New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

There is a HUGE gap between that memo and the attack on 911. What precisely was anyone supposed to do? It's one thing to say that an attack migh occur, with no real information other than that, and quite another to take any actionable steps towards addressing it.

I don't think anyone would have found that actionable, other than trying to get more information, which is what they were doing. It does point to our intelligence failures, which indeed were addressed, and led to the Patriot Act. Which, despite its immediate relevance to the problem you mention, is something that is also then criticized.

Nope...glad to pay for services rendered. What education was provided, again? All I see is the tired meme above, which is both a well known talking point, and hence hardly new (almost decades old, in fact).

If your point was that the initial warnings of such an attack came under the Clinton administration...that would be true, and a valid point. But, let's turn it around. What do you think Clinton would have done if the situation were reversed, and he were the one who received that exact same memo? What would/could anyone, in fact, have actually done? How many similar such threat warning do you think they receive? And why do the Dems lament the lack of action here, yet constantly harp on the actions taken later, when similar threat warnings came up????

 

Given that Clinton chose not to act multiple times when he could have captured or killed OBL when he had the chance it's pretty funny that some are trying to credit him for a memo. Pretty typical of those on the left, they value ineffectual BS like sending a memo over actually doing something that matters.

 

[Premium Post]
Hillary's selfish private email server compromised multiple counterterrorism operations. This is exactly why her behavior is a criminal activity. It cost us lives and aided our enemies. Expect more of these types of revelations as the campaign progresses. Including a smoking gun...

http://nypost.com/2016/05/27/ex-state-aide-recalls-hillarys-sloppy-communications-with-staff/

Ex-State aide recalls Hillary’s ‘sloppy communications’ with staff

A former military adviser who worked for Hillary Clinton at the State Department says her “sloppy communications with her senior staff” could have undermined two counterterrorism operations.

Bill Johnson, the department’s adviser to the special operations section of the US Pacific Command in 2010 and 2011, told Newsweek that secret plans to kill the head of a Filipino jihadi group and stop Chinese armaments being smuggled into Iraq both failed.

“I had several missions that went inexplicably wrong, with the targets one step ahead of us,” said Johnson, who worked in Air Force special ops for more than 25 years before joining the State Department in 1999.

He said investigations narrowed down the source of potential leaks to Clinton’s and her aides’ use of unprotected phones — although he admitted he had no solid proof.

In the Philippines, his team targeted Umbra Jumdail, founder of the Abu Sayyaf jihadist group.

“We had good intel. We knew where he was,” Johnson said. “He would be gone three hours before, sometimes as little as a half-hour before. We knew he was getting tipped off somehow.”

Johnson came to believe that unsecure chatter between Clinton staffers in DC and the US Embassy in Manila was to blame.

“Anyone can just sit outside the embassy and listen” with eavesdropping devices, he said. “We suspected the leaks [came from] somewhere at State at the time.”

He said his team stopped warning top State officials about raids, and in February 2012, Jumdail was killed in a US-backed airstrike.

The allegations came a day after a State Department inspector general’s report criticized her use of a private email server.

Clinton has dismissed the IG’s findings as “the same story,” and noted that previous secretaries of state used personal email.

Her spokesman Nick Merrill called Johnson’s allegations “patently false.”

Donald Trump weighed in on the email flap on Thursday.

“This is all bad judgment, probably illegal. We’ll have to find out what the FBI says about it,” he said in Bismarck, ND.

 

for me this just show how brilliant she is . with all cyber attacks on government server , and inability of the FBI to stop that , Hillary took matters into her own hands

 

So once again you provided no facts, nothing but your own conjecture and nonsense. This seems like a pattern for you little Bobby.

Please factually document the times Clinton could have assassinated Bin Laden and how the failure to do so is somehow contrary to the idea that he was concerned about Bin Laden. Also, please document the US protocol for international assassinations prior to 9/11. What terrorists were assassinated prior to 9/11?

 

Now you're just a liar. These are documented quotes, certainly not fabrications. The Republican nominee for the Presidency is advocating murder and torture. Maybe read them again.

Murder

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," Trump said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/


Torture

Trump has long called for the return of waterboarding, and he has seemed to embrace the idea of torture in the past without using the term himself. During a Feb. 7 interview on ABC's "This Week," host George Stephanopoulos asked Trump whether he "would authorize torture." Trump responded: "I would absolutely authorize something beyond waterboarding."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../donald-trump-on-waterboarding-torture-works/

 

Trump is on record of stating that committing warcrimes will be part of his foreign policy.

That's what he advocates for America. It doesn't make the nation great again.

Of course folks on the inside are already on record of stating they will disregard and refuse to follow Trump's orders. But is that really the type of commander-in-chief that anyone wants?

Hillary's f-ups are horrible, but they aren't worse than stating that the policy of this nation will be to commit warcrimes, which is is what Trump is advocating.

 

why does this thread keep getting bumped? Its almost forced at this point.

 

My, my....I suppose pointing out that your statements here would make you a ...liar, would be lost on you. Most things seem to be.

Your previous statement was referring to things Clinton HAD done. Past tense. So, your statements about Trump would be taken in the same context. In which case...they wouldn't be true. Making you a ... liar?

How's that shoe fit on your foot? I suspect not so well. Those on the left who do so like to throw around terms like 'liar' etc. don't generally like it turned back on them, pointing out the issues with their constant hyperbole and hypocrisy.

 

delete

 

I wonder if Hillary's main defense so far that Colin Powel and others have done similar things will fly. Legally I don't think it is much of a defense, but it might work politically as other important people may not want to open this can of worms.

Interesting about intent. I suppose it depends on what they charge her with. I assume she did not deliberately want to share classified info with the whole world. Now Sidney Blumenthal a close advisor? It might depend on his clearance level.

It is obvious that she deliberately decided to withhold info from possible future FOIA requests or to hide her activities from official records of the Obama Administration. This sort of reminds me of Nixon trying to hide his recordings. There were statutes made to require retention of records. Whether it is a crime to not do this I don't know.

Hillary has some wiggle room in that she did not classify some documents as classified as she should have been required to. This seems deliberate. Again this could be a crime in itself. She can plead ignorance I suppose. Can she win under the standard of proof in criminal matter. Probably. If she was not Hillary I think she would probably be indicted.

At the minimum her activities should have probably led to her dismissal or some sort of serious warning and being sent to repeat any sort of classes she might have received about handlng classified info.

Even though the FBI head is a Republican I assume Hillary is too high on the food chain to be indicted, though iirc correctly during the Nixon affair we reached the level at which Attorney Generals were resigning rather than comply with what they thought were illegal orders by Nixon. I suppose if he is convinced and determined the FBI head could be placed in the situation of having to resign.

 

I told you exactly where to check the facts I posted, if you are too lazy to do so, that's not on me.

If he was truly concerned that Bin Laden was a huge threat, he had ample opportunity to take care of him, time and time again he chose not to. Kinda shows that he wasn't THAT concerned.

 

Bill Clinton launched two attacks to try to take out bin Laden. The Republican response was that he was wagging the dog to take away attention from the real issue, Monica Lewinsky.

There is plenty of blame to be passed around, Bobby.

 

So how is Libya doing?

 

Oh for sure, my point was that those on the left generally don't blame their own for anything so they don't accept that part of the blame, they just bring up others every time it comes up.

Someone talks about how Hillary broke the law when Secretary of State and some deny it outright and others say "COLON POWELL DID THE SAME!!!!!".

The whole conversation was about that fact, that the left won't place legitimate blame on their own, and any time they place any blame at all on their own it's newsworthy and surprising.

Mayor of DC caught soliciting a prostitute and smoking crack.....he's a Democrat so he was set up by those evil Republicans!

Bill Clinton caught obstructing justice and perjuring himself.....he's a Democrat so it must be a vast right wing conspiracy!

I mean, there's pretty much nothing the left will actually blame on their own unless they are getting blamed for not being liberal enough for their taste. That's about the only thing you'll ever hear. We had people marching in the streets b****ing about the "evils" of drone strikes when Bush was president.....then Obama takes office and becomes the king of the drone strikes and....well now we don't hear about it anymore.

Those on the right, while certainly not all, are generally more willing to bash their own when they get caught doing things that are wrong. When a Republican gets caught doing something, they are forced to resign, when a Democrat gets caught doing something, they fight it and say it was a conspiracy against them.

 

They have their problems, they don't have an insane dictator who's attacked the U.S. as their ruler, and none of that has to do with Donald Trump advocating that his foreign policy will be to commit war crimes.

 

Well yeah, instead of the insane dictator, they have ISIS replacing him....not really a brilliant result. Then again when you topple a regime in an Arab country and don't stick around long term to give them stability....you kind of have to expect that.

Trump is a moron, so yeah, you're right to point out that his plan to commit war crimes is moronic.

 

Franchise you are getting a bit carried away in an understandable attempt to defend Hillary against Trump backers.

"Their problems" you mean virtually complete chaos with the tens of thousands of death that results in, the spread of numerous terrorist cells including Al Qaeda and ISIS. Gadafi had killed Americans many years before,iirc had paid compensation, abandoned weapons of mass destruction and was trying to constructively engage with the US and Europe Try that with Al Qaeda and ISIS. Even Obama has stated what a mistake Hillary's war ( and she is widely seen as the chief architect) was.

 

Because new information keeps coming out. Like last week when the State Department basically said Hillary is a ****.

 

Now you compare Hillary Cinton to Richard Nixon, deliberately attempting to equate this email business, something every Secretary of State since at least Colin Powell was also "guilty" of doing, to Watergate. You can be so full of ****, glynch. You imply that it might be a "crime," when the FBI has already said that there are no charges to be filed. It's sickening. This is a new low, even for you. I have half a mind to place you on ignore. You've become a running joke, in my humble opinion.