How will Benghazi affect Hillary's run?

[gbasden]

Benghazi is tired and weak. The only people still interested are the Republican super-faithful. They have a lot more of a chance hurting her with the email scandal than this non-event.

[Rip]

Tired maybe, weak hardly.

In other news, a FOIA request from the watchdog group Citizens United has uncovered the fact that Hill’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, was forwarding classified info to the Clinton Foundation — so staff there could support Bill Clinton’s work in Africa.
Add to this new details about Hillary’s e-mails with longtime aide Sidney Blumenthal — e-mails that somehow didn’t make it into the data she finally handed over once word broke that she’d failed to share her work product with the government.
Her extensive communications with him include the naming of a CIA source (obviously classified) as he pushed for action in Libya — action that would benefit his clients.
“It is curious Secretary Clinton took so much of her advice from someone who had never been to Libya, professed no independent knowledge of the country and who the White House blocked her from hiring,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads the select committee trying to finally get to the full facts on the deadly Benghazi attack.
Curious? Hey, in Clintonworld, blending policy with pocket-lining is routine — national security be damned.

http://nypost.com/2015/10/11/fresh-evid ... l-defense/

[malchior]

It is beyond weak..it is dead. The McCarthy comments and the Times article over the weekend almost certainly mean this winds up by the end of the year probably. We will likely see some hacked up report to attempt to justify it. It's dead, Jim.

[Rip]

The FBI investigation into the damage and scope of the classified info that passed through the e-mail server is just getting rolling. It will take months before we begin to know the true extent.

[hepcat]

And months after that to find out that the investigation died within the first few weeks, but was kept alive by republicans.

[Rip]

And months after that to find out that the investigation died within the first few weeks, but was kept alive by republicans.

It would seem the fact that over 400 classified e-mails have already been discovered, that e-mails with Sydney Bloomenthal weren't turned over as they should have been, and that Sydney outed an intel source over insecure e-mail, indicates anything but death.

Clearly numerous laws were violated. Now will those violations be ignored? Possibly but they most certainly happened and now there is proof.

[hepcat]

Like I said, it will be kept alive by folks like you no matter what happens.

[Rip]

By people like me you no doubt mean people that care about national security and the laws that protect it and government transparency. Versus the sheeples.

[hepcat]

Nope, more like those who spend more time posting unflattering pictures of a politician they don't like than they do actual facts. Your complaints against Hillary usually boil down to "she seems like a Lesbian to me!" and "Man, she's ugly!". That tends to hurt your cause when you're trying to demand respect for your vendetta.

[Jaymann]

They should form a club with the birthers, swift boaters, and jade helmers with secret handshakes and decoder rings.

[Rip]

Nope, more like those who spend more time posting unflattering pictures of a politician they don't like than they do actual facts. Your complaints against Hillary usually boil down to "she seems like a Lesbian to me!" and "Man, she's ugly!". That tends to hurt your cause when you're trying to demand respect for your vendetta.

Where does she violated federal law and disclosed or allowed to be disclosed information of the highest levels of classification have anything to do with that stuff.

I don't recall ever saying she was ugly, although I don't find her attractive, ugly isn't the word I would use.

I think I have only eluded to thinking she may be gay one time, but even so that doesn't matter to me. If Condi Rice said she was gay today I would still vote for over pretty much anyone. So not really an issue with me.

[hepcat]

I don't recall ever saying she was ugly, although I don't find her attractive, ugly isn't the word I would use.

I think I have only eluded to thinking she may be gay one time, but even so that doesn't matter to me. If Condi Rice said she was gay today I would still vote for over pretty much anyone. So not really an issue with me.

Is this Rip from Earth 616 that doesn't call people fascists, or Bizzaro Rip that does?

[gbasden]

Tired maybe, weak hardly.

In other news, a FOIA request from the watchdog group Citizens United has uncovered the fact that Hill’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, was forwarding classified info to the Clinton Foundation — so staff there could support Bill Clinton’s work in Africa.
Add to this new details about Hillary’s e-mails with longtime aide Sidney Blumenthal — e-mails that somehow didn’t make it into the data she finally handed over once word broke that she’d failed to share her work product with the government.
Her extensive communications with him include the naming of a CIA source (obviously classified) as he pushed for action in Libya — action that would benefit his clients.
“It is curious Secretary Clinton took so much of her advice from someone who had never been to Libya, professed no independent knowledge of the country and who the White House blocked her from hiring,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads the select committee trying to finally get to the full facts on the deadly Benghazi attack.
Curious? Hey, in Clintonworld, blending policy with pocket-lining is routine — national security be damned.

http://nypost.com/2015/10/11/fresh-evid ... l-defense/

The email scandal may have some teeth. I can see the potential for some evidence of corruption to come out. Benghazi, however, is a non-event and nothing but partisan grandstanding.

[GreenGoo]

I do find it interesting that Rip talks about Benghazi and the email scandal in the same breath.

Rip, you are obviously concerned about the person and not what she has done. What she has done just lends (some) credibility to your dislike for the woman, but your dislike is not related to the "scandals". Your constant posting of goofy pictures of her, including in threads that are not related to her makes it clear that she is the focus of your concern, not Benghazi, nor classified emails.

As gbasden said, you might have lucked out with the email server, but Benghazi is obviously a partisan hackjob with no teeth and is finally, finally causing some embarrassment for the GOP. You should probably let that one go.

[Fitzy]

It seems like her current problems stem from information derived from the Benghazi investigation.

While it seems likely there is nothing criminal about her handling of Benghazi, the issues coming out do point to a lack of judgement or leadership that would worry me in a president.

That she did use a private email server is established fact. I don't think anyone is denying it.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of her handling of secure information. Does it show a lack of judgement either directly by her or in who she trusts? Or will it all fizzle away?

What I was originally going to ask though is if this all came about due to a political investigation, should it be held against her?

For me, I don't like the way the investigation was handled. But I think it's a game both sides play.

Unfortunately if there is information that comes from the investigation that does point to her being unfit to be president, I'd rather know now then after she's elected.

Just wish the process wasn't so ugly.

[Zarathud]

This is a technical foot fault over handling of classified info and government IT, nothing more.

Hillary Clinton has been at the center of political controversy since 1993. She's a political survivor. The Benghazi/Mailgate investigations will prove nothing to anyone who isn't already convinced or receptive.

[Rip]

This is a technical foot fault over handling of classified info and government IT, nothing more.

Hillary Clinton has been at the center of political controversy since 1993. She's a political survivor. The Benghazi/Mailgate investigations will prove nothing to anyone who isn't already convinced or receptive.

Dozens of people have lost careers and even been jailed over accidental transgressions not nearly of the damage and scope of what is already known to have been mishandled. Even Sandy Berger's "sloppy" theft of archive documents doesn't rise to the level of these.

[Isgrimnur]

This just in: Policy and punishments are enforced in disparate and often unfair manners based on power and patronage.

[GreenGoo]

This just in: Policy and punishments are enforced in disparate and often unfair manners based on power and patronage.

While true, I'm willing to string her up if something serious comes up. And by serious, I mean something that isn't just embarrassing (for whoever).

What is amusing in this whole thing is that Clinton almost certainly used her own email service in an attempt to avoid government oversight and snooping. Doesn't seem to have worked out too well for her.

[Max Peck]

This just in: Policy and punishments are enforced in disparate and often unfair manners based on power and patronage.

While true, I'm willing to string her up if something serious comes up. And by serious, I mean something that isn't just embarrassing (for whoever).

What is amusing in this whole thing is that Clinton almost certainly used her own email service in an attempt to avoid government oversight and snooping. Doesn't seem to have worked out too well for her.

Maybe, maybe not...

The state department disclosed that Mrs Clinton used a private server during her time as secretary of state (2009-13) after journalists requested copies of her government emails.

The presidential hopeful has admitted that her decision to use a private email server at her New York home was a mistake.

However, the latest set of her emails to be released also reveal frustration within the State Department at the technology it was using while she was in office.

In one email exchange Mrs Clinton's then head of policy Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote that the department's technology was "so antiquated" that high-level officials "routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively".

She suggested writing an opinion piece to highlight the problem and Mrs Clinton agreed the idea "made good sense", but her chief of staff Cheryl Mills warned against "telegraphing" how often senior officials relied on their private email accounts to do government business because it could encourage hackers.

It sounds like she is not the only State Department official to use personal email of some sort for work-related purposes.

[Pyperkub]

CIA says at least some of the allegedly classified Benghazi emails didn't need to be redacted :

The credibility of the Republican-led Benghazi committee came under fresh attack Sunday after the CIA informed the panel that it does not view a 2011 email forwarded by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as including any classified information. The committee chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., had cited Clinton’s handling of the March 18, 2011, email as a prime example of her misusing her private email server to receive and send highly classified information.

The email was sent by her close friend and adviser Sidney Blumenthal and forwarded by Clinton to an aide. It contained the “name of a human source” for the CIA in Libya and was therefore “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives,” Gowdy wrote in an Oct. 7 letter.

But late Saturday night, a CIA official informed the committee that the agency does not view that email, among 127 previously undisclosed messages sent by Blumenthal to Clinton that the panel plans to release this week, as having any portions that need to be redacted because they include classified information.

[Zarathud]

Misleading Congress is a serious offense! Time to investigate the Republicans on the Benghazi committee to find out what Rep. Gowdy knew, and when, about this serious breach of ethics. Misleading the American public with bald lies targeting your political opponents is something the offenders must explain to the American people! Who is watching the watchmen in the House?

[LawBeefaroni]

It sounds like she is not the only State Department official to use personal email of some sort for work-related purposes.

As Secretary of State, AKA head of the State Department, isn't that kind of on her too though? I mean, "but all my subordinates were doing it too!" seems like a pretty self-destructive rationalization.

[Max Peck]

It sounds like she is not the only State Department official to use personal email of some sort for work-related purposes.

As Secretary of State, AKA head of the State Department, isn't that kind of on her too though? I mean, "but all my subordinates were doing it too!" seems like a pretty self-destructive rationalization.

I didn't say that it was good practice, but if the State Dept IT systems for unclassified email were so dysfunctional that it was not abnormal for high-level officials to use personal email accounts to get things done, then it doesn't necessarily follow that Clinton was doing it to avoid oversight. She may have done it for that reason, or she may -- along with the rest of them -- have done it simply to get stuff done.

FWIW, I don't recall seeing any claims that Clinton has said anything at all like "but all my subordinates were doing it too!" Have you seen any such defense from her? All I quoted was an article that cites an email exchange discussing how foobar the State Dept IT was.

[Kraken]

It sounds like she is not the only State Department official to use personal email of some sort for work-related purposes.

As Secretary of State, AKA head of the State Department, isn't that kind of on her too though? I mean, "but all my subordinates were doing it too!" seems like a pretty self-destructive rationalization.

I didn't say that it was good practice, but if the State Dept IT systems for unclassified email were so dysfunctional that it was not abnormal for high-level officials to use personal email accounts to get things done, then it doesn't necessarily follow that Clinton was doing it to avoid oversight. She may have done it for that reason, or she may -- along with the rest of them -- have done it simply to get stuff done.

FWIW, I don't recall seeing any claims that Clinton has said anything at all like "but all my subordinates were doing it too!" Have you seen any such defense from her? All I quoted was an article that cites an email exchange discussing how foobar the State Dept IT was.

Do you think that Hillary ever even pondered the technical details about how her email worked?

[Max Peck]

It sounds like she is not the only State Department official to use personal email of some sort for work-related purposes.

As Secretary of State, AKA head of the State Department, isn't that kind of on her too though? I mean, "but all my subordinates were doing it too!" seems like a pretty self-destructive rationalization.

I didn't say that it was good practice, but if the State Dept IT systems for unclassified email were so dysfunctional that it was not abnormal for high-level officials to use personal email accounts to get things done, then it doesn't necessarily follow that Clinton was doing it to avoid oversight. She may have done it for that reason, or she may -- along with the rest of them -- have done it simply to get stuff done.

FWIW, I don't recall seeing any claims that Clinton has said anything at all like "but all my subordinates were doing it too!" Have you seen any such defense from her? All I quoted was an article that cites an email exchange discussing how foobar the State Dept IT was.

Do you think that Hillary ever even pondered the technical details about how her email worked?

Damned if I know. The emails released from her server seem to indicate at least one occasion where she engaged in a discussion with staff with regard to how the State Dept email system didn't work. Beyond that, I know nothing.

Although, I'm curious about whether Congress will move on to investigating the head of the CIA's AOL usage once they finish with Clinton. If anyone should know better, you'd think it would be the head spook.

[Defiant]

Wait, someone from the CIA uses... AOL?

Wait... AOL still exists?

[Rip]

Unless these AOL e-mails contained classified data it really isn't applicable.

[Max Peck]

Unless these AOL e-mails contained classified data it really isn't applicable.

It hasn't been established that Clinton's emails contained any actual classified information either, from the little coverage I've seen.

The punk that claims to have hacked Brennan's account says that he got Brennan's security clearance application paperwork, although I haven't seen any evidence that he's backed up the claim by releasing it. Would that be sensitive enough for you?

[GreenGoo]

Unless these AOL e-mails contained classified data it really isn't applicable.

As Max points out, how would we know unless we started an investigation and maybe formed a committee? Or maybe several committees? He's not the secretary of state of course. He's actually supposed to know how IT security works. You would think in this day and age it would be part of the job description.

Then again, he's not running for the presidency, so no (partisan politics) harm no foul.

[Anonymous Bosch]

It hasn't been established that Clinton's emails contained any actual classified information either, from the little coverage I've seen.

Perhaps not. It's certainly been strongly intimated, however.

Courtesy of the Observer:

Particularly disturbing is the report that one of the “personal” emails Ms. Clinton forwarded included the name of a top CIA asset in Libya, who was identified as such. The source of this information was Tyler Drumheller, a retired senior CIA operations officer, who served as a sort of one-man private spy agency for Sid Blumenthal, the Clintons’ close family friend and factotum whose sometimes long-winded emails, particularly regarding Libya, have generated much of the controversy behind EmailGate.

Mr. Drumheller became a fleeting hero to liberals with his resistance to George W. Bush’s White House over skewed intelligence behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but he was never particularly popular at CIA and he left Langley under something of a cloud. His emails to Mr. Blumenthal, which were forwarded to Ms. Clinton, were filled with espionage-flavored information about events in Libya. In many cases, Mr. Drumheller’s reports were formatted to look exactly like actual CIA reports, including attribution to named foreign intelligence agencies. How much of this was factual versus Mr. Drumheller embellishing his connections is unclear.

What is abundantly clear is that the true name of an identified CIA asset is a highly classified fact and intentionally revealing it is a Federal crime, which Mr. Drumheller, a career spy, had to know. Why he compromised this person who was secretly helping the United States – possibly endangering his life in the process — may never be known because Mr. Drumheller conveniently died of cancer in early August.

[Rip]

Unless these AOL e-mails contained classified data it really isn't applicable.

It hasn't been established that Clinton's emails contained any actual classified information either, from the little coverage I've seen.

The punk that claims to have hacked Brennan's account says that he got Brennan's security clearance application paperwork, although I haven't seen any evidence that he's backed up the claim by releasing it. Would that be sensitive enough for you?

Not through her account but through her server.

Setting up the server makes her responsible for what passes through it.

[Zarathud]

Do you want to die on that hill, Rip? Should Google be held responsible for anything that goes through it? Are you responsible for every server you've touched?

But you've already downgraded to "sensitive" from "classified" information. Lost cause.

[Max Peck]

It hasn't been established that Clinton's emails contained any actual classified information either, from the little coverage I've seen.

Perhaps not. It's certainly been strongly intimated, however.

Courtesy of the Observer:

Particularly disturbing is the report that one of the “personal” emails Ms. Clinton forwarded included the name of a top CIA asset in Libya, who was identified as such. The source of this information was Tyler Drumheller, a retired senior CIA operations officer, who served as a sort of one-man private spy agency for Sid Blumenthal, the Clintons’ close family friend and factotum whose sometimes long-winded emails, particularly regarding Libya, have generated much of the controversy behind EmailGate.

Mr. Drumheller became a fleeting hero to liberals with his resistance to George W. Bush’s White House over skewed intelligence behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but he was never particularly popular at CIA and he left Langley under something of a cloud. His emails to Mr. Blumenthal, which were forwarded to Ms. Clinton, were filled with espionage-flavored information about events in Libya. In many cases, Mr. Drumheller’s reports were formatted to look exactly like actual CIA reports, including attribution to named foreign intelligence agencies. How much of this was factual versus Mr. Drumheller embellishing his connections is unclear.

What is abundantly clear is that the true name of an identified CIA asset is a highly classified fact and intentionally revealing it is a Federal crime, which Mr. Drumheller, a career spy, had to know. Why he compromised this person who was secretly helping the United States – possibly endangering his life in the process — may never be known because Mr. Drumheller conveniently died of cancer in early August.

Is that the same information that the CIA says wasn't classified, or something else?

[Rip]

Do you want to die on that hill, Rip? Should Google be held responsible for anything that goes through it? Are you responsible for every server you've touched?

But you've already downgraded to "sensitive" from "classified" information. Lost cause.

Big difference between selling e-mail accounts to people and setting one up specifically to do government business and being found to have highly classified material on that server which wasn't certified for holding such. Forget that this information is never allowed to be on the public internet, only on highly controlled and encrypted networks. So there exists no server anywhere on the public internet that has been cleared to contain that information.

That stuff being out there makes it vulnerable to an OPM type breach the damage of which would be felt for decades. We can only hope that the information wasn't compromised, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

This is like doing a Snowden but out of stupidity instead of for some personal cause.

[Max Peck]

Unless these AOL e-mails contained classified data it really isn't applicable.

It hasn't been established that Clinton's emails contained any actual classified information either, from the little coverage I've seen.

The punk that claims to have hacked Brennan's account says that he got Brennan's security clearance application paperwork, although I haven't seen any evidence that he's backed up the claim by releasing it. Would that be sensitive enough for you?

Not through her account but through her server.

Setting up the server makes her responsible for what passes through it.

Fine. Where is the evidence that any actual classified information passed through that server?

And you're OK with Brennan's (alleged) use of AOL to transmit his security clearance application? I noticed that you reframed the issue in lieu of answering that query. An oversight, I'm sure.

[Kraken]

It sounds like she is not the only State Department official to use personal email of some sort for work-related purposes.

As Secretary of State, AKA head of the State Department, isn't that kind of on her too though? I mean, "but all my subordinates were doing it too!" seems like a pretty self-destructive rationalization.

I didn't say that it was good practice, but if the State Dept IT systems for unclassified email were so dysfunctional that it was not abnormal for high-level officials to use personal email accounts to get things done, then it doesn't necessarily follow that Clinton was doing it to avoid oversight. She may have done it for that reason, or she may -- along with the rest of them -- have done it simply to get stuff done.

FWIW, I don't recall seeing any claims that Clinton has said anything at all like "but all my subordinates were doing it too!" Have you seen any such defense from her? All I quoted was an article that cites an email exchange discussing how foobar the State Dept IT was.

Do you think that Hillary ever even pondered the technical details about how her email worked?

Damned if I know. The emails released from her server seem to indicate at least one occasion where she engaged in a discussion with staff with regard to how the State Dept email system didn't work. Beyond that, I know nothing.

Although, I'm curious about whether Congress will move on to investigating the head of the CIA's AOL usage once they finish with Clinton. If anyone should know better, you'd think it would be the head spook.

Y'know, if I'm at that level all I care about is that it works or doesn't. I'm paying minions to take care of the details. It's a big deal in this forum because half the people posting here are those minions. We act like she knew how it worked or like she was even supposed to know.

If Hillary knew the difference between a government server and a private server before this all broke I'll eat my hat and hepcat's too, since he probably doesn't wear hats and I can only digest one.

[Pyperkub]

Do you want to die on that hill, Rip? Should Google be held responsible for anything that goes through it? Are you responsible for every server you've touched?

But you've already downgraded to "sensitive" from "classified" information. Lost cause.

Big difference between selling e-mail accounts to people and setting one up specifically to do government business and being found to have highly classified material on that server which wasn't certified for holding such. Forget that this information is never allowed to be on the public internet, only on highly controlled and encrypted networks. So there exists no server anywhere on the public internet that has been cleared to contain that information.

That stuff being out there makes it vulnerable to an OPM type breach the damage of which would be felt for decades. We can only hope that the information wasn't compromised, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

This is like doing a Snowden but out of stupidity instead of for some personal cause.

So, having an Exchange Email server with what I assume is an experienced Exchange admin is worse than using an AOL account? Hmmmm... methinks maybe your zeal for hilary-hatred is clouding your mind...

[Rip]

Unless these AOL e-mails contained classified data it really isn't applicable.

It hasn't been established that Clinton's emails contained any actual classified information either, from the little coverage I've seen.

The punk that claims to have hacked Brennan's account says that he got Brennan's security clearance application paperwork, although I haven't seen any evidence that he's backed up the claim by releasing it. Would that be sensitive enough for you?

Not through her account but through her server.

Setting up the server makes her responsible for what passes through it.

Fine. Where is the evidence that any actual classified information passed through that server?

And you're OK with Brennan's (alleged) use of AOL to transmit his security clearance application? I noticed that you reframed the issue in lieu of answering that query. An oversight, I'm sure.

There isn't anything classified on a security application.

A special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program — has endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/po ... .html?_r=0

[Rip]

Do you want to die on that hill, Rip? Should Google be held responsible for anything that goes through it? Are you responsible for every server you've touched?

But you've already downgraded to "sensitive" from "classified" information. Lost cause.

Big difference between selling e-mail accounts to people and setting one up specifically to do government business and being found to have highly classified material on that server which wasn't certified for holding such. Forget that this information is never allowed to be on the public internet, only on highly controlled and encrypted networks. So there exists no server anywhere on the public internet that has been cleared to contain that information.

That stuff being out there makes it vulnerable to an OPM type breach the damage of which would be felt for decades. We can only hope that the information wasn't compromised, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

This is like doing a Snowden but out of stupidity instead of for some personal cause.

So, having an Exchange Email server with what I assume is an experienced Exchange admin is worse than using an AOL account? Hmmmm... methinks maybe your zeal for hilary-hatred is clouding your mind...

No setting up a server to host your government business e-mails as well as those of many of your subordinates that results in violating storage requirements for classified data is worse than using an AOL account for yourself that doesn't get used for transmitting classified data.

If classified data was sent through the AOL account then he should be charged as well.