2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Where he was asked about this and clarified on the spot? I keep seeing this posted and I dobt hear any response to that.
Renew Deal
(81,869 posts)At the debate he said nobody gives a damn about her email. Now he does. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=769356
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)He was questioned about it and indicated the context for his statement , did you see that? Or are we cherry picking?
Renew Deal
(81,869 posts)But he didn't backtrack on it at the time. He accepted the spotlight.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)I suggest you rewatch that bit if you can find it. God knows CNN wants to control it.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)twisted into some sort of an exoneration. But that's what they do, here on DU.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)No room for nuance and complexity when you're READY. I've never understood how some can turn ambivalence or support over petty matters as a denial of any and all culpability for anything else.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)MineralMan
(146,324 posts)I hope your rest renewed your energy.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)'Attack your opponent for your own failings, say it often, say it loud, marginalize those that argue' I swear there are tulip bulbs here that bud turd blossoms.
Blue_Adept
(6,400 posts)Every Politician Ever, in fact.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)meant in the debate exactly what he is saying now. It made perfect sense if I remember the op correctly but they were solidly trashed for saying he meant exactly what he is saying now. Seems said op was correct.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)That's a big difference than wishing to hear the politicization of the private server (namely for conspiracy theories from the right).
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)Or did you mix up the email investigation with the Benghazi one.
I thought only the repubs were doing that.
Renew Deal
(81,869 posts)Email is part of Benghazi
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)Just the email BS. IMHO both are total BS but they are not the same.
Renew Deal
(81,869 posts)They cannot be seperated. Rewatch the hearing and you'll see what I mean.
ish of the hammer
(444 posts)The FBI is investigating to see if any laws were broken.
Is that true?
If it's true, it's not an attack.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)If anything discovered while looking into anything else it's invalidated if the initial inquiry is invalidated, hadn't you heard?
emulatorloo
(44,171 posts)ish of the hammer
(444 posts)I'm tired of all this e-mail shit.
although, I'm curious if Dole Foods and Chiquita are contributors to the Clinton campaign or super pacs.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)or concerned about Benghazi. They are concerned with how her server was managed/secured and how classified material was handled on it. So yes, they can and have been separated. Your opinion on it matters not at all.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Benghazi was a trumped up witch hunt by a pack of rabid Republicans hell bent on investigating Clinton and the Obama Administration for any and everything.
Yes, the existence of the private server came out of these hearings, but upon learning this fact, real investigators - the FBI - got involved to determine whether there was classified information on the server and whether the server was properly secured to protect that information.
Two completely separate issues. Hell, the FBI isn't even really investigating "emails," they are investigating the content as it relates to national security.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)to conflate them.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)They are investigating if she A. Had any classified or sensitive information on her private server and B. if she did, was the server sufficiently secure enough to protect that information.
I know people keep yelling about "emails," but the investigation isn't really about that. The FBI doesn't give a flying flip about her emailing Ben Afflack's charity or planning Chelsea's wedding. I don't care about that, either.
FWIW, the information doesn't have to be formally classified as "top secret" or "secret" to be considered "sensitive." Sensitive information can include personnel records like an employee's personal information. It's not a state secret, but if it contains medical information, for example, it's considered sensitive under HIPAA laws.
Clinton and many members of her staff certainly had the proper clearance to handle this information, so that's not the issue. The issue is whether a malicious state actor from China or Russia gained access to the server and could possibly have acquired this classified or sensitive information. (Those are the two countries that employee the most hackers - outside of us - for this type of espionage).
And, before someone points out (again) that the dot gov servers have been hacked and wonders why this is a big deal, I'll tell you. Dot gov has layers of security. Someone might have hacked into one portion of the government's servers and gotten some sensitive info (like personnel records), but between the encryption, the logging and monitoring and the other security measures, this hacker would have a very difficult time getting to the classified information.
In her defense, Clinton probably doesn't know much about this type of technology and the security that should surround it, but the people she hired to set the server up should have. From what I've read thus far, however, they either didn't know how to properly secure that server or didn't care. Her role in this mess, however, is that she hired this firm and worked outside of regulated federal channels apparently for convenience.
The FBI probably is also trying to determine if her actions were criminal or simply negligent. I don't know this for a fact since I don't work for the FBI, but as a former crime reporter and, now, the content manager for a cyber security firm that works closely with the FBI, my educated guess is that they are conducting a digital forensics investigation to determine that very issue.
I'm sure someone will slam me since I'm a Bernie supporter, but on this issue, I happen to know what I'm talking about given my background and work history.
Bernin4U
(812 posts)About (the capacity to comprehend by) HRC supporters.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I blame his strategists and the fancy pollster they hired.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Resorting to this tired old attack from Republicans tells me all I need to know about the man.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)The FBI isn't a group of Republican operatives and the FBI is conducting a digital forensics investigation into the security of the server.
All Bernie said is that we should let the FBI do it's job while the campaigns should concentrate on the issues. He said this right after the debate, too. It's not a shift. It's not desperate. It's just fact.
It's not unfathomable to consider that Americans can both be sick of the M$M's hype over the emails instead of focusing on the issues while still holding the belief that the FBI should be allowed to continue its investigation.
What's disingenuous is for Clinton supporters to purposely not "get" the fact that Benghazi and emails are a completely separate issue from the security of her server.
Man, you crack me up!
oasis
(49,400 posts)continues on this course, I will be forced to do a flip flop of my own.
Sad to say, because I really had a lot of respect and admiration for him.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)oasis
(49,400 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Vs the ongoing FBI investigation. The committees we all know and even he I think has stated were bull. Saying the FBI should continue if they see fit is no flip flop. It's same as he said moments after the debate.
oasis
(49,400 posts)have no complaints.
The only further I think he might go is if questioned on it again and I think, given history, he'll shut em down. The stories that might come out of that though you can almost be assured will feature 'trashes' 'flip flops' or 'walks back', just like this has.
oasis
(49,400 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)An FBI investigation is underway. It should be allowed to proceed and be completed according to standard procedure.
He never said she is guilty or accusatory, and he is not hyping it up now. He answered a question. He's just saying the same thing most others say about it.
oasis
(49,400 posts)you to be one of the more reasonable and credible Bernie supporters.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)So much for running a campaign on the issues.
Benghazzi proved to be a Republican Witch Hunt to damage Hillary Clinton.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)The FBI is conducting an investigation. It will likely determine that nothing illegal happened. It is a law enforcement investigation.
The response by most objective observers say let it be completed. Clinton has said let it be completed.
Sanders did not say anything about whether or not Clinton is Guilty. He simply said an investigation is underway and it should be allowed to tun its course.
OMG! How despicable.
If that is the worst thing that Sanders has ever said or done, I'd suggest he be given a halo.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Career politician. Insider.
And he has feeet of clay. Flipflops are a nice choice.
madville
(7,412 posts)Congressional Benghazi investigation. While the Congressional Benghazi investigation exposed the email scandal, it is it's own independent issue now.
There is no problem with people being tired of hearing Congressional Republicans gripe about Benghazi and emails while still understanding that the FBI investigation is legitimate.
Nedsdag
(2,437 posts)silenttigersong
(957 posts)are using the FBI investigation into HRCs server set up as an attack on Bernie Sanders?I thought Sen.Sanders said "Let it play out"any final word from the FBI ?
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)not offer to buy Hillary a pair every time she has changed her tune....... We don't have these around for your benefit anymore.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Unless they're afraid of what it will uncover. The email server is an FBI investigation, not a political one. It would be wrong of Bernie or anyone to say it shouldn't be seen to conclusion. Doesn't Hillary want to be exonerated, anyway?
jfern
(5,204 posts)SunSeeker
(51,657 posts)Asked whether he regretted his remark that the American people are sick of hearing about her "damn emails" during the last debate, Sanders said in the Wednesday interview that he did not and that the investigation should "proceed unimpeded."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-hillary-email-215548#ixzz3qegH3aVT
jfern
(5,204 posts)SunSeeker
(51,657 posts)The CIA already said Hillary did not do anything wrong.
The allegations that Hillary did not disclose emails is Trey Gowdy bullshit.
jfern
(5,204 posts)SunSeeker
(51,657 posts)That is what generated the media circus over the Clinton email stories and what he said everyone was so damn sick and tired of hearing about. Now Bernie has endorsed that witch hunt of an investigation as "valid." Shameful.
The FBI is not investigating Hillary. Quit repeating bullshit right wing talking points.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)The WSJ article that has caused this stir also says the following, which was conveniently left out of the smear campaign against Bernie:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanders-takes-gloves-off-against-hillary-clinton-in-interview-1446684586
There are tons of articles out that discuss the FBI investigation. Obama's Justice Department is carrying it out. That doesn't sound like a right wing conspiracy to me.
SunSeeker
(51,657 posts)The only investigation of Hillary is by the Benghazi committee, an expensive witch hunt. That is investigation that Dems correctly say should be shut down. But Bernie says it should go on "unimpeded." Shameful.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)You really should catch up.
I dont think it posed a national security problem, Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBSs 60 Minutes. He said it had been a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: This is not a situation in which Americas national security was endangered.
Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Mrs. Clintons email setup did in fact put any of the nations secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials.
Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server was compromised or whether to recommend charges, according to the law enforcement officials. But to investigators, it sounded as if Mr. Obama had already decided the answers to their questions and cleared anyone involved of wrongdoing.
The White House quickly backed off the presidents remarks and said he had not been trying to influence the investigation. But his comments spread quickly, raising the ire of officials who saw an instance of the president trying to influence the outcome of a continuing investigation and not for the first time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html?_r=0
Oh! Look! Here's another one!
The Democratic presidential front-runner testified for 11 hours last month before the House Select Committee on the deadly attacks in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 - the same panel that discovered her use of the secret email server earlier this year.
Clinton has faced questions about whether the emails sent through a private server at her New York home was sufficient to ensure the security of sensitive information while she was secretary of state.
The FBI is investigating the security of Clinton's private email setup after classified data was found to have been transmitted over her server.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3299310/Benghazi-probe-Hillary-Clinton-facing-months-FBI-investigation-emails.html#ixzz3qf8NLgGk
There are so many articles written about classified data being found on her server. Your unwillingness to accept that fact, doesn't mean the FBI investigation isn't happening as we speak.
SunSeeker
(51,657 posts)The NY Times has notoriously botched the story of Hillary's emails, claiming that there was a FBI criminal investigation involving them when there never was. I know you could care less, but this video by journalist Kurt Eichenwald explains what the FBI is actually doing better than anything I've seen, and shows the actual IG reports that all these stories are based on.
The IG reports had nothing to do with Hillary's handling of emails while Secretary of State. They were about the State Department FOIA staff's handling of emails for purposes of response to FOIA requests.
And as your Daily Mail article notes:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3299310/Benghazi-probe-Hillary-Clinton-facing-months-FBI-investigation-emails.html#ixzz3qfjPBMve
azmom
(5,208 posts)Gross
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)Jokerman
(3,518 posts)But I suspect you already knew that.
Reter
(2,188 posts)n/t
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Like his new allies did on the republican witch hunting committee.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)They look well worn.