Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release

  • Thread starter Thread starter slMike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-emails_us_56ae254be4b077d4fe8e7023
Bernie Sanders Calls Hillary Clinton’s Emails ‘A Very Serious Issue’
Just because he called them her “damn emails” doesn’t mean he doesn’t think they’re important.
Click to expand...
Uh-Oh, you mean its not the Republicans fault Hillary has an FBI investigation going on? 😃

Rather odd it all came out last Friday, ever think maybe Hillary the vampire sucking the blood out of the middle class isn’t as loved by the Democrats as pretended? 😛 Liz Warren “its like a vampire we can’t kill”
 
Hey, don’t think I don’t like the Democrats,I DO, in fact I pray to the Lord every day He sends them someone who isn’t crazy! 😃 Sheez, you couldn’t make this up if you tried
 
GaryTaylor said:
huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-emails_us_56ae254be4b077d4fe8e7023

Uh-Oh, you mean its not the Republicans fault Hillary has an FBI investigation going on? 😃

Rather odd it all came out last Friday, ever think maybe Hillary the vampire sucking the blood out of the middle class isn’t as loved by the Democrats as pretended? 😛 Liz Warren “its like a vampire we can’t kill”
Click to expand...
I think that if one were to be the proverbial “fly on the wall”, one would find that the vast majority of people in Congress (not to mention other areas of government), have what might be politely called “interesting” egos. It is said that politics is the art of compromise, and while we have not seen a whole lot of compromise for a number of years, there is still a lot of compromise in either party, both in the House and the Senate, to get at least some sort of coalition going over a bill. And while decorum is highly praised at least by its practice, in the real world I would expect few real, honest friendships. They come from disparate areas of the country,with varying degrees of acceptance of the party line and objectives.

The Clintons have been around for a goodly bit of time, and there has been more than a whiff of scandal trailing behind them all along. The fund they have and the shenanigans which have come to light likely have not enamored them with many within the party. And her use of a computer system outside the government channels is perhaps the most blatant act of independence she has shown.

It is likely that most of us peons will not know what was in the emails, but it takes some doing for whatever the subject(s) she emails about to be to the level of TS. Information of that sort getting into the wrong hands can have repercussions far beyond the imagination of the peons. And it may be that enough information is moving around within some parts of Congress to identify what that potential breach might be, or might cause if it were compromised, that members of her party might turn on her.

The turn obviously could be caused by the gravity of the immediate situation (the emails themselves), or jealousy, or disgust, or one more straw “on the camel’s back”. But it appears that the information is not being controlled to the point of sweeping it under the rug, and history is replete with people erring in matters of security (as opposed to purposely releasing it to other parties) and suffering serious consequences.

Without assuming that the party, or some within it, are out to “get” her, this may be playing itself out simply based on the egregiousness of her failure to properly handle TS material.

To look at it another way, I am not sure how many in the Democratic Party want to bet the farm that Bernie can win, and if she is taken down, it becomes a wild scramble without an apparent strong candidate. If that is true, then seeing individual Democrats comment would seem to reflect more on the gravity of her actions, something along the lines of “This is so wrong, it doesn’t matter what else is right”.
 
Below details about Sydney’s involvement was news to me, and won’t endear her to the Obama Admin.
Panic: Dems Spinning Madly Amid Serious New Hillary Email Revelations
…
Intelligence community sources confirm that this intelligence was top secret and above from the very moment it hit her vulnerable server; it was not upgraded retroactively. And then there’s this crucial detail:
Click to expand...
Code: 
 (***State Department declares an entire Sid Blumenthal memo to be classified.***)
Click to expand...
That would be the same Sidney Blumenthal who’d been barred from official service by the Obama White House because of his unethical reputation, the same Sidney Blumenthal whose email correspondence Hillary has claimed was strictly personal and not at all work-related, and the same Sidney Blumenthal whom Hillary swore under oath was not an adviser of hers, “official or unofficial.” Lie upon lie. This man was trafficking in extremely secret US intelligence while working as an off-the-books advisor to Mrs. Clinton, in direct violation of Obama’s wishes (while being paid by the Clinton Foundation), and his emails *unquestionably *related to her work as Secretary of State.
…
Click to expand...
 
We, of course, not only don’t know what’s in those emails, we don’t know the source of them either. Undoubtedly some or all came from her own department, and they could have marked them or not marked them, according to her instructions. If none were marked “top secret”, it’s meaningless to me
 
Ridgerunner said:
We, of course, not only don’t know what’s in those emails, we don’t know the source of them either. Undoubtedly some or all came from her own department, and they could have marked them or not marked them, according to her instructions. If none were marked “top secret”, it’s meaningless to me
Click to expand...
The problem is few outside of the most innermost of circles know either, or know if anything has been compromised, or what has been compromised.

This would not be a good feeling for people planted into enemy territory whose lives depend on their anonymity. Who knows if there identifies were contained in the top secret data, and if so whether those e-mails on unsecured servers were hacked?

Secret military plans become useless when the enemy has access to those plans, and it cannot be assumed that maybe the enemy did not get a hold of unsecured data. It is back to the drawing board to draw up new contingencies therefore.
 
Theo520 said:
Below details about Sydney’s involvement was news to me, and won’t endear her to the Obama Admin.
Click to expand...
The whole Blumenthal thing is just baffling, and we might never really know why she confided in him when forbidden to do so by the administration. Was it about money? Blumenthal, after all, was engaged in business ventures in Libya. Hillary Clinton, as we know, has a record of amazing coincidence of making decisions favorable to some company or country and very large cash payments by that company or country to her foundation or to Bill Clinton.

Was the whole war on Libya determined by some business speculation of Blumenthal’s, for example? It’s terrible to think he might have promised oil revenues to Islamist organizations in exchange for money for himself and some Clinton enterprise, for example.

The very inexplicability of the action invites speculation.
 
Ridgerunner said:
We, of course, not only don’t know what’s in those emails, we don’t know the source of them either. Undoubtedly some or all came from her own department, and they could have marked them or not marked them, according to her instructions. If none were marked “top secret”, it’s meaningless to me
Click to expand...
I’m not a supporter of Hillary Clinton, but until we know more about the emails, I don’t feel in any position to judge them.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I’m not a supporter of Hillary Clinton, but until we know more about the emails, I don’t feel in any position to judge them.
Click to expand...
You are missing the issue. It is not a matter of judging the emails; it is likely we will not know the contents of them ever.

The issue is that Hilary used a computer system which had nowhere near the security measures which government computer systems have, and was transmitting information over her system which was and is Top Secret. She cannot claim ignorance either of the security issues of her system itself, nor the requirement that security matters of this level be only transmitted on secure systems.

And the fact that government systems have been hacked makes this all the more critical.

It matters not that the material was not stamped TS (although someone, including her, had a duty to mark it) so much as that at the least it appears to show a cavalier attitude to protocols which have a very clear and definite purpose of protecting information. Go back and look at what Petraeus did; this is even more egregious.

Aside from needing a Top Secret clearance, there is also the issue of “need to know”. I may have a TS clearance, but have no need to know the information as either part of my job or as part of the material, and so I ahve absolutely no right to see or hear any of it.

We also have no information if others may have been privy to some of the information she was transmitting, which could also be violations of security laws. People who have access to classified information also have a duty to control the dissemination and flow of that material.
 
otjm said:
You are missing the issue. It is not a matter of judging the emails; it is likely we will not know the contents of them ever.

The issue is that Hilary used a computer system which had nowhere near the security measures which government computer systems have, and was transmitting information over her system which was and is Top Secret. She cannot claim ignorance either of the security issues of her system itself, nor the requirement that security matters of this level be only transmitted on secure systems.

And the fact that government systems have been hacked makes this all the more critical.

It matters not that the material was not stamped TS (although someone, including her, had a duty to mark it) so much as that at the least it appears to show a cavalier attitude to protocols which have a very clear and definite purpose of protecting information. Go back and look at what Petraeus did; this is even more egregious.

Aside from needing a Top Secret clearance, there is also the issue of “need to know”. I may have a TS clearance, but have no need to know the information as either part of my job or as part of the material, and so I ahve absolutely no right to see or hear any of it.

We also have no information if others may have been privy to some of the information she was transmitting, which could also be violations of security laws. People who have access to classified information also have a duty to control the dissemination and flow of that material.
Click to expand...
No, I’m not missing the issue. I just think every politician would have done the same or worse. They all feel they are above the law. Or at least seem to feel that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top