How will Benghazi affect Hillary's run?

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:50 pm

Alefroth wrote:What role does DiGenova have in the investigation?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:39 pm

One hopes that the indictment, if truly forthcoming, will come forth before she locks up the nom. If it's really just another Republican plot then they'll wait until it's too late for the Democrats to get cold feet.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:43 pm

Alefroth wrote:What role does DiGenova have in the investigation?

Shooting his mouth off as if his opinion is fact?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:59 am

Rip wrote:
"I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable," DiGenova said.

And this is how you know he's full of crap. There hasn't been anything even remotely as scandal-worthy or as corrupt as Watergate leaked about her emails. It's not even on the same plane of existence as Watergate.

I know people WANT it to be like Watergate. I know there has been some questionable stuff, even. But to call it Watergate-like is complete rhetoric.

I'll wait and see, just like I've been doing this whole time. This guy's "big reveal" on a talk show has about as much credibility as Rip himself. And that's not even considering his appearances on "Rivera Live and Crossfire" as Max points out.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:41 am

Max Peck wrote:
Alefroth wrote:What role does DiGenova have in the investigation?
He's an old-school Clinton foe.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:10 pm

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee released a scathing statement Friday, calling on Hillary Clinton to "come clean" after the State Department released an email in which she asked an aide to send information on a non-secure system after attempts to send the document securely failed.

Sen. Chuck Grassley said the email, released at about 1:30 am Friday morning along with about 3,000 other emails from Clinton's State Department tenure, is "disturbing," and "appears to show the former Secretary of State instructing a subordinate to remove the headings from a classified document and send it to her in an unsecure manner."

On June 16, 2011, top Clinton aide Jake Sullivan wrote to Clinton to say she would get "tps" -- presumably short for "talking points" that evening. The subject of the email is redacted so it's not clear what topic these points covered.

The next morning, Clinton wrote back to say she hadn't received them yet, and after a few minutes Sullivan responded that staff were having issues sending the document in a secure fax but that they were "working on it."

"If they can't," Clinton replies, "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

READ: Hillary Clinton 'surprised' by State staffer's personal email use

Clinton's critics are now seizing on the email, and say it shows a disregard of the security of classified information.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/ ... index.html

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:42 pm

Rip, are you really suggesting you want a President who isn't going to bellow at their IT staff, I don't care how you get that information sent to me -- JUST GET IT DONE?

If you can't intimidate your IT staff, how can you take on Putin? I thought you wanted a maverick cowboy outsider for President.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:06 pm

I literally don't care. Show me that it was more important to keep secure than it was to be transmitted and I might start caring.

Every time you post one of these I give Hillary more benefit of the doubt, not less. Give me something serious Rip, otherwise it just comes across as a petty submarine job, and given Benghazi investigations, you've got a tough job convincing me this is somehow different from that boondoggle.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:20 pm

Zarathud wrote:Rip, are you really suggesting you want a President who isn't going to bellow at their IT staff, I don't care how you get that information sent to me -- JUST GET IT DONE?

If you can't intimidate your IT staff, how can you take on Putin? I thought you wanted a maverick cowboy outsider for President.

I am saying that when you direct a subordinate to send classified information via a non-secure method you have violated the law. Period.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:21 pm

Rip wrote:
Zarathud wrote:Rip, are you really suggesting you want a President who isn't going to bellow at their IT staff, I don't care how you get that information sent to me -- JUST GET IT DONE?

If you can't intimidate your IT staff, how can you take on Putin? I thought you wanted a maverick cowboy outsider for President.
I am saying that when you direct a subordinate to send classified information via a non-secure method you have violated the law. Period.

But when it's your grocery list, maybe it's a technicality.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:23 pm

GreenGoo wrote:I literally don't care. Show me that it was more important to keep secure than it was to be transmitted and I might start caring.

Every time you post one of these I give Hillary more benefit of the doubt, not less. Give me something serious Rip, otherwise it just comes across as a petty submarine job, and given Benghazi investigations, you've got a tough job convincing me this is somehow different from that boondoggle.

It isn't up to a someone cleared to access classified information to decide whether it is important and should be sent via non-secure methods. The laws are very clear and no one else has ever been allowed a pass using that excuse, why should she be special?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:30 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Rip wrote:
Zarathud wrote:Rip, are you really suggesting you want a President who isn't going to bellow at their IT staff, I don't care how you get that information sent to me -- JUST GET IT DONE?

If you can't intimidate your IT staff, how can you take on Putin? I thought you wanted a maverick cowboy outsider for President.
I am saying that when you direct a subordinate to send classified information via a non-secure method you have violated the law. Period.
But when it's your grocery list, maybe it's a technicality.

People don't send grocery lists via secure fax. That would be like keeping your toothpicks in a safe rather than a kitchen drawer "just because". There is a lot of documentation that must be done to send/recieve a secure fax. No one would do that for something that doesn't need that "protection"

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:49 pm

Shrug. You have incredible confidence in the competency of the federal government all of a sudden.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:08 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Shrug. You have incredible confidence in the competency of the federal government all of a sudden.

Actually I don't. I have confidence in the federal investigators, but I suspect the Attorney General will do just about anything to avoid doing anything about it. This will likely expose to the life long bureaucratic law enforcement folks that politicians can often be above the law. I don't expect them to be very fond of the realization. No wonder people in that line of work have become so cynical.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:39 pm

Why on earth would you think this would be news to them?

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 11:13 am

And these are the people who think Clinton is incompetent???

The House Benghazi Committee missed a self-imposed deadline to issue a report "before summer," the latest setback for a probe that has gone on for more than two years and drawn scorn from Democrats who say its primary goal is to undermine Hillary Clinton's presidential bid.

Truly the do-nothing party.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:42 pm

Democrats on the committee release their own report, as they are being blocked from input on the ephemeral GOP-attack report it appears:

Committee Democrats, led by Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, say it was necessary to release their own report because the Republicans, led by Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, refused to issue a joint report that would incorporate opinions of the minority group...

...Administration officials did not make intentionally misleading statements about the attacks, but instead relied on information they were provided at the time under fast-moving circumstances," the report reads.

The report quotes March testimony from Gen. David Petraeus, who was the CIA director at the time of the attack.

"I’m still not absolutely certain what absolutely took place, whether it was a mix of people that are demonstrating with attackers in there, whether this is an organized demonstration to launch an attack, whether ... there was a protest and it grew out of the protest," Petraeus told the committee.

Petraeus said the video of the attack also makes it unclear if there were protesters mixed in with attackers.

Democrats' report also concludes that the committee found no evidence that Clinton personally denied any security requests from personnel in Benghazi.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:05 pm

A comparison of the two reports to come out of the ancient Benghazi! committee:

A comparison of key findings in investigations into the 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya that killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans:

PREVENTING THE ATTACKS:

House Benghazi Committee Republicans, June 28, 2016: Faults the Obama administration for loose security at the post. There were rarely more than a handful of security personnel there, and the facility's design did not meet security requirements.

House Benghazi Committee Democrats, June 27, 2016: State Department security measures in Benghazi were inadequate as a result of decisions made by mid-level officials. U.S. intelligence received no advance warning of attacks.

Senate Intelligence Committee, bipartisan, January 2014: Attacks could have been prevented. U.S. intelligence didn't send enough warnings about the potential threat. The State Department could have closed the Benghazi facility until security was improved.

House Intelligence Committee, bipartisan, November 2014: U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi was insufficiently protected. State Department security agents knew they could not defend it from a well-armed attack.

It goes on. Essentially, every single charge leveled in hyperbolic fashion by the GOP against Hilary and Obama was mostly or completely false. What a waste of time and treasure.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:00 pm

Buried in the hundreds of pages of the highly-anticipated House Benghazi Committee report is something that may not have been seen by the mainstream media outlets at first, but it is quickly gathering momentum in the 24-hour news cycle. On page 269 of the report issued by Rep. Trey Gowdy’s (R-SC) select committee after roughly two years of investigating is the fact that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was in fact the infamous “second gunman on the grassy knoll” in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

link

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:05 pm

Defiant wrote:
Buried in the hundreds of pages of the highly-anticipated House Benghazi Committee report is something that may not have been seen by the mainstream media outlets at first, but it is quickly gathering momentum in the 24-hour news cycle. On page 269 of the report issued by Rep. Trey Gowdy’s (R-SC) select committee after roughly two years of investigating is the fact that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was in fact the infamous “second gunman on the grassy knoll” in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
link

Working with Ted Cruz's dad (or was it granddad) I think...

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:04 pm

Rip wrote:
Zarathud wrote:Rip, are you really suggesting you want a President who isn't going to bellow at their IT staff, I don't care how you get that information sent to me -- JUST GET IT DONE?

If you can't intimidate your IT staff, how can you take on Putin? I thought you wanted a maverick cowboy outsider for President.
I am saying that when you direct a subordinate to send classified information via a non-secure method you have violated the law. Period.

Exactly what law was broken?

I agree that the decision to not use a secure approved system was incredibly stupid but I've yet to see stated exactly what law was broken here.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:09 pm

Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:
Zarathud wrote:Rip, are you really suggesting you want a President who isn't going to bellow at their IT staff, I don't care how you get that information sent to me -- JUST GET IT DONE?

If you can't intimidate your IT staff, how can you take on Putin? I thought you wanted a maverick cowboy outsider for President.
I am saying that when you direct a subordinate to send classified information via a non-secure method you have violated the law. Period.
Exactly what law was broken?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... nformation

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:28 pm

And yet there doesn't seem to be an arrest warrant out for Mrs. Clinton.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:46 pm

hepcat wrote:And yet there doesn't seem to be an arrest warrant out for Mrs. Clinton.

I wonder why?

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:47 pm

I thought warrants were passe? or is it just for wiretapping?

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:57 pm

Defiant wrote:I thought warrants were passe? or is it just for wiretapping?

Yeah. Arrest warrants are still cool. Search warrants are going out of style.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:17 pm

Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:And yet there doesn't seem to be an arrest warrant out for Mrs. Clinton.
I wonder why?

<insert picture of brilliant action by the Clintons>

And that, my friend, is why Hillary should be president. She's smart enough to wiggle out of this kind of thing, while Trump is still neck deep in his criminal wrongdoings.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:23 pm

Ah, so it was one of those secret conspiratorial meetings held in public between two parties accompanied by staff and reporters?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:01 pm

Holman wrote:Ah, so it was one of those secret conspiratorial meetings held in public between two parties accompanied by staff and reporters?

Nope 30 minute private conversation on the plane with no reporters or staff. We weren't even supposed to know then some nosy reporter ventured off the talking points.

"I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport as he was leaving and spoke to myself and my husband on the plane," said Lynch.

The private meeting also occurred hours before the Benghazi report was released publicly involving Hillary Clinton and President Obama's administration.

Lynch said the private meeting on the tarmac did not involve these topics.

Sources say the private meeting at the airport lasted around 30 minutes.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:15 pm

But still highly visible in that everyone is reporting on it.

How would Bill Clinton talking to Lynch affect Lynch's response to a report that finds Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:23 pm

Holman wrote:But still highly visible in that everyone is reporting on it.

How would Bill Clinton talking to Lynch affect Lynch's response to a report that finds Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong?

Perhaps it was to thank her for making sure no one finds out about the link between The Clinton Foundation and SecState business for at least a couple years?

Department of Justice officials filed a motion in federal court late Wednesday seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch.

If the court permits the delay, the public won’t be able to read the communications until October 2018, about 22 months into her prospective first term as President. The four senior Clinton aides involved were Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Fuchs, Ambassador-At-Large Melanne Verveer, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin.

During Clinton’s four years as America’s chief foreign diplomat, her aides communicated with officials at the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings where Bill Clinton was formerly both a client and paid consultant, on the average of 700 times each month, according to the Justice Department filing.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/30/exclu ... 27-months/

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:25 pm

Perhaps it was to exchange the secret handshake of the Lizard Alien Overlords? WE CAN NEVER BE SURE! TRUMP 2016!!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 9:20 pm

She's proving herself a better choice every day. Who wants an idiot who can't even shrug off a stupid fake University scam?

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 11:14 pm

Oh just shut the f- up Rip.
Don't pretend like you give a shit about anything. Please.
What the fuck do you care.

Do you support Trump over Clinton under the belief that he will act with some high regard to the laws you pretend to care about? Do you?

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Thu Jun 30, 2016 11:38 pm

Rip wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:
Zarathud wrote:Rip, are you really suggesting you want a President who isn't going to bellow at their IT staff, I don't care how you get that information sent to me -- JUST GET IT DONE?

If you can't intimidate your IT staff, how can you take on Putin? I thought you wanted a maverick cowboy outsider for President.
I am saying that when you direct a subordinate to send classified information via a non-secure method you have violated the law. Period.
Exactly what law was broken?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... nformation

What is the penalty for violation of this executive order? It seems to be setting standards for the handling of classified information but I don't see any penalties there.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

The Supreme Court has ruled that application of this statue requires both "intent" to injure the US and "bad faith":

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/no-hill ... now-today/

You'd have a hard time proving that Clinton's intent was to harm the US.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Jul 02, 2016 1:53 pm

Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:
Zarathud wrote:Rip, are you really suggesting you want a President who isn't going to bellow at their IT staff, I don't care how you get that information sent to me -- JUST GET IT DONE?

If you can't intimidate your IT staff, how can you take on Putin? I thought you wanted a maverick cowboy outsider for President.
I am saying that when you direct a subordinate to send classified information via a non-secure method you have violated the law. Period.
Exactly what law was broken?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... nformation

What is the penalty for violation of this executive order? It seems to be setting standards for the handling of classified information but I don't see any penalties there.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
The Supreme Court has ruled that application of this statue requires both "intent" to injure the US and "bad faith":

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/no-hill ... now-today/

You'd have a hard time proving that Clinton's intent was to harm the US.

No it doesn't.

Legal experts say investigators could be looking into potential violations of Section 1924 of Title 18, which deals with the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material, or even the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime for anyone "through gross negligence," to allow the loss, theft or removal of classified information or fails to promptly report such mishandling to his superior.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic ... 12972.html

Only certain parts require intent. Others only require failing to adhere to required safeguards. Which is by definition grossly negligent.

http://opiniojuris.org/2013/07/31/corre ... onage-act/

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Jul 02, 2016 6:31 pm

There is zero chance that a non-partisan court finds gross negligence. Zero.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 12:18 pm

But not for lack of trying:
Investigation lasting longer than 9/11, Watergate, or the Kennedy Assassination.
Methinks they doth investigate too much.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:21 pm

The gift that keeps on giving:

Donald Trump's campaign on Tuesday seized on revelations that the FBI has recovered an additional 30 emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server relating to the 2012 terrorist attack against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, saying the alarming development makes one wonder “what is contained in the other emails she attempted to wipe from her server.”

According to an Associated Press report, the 30 emails were part of a larger cache of thousands of emails the FBI recovered from the personal email server Clinton maintained in her New York home. Government lawyers told a U.S. district judge that some of the 30 Benghazi-related emails were not part of a previous delivery of messages from Clinton’s server delivered to the State Department.

"Today's disclosure that 30 additional emails about Benghazi were discovered on Hillary Clinton's private server raises additional questions about the more than 30,000 emails she deleted,” Trump’s senior communications adviser Jason Miller said in a statement. “Hillary Clinton swore before a federal court and told the American people she handed over all of her work-related emails. If Clinton did not consider emails about something as important as Benghazi to be work-related, one has to wonder what is contained in the other emails she attempted to wipe from her server."

It will take until the end of next month, the State Department said, for it to complete a review of the thousands of new emails and redact classified information before they are released publicly.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:26 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:The gift that keeps on giving:

Donald Trump's campaign on Tuesday seized on revelations that the FBI has recovered an additional 30 emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server relating to the 2012 terrorist attack against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, saying the alarming development makes one wonder “what is contained in the other emails she attempted to wipe from her server.”

According to an Associated Press report, the 30 emails were part of a larger cache of thousands of emails the FBI recovered from the personal email server Clinton maintained in her New York home. Government lawyers told a U.S. district judge that some of the 30 Benghazi-related emails were not part of a previous delivery of messages from Clinton’s server delivered to the State Department.

"Today's disclosure that 30 additional emails about Benghazi were discovered on Hillary Clinton's private server raises additional questions about the more than 30,000 emails she deleted,” Trump’s senior communications adviser Jason Miller said in a statement. “Hillary Clinton swore before a federal court and told the American people she handed over all of her work-related emails. If Clinton did not consider emails about something as important as Benghazi to be work-related, one has to wonder what is contained in the other emails she attempted to wipe from her server."

It will take until the end of next month, the State Department said, for it to complete a review of the thousands of new emails and redact classified information before they are released publicly.

Every single one of these emails was evaluated by the FBI prior to Comey's statement and the decision not to prosecute. The only thing they are working on is evaluation on release to the public.

This is a non-story.