Latest Breaking News

senz

(11,945 posts)

78. Thanks for the information, tomm2thumbs.

Reply to tomm2thumbs (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:42 PM

Jun 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

215 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Emails in Clinton Probe Dealt With Planned Drone Strikes [View all] tomm2thumbs Jun 2016 OP

I hope Wall Street Journal is acceptable news source tomm2thumbs Jun 2016 #1

right wing trash n/t Mohammed_Lee Jun 2016 #3

How is this Right Wing......Are you trying to say that any evidnce that Hillary is corrupt is a DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #4

Intent? MFM008 Jun 2016 #7

It absolutely shows corruption, not on a scale of the clinton foundations foreign donations from DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #15

Yeah, Saudi Arabia never got a weapons deal before Hillary. Darb Jun 2016 #123

they didnt need a deal, we had a base therebefore Obama pulled out of Iraq and Saudis swhisper1 Jun 2016 #194

Rebut it. SusanLarson Jun 2016 #50

Easy. beastie boy Jun 2016 #85

Try again SusanLarson Jun 2016 #115

Says you. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #141

Are you serious? beastie boy Jun 2016 #150

Rupert Murdoch leaves lots to be questioned for sure. midnight Jun 2016 #92

I prefer to filter out the "facts" that don't suit me at the moment, its less stressful....n/t Mohammed_Lee Jun 2016 #10

Perfect. avaistheone1 Jun 2016 #28

Rupert Murdock own the WSJ WhiteTara Jun 2016 #53

Former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is on the News Corp Board of Directors. OnyxCollie Jun 2016 #119

Then why did Murdoch hold a fundraiser for her then? 2cannan Jun 2016 #120

The facts are included in the subhead of the article: beastie boy Jun 2016 #82

For the record there is NO evidence that Hillary is corrupt. George II Jun 2016 #166

Her and Bill have accepted $150,000,000 from special interests for their rhett o rick Jun 2016 #167

Sure.............. George II Jun 2016 #168

No? Do tell. Within the next few minutes, preferably. libdem4life Jun 2016 #203

She lost a court battle on that issue and paid the fine without objection swhisper1 Jun 2016 #195

What "issue"? George II Jun 2016 #200

How predictable of you. 840high Jun 2016 #54

Three weeks...three words...three minutes. libdem4life Jun 2016 #202

And, the timing is very suspicious (ntxt) scscholar Jun 2016 #70

The FBI’s investigation has been going on for a year. SouthernDemLinda Jun 2016 #84

You should stop using Microsoft products scscholar Jun 2016 #113

Huh? libdem4life Jun 2016 #204

Clap harder. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #144

How about clapping for just some good, old fashioned truth. libdem4life Jun 2016 #206

So basically they were classified. DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #2

Basically you don't know that. beastie boy Jun 2016 #87

Drone targets would be classified....Obviously! DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #89

"Vaguely worded" emails do not amount to drone strikes, do they? beastie boy Jun 2016 #91

The emails contained information on drone targets....Classified. DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #93

And the article clearly identifies references to drone targets, right? beastie boy Jun 2016 #96

Classified info floats all over everyday. 1.4 million of us have TOP security clearance out of ancianita Jun 2016 #171

the fact that this was reported right after Obama endorsed Hillary is strange tomm2thumbs Jun 2016 #5

The start of the real, actual, damaging drip, drip, drip... -none Jun 2016 #13

agreed.....it's the beginning of the leaks that we were told would happen... grasswire Jun 2016 #27

It's deja vu all over again SouthernDemLinda Jun 2016 #101

Exactly maybe they were humbled_opinion Jun 2016 #83

No news combined with old news to keep Hillary in the news. beastie boy Jun 2016 #95

Is the information correct or not? -none Jun 2016 #125

The information is absolutely correct. beastie boy Jun 2016 #145

Seems that way. ozone_man Jun 2016 #24

I find it queer..also. One would think Obama endorsement laserhaas Jun 2016 #51

Maybe not to smear the Presidency, but to make a "heads up" regarding Clinton. Duval Jun 2016 #59

Are you saying the FBI doesn't even tell the President? Reter Jun 2016 #65

It is those independent career professionals at Justice. gordianot Jun 2016 #76

The Wall Street Journal is owned by the same man who owns FOX, Ruppert Murdoch. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #6

Yup. This guy RufusTFirefly Jun 2016 #8

That's o.k. Time is our friend. June 16 is fast approaching. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #12

do you think that just because DU goes dark, the problem for HRC.. grasswire Jun 2016 #30

Dark ? DU is a community that supports Democratic causes. Hillary is our nominee and, therefore, Trust Buster Jun 2016 #33

but you want legitimate news to be censored here. grasswire Jun 2016 #35

You only wish to bash our nominee because your candidate did not win. You are fooling only Trust Buster Jun 2016 #39

Trump has all this by now. 840high Jun 2016 #57

Trump is not the one pushing this stuff on DU. Did I really have to point the obvious out ? Trust Buster Jun 2016 #61

grassfire makes a very good point. Duval Jun 2016 #62

Hardly legitimate. beastie boy Jun 2016 #90

she is not the nominee yet my friend swhisper1 Jun 2016 #196

That story has been in many other papers SouthernDemLinda Jun 2016 #108

Hahahahahahaha....actually that is scary, not funny. DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #17

Your behavior is counter productive to the Democratic cause. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #21

Oh jeesh....counterproductive. Are you saying i should be happy to see her buddy buddying up with DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #22

The nomination has been decided. It's not about you. It's about our nominee. Time to grow up. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #23

Growing up led to something novel in me.....guess what that was? DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #26

There's that "me, me, me" again. DU is a "community" that supports Democratic causes. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #29

As far as I can tell Bernie has more support on this site now. DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #38

No, he did not win the nomination. The Democratic voters chose Hillary to represent our cause. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #41

Oh so now its not a community, it takes its dictate from the DNC no matter how its membership feels? DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #42

You'll have to find someone else to carry on this nonproductive back and forth. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #43

I'm good. Actually great...because one thing everyone learned from this cycle DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #45

I sincerely hope you get over your bitterness. God speed. Good bye. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #46

Why would i get over my "bitterness" until I'm treated more fairly by politicians who eat my tax DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #47

.+1 840high Jun 2016 #60

That is what my husband said during dinner. I agree. Duval Jun 2016 #66

not yet- are you feeling the SGs slipping into doubt yet, swhisper1 Jun 2016 #197

It isn't decided until the convention votes. nt grasswire Jun 2016 #31

No, it's been decided. That's why the President, Senator Warren and Governor O'malley officially Trust Buster Jun 2016 #36

She is the presumptive nominee. Duval Jun 2016 #64

if she was the nominee, there would be no superdelegates, no convention, no reason for any of it tomm2thumbs Jun 2016 #73

I could see Trump doing that! Duval Jun 2016 #159

Your behavior is undemocratic. 840high Jun 2016 #58

The Democrats I know outnumber the Deocrats that you know. And that's why Hillary is our nominee Trust Buster Jun 2016 #68

What does Sanders have to 840high Jun 2016 #77

You are the problem! SouthernDemLinda Jun 2016 #110

+1 harun Jun 2016 #133

great questions tomm2thumbs Jun 2016 #11

Ooops So, it's beginning. nt Duval Jun 2016 #69

So it should be easy to refute what the article said. Wait, no let's attack the source. rhett o rick Jun 2016 #16

You're not use to that yet? laserhaas Jun 2016 #52

Really, Wall St Journal has been used as a source glowing Jun 2016 #19

You forgot this part: annavictorious Jun 2016 #9

maybe because someone in the FBI leaked to the WSJ? grasswire Jun 2016 #32

Or maybe not beastie boy Jun 2016 #97

News Articles videohead5 Jun 2016 #14

What you are doing is called making a Strawman then tearing it down. No one accused or said Hillary rhett o rick Jun 2016 #20

The article also mentioned beastie boy Jun 2016 #99

Elvis never did no drugs. n/t Matt_R Jun 2016 #182

No evidence he did in this WSJ article. beastie boy Jun 2016 #183

Your article link also does not have merit in this discussion. Matt_R Jun 2016 #189

LOL! My link refers to exactly the same article as the OP! beastie boy Jun 2016 #201

OK, your quoted words don't say the same the OP was trying to say. Matt_R Jun 2016 #207

No shit!.. Yes, I added a quote from the article that the OP neglected to include. beastie boy Jun 2016 #208

Still dont see how yahoo.com = wsj.com Matt_R Jun 2016 #209

Yahoo.com is reprinting the WSJ article and giving WSJ full credit for it. beastie boy Jun 2016 #210

So they were unclassified as per a secret arrangement with the State Department and the CIA Laser102 Jun 2016 #18

"sent via the “low side’’—government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters" geek tragedy Jun 2016 #25

No. grasswire Jun 2016 #34

That's an important point. She didn't just receive classified info on an unsecure server, she also leveymg Jun 2016 #130

Oh dear! Another shooting of the media messengers ... Jarqui Jun 2016 #37

State.gov videohead5 Jun 2016 #48

One sign of maturity is making 840high Jun 2016 #71

Responsible for "vaguely stated" emails which "did not mention "CIA," "drones" or details about beastie boy Jun 2016 #100

Thanks so much for this SCantiGOP Jun 2016 #40

Timing is Interesting: Also its bullcrap jzodda Jun 2016 #44

The operative words in your post are "Some of those emails were not top secret when she got them but 2cannan Jun 2016 #121

Again State disagreed with the classification jzodda Jun 2016 #122

This is what Factcheck.org said the State Dept. report said about classified emails on Clinton's 2cannan Jun 2016 #147

What exactly are we talking about here? jzodda Jun 2016 #149

He didn't intend to rob the bank arikara Jun 2016 #160

False Equivalence jzodda Jun 2016 #164

This all will come to naught. eom PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #49

Hillary Used a Secured System videohead5 Jun 2016 #55

She did not. 840high Jun 2016 #72

Not from a lack of asking apparently cstanleytech Jun 2016 #75

She Did videohead5 Jun 2016 #88

What way was that? NWCorona Jun 2016 #111

Secured Fax videohead5 Jun 2016 #112

There are 3 systems: DOS NIPR email, Secure SIPR (to Secret), and Interagency JWICS (to TS/SAP) leveymg Jun 2016 #136

So You Are Saying videohead5 Jun 2016 #161

No. Saying that after-hours, she knowingly used only a nonsecure private system to send messages to leveymg Jun 2016 #193

More about secure faxes and approved phones from DoD infosec manual leveymg Jun 2016 #198

Never Heard videohead5 Jun 2016 #213

..... 840high Jun 2016 #86

Wrong videohead5 Jun 2016 #94

No. She refused to touch a keyboard. She never directly accessessed the Secure SIPR. leveymg Jun 2016 #132

From Hillary's E-mails videohead5 Jun 2016 #178

Correction: she was dependent on aides to send and to receive. leveymg Jun 2016 #181

I Know videohead5 Jun 2016 #185

The work around they came up with was illegal. leveymg Jun 2016 #188

And Another videohead5 Jun 2016 #179

"These would be the ones provided/briefed B5" "Can they be secure faxed?" "Portions are classified" leveymg Jun 2016 #205

The E-mails About Drones videohead5 Jun 2016 #212

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #174

You didn't provide a link to your claim. I googled and only link was Fox news and a few RW Bloggers. Fla Dem Jun 2016 #175

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #176

What Right Wing Website? videohead5 Jun 2016 #177

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #180

Yep, the "Top Secret" Emails Were All About Drones Gothmog Jun 2016 #56

The State Department videohead5 Jun 2016 #63

Except that the Secretary of State receives the PDB Monday - Saturday and at least 50% of that comes 24601 Jun 2016 #103

It Depends videohead5 Jun 2016 #106

You know, I thought I had read that before! Thank you Gothmog. It wasn't a senior moment. LOL Laser102 Jun 2016 #67

Yep bunch of bullcrap jzodda Jun 2016 #74

I should have read the whole thread before posting OKNancy Jun 2016 #118

Thanks for the information, tomm2thumbs. senz Jun 2016 #78

The WSJ puts... Mike Nelson Jun 2016 #79

How can anyone say she has humbled_opinion Jun 2016 #80

Speculation videohead5 Jun 2016 #98

Right here. Deny and Shred Jun 2016 #129

Talking Points videohead5 Jun 2016 #163

Big Nothing Burger videohead5 Jun 2016 #165

You didn't include the subhead of the article. beastie boy Jun 2016 #81

If this is true, this will be a disaster for us. BlueNoMatterWho Jun 2016 #102

It's all true! beastie boy Jun 2016 #104

Nice concern you got there. Noted. Darb Jun 2016 #124

Thank you for posting. This clarifies a lot. leveymg Jun 2016 #105

Intent videohead5 Jun 2016 #107

You have to read the statutes to understand that intent is not a requirement for 18 USC 793(f). leveymg Jun 2016 #126

This has been sorely needed NJCher Jun 2016 #170

Yep. Transmiting "some emails" "which did not mention the "CIA," "drones" or details about beastie boy Jun 2016 #109

The Emails Did not Originate From Hillary videohead5 Jun 2016 #114

The responsibility Crepuscular Jun 2016 #134

She was aware that her Blackberry and server were uncertified for classified info. leveymg Jun 2016 #137

Are we still talking about the OP? beastie boy Jun 2016 #140

I am providing context. leveymg Jun 2016 #143

You need more than speculation to accuse someone of violating the law. beastie boy Jun 2016 #146

Thanks for clarifying. nt Duval Jun 2016 #158

concur Crepuscular Jun 2016 #187

State.gov videohead5 Jun 2016 #162

irrelevent Crepuscular Jun 2016 #186

She Will Not Be Indicted videohead5 Jun 2016 #190

... Crepuscular Jun 2016 #192

That Did Not Happen videohead5 Jun 2016 #211

Uh-huh. Crepuscular Jun 2016 #214

Calling The Kettle Black videohead5 Jun 2016 #215

These emails expose the USG decision-making process involved in targeted killings using drones leveymg Jun 2016 #128

These emails expose nothing other than WSJ spin. beastie boy Jun 2016 #139

If the emails contained discussions among US officials about targeted kills, they're classified. leveymg Jun 2016 #148

Once again, the emails in question DO NOT contain discussion about targeted kills. beastie boy Jun 2016 #151

Your statement is directly contrary to the following paragraph in the WSJ leveymg Jun 2016 #153

You are speculating. And your speculations are based on hearsay. beastie boy Jun 2016 #155

I'm glad we've gotten past the "intent" issue, anyway. leveymg Jun 2016 #156

Far cry from your Post 105 beastie boy Jun 2016 #157

The Question is videohead5 Jun 2016 #116

Yes, we already know this. These have been discussed before. They are the emails that were also OKNancy Jun 2016 #117

Do you have any link to where that info was out first ? Thanks OnDoutside Jun 2016 #127

posted in this thread OKNancy Jun 2016 #131

Thanks OnDoutside Jun 2016 #154

I think we can all agree whistler162 Jun 2016 #135

At least. leveymg Jun 2016 #138

I wonder if this was cross posted at free republic. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #142

It's all part of a vast RW conspiracy. Hillary brought none of this on herself. Exonerated! leveymg Jun 2016 #152

Doesn't surprise me. Nt Herman4747 Jun 2016 #169

This message was self-deleted by its author George Eliot Jun 2016 #172

This message was self-deleted by its author George Eliot Jun 2016 #173

Amazing how popular the right-wing sources are oberliner Jun 2016 #184

this thread has decended into idiocy, lets close it down swhisper1 Jun 2016 #199

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #191