2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRemember 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/
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Bleating louder and more often is not an argument.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)YouDig
(2,280 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Missed the wiper swiper.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)And even if were true, that wouldn't be "outing" and it wouldn't be Hillary doing the not-outing.
Except it is true.
ETA: If you have to wonder why I'd mention it, look up the word "Integrity.'
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Source is a great DUer, using publicly available information:
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.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)But even that hilarious pile of garbage doesn't say anything about outing covert agents.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)As for "that DUer": He is a lawyer.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)http://www.reuters.com/article/us-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0SE01O20151020
You offer an opportunity to learn something.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)You are making a fool of yourself.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)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.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)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.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)I'm sure there's an entirely logical explanation.
* 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?
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)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.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Just embassy workers.
Matt_R
(456 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)It's Neoliberlism 101.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)is that establishment Democrats are hypocrites. It's wrong when Republicans do it, excusable or even good when a Democrat does.
blm
(113,008 posts)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.
2banon
(7,321 posts)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.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Oh, wait...
Scuba
(53,475 posts)farleftlib
(2,125 posts)not as I do.
Especially break the law. She believes in putting people to death for breaking the law, and for personal profit.
annavictorious
(934 posts)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
unblock
(52,116 posts)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.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Shouldn't blundering into it be much more troublesome? If it's accidental, you're likely to do it again.
unblock
(52,116 posts)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.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Again, isn't it worse if it was accidental? It's more likely to happen again when it's an accident.
unblock
(52,116 posts)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??
jeff47
(26,549 posts)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.
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.
amborin
(16,631 posts)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?
unblock
(52,116 posts)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.
onecaliberal
(32,777 posts)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.
unblock
(52,116 posts)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.
amborin
(16,631 posts)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
Sancho
(9,067 posts)farleftlib
(2,125 posts)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.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)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.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)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.
Response to WhiteTara (Reply #24)
Snotcicles This message was self-deleted by its author.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Tarc
(10,472 posts)Your esteemed "source"
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.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... to plummet.