HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Remember all those people...

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:03 PM

Remember all those people calling scooter and Cheney treasonous for outing the

Name of a Intel officer {Valerie Plame). I guess it's okay when Clinton does it.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3164250/hillary-clinton-email-probe-update-intelligence-officials-named-in-clintons-emails-could-be-fbis-reason-for-indicting-hillary/

52 replies, 2157 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 52 replies Author Time Post
Reply Remember all those people calling scooter and Cheney treasonous for outing the (Original post)
onecaliberal Jun 2016 OP
grasswire Jun 2016 #1
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #11
grasswire Jun 2016 #13
Marr Jun 2016 #32
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #40
YouDig Jun 2016 #2
baldguy Jun 2016 #6
Octafish Jun 2016 #10
YouDig Jun 2016 #19
Octafish Jun 2016 #21
YouDig Jun 2016 #22
Octafish Jun 2016 #25
YouDig Jun 2016 #27
Octafish Jun 2016 #29
YouDig Jun 2016 #31
Octafish Jun 2016 #35
YouDig Jun 2016 #36
Octafish Jun 2016 #38
YouDig Jun 2016 #39
Octafish Jun 2016 #42
Buddyblazon Jun 2016 #51
joshcryer Jun 2016 #43
Matt_R Jun 2016 #49
99Forever Jun 2016 #3
LWolf Jun 2016 #4
blm Jun 2016 #17
2banon Jun 2016 #37
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #5
Scuba Jun 2016 #41
farleftlib Jun 2016 #7
annavictorious Jun 2016 #8
unblock Jun 2016 #9
jeff47 Jun 2016 #15
unblock Jun 2016 #45
jeff47 Jun 2016 #48
unblock Jun 2016 #50
jeff47 Jun 2016 #52
amborin Jun 2016 #16
unblock Jun 2016 #46
onecaliberal Jun 2016 #20
unblock Jun 2016 #47
amborin Jun 2016 #12
Sancho Jun 2016 #14
farleftlib Jun 2016 #23
Sancho Jun 2016 #26
Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #18
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #24
Snotcicles Jun 2016 #44
CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #28
Tarc Jun 2016 #30
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #33
JoePhilly Jun 2016 #34

Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:05 PM

1. situational ethics. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:13 PM

11. No, just not giving credence to right-wing smears. -nt-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:13 PM

13. blah blah blah nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:03 PM

32. Right wing smear! Right wing smear! Right wing smear!

 



Bleating louder and more often is not an argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #32)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:47 PM

40. Neither is lying. So stop. -nt-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:06 PM

2. Except Hillary didn't out anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:10 PM

6. Can't let facts get in the way of a good poutrage session.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:12 PM

10. Apart from those agent Sid Blumenthal named in those pesky emails.

Missed the wiper swiper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:18 PM

19. That's a Trey Gowdy lie. Why are you repeating it here?

And even if were true, that wouldn't be "outing" and it wouldn't be Hillary doing the not-outing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:19 PM

21. LOL.

Except it is true.

ETA: If you have to wonder why I'd mention it, look up the word "Integrity.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #21)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:20 PM

22. It's not true, it's a Trey Gowdy lie. Do you believe everything you read on Breitbart?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #22)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:33 PM

25. Here you go.

Source is a great DUer, using publicly available information:

Four para limit stops here. But, I will in all fairness stipulate that this article goes on to say that HRC is not at this point the target of the investigation. However, Reuters has since reported that her unsecured private server email system contained "presumed classified" materials. Hillary personally exchanged such presumed classified information with Sidney Blumenthal, and those communications were intercepted and publicly released by a Romanian hacker. http://www.aol.com/article/2015/08/21/exclusive-dozens-of-clinton-emails-were-classified-from-the-sta/21225607/

The fact that the email was not marked classified at the time does not excuse Mrs. Clinton. This is because information gathered from foreign government sources, a great deal of her email was so sourced, is presumed classified. Mrs Clinton received Departmental training on recognizing and handling classified materials. Presumed classified information is defined by Executive Order as "The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security." (see full text of that section of Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information, Sec. 1.1(4)(d), below)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653


That's from 2015. No where does it mention Breitbart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #25)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:36 PM

27. Ha! I've seen that DUer try to play internet lawyer. It's hilarious.

But even that hilarious pile of garbage doesn't say anything about outing covert agents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #27)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:55 PM

29. It doesn't name the name because it's against the law.

As for "that DUer": He is a lawyer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #29)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:01 PM

31. So there's no evidence except for Breitbart. And if that guy's a lawyer then I'm an astronaut. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #31)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:13 PM

35. I don't know what you are. I do know what you do.

Secret source in Hillary Clinton email was no secret: CIA

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0SE01O20151020


You offer an opportunity to learn something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #35)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:15 PM

36. That article directly contradicts the Breitbart lie that you are pushing.

You are making a fool of yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #36)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:37 PM

38. Not exactly.

It shows where the story comes from.

BTW: You're the one bringing up Breitbart. What's more, you offer no links to back up your interesting assertions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #38)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:41 PM

39. Yes exactly. It shows that the name wasn't classified.

And I'm bringing up Breitbart because that's where your lie comes from, Breitbart and Gowdy. I'm surprised you don't know that. Actually, I think you do know that, you're just pretending not to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #39)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:00 PM

42. Is that why Sidney B's emails were REDACTED in full?

I'm sure there's an entirely logical explanation.

January 30, 2016: It is revealed that four emails from Sid Blumenthal to Clinton have been entirely redacted. This is notable because at the time Clinton is secretary of state, Blumenthal is a private citizen (and journalist and Clinton Foundation employee) with no government security clearance at the time. Dozens of other Blumenthal emails have been partly redacted, but here are the four fully redacted ones, with only the subject headings known:

* June 23, 2009, titled "N. Ireland/Shaun." This is a likely reference to Shaun Woodward, who is the secretary of state for Northern Ireland at the time.

* June 20, 2011, titled "memo hrc Bahrain/Iran." This is redacted because it contains information related to foreign activities.

* June 28, 2012, titled "some intel on internal german/euro maneuvering."

* August 3, 2012. This email is entirely redacted except for the statement that the email contains information from "sources with access to the highest levels of the Governments and institutions."


Twenty-two emails have been deemed "top secret," so no details whatsoever about them have been made public. It is not known if any of them were sent by Blumenthal. (The Daily Caller, 1/30/2016) The New York Observer comments, "How Mr. Blumenthal, who held no US Government position after January 2001, when Bill Clinton left the White House, had access to classified information a decade after that is not explained." Furthermore, "Since Mr. Blumenthal's emails were illegally accessed by a private hacker [Guccifer, in March 2013], they can be safely assumed in to be in the hands of numerous foreign intelligence services." (The New York Observer, 2/1/2016)

The New York Observer comments, "How Mr. Blumenthal, who held no US Government position after January 2001, when Bill Clinton left the White House, had access to classified information a decade after that is not explained." Furthermore, "Since Mr. Blumenthal's emails were illegally accessed by a private hacker (Guccifer, in March 2013), they can be safely assumed in to be in the hands of numerous foreign intelligence services." (The New York Observer, 2/1/2016)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline

http://www.thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_6#entry013016entirelyredacted


What else is known but to NSA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 07:49 AM

51. Octafish has been here longer than I have...

 

You've been here a few weeks. 13 years compared to 6 weeks. Who do you suppose would be more likely to lie on DU...you or Octafish?

Jeez...between me and Octa...we have 25 years on DU. That's impressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:13 PM

43. I doubt state knew they were assets.

Just embassy workers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 01:36 AM

49. Elvis never did no drugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:08 PM

3. Cafeteria Style outrage.

It's Neoliberlism 101.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:08 PM

4. One of the things DU has taught me about the Democratic Party

is that establishment Democrats are hypocrites. It's wrong when Republicans do it, excusable or even good when a Democrat does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:16 PM

17. Come on L, there is a big difference between deliberately outing CIA agent in mass media and

mentioning their name in an email that was NOT expected to be seen.

And I say that as a Sanders voter who has had longheld issues with HRC.

I would also add that the agent would never have been known BUT for the witch hunt by Republicans who see no other way to prevail in November.

I am shocked that so many are claiming it is the same as what Cheney did…..with MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #17)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:22 PM

37. On this point, I agree with you, blm

 

making an issue out of the obviously unintended is missing the mark completely.

I vaguely remember a fire in one of the offices of the State Dept back during Dubya's regime. a significant fire which was said to have been associated with Dick Cheney. (that confused me, does the VP have an office in the same building as the State Dept?)

This fire took place around the time of Fitzmas, aka "pending indictments" of Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney. Justice was thwarted said the special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, but he never said exactly what was done to thwart, except for the "sand in his face" remark which was a perfect metaphor but lacking specifics.

Rampant rumors of documents relevant to the Valerie Plane outing, along with intel cables evidence of manufacturing lies and misinformation WMD lies to bolster the rationalization for war in Iraq.

The destruction of server emails sort of seems to be on par with what happened during Bush/Cheney but the outing of Plame is completely different than the outing of someone who was not intended to be disclosed to the public.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:08 PM

5. But they supported pointless, unnecessary wars!

 

Oh, wait...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:50 PM

41. ^^ This ^^

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:10 PM

7. Do as I say...

 

not as I do.

Especially break the law. She believes in putting people to death for breaking the law, and for personal profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:10 PM

8. Situational ethics?

 

Is that like pushing programs for trillion dollar war machines because it will bring pork to you state?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/bernie-sanders-loves-this-1-trillion-war-machine.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:12 PM

9. just to be clear, even if everything anti-hillary is true, it's still very different from plamegate

plame was exposed *on purpose*. cheney and his gang knew exactly what they were doing and did it knowing the lives of important, top secret contacts would be endangered or killed; important, top secret operations would be compromised and terminated, and important, top secret information would be exposed to our enemies.

now *that's* treasonous.

there's one hell of a difference between that and gross negligence in the handling of classified information, which is the worst of what hillary is potentially charged with.


keeping in mind that cheney didn't even get indicted for something far more odious, i suspect that if there are any indictments in the email scandal, it will be limited to techies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:15 PM

15. So...if you blunder into causing harm, it's OK?

Shouldn't blundering into it be much more troublesome? If it's accidental, you're likely to do it again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:13 PM

45. if the worst of what hillary's accused of is true, it's still not "treasonous"

and still not in the same league as deliberately outing plame.

i'm not opining on what happened in hillary's case, nor am i saying it's ok if it's true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #45)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:52 AM

48. Not rising to the level of treason is not the same as "OK".

Again, isn't it worse if it was accidental? It's more likely to happen again when it's an accident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #48)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 07:13 AM

50. again, i didn't say it was ok if true, but not, accidental is not worse than deliberate.

there is no instance in the law where an accidental crime is considered worse than an intentional one.

do you think cheney wouldn't/didn't commit other crimes for the sake of petty revenge or for any other motive?
does it give you any comfort at all that his actions were deliberate??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #50)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:09 AM

52. I'm not talking about an increased legal punishment.

I'm not sitting on a jury during a trial. I'm voting for president. The fact that there is no greater legal punishment for accidents is not relevant.

If it's an intentional act, then you know you were doing something wrong and deliberately violated "the rules".

If it's an unintentional act, you blundered into violating the rules. Indicating you don't know or understand the rules, and thus are likely to do it again. Not only that, but it indicates you're unwilling or unable to find out and understand what those rules are.

does it give you any comfort at all that his actions were deliberate?

Compared to blundering into the same actions? Yes. At least he only broke the law in relatively contained instances during petty revenge, instead of breaking the law all over the place with absolutely zero consideration of what might happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:15 PM

16. this is nonetheless

treasonous; to display callous indifference to the lives of agents or intel officials. how can anyone with a conscience not be mindful of and concerned about the consequences of one's actions to others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:17 PM

46. i don't think you can call it callous indifference.

no one's disputing that they took security measures. they're accused of not following standard procedures, they're accused of not taking advantage of the standard governmental security technology, but they're not accused of callous indifference to security and the consequences of inadequate security.

they are being accused of being incompetent at security, and they are accused of not following standard procedures.

that's very different, and that's not treasonous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:19 PM

20. She and her supporters have an excuse for everything. Her email was set up that way

ON PURPOSE. She was repeatedly warned about hacking, her staffers WERE hacked and now foreign governments can blackmail her. You can dismiss her abysmal judgement with the lives of other people because it's not you, but don't expect to have many who agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #20)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:21 PM

47. i'm not excusing anything.

i shouldn't be amazed, yet i constantly am, at the ability of people to simply see posts as one side or the other.

i'm not on hillary's side on this. i worked in a secure environment for a couple years, i have some pretty good knowledge of proper procedures and the consequences.

**if** it's all true, it's negligent handling of classified information, and i'm not letting anyone get a pass on that.

however, i've not heard anything, even accusations, that rise to the level of "treasonous" or anything comparable to what cheney did in plamegate.

at worst, it's the difference between negligent homicide and premeditated murder. both are crimes, but there's a huge difference in their nature and appropriate punishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:13 PM

12. if there is a D next to the name

anything goes

party over principles, over ethics, over morality

isn't this the essence of fascist totalitarianism?

the party and the party line over all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:14 PM

14. Was Cheney indicted? I must have missed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:20 PM

23. Wow, so if there's no indictment

 

all the people who Plame turned, who ended up dead because she was outed, don't matter? There's a difference between justice and litigation. OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farleftlib (Reply #23)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:34 PM

26. Was there a trial for treason? Why not?

Not enough evidence?

Unless you are some kind of vigilante, crimes (including treason) depend on our court system. Everyone knows it's not prefect, but it's what we have and it evolves. How do you advocate for "justice" other than our courts?

Just because YOU want to say something was a crime doesn't make it so. 50,000 Americans were killed in Korea based on what we now know was a lie. 60,000 Americans in Vietnam. The Bush war was a drop in the bucket of wars the US invented. In every case there are accusations of treason, security breaches, and profits.

You seem to think there is something new here. Sometimes evidence surfaces (remember Nixon), and many times it doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:18 PM

18. For the record, it was Richard Armitage who first outed Plame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:31 PM

24. I'm always shocked at the sites some use

as credible sources. They have been caught plagerizing, printing hoaxes with no accountiblity, but these same sources get posted again and again by BS supporters. Please tell me the agent Clinton outed. I keep reading this meme but have seen no evidence of this.

http://thedesk.matthewkeys.net/2015/07/inquisitr-birthday-cake-costco-hoax-john-albrecht/

http://realorsatire.com/inquisitr-com/

https://seocheaters4344.wordpress.com/tag/who-owns-the-inquisitr/

BTW this is considered an entertainment rag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #24)


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:41 PM

28. Remember when Hillary INTENTIONALLY released classified info? Oh wait, SHE NEVER DID.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:56 PM

30. You do realize that Inquisitr consists of user-driven content, right?

Your esteemed "source"

MOHIT PRIYADARSHI

Blogger, screenwriter, and a crazy film enthusiast at large, Mohit loves to write about topics as varied as entertainment, politics, and crime. He works mostly from his perennially balmy, dust-proof apartment in India, but sometimes tends to get a little itchy and goes travelling.


is a blogger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:05 PM

33. "Going out of business sale!!! All outrages MUST GO!!!!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:09 PM

34. The quality of the manufactured outrage widgets continues ...

... to plummet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread