your last paragraph that I highlighted. Supposedly it's polls that are showing both Hillary and Trump's low approval rating, but the turn has resulted in their actually covering Sander's rallies in a positive way. Which they have not done up to now.

-------------

From your post:

Obama has to think of his legacy at this point, too. If he protects Clinton at the expense of the CIA, the NSA and the FBI, then the taint of corruption and incompetence falls on him, not just her. If he stays neutral and just lets things play out, then he doesn't get slimed (or not severely slimed).

This is what I mean by it's still a toss-up. I really can't decide either way. There are strong reasons to think that it is a protection operation and very strong reasons against it.

Also, while she has made herself exceedingly rich, in a very short time, by pandering to every uber-rich entity that wants a piece of the White House, she may not be all that powerful. All those donors only want her if she gains the power to make good on the payoffs. That IS a reason for those donors to want the FBI (and Bernie Sanders) to go away. They've made big investments in her. But since the FBI is still at work with serious intent (as far as we can tell, given Comey's remarks the other day), and Sanders has pledged to stay in it until the convention, her support among the rich and powerful may deteriorate. Would they then go with a known entity, an upfront New Dealer, to try to keep the underclass in control, and try to limit the reforms, or go with a highly unpredictable weirdo with no public policy experience whatsoever, who comes up with ideas like building a wall? They may well think Sanders is the safer candidate for their purposes.

I have to laugh as I say this. But delegates are not the only item that will be transferred to someone else, if Clinton is indicted. There are also the Corrupt Media propaganda horns that are controlled by big global money. What will they do? They already have buyer's remorse after having created Trump, the candidate, out of nothing. And they will do what big global money tells them to do. If BGM decides that they can't sell Biden or whoever to an aroused public, they may back Sanders--not with money; he would never accept it--but with fair enough 'news' coverage to help him demolish Trump.

[Aerows]

165. How would you like to be a defender of

a politician with such extraordinarily poor judgment that they violate the purposes of their office - national security - to the degree that Hillary Clinton has done so?

I would not be eager to have to pretend it isn't appalling that somebody could do something as damn stupid as an unsecured email server in the basement fucking bathroom closet.

You don't even have to do anything to make it sound bad - it sounds horrible right out of the gate with no embellishment needed.

People seriously want a person with that absolutely horrible judgment to tend to the big red button? Hell, I already question the people that want Trump, but we have Democrats that want to turn a blind damn eye to equally startlingly poor judgment that Hillary Clinton has displayed?

SERIOUSLY? Jesus wept. What the hell is there left to say?

[whistler162]

90. Yeah... would have been much better to let

the issue fester then slip out to the media. Then the administration could have been accused of a cover up and conspiracy! This type of investigation would be initiated by the top official in the organization unless they where under investigation.


Bernie 2016

[ucrdem]

91. Oh heck no. This thing started long before last July. It started when they nuked her Blackberry.

Seriously, I know you know that. This is just lame SBVT baloney. And what is your deal with this anyway? Are you trying to out-Drudge Drudge or just keep that unhealthy Sanders vibe alive after the entire nation has gotten a bellyful and gotten behind Clinton?

p.s. and as of this moment I'm joining the chorus asking DU admin to hurry up and pull the plug on the anti-Clinton crapola.

[stevenleser]

92. You should have let them go a little longer before hitting them with this...

The comments are pure comedy gold.

[ucrdem]

94. How could they even think it?

Last edited Mon May 23, 2016, 08:05 AM - Edit history (2)

There is no rational answer that I can come up with.

ETA: Here's my dubunk thread:

Email-gate began with a 2012 letter from Darrel Issa to Clinton regarding her use of private email.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512032952

[lmbradford]

223. Yes you are so right.

Censorship of an investigation and all that it implies is anti -Clinton.

(Sarcasm) Deal with it. She did this to herself.

[MBS]

93. nice summary, and good reminder, but it should be said that this was all prominently reported

at the time - in the newspapers, white House press conferences (I can remember Josh Earnest's statements) and the like. None of this has been secret at any time.

Just in response to everything to all the comments on this thread
1). Both Obama and Kerry are men of integrity. They are bound by law, as well as their personal ethics, to let this investigation play out as it's supposed to play out.

a. From the very beginning of his administration, Obama issued a clear directive on email communication and archiving email records, for all members of his administration. Hillary's email setup was in direct violation of that directive (as well as regular government procedures). As many people have noted, Obama has run a remarkably clean administration, free of scandal. And this email directive is just one example of the principled, good-government approach that he has taken to his administration.
b. Kerry has run his own email and other communications set-up completely by the book from Day One - in addition to adherence to the Obama-white-house directive, that's just who he is. Some friends told me at the time that when he made the transition from senator to SoS, he also discontinued his phone numbers and emails used for political/fund-raising/partisan purposes. He has been scrupulous in his approach to his service as SoS.
c. Given a) and b), it could be no surprise at all that both of them would be taking a dispassionate, no-manipulation, let's-get-the-facts-out approach to this issue. Which is what they've done.

2) Many establishment Democrats - not just Feinstein, but also even longtime Hillary supporters like Ed Rendell, and moderate-Democrat-type columnists like Ruth Marcus, have criticized Hillary for the sheer political idiocy of setting up her email as a private server. Given her clear presidential ambitions, and her need to overcome the usual Clinton meme about their "trustworthiness", etc,- a meme that is so clearly in her interest to put to rest- it was just plain STUPID to set up any system that could be suspected of special rules, entitlement, or desire for secrecy. All these seasoned pols, most of them Hillary supporters, were shocked by the stupidity of her decision to use a private server for her email. Very telling that people like Feinstein and Rendell would criticize her PUBLICLY; they knew and know how damaging this could be.
I voted for HRC in the primary, and I will vote for her in the general election, because I think that (though she is not for me an ideal candidate - and I disagree with her on a number of issues) she is by far the most qualified candidate , she is smart and hard-working, and she has the best chance against Trump.
But I also have been absolutely furious about the email stuff since the moment it was revealed last year, because it was not only stupid and ethically questionable, but also preventable. All she needed to do was to set up her email in the ordinary way, and none of this would have happened. Her decision to use a private server was and is for me , hands-down her most mind-boggling bit of political stupidity to date (yes, ethically squishy, too, but even that is secondary to the stupidity), and, exactly as I predicted more than a year ago (as my multiple rants on DU would affirm) , her stupidity on the email is a "gift" that keeps on giving.

3) It is in the interests of the Clinton campaign not to just wish this away, or to claim that this was a minor issue, or dismiss it (wrongly - see #2, above) as a RW talking point, but to address it head on. . . not defensively, but in a forward-looking way. I for one would like her to explain what she has learned from her email mistakes.- what this episode taught her about how to run her administration differently- how she also now understands how important it is to use standard government procedures to set up her White House communications and archiving - and that she will in fact do so.
As is obvious from poll after poll, her "trustworthiness" is a key sticking point for many voters (never mind that her transgressions are nothing compared to the head-to-toes sleaziness of Trump). She needs to reassure voters on this score, and one good way to do it would be to explain how she would set up her administration to ensure integrity of communication and procedure.

[pdsimdars]

95. You do such good work, and anyone with integrity will appreciate it.

This information is critical for the Democratic party in deciding who their nominee should be.

[ucrdem]

97. Absolutely false. The investigation was initiated in 2012 by Darrel Issa. Link to DU debunk:

Email-gate began with a 2012 letter from Darrel Issa to Clinton regarding her use of private email.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512032952

[seabeyond]

103. Thanks for the real information in truth form. Damn, isn't it always the way, the falsehoods all

the time. Will the poster be responsible enough to own up to his error?

[karynnj]

112. There are several investigations, this speaks to the SD IG opening one.

[seabeyond]

117. "initiated the investigation into Clinton's emails?" Then that is what the Op should have said

instead of this false information.

[karynnj]

120. He corrected that in his second sentence - where it is clear he is speaking of one specific

investigation.

"Just today, I came across the surprisingly little known fact that it was Secretary of State John Kerry who initiated the review of the State Department inspector general into Clinton's emails: "

Not to mention, it was not until the NYT article that spelled out what HRC did that Issa's 2012 question got any traction at all. Remember the Republicans actually sidelined Issa because that thought he had found nothing and their big hope was that their new star, Growdy could find something. Note also, they were speaking of Benghazi, not email.

My candidate for what started all the email investigations --- THE NYT ARTICLE THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME it became a big issue. (Yes, I know Media Matter, Brock etc all point to errors to discredit the article, but on key points it was not just first, but essentially correct. )

The fact is this was HRC's mess - and the fact that she did not archive the email when she left likely meant she wanted to put John Kerry, someone who sought transparency and good government over his entire career even when it hurt his own ambitions in a position where he would have to cover up for her.

Knowing now that he was pushing her to return the email for much of 2014, I think I understand why she gave him no credit in her book on things he is KNOWN to have been instrumental on - such as the Syrian chemical weapons agreement with Russia and Kharzi agreeing to follow Afghan law and have a run off.

[seabeyond]

122. So, you all are good with a blatantly false headline? I am not.

[karynnj]

134. I wish the title were different - but wonder if it was because of character limitations

You however are backing an equally false narrative that it started with Issa's question. Not to mention, Issa's question does not show that he knew she had her own server, it showed that he thought that she had to have a broader email trailed than what had been seen. Clearly, NOTHING happened from spring 2013 when the responses were given and spring 2015. You might as well give secondary credit to Guccifer!

Then you can say that the entire issue is all a right wing lie - a swiftboat smear. Note the latter especially angers me because it diminishes how unusually unsavory the RW attacks on JK's real sacrifice and service was. The word tends to be used now by those attacked (whether fair or not) to discredit the attacks. I heard JK's swiftboat guys speaking in 2010 at a Boston celebration of JK's 25 years in the Senate and 45 years of service and saw how angry and personally hurt they were for those lies that, really hit them as well as JK.

There is no swiftboat attack here on HRC. You can defend her unusual email system, her withholding much of her work product from the archives, but you can not say that she did not do that. She did -- and by not leaving her email when she KNEW there were many inquiries, she was implicitly demanding the Obama administration (and especially JK) stonewall for her. This has been a big reason why I have not supported her - even though I doubted that Bernie had a chance. Obama deserved better from his Secretary of State. Politically, I doubt we will know his real thoughts on this - maybe for decades, but I resent that she has caused what really is the first real scandal in Obama's 8 years.

[seabeyond]

136. There is simply no justification for misleading headlines and the Op has been made aware

and has no problem with it. I do.

What has happened is this poster of the Op has a false implication, so all other stuff is up for agenda. Now we are expected to do the damn research to see what else he is not telling. That is bullshit. I do not have the inclination nor the time to research a false allegation and what has come since. What he has done is let me know I cannot trust his information. Since I do not have the desire or interest in investigating, it goes in the trash.

I didn't say anything about swiftboat. I get what swiftboating is. This isn't it.

[ucrdem]

137. Look, this OP is as unsavory as it gets. I have no idea why you're defending it.

If it has to do with Sanders all I can say is his influence is seeming more pernicious by the day. I hope you will realize this soon.

[karynnj]

142. It has absolutely nothing to do with Sanders - who main comment on it is that he is tired of hearing

about her damn email. It actually has more to do with one of my main problems with HRC herself. She created this mess. In fact, Issa's question - asked in 2012 - makes me even angrier at her.

The reason it makes me angrier is that before she left office, she knew that there were questions about the dearth of HRC emails. She then left - without leaving ANY of her emails with the SD. That meant that all inquiries were limited to those they had from the recipients. She GAMBLED that this would not open questions enough to become an issue - she lost that bet. In doing this she betrayed the SD professionals assigned to do the FOIA requests. She also put Kerry and Obama into the position where they had to chose between integrity or the likely next Democratic nominee.

Look back at my over a decade of posts if you want, but here is a clue. Although I've lived in Burlington for 3 years, I have been a member of the DU JK group since I joined DU in late 2004 or early 2005. There is no American statesman or politicians in my life time than John Kerry, a man of integrity, who has used his time as SoS well.

[ucrdem]

145. Okay I didn't know you lived in Burlington. But that's no excuse for throwing Kerry under the bus.

As far as Clinton goes I understand that many see her as high-handed and all around evil. We're told that Joe Biden can't stand her for example. But it depends on how you look at people I guess. Yes you can look at her that way, or you can look at her another way. It isn't hard to do once you're ready to.

[karynnj]

152. No one is throwing Kerry under the bus

Not to mention, as I said, I have a huge amount of respect for John Kerry. He is an incredible person, a brilliant statesman, and someone whose entire life has been one of service.

He did exactly the right thing in March 2015 going the SD IG to lead the internal investigation and to separate himself and the rest of the SD from the IG department whose job it is to investigate internal practices in the SD. The investigation was not just to examine what Clinton et al did, but to look at what was being done at that point and to recommend changes if needed. That is what you want the head of the department to do. Not to mention, it wisely took Kerry, a long term Democratic politician, out of that process. A win/win thing to do. It meant that he and his team could spend their time on things like the US/China climate pact, the Paris climate deal, the Iran deal, trying to end violence in Syria ..... It also freed him from having to say anything about HRC's actions on email - allowing him to say that it was not appropriate for him to speak - that the SD had an independent IG.

Biden actually was one of the people who pushed Obama to make HRC Secretary of State - leaving Kerry to chair the SFRC (which Biden had headed and the next in line, Dodd wanting to keep the Banking committee which already had plans to do what became Dodd/Frank) From that, I assume that he did not dislike HRC. He also did not endorse either when he dropped out in 2008.

I will vote for HRC, who almost certainly will be the nominee. Not because I think she will be a good President or because she is a good, inspiring person, I am convinced of neither of these things. I am for her because I am against Trump and think he will be a disaster. In voting for her, I am voting for the US doing more on climate change because it is critically important and Paris, limited as it was was an enormous accomplishment for Kerry and Obama, for the continuation and expansion of ACA, the continuation and improvement of Dodd/Frank, and for the supreme court. Many hard won Obama accomplishments could be destroyed by Trump. ( I include the climate change pacts, ACA, Dodd/Frank Iran, and everything done to revive the economy in 2009 as his top accomplishments. I did not include the last two as ones that Trump could destroy because the economic ones happened and worked and Iran is a multinational agreement and - at this point - what could be eliminated in the detailed monitoring that Iran agreed to. Neither Clinton or Trump would have made the Iran deal, though at a critical point when Congress was voting HRC supported it, but at this point the US has no gain in ending it.)

[grasswire]

190. nobody is throwing Kerry under the bus

Far from it.

[Fawke Em]

163. But that's not when the FBI started investigating it.

See - we know which is the partisan witch hunt (the Benghazi committee) and which is the real investigation (the FBI) and separate them as such.

John Kerry initiated the real investigation by reporting it to the IG who sent it to the FBI, which is how these things are supposed to work.

[vintx]

167. Facts are wasted here. Anything which doesn't cover Hillary is brushed off

as simply a right wing smear or else totally ignored.

Reality is simply not a factor.

[lmbradford]

224. That was Benghazi

This is foia about SOS. Initiated by Kerry.

[seabeyond]

99. So, it wasn't Kerry right? It was Issa, correct? You are going to correct you OP right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512032952

[paulthompson]

123. What the heck are you talking about?!

There's nothing to correct. The incident you talk about is in my timeline too, but that was an investigative dead end. Here's the entry on it:

December 13, 2012: Clinton is directly asked by a Congressperson if she uses a private email account for work, and fails to reply. Representative Darrell Issa (R) asks Clinton in a letter, “Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business? If so, please identify the account used.” His letter also asks if State Department employees have to turn over work-related emails from personal accounts by the time they leave office, and it seeks written documentation of the department’s policies for the use of personal email for government business. Issa is the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and he is investigating how the Obama administration handles its officials’ use of personal email. However, Clinton never sends a reply, and leaves office seven weeks later. Issa finally gets a response from the State Department on March 27, 2013, but it fails to mention Clinton's use of a private email address for work matters and just describes the department's general email policies. In 2015, a department spokesperson will decline to explain why Issa was never told about Clinton's personal email usage. (The New York Times, 4/14/2015)

Basically, Issa asked if Clinton had a private email account and GOT NO ANSWER. So that ended that investigation. Time passed, about two years, in fact, and then another trail of events started in the summer of 2014 leading to the events I described iin my OP. I didn't attempt to explain absolutely everything in the OP; if you want that please read the timeline I've made.

But I find it extremely bizarre that Clinton getting asked about her private email account and refusing to answer would somehow negate the facts laid out in the OP in the minds of some Clinton supporters. In fact, the dishonesty shown in 2012 just made matters worse! And it wasn't an isolated incident. Freedom of Information Act requests were repeatedly told there were no Clinton emails found when in fact those emails existed and the State Department officials knew it. Here's another example from the same month:

December 2012: A non-profit group files a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking Clinton's emails, but a Clinton aide says the emails don't exist despite knowing that they do. The request by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) ask for "records sufficient to show the number of email accounts of or associated with Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton." This request is sparked by reports that Lisa Jackson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, had been using an email account at work under the name "Richard Windsor." Clinton is still secretary of state at the time, and her chief of staff Cheryl Mills soon learns of CREW's request. But although Mills is very aware of Clinton's private email address since she frequently sends emails to it, she doesn't mention it and merely has an aide monitor the progress of CREW's request. Melanie Sloan, the executive director of CREW, will later say, "Cheryl Mills should have corrected the record. She knew this wasn't a complete and full answer." In May 2013, the State Department will respond to CREW, "no records responsive to your request were located." Other requests for Clinton's records will meet the same fate until the House Benghazi Committee finds out about her private email account in 2014. Steve Linick, the State Department's inspector general, will conclude in a 2016 report that the State Department gave an "inaccurate and incomplete" response about Clinton's email use to CREW and in other similar cases. (The Washington Post, 3/27/2016) (The Washington Post, 1/6/2016)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_3#entry120012crewfoia

[seabeyond]

124. "Guess who initiated the investigation into Clinton's emails? John Kerry." Wrong. As what you post

shows.

[ucrdem]

126. He doesn't mention Issa once in his entire OP. I just searched.

This is a very strange form of history.

p.s.

[seabeyond]

133. Yes, it is obvious what the Op is doing. Nt

[polly7]

202. What is the OP doing, exactly? nt.

[ucrdem]

125. It started in 2012 with Issa. Your title is a falsehood. Kerry had nothing to do with initiating

this investigation. And your timeline is like chronology as perceived while consuming hallucinatory mushrooms. In an actuatl timeline the SoS activities come at the end, not the beginning. It started with Issa and you don't mention him once in your OP!



p.s. here's your homework:

Email-gate began with a 2012 letter from Darrel Issa to Clinton regarding her use of private email.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512032952

[polly7]

130. Thank you! nt.

[MelungeonWoman]

100. Kabuki theater

Nothing is going to come of this, the whole story is just a distracting glimmer of hope to keep Sanders supporters from actually rioting while they rig and steal the election.

[seabeyond]

104. Geez, that all their hope for a win now lies on Clinton being indicted. What does it say, about the

hopes of a win, coming from something like this. In my competitive world, anyone would be embarrassed saying this out loud.

[lmbradford]

225. Show me how Bernie is responsible?

Link?
Statement?
Hillary did this to herself.

[MelungeonWoman]

231. Show me where I wrote that Bernie was responsible.

[seabeyond]

105. I will check back to make sure you made corrections owning your error. False information matters.

It seems false information is the basis in defining our next President of the United States.

[ucrdem]

106. Thanks sea!

[seabeyond]

107. Thank you for the information. It is the constant fabrications that piss me off. Nt

[ucrdem]

108. It is mystifying. Disappointment is one thing but this?

Anyway I put in a request at ATA to see if DU can maybe end the primary war early.

[grasswire]

191. You, of all people, hectoring Paul Thompson?

Bizarro world.

[frylock]

193. False information matters.

[yourpaljoey]

119. It looks hopeless! How will Hill escape... tune in for the next exciting episode!!

She is guilty guilty guilty.
Guilty of small things, guilty of great things.
And so many of them

[grasswire]

180. I used to wonder why she set herself up for such drama.

Because so much of it was unforced errors that led to difficulties.

Then I learned about her father. He was a rigid and extremely punitive man. I don't know that he was physically punitive, but emotionally, yes. So I can see how she has replicated those feelings of having to endure bitter punishments in her adult life. No matter what the angry, punitive men do, Hillary sees herself as needing to stand up to it, to fight back and not be broken.

The trouble is that now, it's sick and twisted and deep paranoia has set in. And she has made many mistakes that appear motivated only by personal interest and grandiose schemes.

And we are all forced to live through her psychodrama. I don't want to see her crash and burn. It's going to hurt all of us.

[yourpaljoey]

186. The plot thickens: we have a motive!

[MisterP]

195. she knew it'd be controversial: she also knew that if she were the only candidate not a single thing

would matter for primary votes: the billions in pay for play, Libya and Honduras, the continued selling of the country--they wouldn't even be issues: we'd grumble and post on DU and TruthOut and Salon, and cheer her on like we did with Obama 8 years ago

remember, they thought Sanders wouldn't crack 10% since he's a lefty and therefore on the far tail of the bell curve

[grasswire]

196. thank you, Bernie nt

[MisterP]

197. y'know what the Central American kids and Berta Caceres'd be if it weren't for Sanders?

blurbs in the CNN ticker

[Faux pas]

128. Kickin' for reference

[polly7]

138. Kick and recommend. This is fascinating reading. nt.

[Demsrule86]

143. You should take the post down

It is untrue and you know it.

[bobthedrummer]

144. K&R#115 n/t

[antigop]

170. kick nt

[Else You Are Mad]

178. Wow! Thanks for this well researched and written post!!

When I have a good amount of free time, I will have to read the links you cited.

Keep up the good work!!!

[frylock]

194. Lots of yelping dogs in this thread.

Great work, Paul. knr

[antigop]

200. yep. You always know when Paul hits the nail on the head. nt

[think]

201. Great work. So much new information coming to light about this email fiasco... /nt

[felix_numinous]

203. K&R Excellent work

and thread, you have provided context and cleared up a lot of questions.

Thank you paulthompson

[Kablooie]

209. To investigate was reasonable and necessary.

But continuing to investigate after the findings have been submitted it is pure partisan politics.

[pdsimdars]

217. Yes, save the country from further damage and do the right thing. . . .let us hear your findings FBI

[lmbradford]

226. Oh sure

Because when you find more wrong doing, its much more ethical to pretend and cover it up instead of getting to the bottom of it.

Really?
Does anybody care about truth and justice anymore?

[Kablooie]

229. Truth and justice? What's that?

Image and marketing -- now your talking!

I'm afraid that's kind of the truth nowadays.

[TIME TO PANIC]

215. K & R!

[sorechasm]

218. Great post paulthompson!

The thread is even better.
Thanks!

[KoKo]

221. Recommend...Thanks Paul Thompson..

[azmom]

222. K&R

[EndElectoral]

242. Comey is going to be tough on this. He's a Republican.

Comey is a registered Republican who donated to U.S. Senator John McCain’s campaign in the 2008 presidential election and to Governor Mitt Romney’s campaign in 2012 presidential election.