For the love of God, do not elect Hilary Clinton next election. (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

So here's a question. Does Kerry have a separate private email and server? If not, what are his reasons for not following Hillary's example? He's not going to throw Hillary under the bus, but it would be interesting to hear his answer to those questions.

I'm almost certain that his office has said he exclusively uses the official .gov system for official business. And IIRC the Obama administration has said that they issued policy instructions consistent with that when they arrived in 2009 as well.

The White House has not said that Clinton did not follow rules, but it has repeatedly said that “very specific guidance has been given to agencies all across the government, which is specifically that employees in the Obama administration should use their official email accounts when they’re conducting official government business.”

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I realize TheMan had a point about the WaTimes in the other thread, but I will quote this aspect as it is really a direct quote from the letter sent by McCullough:

“We were informed by State FOIA officials that there are potentially hundreds of classified emails within the 30,000 provided for former Secretary Clinton,” DNI Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III late last week wrote Sen. Richard Burr, North Carolina Republican; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat; Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican; and Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat.

“We note that none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings but some included IC-derived classified information and should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked and transmitted via a secure server,” Mr. McCullough wrote the four lawmakers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/30/hillary-clinton-emails-us-intelligence-preparing-m/?page=2

This language has been previously reported and the joint statement is posted further up.

I think the Hillary campaign's jumping and stamping their feet about the release of the IG letters - which have still not been seen, though their underlying prior correspondence has been - reflects their insistence that the NYT and others stick to the language of "handled" in a passive tone and that that not include Hillary's own actions, as if to indicate that somehow the issue being considered has to do with State'ss and the intelligence departments' handling of the classified information. However the fact that they are referring to the transmittal via an unsecure server seems to me to indicate they are talking about the initial transmittal to and from Hillary herself and Hillary's use of the server.

The issue further devolves into where that classified information is now - on Hillary's server (to the extent anything remains or could be gleaned, on her attorney's thumb drive and also possibly on any backups that her vendor holds.

The most immediate issue now before the server is why the attorney David Kendall has a thumb drive with the email repository. - And another related issue is why he has an electronic copy when the State Department has been hampered with a paper set.

Well Tim had doubted that Kendall did have a thumb drive as the IGs indicated he did. And now Hillary's campaign and State both say yes indeed he does.

Hillary Clinton camp: Email 'thumb drive is secure'The device has copies of emails Clinton kept on a private server while Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton’s private lawyer has a thumb drive containing classified information from as many as five U.S. intelligence agencies — but the State Department told POLITICO the law firm is taking “appropriate measures” to secure the files.

The agency declined to detail steps made to protect the sensitive information in attorney David Kendall’s possession, but the issue is raising concern among Republicans on Capitol Hill who’ve criticized Clinton’s handling of the email controversy. The thumb drive has copies of emails Clinton kept on a private server while she served as secretary of state, a trove now known to contain classified documents.

The agency told POLITICO that Clinton “does have counsel with clearance.” Kendall, a prominent Williams & Connolly attorney who defended former CIA director David Petraeus against charges of mishandling classified information, declined to comment.

Clinton’s campaign echoed the State Department.

“The thumb drive is secure,” said Nick Merrill, a spokesman for the Democratic front-runner’s presidential campaign, referring questions to state.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has asked the FBI to confirm that the thumb drive has been secured.

“This raises very serious questions and concerns if a private citizen is somehow retaining classified information,” Grassley’s said in a letter sent late last week. He asked for more information on Kendall’s clearance and whether the lawyer was authorized to “be the custodian of classified national security information.” The FBI has not yet responded.

Existence of a thumb drive surfaced last week when the inspectors general of the intelligence community notified Congress of a potential compromise of classified intel on Clinton’s email system, involving at least four emails from a small sampling of 40 messages. Clinton had insisted she never kept classified documents on her home-brewed email server, but a source familiar with the documents confirmed to POLITICO they included intelligence from the CIA, NSA, Director of National Intelligence, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

The watchdog, however, said the information was not “marked” classified, so Clinton may not have known it was a national security concern.

For months, Clinton had been under pressure from a special congressional panel, a federal court and numerous media organizations to make public the contents of the private emails, and she has repeatedly said she wants them publicly released after they are screened for security risks.

A federal judge this week took the State Department to task for a laborious screening process that has involved hunting down documents from former federal employees. A new batch of emails is expected to be made public Friday.

In a letter to Congress, the watchdogs said that Kendall, who has represented Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, since their days in the White House, retains a thumb drive with copies of the 30,000 emails Clinton had turned over to the State Department. She has said that she and her attorney first screened her emails and destroyed any communications that they deemed purely personal.

The watchdog review dealt with only a small sampling of 40 message from Clinton’s correspondence, raising the possibility that there may be hundreds of classified emails in the entire set of 30,000 — though, that’s a projection based on the records already processed for release.

Regardless, state says the information is being secured.

“We’ve provided the lawyers with instructions regarding appropriate measures for physically securing the documents and confirmed via a physical security expert that they are taking those measures,” said Alec Gerlach, an agency spokesman, in a statement to POLITICO.

Despite Kendall’s security clearance, Senate Judiciary staff say top secret intelligence should be carefully secured and monitored.

“Whether you have or had a security clearance doesn’t change the fact that [the emails are] on an unsecured drive,” said one Senate Judiciary staffer. “You can’t do that.”

About 25 of Clinton’s emails were deemed classified by state so far; one thus far by FBI. The inspector general for the intelligence community also has said one email made public contained classified information, raising their alarm.

Consequently, the watchdog requested copies of all Clinton’s 30,000 emails, telling Congress it wants them to “perform sampling and render an independent determination of the sufficiency of the internal controls being implemented by state FOIA to protect classified national security information.”

The inspector general told lawmakers that the State Department rebuffed the request, prompting another Grassley letter to State, asking why.

“The State Department’s refusal to fully cooperate in this matter is extremely troubling given the risk that national security information is not being adequately protected,” Grassley wrote to State Department Secretary John Kerry, according to a copy obtained by POLITICO, seeking an explanation.

The request has prompted a back-and-forth between state and the intelligence community inspector general over jurisdiction. State, for instance, is pushing back on the notion that they’re not allowing the intelligence community to watch them work, suggesting that it already has ready access to the information at the State Department whenever it needs. Sources say about a dozen intelligence employees visit the department, keeping an eye on their progress each day.

And in a statement for this story, the agency said the intelligence community watchdog can also get copies of emails from entities within its own jurisdiction, suggesting that the State Department’s own inspector general can share emails if desired.

“[M]uch of what is contained in the former secretary’s emails does not relate to programs and operations over which the [intelligence committee watchdog] has oversight responsibilities,” the statement said.

Requiring intelligence community approval of each Clinton message before release, including those without classified intel, could also slow state’s production of emails that’s already mandated by a federal judge.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-email-thumbdrive-security-120833.html#ixzz3hUECoaId

Bradley Moss, a Washington lawyer who handles national security information, said he is perplexed by the arrangement.

“As a general rule, private non-government individuals, even those maintaining a security clearance, are not authorized to privately store classified information,” Moss said.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article29602255.html

- This leads to heavy concerns about what kind of clearance Kendall has and whether it covers the material from the 5 intel agencies in play here. And it further raises questions about whether Hillary herself ever had clearance to store these documents on an unauthorized server either at her house or elsewhere (because we really don't know where the server was or is).

Petraeus was charged and convicted of just this issue for a single paper folder kept in his drawer at his home.

Personally I think things might start actually start moving for Hillary to turn the server and thumb driver over to State, DOJ or the IGs. There never was any justification for her holding these documents off site or in unauthorized repositories but there definitely is no justification now that such material is known at this moment to be classified.

It's also bizarre and disturbing that State would not comply with an IG request. To me that's an extremely big deal if the IG requested a full set of the emails and State denied them. What's also really disturbing is that Kendall will not hand over his electronic copy to either State or the IGs.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So today Hillary and State released another 1200 emails, around 2200 pages. The actual emails are here:

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/?mod=e2tw

Another classification of communications which exists but which has not been discussed much is "Sensitive But Unclassified" (SBU). Obviously these are not Classified and yet they still require an approved server, which Hillary's was not, for receipt and retention.

Here is an example of such an SBU document produced by Hillary:

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05760712.pdf

You will note it is almost entirely redacted.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There's that euphemism again - "handled" and in the passive voice:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch made no commitment Friday to secure the classified information. "The inspectors general for the State Department and at least one other IG are reviewing how material was handled," she said. "We will review it as we review all referrals to us and take whatever steps are appropriate, if any, at this time."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/31/classified-info-on-clinton-server-thumb-drive-apparent-violation-law-attorney/

I believe Baloney Sandwich posted this here or in the other thread as well:

Sec. 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

© In this section, the term "classified information of the United States" means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim HanrahanVerified account ‏@TimJHanrahan

Lot of redactions so far in #clintondocs.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Phil Kerpen ‏@kerpen 3h3 hours ago

Why does Hillary add her blackberry email address as a Cc: if HDR22 was her single-device, single-address?

Phil Kerpen ‏@kerpen 3h3 hours ago

Weird habit of copying her supposedly defunct supposedly forward-only blackberry address.

Phil Kerpen ‏@kerpen 4h4 hours ago

Why do some emails go to both HDR22@clintonemail.com (H) and hr15@att.blackberry.net (H2) if they were going to the same device?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

April 2011:

Noah Rothman ‏@NoahCRothman 4h4 hours ago

Deteriorating security conditions faced by Chris Stevens and Benghazi personnel seemed pressing.

https://twitter.com/NoahCRothman/status/627179686842531840

 

[Rove!]

Huma in trouble

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-clinton-aide-accused-of-receiving-overpayments-at-state-department/2015/07/31/978d622a-3794-11e5-9739-170df8af8eb9_story.html

best part of the story:

Since 2013, Grassley has been inquiring about Abedin’s “special government employee” status, which during her final six months at the State Department allowed her to take outside employment with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo, a firm led by longtime Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band.

so she's working full time for the State Dept (never taking any vacation or sick time) and still collecting checks for the Clinton Foundation and an outside firm?

How does that work?

so far we know this Clinton "charity" was paying Blumenthal, Stephanopolis and now Huma? How big are the tentacles of this thing?

 

[timschochet]

Huma needs to work 24/7. Hillary has special needs.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Huma in trouble

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-clinton-aide-accused-of-receiving-overpayments-at-state-department/2015/07/31/978d622a-3794-11e5-9739-170df8af8eb9_story.html

best part of the story:

Since 2013, Grassley has been inquiring about Abedin’s “special government employee” status, which during her final six months at the State Department allowed her to take outside employment with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo, a firm led by longtime Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band.

so she's working full time for the State Dept (never taking any vacation or sick time) and still collecting checks for the Clinton Foundation and an outside firm?

How does that work?

so far we know this Clinton "charity" was paying Blumenthal, Stephanopolis and now Huma? How big are the tentacles of this thing?

Abedin has a good shot at being the next chief of staff.

The Teneo thing is really something. Teneo was created by Clinton's former personal assistant at the WH and was an investment firm for a number of large corporations. Bill was paid a salary and his LLCs got paid consulting fees. Abedin also worked for Teneo. But aside from all that yes, there is so much self-dealing and treating public money and position as private advantage it's hard to keep track of.

 

[Sand]

Sec. 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

© In this section, the term "classified information of the United States" means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

Important thing to note here. Even though the lawyer may have a clearance, that doesn't mean he's cleared for these subjects. A clearance doesn't mean carte blanche to see anything under the sun (like the SoS or high level folks would). And there is zero chance that he has clearance to see the information from (at least) 5 different intelligence agencies. He's very likely breaking the law holding onto that stick.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Oh I see:

Top Clinton aide accused of receiving overpayments at State DepartmentState Department investigators concluded this year that Huma Abedin, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s closest aides, was overpaid by nearly $10,000 because of violations of rules governing vacation and sick leave during her tenure as an official in the department.

The finding — which Abedin has formally contested — emerged publicly Friday after Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) sent letters to Secretary of State John F. Kerry and others seeking more information about an investigation into possible “criminal” conduct by Abedin concerning her pay.

The letters also sought the status of an inquiry into whether Abedin had violated conflict-of-interest laws related to her special employment situation, which allowed her to work simultaneously for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and a private firm with close ties to the Clintons.

The finding that Abedin, a longtime Clinton confidante who now serves as vice chairwoman of her presidential campaign, had improperly collected taxpayer money could prove damaging to Clinton’s candidacy, as Republicans charge that government rules were routinely bent to benefit Clinton and her aides.

...Grassley indicates in the letters, which were provided to The Washington Post, that he is describing information from an inquiry by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General. A spokesman for Grassley said the senator’s office has not independently confirmed the allegations.

In letters sent Thursday to Abedin, Kerry and the Office of Inspector General, Grassley wrote that staff of the inspector general had found “at least a reasonable suspicion of a violation” of the law concerning the “theft of public money through time and attendance fraud” as well as “conflicts of interest connected to her overlapping employment.”

Grassley also raised the possibility that efforts to investigate Abedin’s actions were thwarted because many of her exchanges were sent through Clinton’s private e-mail server.

According to Grassley’s description of the investigation, Abedin’s time sheets indicated that she never took vacation or sick leave during her four years at the State Department, from January 2009 to February 2013. But the investigation, the senator wrote, found evidence that Abedin did take time off, including a 10-day trip to Italy, and that she told colleagues in e-mails that she was out “on leave.”

A spokesman for Clinton’s campaign declined to comment. Attorneys for Abedin said she learned in May that the State Department’s inspector general had concluded that she improperly collected $9,857 for periods when she was on vacation or leave.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-clinton-aide-accused-of-receiving-overpayments-at-state-department/2015/07/31/978d622a-3794-11e5-9739-170df8af8eb9_story.html

- Wow, the IG again. IGs are not be trifled with, they are a serious and important part of reforming government on all levels.

And the IG did not have all the relevant correspondence to make a decisions. HS, this is so unethical.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I think the whole Huma aspect is a red herring.

Left out of the quotes above:

“The IG report found a multitude of instances when she was working even when she was on maternity leave, yet its central charge was that she owes back pay for work missed while on leave. It simply doesn’t add up.”

Of all the things that concern me about Clinton, this does not make the radar. Huma obviously has a close relationship with Clinton, and she was given clearance to have a cushy job on the side - while I may be jealous of the perks she is afforded by her relationship with Clinton, I don't find any of it nefarious - more like griping about highly paid athletes.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok good point.

eta - follow up thought here: my point was actually about not producing documents for the IG's review. I understand the point or triviality of maternity leave (god bless her and good luck for marrying, staying with and bearing children with that Weiner guy) - but withholding documents from an IG is actually very important.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Clinton's private server emails heavily redacted Intelligence community reviewing emails for possible classified materialA new tranche of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails from her private server, released Friday, have been heavily redacted with sensitive information kept from public view.

The heavy redactions were expected because the intelligence community now has 12 individuals working full-time at the State Department to review the emails for possible classified material, officials told CNN.

The new measures were put in place several weeks ago, after the Intelligence Community's Inspector General notified the Department of Justice about a potential compromise of classified intelligence from several agencies.

The watchdog also notified Congress about the potential breach after a sampling of 40 of the 30,000 emails sent from her private server found that at least four of them contained classified information, though they had not been identified that way.

In the letter to Congress, Inspector General Charles McCullough said that State Department Freedom of Information Act officials told the intelligence community IG that "there are potentially hundreds of classified emails within the approximately 30,000 provided by former Secretary Clinton."

...The inspectors general from the State Department and Intelligence Community also told Congress the Clinton's private attorney, David Kendall, is in possession of a thumb drive with copies of the 30,000 emails Clinton has turned over to the State Department.

The State Department said Kendall's firm, Williams and Connolly, has taken "appropriate measures" to secure the material.

Clinton had said previously that she and Kendall screened her emails before handing them over and destroyed any messages that were considered entirely personal. ...

...

http://www.wapt.com/politics/unlikely-sensitive-clinton-emails-made-public/34469000

- Something really key here about the 'it was classified when sent' vs 'recently classified' argument is that the server system was set up to prevent oversight in the first place. Considering there was no oversight it's no wonder that nothing was marked classified to begin with.

This argument also ignores the 'Sensitive but Unclassified' (SBU) classification which means that the sender/receiver should know that potentially sensitive information is being classified in the first place. SBU information must also only be sent via authorized means.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Judge wants Clinton certification on emails

A federal judge has ordered the State Department to ask Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to certify under penalty of perjury that she has turned over some of the work-related emails she kept on a private server during the four years she served as secretary of state.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan issued the order Friday in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit the conservative group Judicial Watch filed in 2013 seeking records about the employment status of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who worked as Clinton's deputy chief of staff but later transferred to a part-time job as a so-called "special government employee."

The State Department told Judicial Watch last year that all records about the arrangement had been disclosed, but after Clinton's use of a private email account for official business was revealed earlier this year, Judicial Watch moved to reopen the lawsuit. Abedin was also revealed to have used an account on the same server.

Sullivan's order is just the latest in a flurry of legal moves turning up the heat on Clinton over the email controversy. Another federal judge who is handling a FOIA lawsuit brought by the Associated Press, Richard Leon, has repeatedly lashed out at the department over its handing of requests for Clinton's records. State now faces about 30 lawsuits seeking some or all of the Clinton emails and playing out in front of a variety of different judges.

One judge, handling a lawsuit brought by Vice News, has ordered monthly releases of the Clinton emails. However, other judges are free to set their own deadlines and procedures in other cases.

At such a hearing on Friday, Sullivan—a Bill Clinton appointee—told State to seek certifications from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and former Deputy Secretary of State Cheryl Mills that they've produced all records related to Abedin's employment, even if they kept those records outside official State Department systems.

"As related to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests in this case, the Government is HEREBY ORDERED to: (1) identify any and all servers, accounts, hard drives, or other devices currently in the possession or control of the State Department or otherwise that may contain responsive information; (2) request that the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department," Sullivan wrote in an order issued Friday afternoon. "If all such information has not yet been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals produce the information forthwith; and (3) request that the above named individuals describe, under penalty of perjury, the extent to which Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills used Mrs. Clinton's email server to conduct official government business."

It appeared the judge did not directly order Clinton, Mills or Abedin to make the certifications because they are not officially parties to the lawsuit, which names the State Department as the sole defendant.

The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to an email Saturday morning seeking comment on the development.

Judicial Watch hailed the decision, saying it would put teeth into requests for Clinton's emails and force her to account for all her government records. However, a close reading of Sullivan's order indicates that it only covers emails "responsive" to the group's request about Abedin's employment.

"This blockbuster ruling is the most significant legal development to date in the ongoing Clinton email scandal. Hillary Clinton will now have to answer, under penalty of perjury, to a federal court about the separate email server she and her aides used to avoid accountability to the American people,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “This court action shows that the rule of law and public’s right to know will no longer take a back seat to politics. Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration that is covering for her are not above the law.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/08/judge-wants-clinton-to-certify-shes-turned-over-some-211652.html

 

[timschochet]

Can't we talk some more about Huma?

 

[rockaction]

Why won't using a private email account for State Department classified information just go away???!!!

 

[timschochet]

Those Judicial Watch people are such idiots.

 

[timschochet]

Why won't using a private email account for State Department classified information just go away???!!!

It really should.

 

[cstu]

Why won't using a private email account for State Department classified information just go away???!!!

I don't care if it goes away but it's laughable to think EmailGate will be the reason Hillary isn't elected. It's just an utter waste of time.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Those Judicial Watch people are such idiots.

There are several groups =winning in court vs State right now, including JW, the AP, Vice, Cause of Action, and all told there are around 35 lawsuits.

The first victory JW got was reopening its FOIA case. The second is having State force Hillary to certify she is responsible to hand over all documents on the issue.

Cause of Action has filed suit, a sort of petition for mandamus, forcing Hillary to turn over the server and thumb drive.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why won't using a private email account for State Department classified information just go away???!!!

I don't care if it goes away but it's laughable to think EmailGate will be the reason Hillary isn't elected. It's just an utter waste of time.

Politics goes in the other thread but you have to concede it has played into the public's conception of her and it has been reflected in the trust/dishonest and 'cares about people' poll question numbers.

By a 57-37 margin, poll respondents said Clinton was not honest and trustworthy. And 52% said she didn't care "about their needs or problems." The "honest and trustworthy" numbers put her almost on par with Trump: Voters say by a 58-33 margin that he is not honest and trustworthy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can't we talk some more about Huma?

Ok, sure:

Inquiry Faults Huma Abedin, Close Aide to Hillary ClintonWASHINGTON — The State Department inspector general has determined that Huma Abedin, the close confidant of Hillary Rodham Clinton, must return more than $9,000 for alleged overpayments made to her during her time working for the department when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, according to her lawyer and Senate documents.

The inquiry into Ms. Abedin, a longtime aide to Mrs. Clinton and wife of Anthony Weiner, the former New York congressman, comes at a time of increased congressional scrutiny into the tenure of the former secretary of state as she seeks the Democratic nomination for president.

The inspector general directed Ms. Abedin to refund the government $9,857.73, according to a letter released Saturday by her lawyer, Karen L. Dunn, who said Ms. Abedin will challenge the finding. Her lawyers criticized the inquiry for “holes in its methodology” and “unsupported allegations.”

The investigation, which was first reported in Saturday editions of The Washington Post, was brought to the attention of the office of the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, a spokesperson for the senator said. The senator has not yet obtained a copy of the inspector general’s investigation, which has not been made public.

Letters from the judiciary committee dated July 30 raised concerns that Ms. Abedin had been improperly paid twice for work done while she was on leave or working for the Clinton Foundation. Ms. Abedin has requested an administrative review at the State Department.

Specifically, Ms. Abedin is said to have taken a vacation and maternity leave that she did not officially file for. But her representatives say that she was still working during those times.

“Huma has been nothing but cooperative in helping the department work through its record-keeping issues, and she will continue to do so in the hope the right thing is done,” said Ms. Dunn.

Senator Grassley’s office denied there was any political motivation for the committee’s interest in the matter.

“Information about the State Department’s practices on special government employees, email use and more has been hard to come by,” Senator Grassley said in an emailed statement. “As information came in, it evolved to focus on an agency that used the designation in a different way than others in at least one high-profile case.”

John Kirby, the State Department spokesman, said in an email, “We are in receipt of Senator Grassley’s letter and will respond to it accordingly.”

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/01/inquiry-faults-huma-abedin-close-aide-to-hillary-clinton/?_r=0

Just following up on SF's point above, if the IGs were investigating her for maternity leave, I agree no big deal. If she was double dipping while working for State and the Foundation then yeah I have a problem with that. The USG shouldn't be paying her as an employee while she is doing private work elsewhere. And concealing documents in an IG investigation is a very big deal in and of itself.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Looks like we have a precedent... from the Clinton Administration:

Hillary Clinton’s email woes will worsen: Why she could still be in serious jeopardyThe Hillary Clinton campaign has been engaged in a major spat with the New York Times. On July 23, the paper published a story reporting that inspectors general at the State Department and the intelligence community had issued a criminal referral to the Justice Department regarding her handling of classified information while serving as Secretary of State.

False, says the campaign in a series of withering rebuttals. And the Times has backed away, issuing two separate corrections, which note that the referral was not criminal in nature, was not directed at Clinton — and merely alerted the Justice Department to the existence of mishandled classified information for “counterintelligence” purposes.

Without a doubt, the Times’ treatment of the story has been sloppy and the Clinton campaign had good reason to pounce. But the bad news for Team Hillary is that this issue is going to fester. Indeed, over the next months, given the law, precedent and facts already on the record, the imbroglio holds the potential to kill her candidacy.

PATAKI TAKES SHOT AT CLINTON OVER PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER

The law is plain. Under the Espionage Act of 1917, “gross negligence” in the handling of national defense information is a punishable offense. If such information is “removed from its proper place of custody,” the responsible government official faces a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

The Hillary Clinton campaign has been engaged in a major spat with the New York Times. On July 23, the paper published a story reporting that inspectors general at the State Department and the intelligence community had issued a criminal referral to the Justice Department regarding her handling of classified information while serving as Secretary of State.

False, says the campaign in a series of withering rebuttals. And the Times has backed away, issuing two separate corrections, which note that the referral was not criminal in nature, was not directed at Clinton — and merely alerted the Justice Department to the existence of mishandled classified information for “counterintelligence” purposes.

Without a doubt, the Times’ treatment of the story has been sloppy and the Clinton campaign had good reason to pounce. But the bad news for Team Hillary is that this issue is going to fester. Indeed, over the next months, given the law, precedent and facts already on the record, the imbroglio holds the potential to kill her candidacy.

The law is plain. Under the Espionage Act of 1917, “gross negligence” in the handling of national defense information is a punishable offense. If such information is “removed from its proper place of custody,” the responsible government official faces a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

The Obama Justice Department has been making vigorous use of this and related statutes that punish the mishandling of government secrets, prosecuting leakers of classified information in the fiercest crackdown since Richard Nixon’s plumbers. The highest ranking official hit to date is Gen. David Petraeus, whose secrecy violations resulted in a fine and two years of probation.

Now comes the case of Hillary Clinton’s use for official purposes of a private email server housed in her Chappaqua home. Even though the referral to the Justice Department was not criminal in nature, the facts do not look good for Clinton.

According to the inspectors general, four of a sample of 40 emails drawn from the 30,000 emails the former secretary of state turned over to the State Department late last year contained information that was classified at the time it was generated and remains classified today.

Clinton says in her defense that the emails were not marked "classified" at the time. But that may only reflect the fact that she herself — negligently — did not mark them so as required.

McClatchey News Service reports that among the emails are secrets generated by five separate U.S. intelligence agencies. A State Department official has cautioned that hundreds of other Clinton emails may also contain classified material. A release of documents on Friday revealed 37 more replete with government secrets.

This is emerging as a major security breach. A private server that could readily be penetrated by hackers or a foreign intelligence agency would certainly not qualify as a “proper place of custody” for government secrets. The national security division of the Justice Department will be compelled to investigate.

How this will play out is impossible to predict. But there is a precedent of surpassing importance. John Deutch was Bill Clinton’s CIA chief from May 1995 until December 1996. Days after his CIA directorship came to an end, technicians discovered classified information on his personal computer at his Bethesda, Md., home.

Deutch’s violations were not trivial. Throughout his tenure in office, according to a 2000 postmortem by the CIA’s inspector general, he had “continuously processed” a “large volume” of “highly classified” information on computers configured only for unclassified use.

When the breach was first uncovered, an internal investigation began at the CIA, but so did a slow-rolling cover-up. The 2000 postmortem noted that the discovery of a security violation of this magnitude would ordinarily “be expected to generate a crimes report” to the Department of Justice. However, a gaggle of Deutch’s own appointees to the CIA, still in place following his departure, “determined such a report was not necessary.”

Only after a year of spinning wheels did CIA managers finally refer the matter to the Justice Department. Attorney General Janet Reno responded initially with the most minimal conceivable action, suggesting that Deutch’s security clearance be reviewed. But after the CIA’s critical report became public in 2000, igniting a firestorm on Capitol Hill, prosecutors swung into high gear.

Yet just as Deutch was ready to agree to a plea bargain, the matter came to an abrupt end. On Jan. 20, 2001, his last day in office, President Clinton issued a surprise pardon to his wayward CIA director.

Clearly, we’re far away from that possibility. But we just might be heading down the road.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gabriel-schoenfeld-hillary-clinton-email-woes-worsen-article-1.2311178

- Note, this is written by a former Romney advisor but he is also the author of a book, "the author of “Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media and the Rule of Law.”"

I think we will be hearing more about the Deutch case,

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Uh Oh:

1/20/01 Wapo:

Clinton Pardons More Than 100

In one of his final acts, President Clinton on Saturday pardoned more than 100 Americans, including former Whitewater business partner Susan McDougal, brother Roger Clinton and former CIA Director John Deutch, officials said.

Deutch's pardon spares the one-time spy chief and top Pentagon official of facing criminal charges in connection with his mishandling of national secrets on a home computer.

... Deutch had been considering a deal with the Justice Department in which he would plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of keeping classified data on his home computers.

He got in trouble when CIA security officials discovered, as he was stepping down in 1996 as CIA chief, that he had written and stored highly classified intelligence reports on home computers linked to the Internet.

Deutch publicly apologized. Pentagon officials later discovered Deutch had similar security lapses during his tenure as the No. 2 defense official.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010120/aponline104904_000.htm

Note the phrase "in connection with mishandling..." That's the exact same phrase being used with Hillary right now, by the IGs, State, and DOJ.

- Obviously Bill Clinton himself believed this to be a crime, hence the pardon.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So hilarious.

It would be hilarious if she was not likely to be our next POTUS. She has proven that she is a liar and corrupt. Her quest for power and money is not what this country needs. She will continue to make decisions with the goal of improving her wealth, not improving the US.

Why is that funny? I mean, her husband is/was literally going around giving paid speeches to groups that had business with her when she was SOS and that will still have business with her if she becomes President. This is a clear conflict of interest. It's not even a borderline, intellectually interesting nuanced example -- it's about as clear-cut a conflict of interest as one can imagine.

Ethical people don't find themselves in these sorts of positions time and time again.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary's second problem - Sandy Berger, who was prosecuted for removing just 5 classified documents:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clintons-sandy-berger-problem/2015/08/03/b08466f0-39d5-11e5-9c2d-ed991d848c48_story.html

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't know if this might be something, but it might be something:

Abedin allegedly sent or received more than 7,000 emails on her government account that involved Band...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-aide-may-have-delivered-favors-for-friends-ig-finds/article/2569447

Doug Band of course is Bill Clinton's former WH aide who heads Teneo, the private investment firm. Now that's an allegation from Grassley (GOP) based on an IG report that has not been made public, and so far all he claims is that Abedin set up a meeting at State with a foundation that apparently funnels money to the Clinton Foundation, which sounds ok by me I guess.

But 7000 emails sounds like a lot of work for Teneo by a gal who is supposed to be working for and getting paid by the State Department and considering that Teneo is really a private investment firm, that seems like it is rife with potential for self-dealing.

Again State has been getting socked in court for delaying production of Abedin's official State Department documents.... which were also on Hillary's server.

eta - If Teneo was using access to Hillary's public office for private gain, that would not be good.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So hilarious.

It would be hilarious if she was not likely to be our next POTUS. She has proven that she is a liar and corrupt. Her quest for power and money is not what this country needs. She will continue to make decisions with the goal of improving her wealth, not improving the US.

Why is that funny? I mean, her husband is/was literally going around giving paid speeches to groups that had business with her when she was SOS and that will still have business with her if she becomes President. This is a clear conflict of interest. It's not even a borderline, intellectually interesting nuanced example -- it's about as clear-cut a conflict of interest as one can imagine.

Ethical people don't find themselves in these sorts of positions time and time again.

This.

It's ALWAYS been about money and power with the Clintons. It's NEVER been about improving America or making it better.

 

[cstu]

So hilarious.

It would be hilarious if she was not likely to be our next POTUS. She has proven that she is a liar and corrupt. Her quest for power and money is not what this country needs. She will continue to make decisions with the goal of improving her wealth, not improving the US.

Why is that funny? I mean, her husband is/was literally going around giving paid speeches to groups that had business with her when she was SOS and that will still have business with her if she becomes President. This is a clear conflict of interest. It's not even a borderline, intellectually interesting nuanced example -- it's about as clear-cut a conflict of interest as one can imagine.

Ethical people don't find themselves in these sorts of positions time and time again.

This.

It's ALWAYS been about money and power with the Clintons. It's NEVER been about improving America or making it better.

 

[BoltBacker]

So hilarious.

It would be hilarious if she was not likely to be our next POTUS. She has proven that she is a liar and corrupt. Her quest for power and money is not what this country needs. She will continue to make decisions with the goal of improving her wealth, not improving the US.

Why is that funny? I mean, her husband is/was literally going around giving paid speeches to groups that had business with her when she was SOS and that will still have business with her if she becomes President. This is a clear conflict of interest. It's not even a borderline, intellectually interesting nuanced example -- it's about as clear-cut a conflict of interest as one can imagine.

Ethical people don't find themselves in these sorts of positions time and time again.

This.

It's ALWAYS been about money and power with the Clintons. It's NEVER been about improving America or making it better.

What is your list of the most recent... oh, let's say 10 presidents.... that had no interest in money or power?

 

[Mister CIA]

So hilarious.

It would be hilarious if she was not likely to be our next POTUS. She has proven that she is a liar and corrupt. Her quest for power and money is not what this country needs. She will continue to make decisions with the goal of improving her wealth, not improving the US.

Why is that funny? I mean, her husband is/was literally going around giving paid speeches to groups that had business with her when she was SOS and that will still have business with her if she becomes President. This is a clear conflict of interest. It's not even a borderline, intellectually interesting nuanced example -- it's about as clear-cut a conflict of interest as one can imagine.

Ethical people don't find themselves in these sorts of positions time and time again.

This.

It's ALWAYS been about money and power with the Clintons. It's NEVER been about improving America or making it better.

What is your list of the most recent... oh, let's say 10 presidents.... that had no interest in money or power?

I once had a dog that hated cats. He would go crazy every time he saw one, but for most of his life all off his cat encounters came while tethered to a leash. Then one day while loose in the yard he cornered a cat in the flower bed! What did he do? ... He barked at it. After so many years, that's all he knew to do.

Hillary would be that kind of president. She presents no optimism, no soul, and barely a sentient thought. She's going to bark like a dog for the many hands that feed her.

The cat will drop a deuce in the flower bed.

ETA: My reply was not directly to your last query alone, but rather meant to include the previous post.

 

[squistion]

I once had a dog that hated cats. He would go crazy every time he saw one, but for most of his life all off his cat encounters came while tethered to a leash. Then one day while loose in the yard he cornered a cat in the flower bed! What did he do? ... He barked at it. After so many years, that's all he knew to do.

Hillary would be that kind of president. She presents no optimism, no soul, and barely a sentient thought. She's going to bark like a dog for the many hands that feed her.

The cat will drop a deuce in the flower bed.

 

[Mister CIA]

I once had a dog that hated cats. He would go crazy every time he saw one, but for most of his life all off his cat encounters came while tethered to a leash. Then one day while loose in the yard he cornered a cat in the flower bed! What did he do? ... He barked at it. After so many years, that's all he knew to do.

Hillary would be that kind of president. She presents no optimism, no soul, and barely a sentient thought. She's going to bark like a dog for the many hands that feed her.

The cat will drop a deuce in the flower bed.

In my dog's defense, his record as Secretary of Plate was stellar.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So the actual order in the Abedin FOIA has been released and it's a doozy:

As agreed by the parties at the July 31, 2015 status hearing:

• the Government shall produce a copy of the letters sent by the State Department to Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Ms. Huma Abedin and Ms. Cheryl Mills regarding the collection of government records in their possession. These communications shall be posted on the docket forthwith.
• The Government has also agreed to share with Plaintiff’s counsel the responses sent by Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills. These communications shall also be posted on the docket forthwith.
• In addition, as related to Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests in this case, the Government is HEREBY ORDERED to: (1) identify any and all servers, accounts, hard drives, or other devices currently in the possession or control of the State Department or otherwise that may contain responsive information; (2) request that the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department. If all such information has not yet been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals produce the information forthwith; and (3) request that the above named individuals describe, under penalty of perjury, the extent to which Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills used Mrs. Clinton’s email server to conduct official government business.
• The Government shall inform the Court of the status of its compliance with this Order no later than August 7, 2015, including any response received from Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 31, 2015.

Was or is - that means including anything they know to have been destroyed, if anything.

Of course this is just the Abedin documents request, which could be relatively narrow.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What everyone with a Top Secret security clearance knows – or should knowBy Peter Van Buren

In the world of handling America’s secrets, words – classified, secure, retroactive – have special meanings. I held a Top Secret clearance at the State Department for 24 years and was regularly trained in protecting information as part of that privilege. Here is what some of those words mean in the context of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The Inspectors General for the State Department and the intelligence community issued a statement saying Clinton’s personal email system contained classified information. This information, they said, “should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.” The same statement voiced concern that a thumb drive held by Clinton’s lawyer also contains this same secret data. Another report claims the U.S. intelligence community is bracing for the possibility that Clinton’s private email account contains multiple instances of classified information, with some data originating at the CIA and NSA.

A Clinton spokesperson responded that “Any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted.” Clinton claims unequivocally her email contained no classified information, and that no message carried any security marking, such as Confidential or Top Secret.

The key issue in play with Clinton is that it is a violation of national security to maintain classified information on an unclassified system.

Classified, secure, computer systems use a variety of electronic (often generically called TEMPESTed) measures coupled with physical security (special locks, shielded conduits for cabling, armed guards) that differentiate them from an unclassified system. Some of the protections are themselves classified, and unavailable in the private sector. Such standards of protection are highly unlikely to be fulfilled outside a specially designed government facility.

Yet even if retroactive classification was applied only after Clinton hit “send” (and State’s own Inspector General says it wasn’t), she is not off the hook.

What matters in the world of secrets is the information itself, which may or may not be marked “classified.” Employees at the highest levels of access are expected to apply the highest levels of judgment, based on the standards in Executive Order 13526. The government’s basic nondisclosure agreement makes clear the rule is “marked or unmarked classified information.”

In addition, the use of retroactive classification has been tested and approved by the courts, and employees are regularly held accountable for releasing information that was unclassified when they released it, but classified retroactively.

It is a way of doing business inside the government that may at first seem nonsensical, but in practice is essential for keeping secrets.

For example, if an employee were to be handed information sourced from an NSA intercept of a foreign government leader, somehow not marked as classified, she would be expected to recognize the sensitivity of the material itself and treat it as classified. In other cases, an employee might hear something sensitive and be expected to treat the information as classified. The emphasis throughout the classification system is not on strict legalities and coded markings, but on judgment. In essence, employees are required to know right from wrong. It is a duty, however subjective in appearance, one takes on in return for a security clearance.

“Not knowing” would be an unexpected defense from a person with years of government experience.

In addition to information sourced from intelligence, Clinton’s email may contain some back-and-forth discussions among trusted advisors. Such emails are among the most sensitive information inside State, and are otherwise always considered highly classified. Adversaries would very much like to know America’s bargaining strategy. The value of such information is why, for example, the NSA electronically monitored heads of state in Japan and Germany. The Freedom of Information Act recognizes the sensitivity of internal deliberation, and includes a specific exemption for such messages, blocking their release, even years after a decision occurred. If emails discussing policy or decisions were traded on an open network, that would be a serious concern.

The problem for Clinton may be particularly damaging. Every email sent within the State Department’s own systems contains a classification; an employee technically cannot hit “send” without one being applied. Just because Clinton chose to use her own hardware does not relieve her or her staff of this requirement.

Some may say even if Clinton committed security violations, there is no evidence the material got into the wrong hands – no blood, no foul. Legally that is irrelevant. Failing to safeguard information is the issue. It is not necessary to prove the information reached an adversary, or that an adversary did anything harmful with the information for a crime to have occurred. See the cases of Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Jeff Sterling, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou or even David Petraeus. The standard is “failure to protect” by itself.

None of these laws, rules, regulations or standards fall under the rubric of obscure legalities; they are drilled into persons holding a security clearance via formal training (mandatory yearly for State Department employees), and are common knowledge for the men and women who handle America’s most sensitive information. For those who use government computer systems, electronic tools enforce compliance and security personnel are quick to zero in on violations.

A mantra inside government is that protecting America’s secrets is everyone’s job. That was the standard against which I was measured throughout my career and the standard that should apply to everyone entrusted with classified information.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/03/what-everyone-with-a-top-secret-security-clearance-knows-or-should-know/

.- Based on the above, and Sand has stated this apparently correctly, Hillary's defense that she did not know any given communication was classified will be the last card to fall in her ruse.

 

[Sand]

So we've found out that she's lied about:

- ever having classified information her systems. They are replete with them.

- that she used only one device. Showed in video to be a lie.

- that her email server was in Bill's office and physically secured with a SS agent. As it turns out it appears she changed to another server in 2008.

- that she removed all personal emails and they no longer existed. Now we know her lawyer has a stick with everything on it, including classified info he doesn't have clearance for.

Am I missing anything?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So we've found out that she's lied about:

- ever having classified information her systems. They are replete with them.

- that she used only one device. Showed in video to be a lie.

- that her email server was in Bill's office and physically secured with a SS agent. As it turns out it appears she changed to another server in 2008.

- that she removed all personal emails and they no longer existed. Now we know her lawyer has a stick with everything on it, including classified info he doesn't have clearance for.

Am I missing anything?

She's also said that there was no law or regulation which would have affected her. There are several.

- I also wonder about that stick/drive that Kendall has, is that everything that was originally on the server or what was left after they culled it? Also I wonder what is on those Denver backups.

Another lie is that she claimed that the server had been one used by Bill Clinton, in fact that's inaccurate as the WaPo reports that the server was actually Hillary's 2008 campaign server.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I believe Kendall only has the culled emails

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think that's the case too, but the originals may be in the backups in Denver.

Also here's another place Hillary has lied - her campaign has said the DOJ was just refereeing a dispute between State and the intel agencies, but obviously the FBI investigating the server, drive and backups means that it has gone one step past that.

 

[saintfool]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

 

[timschochet]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Im a regular in this thread and I've never understood it.

 

[Rove!]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Im a regular in this thread and I've never understood it.

a charity that has Blumenthal on the payroll to dig up dirt

a charity that has Huma oi the payroll while she's working full time at state

Who else are we going to find is on the payroll?

 

[TobiasFunke]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Im a regular in this thread and I've never understood it.

a charity that has Blumenthal on the payroll to dig up dirt

a charity that has Stephanopolis on the payroll for?

a charity that has Huma oi the payroll while she's working full time at state

Who else are we going to find is on the payroll?

Rand Corporation

Saucer People

Reverse Vampires

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

No, you're right, not in and of itself, all those things are worthy causes.

If you search in the thread for UBS and CIBC as examples those are a couple issues that pop up, the idea being that allegedly persons, corporations and countries with lobbying or other interests at stake in front of State paid large amounts to the Foundation to curry favor or gain access with the SOS. Basically the allegation is pay to play or quid pro quo.

- eat - As Sand indicates below there is also an issue with the Foundation passing through money directly back to the Clintons.

 

[Sand]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Im a regular in this thread and I've never understood it.

a charity that has Blumenthal on the payroll to dig up dirt

a charity that has Huma oi the payroll while she's working full time at state

Who else are we going to find is on the payroll?

The Clintons paid themselves handsomely out of the charity for one. If one were to dig I'm sure there would be a great deal of slush money rolling around to folks for political tasks.

Let's not forget most of those speaking fees went to the Clintons personally and not to the charity. A good example of this was the quid pro quo with UBS in which Bill took home 1.5 mil after Hillary intervened in their criminal case.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Another thing that cracks me up is that Hillary started out by saying that she used a private email so that she could have everything on one email and one device.

Well there are now multiple emails and multiple devices and not only that but multiple servers and multiple people had access.

 

[Hang 10]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Bill also got money directly. So there's that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Bill also got money directly. So there's that.

Out of curiosity, why does Bill = Hillary, but George H Bush did not and does not = George W or Jeb Bush? Seems a little weird to be so obsessed with the legal income of a current candidate's husband which was donated largely to charitable enterprises but totally ignore the income of a current candidate's (not to mention a past president's) 91 year old father from virtually identical activities and sources, . I'm aware that a spouse and a son are not the same thing, but children stand to benefit from their parents' riches under both operation of law and as a practical matter too.