Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Hillary's Email Scandal for Non-Techy People [View all]IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)191. I don't know why I am bothering.
Again, keep in mind I am TRYING to keep things pretty simple here.
Start here:
Hillary Clinton Asks State Department to Vet Emails for Release, The New York Times, March 6, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-asks-state-dept-to-review-emails-for-public-release.html?ref=politics&_r=2
WASHINGTON As State Department lawyers sifted last summer through a new batch of documents related to the Benghazi attacks, they repeatedly saw something that caught their attention: emails sent to and from a personal account for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The lawyers, according to current and former State Department officials, were working to respond to a request from a specially appointed House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Libya. But they noticed that among the 15,000 documents they examined, there were no emails to or from an official departmental account for Mrs. Clinton.
This all raised the question to us: What else are we missing, and what do we need to comply with the request, said one official briefed on the matter.
The "request" that the state department folk were responding to in the summer of 2014 is (in my understanding) a polite euphemism for a subpoena that was served on the State Department. In theory the State Department should have had all work product, including emails, of all previous staff, including Secretary Clinton. As we now know, they didn't because Secretary Clinton's work emails were in her basement. Next, go here -
House Republicans Release The Subpoena Hillary Clinton Said She Never Received For Her Emails, The Huffington Post, July 8, 2015 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/hillary-clinton-emails-_n_7756106.html
WASHINGTON One day after Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she never had a subpoena for the emails she sent while secretary of state, House Republicans on Wednesday released a document appearing to contradict her namely, the subpoena theyd served Clinton earlier this year.
During an interview with CNNs Brianna Keilar on Tuesday, Clinton said that other secretaries of state had done the same thing as her in the past. Keilar replied, They used a personal server, and while facing a subpoena, deleted emails from them?"
You know, youre starting with so many assumptions, Clinton responded. Ive never had a subpoena, theres nothing again, lets take a deep breath here.
(snip)
When Clinton on Tuesday said shed never had a subpoena, that appears to be contradicted by the subpoena House Republicans issued her in March. But it depends on what the meaning of the word had is. A Clinton campaign spokesperson told The Huffington Post that she had already destroyed the emails in question before the subpoena was received. Clinton turned over some emails to the State Department in late 2014 and then wiped her personal server clean so by the time the subpoena arrived in March, there was nothing for it to act on.
And then to see an actual copy of the subpoena (it even has the heading "SUBPOENA" in all caps) she was served on March 4, 2015 go here -
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton%20Subpoena%20-%202015.03.04.pdf
Keep in mind ALL the government records including the ones she TRIED TO HAVE DELETED have since been retrieved by the FBI.
Unbeknownst to Clinton, IT firm had emails stored on cloud; now in FBIs hands, McClatchy DC, October 3, 2015 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article37968711.html
WASHINGTON A Connecticut company, which backed up Hillary Clintons emails at the request of a Colorado firm, apparently surprised her aides by storing the emails on a cloud storage system designed to optimize data recovery.
The firm, Datto Inc., said Wednesday that it turned over the contents of its storage to the FBI on Tuesday.
A Republican Senate committee chairman, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, also has asked the firm to provide the committee copies of any data from Clintons account still in its possession.
I realize you probably don't consider The New York Times, The Huffington Post, McClatchy DC and staff of a House Select Committee to be credible, but I am comfortable with my understanding of the chain of events.
If you have any other questions, ask politely or learn to use google.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
198 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It's actually unbelievable. Keystone Kops in a way. Secretary of State, FFS.
CentralCoaster
Apr 2016
#27
IdaBroggs, this is a concise explanation! Well done! However, I think you should add...
FourScore
Apr 2016
#69
ANALYSIS: No, Hillary Clinton Did Not Commit a Crime ... at Least Based on What We Know Today
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#101
That is not a good analysis. You can get ten years for leaving secret docs on a bar stool.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#139
Here's something I learned . . . there are NO government documents marked "classified"
pdsimdars
Apr 2016
#72
"Some Or All" Of Clinton Emails Designated SAP Referenced Public Information About U.S. Drone Strike
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#140
No. Much of the TS classified material was NSA information dealing with events in Libya.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#151
What I see: of 127 Sid emails, only one appears to have been partial redacted by the Comm.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#194
There was one email where a name was redacted unnecessarily. You failed to make your case here.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#196
I am amused that you actually think that you understand the legal concepts being discussed
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#184
Delighted you are amused. But, again you err. Petraeus' binders weren't marked classified, but
leveymg
Apr 2016
#185
Nowhere does that state that his books were marked classifed; Sec 1924 and 793 r different statutes
leveymg
Apr 2016
#188
I thought DiFi was busy lying to the American people about the wretched effects legal weed is having
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2016
#163
This is one of those bait and switch analyses. Doesn't mention Sec. 793 the statute most
leveymg
Apr 2016
#145
I make a living parsing federal and state statutes for things such as intent and mens rea.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#154
There are six separate crimes under 793. (e) and (f) do not require specific intent
leveymg
Apr 2016
#161
When was the last time that you or someone you knew had just one FBI agent investigating personaly
nolabels
Apr 2016
#99
GOP created this story, and did so to try and destroy Hillary Clinton's chances to be president.
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#80
They didn't create *the facts* of what she did, which apparently warrant investigation, at a minimum
JudyM
Apr 2016
#84
He brought approx 150 emails when he was subpoenaed by the Benghazi committee.
IdaBriggs
Apr 2016
#88
TRUE: "The mere fact that it exists was a breach of security with potential consequences."
IdaBriggs
Apr 2016
#29
You can carry the conservative Republican water all you like, won't make this issue more palatable
Tarc
Apr 2016
#68
No, TARC is a liberal, a Democrat who supports the party and is aware
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#81
So you openly have hatred for the Democratic Party, noted. I know why
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#92
That is ludicrous. Which of us will vote to prevent women from dying from self abortions?
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#94
That is not the point, is it. Your attitude is carried with you everywhere you go.
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#105
Really, your very negative attitude about Hillary is only expressed here on DU?
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#109
Again, categorically false, per the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
IdaBriggs
Apr 2016
#133
Sticking to the facts is a great idea-why don't you provide the sourcing for your so-called facts?
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#134
I'm ready for it to wrap up. Surely they have enough of whatever they're looking for. Let's do this!
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
Apr 2016
#43
She wanted a custom ultra secure BlackBerry like Barak's and they would not give her one.
gordianot
Apr 2016
#56
Thank you and bookmarking :) - Hillary's Email Scandal for Non-Techy People nt
slipslidingaway
Apr 2016
#48
I've seen a number of videos on this and this looks like a great job. . . THANKS!
pdsimdars
Apr 2016
#71
The fact that you are not disclosing your sourcing is all anyone needs to reject this sad OP
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#110
I like complicated which which is why I sourced each and every one of my posts
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#135
Government Officials: None Of The Emails Were Marked As "Classified" When They Were Sent.
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#130
The fact that you have no sourcing for your silly and false claims is sad but amusing
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#171
Guccifer took screen shots/made copies of Hillary & Sidney Blumenthal's email.
IdaBriggs
Apr 2016
#166
Yes, it helps a lot. What a bizarre twist to an already convoluted
Land of Enchantment
Apr 2016
#182
Condoleezza Rice Aides, Colin Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Emails
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#127