More on the "nothingburger" e-mails,
Submitted by tapu dali on Mon, 03/28/2016 - 12:57am
new revelations from WaPo, here:
Information on Hillary's mindset and rationale for the home server and desire for "convenience" over strict security.
[Note: if some of the below comments don't make sense anymore, it's because I've edited this post. H/t Gerrick.]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal...
Comments
When you include
the washingtoncompost into any discussion, my bullshit meter pegs out.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Thank you for your constructive comment.
I'm quite sure you'll be welcomed here with open arms.
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
Yes, clearly the trolls from TOP are watching c99
and rather sensitive to the email subject.
“I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.”
― Harry Truman
Sensitive with good reason
Would be most unusual to grant immunity to someone you're not planning to call before a Grand Jury. Lived in DC for more than 20 years, my reading of WashPo is this is their way of getting people ready for more of the story.
Yes, more critical of Clinton than the paper has been, also indicates to me they know more then they're ready to print.
Stay tuned.
Smiling, to see C99% now has trolls
Also don't agree with asking essayist to post summary of link. So easy to just go to link & check out whether it's something you want to read or not. This is a very long piece, interesting reading.
Agree, except
A link is not a post. There should be a short, accurate summary.
While Pricknick's comment distracts, . . .
. . . I'm not of a mind to automatically brand him a troll without more evidence.
We're not at TOP anymore, and I'd like to see this place not reprise that site's pattern of long subthreads reacting to one hasty, untoward comment. If it is a troll, it basks in this attention. If not, we've just hijacked our own comment thread. Better to move on, and deal with the substance of the diary. We can have a better site if we want it, but falling into TOP behavior won't get us there.
My $0.02, and only that.
No problem with the comment per se,
only problem I had was there was no substantive information given with it...just a dismissal of the article. That is a typical form of comment at TOP used by Clintonistas. IMO, if you are going to deride the diary it would help if you explained what was the problem with its accuracy, etc.
the
Post has been routinely derided on this site throughout the year that I've been here. Post skepticism has nothing to do with being a "Clinton troll." In any event, site management has made it clear that Clinton partisans are welcome here, just like anybody else. This reflexive torch and pitchfork "troll" nonsense is really wearying. In this case, all one would have to do is check the person's comments to determine s/he is not a "Clinton troll."
I agree
The troll labeling there was a bit too reflexive. But I think be fair to folks too. A lot of folks like myself came over from DK and that site has become quite abusive. So it's a bit of a knee jerk but a well earned one.
this is
not there. But it's certainly going to be, if people feel compelled to scream "troll!" simply because someone gives the stink-eye to the Washington Post.
Couldn't agree more. It would be nice if some folks here
would demonstrate just how different C99 is from TOP by apologizing.
Hillary Clinton 2016: I'm a proud progmoderate!
Fair enough. I apologize for my admittedly knee jerk
reaction of labeling "troll." However, that being said, this email topic regularly got HR and massive trollish abuse and dismissiveness towards any news site that reports on it.
Personally, I don't care if it is a FOX News source, with regards to this topic. Sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
“I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.”
― Harry Truman
Cool! Thanks for being a mentsch.
This is what actual civility should look like, a far cry from the self-censorship demanded at TOP.
Hillary Clinton 2016: I'm a proud progmoderate!
Based on their comments at TOP, Pricknick is a Sanders
supporter and a pretty militant one at that. Calling her/him a troll is bullshit. The Washington Post has long-since morphed into a neocon POS rag, coasting on "liberal" bona fides that haven't been warranted for decades. Questioning the credibility and slant of anything that appears there is a mark of a discerning reader.
Imo.
Hillary Clinton 2016: I'm a proud progmoderate!
By the same token,
if they're now raising red flags over The Chosen One and her email antics, maybe it's not as much a "nothingburger" as some would like to still pretend. (My objections to the server have been less about classified information and more about skirting the FOIA especially if there may have been backroom deals regarding Clinton Foundation donations in the deleted emails.)
IMO, what you said
may be the real story behind the Clinton email scandal.
I also believe that is the real reason Clinton wanted to use her private server. It was not convenience as much as it was about controlling what would be in the public record. Those private email messages were not all yoga lessons or about her grandchild. I suspect most were something else a lot less innocent.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Please note that I apologized for my "troll" comment.
However, as I also noted, I am tired of news sources being dismissed which discuss the email topic just because they are RW. As far as I am concerned, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" rule applies, and as such, even a Fox News video is important and worth listening to, because of the extreme censorship that we've had on "liberal" sources with regards to the email topic because they serve the DNC's corporatist agenda.
“I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.”
― Harry Truman
I didn't know it had gotten that bad
How the mighty have fallen. That's terribly sad.
Stay on track. Stay in lane. Don't throw rocks.
Hey now,
A LOT of times my BS meter pegs on ANY msm publication. I kinda gotta go with the Bern on this one. IF the fbi finds something, fine. Otherwise, enough with the damn emails. Feeling the Bern here for real, eagerly anticipating the chance to vote with the whole thing up in the in air on 7Jun16!
TD, good to 'see' you here!
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
wow, thanks!
I thought I was pretty anonymous at TOP.
Much appreciated!
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
Pricknick, I think there is another place
that has a nice comfy sofa waiting you....
Really interesting user name, no?
eh, that's just Nick.
He'll prick ya with wit, but he ain't no saint.
I thought (briefly) on what a prick-nic would look like (had to change the channel in my head cause the prick-nic channel was getting to strange for my tastes).
Sorry Nick , I couldn't stop myself lol
Welcome aboard!
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
I'm sure Hillary is to big for small laws.
In her mind.
I also feel certain that she was careless with her electronic security.
I believe she's guilty of worse crimes, money crimes.
But I have no proof.
I would expect the post to be so slanted that one would need keen sight to see between the lines there.
I think she's a crook and I hope someone/something brings her down.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
"She hated having to put her BlackBerry into a lockbox
before going into her own office."
Jezus...deal with it. These are adult jobs.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Kinda like (to a kid)
Take your boots off at the front door. See, not that hard.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I want what POTUS has!!!
Think Clinton was most annoyed she couldn't get the same kind of secure Blackberry that POTUS got!!!!
Hubris.
Saw your sig line & thought I had commented
But I hadn't. Damn. I don't want to change it
Hello, td, I read the Wapo article and it is a reasonable and
neutral summary of the historical timeline of events by an investigative reporter with experience in the areas covered.
A bit of advice: next time, give us an indication of an article's content and reliability. Given that it is a Wapo link, give us an extract and/or a bit of a summation and/or your thoughts on its reliability. A link to an MSM article by itself is not helpful. Best wishes,
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
Did you read it as neutral?
I caught the same whiff of snideness/snark (I really can't describe it in words) that I have gotten from a few Sanders articles in the NYT.
Are there a few reporters who are trying to buck the MSM line? I read this as coded (anti-Clinton machine).
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I found it fairly critical
of Clinton.
It's hard not to notice the deliberate slant
Emphasis on the word "deliberate".
You know, it's not like WaPo hasn't recently been accused of being in the tank for Mrs. Clinton. Think of this timely, Monday morning hit piece as one of those "Look! See? Here we are, being Liberal! Because that's what we are....Liberal Press. And that means we're Out to Get Hillary!" things. Think of it as "plausible deniability".
But see, here's the thing about that--even if you think WaPo really has a liberal bias after all (hint: don't be dumb!), there's still enough there there to piss people off. This was not just all about "convenience" because HRC has issues with authority and being told what to do. This was also, at least IMO, all about "making sure her ass stays covered at all times", because who the fuck knows who might see her email if she's not in full control of it at all times?
What's she so worried about? Oh, I'm sorry, she's Secretary of State, serving at the pleasure of President Obama? Well, let's talk about how he doesn't have his own personal server in his private White House office. If the rules are appropriate enough for him, then they are goddamn well appropriate enough for her.
We have to quit being so cynical about"it's a nothingburger". It's not. She put a great deal at risk because she thinks the rules do not apply to her.I'm sorry, but that makes her unfit for high office. The End.
Totally agree
"We have to quit being so cynical about"it's a nothingburger". It's not. She put a great deal at risk because she thinks the rules do not apply to her.I'm sorry, but that makes her unfit for high office. The End."
The smaller the mind the greater the conceit. --Aesop
the underlying facts are devastating for her.
The article itself is well sourced, fair, and informative.
Morning, rl, how are you today? I agree about the coded snark:
I found the content (the timeline of vents) coherent with everything else I've read of the events. I quite understand the Wapo editorial bias. But I thought this was an investigative journo trying to be as factual as he could be AND not get his article shredded by the editors. There are no speculative or extrapolative sentences that I could see. That, I figure, kept him out of the sin bin at Wapo. The weekend LAT article was much more speculative (again, within the boundaries of an MSM article) about how prospective staff interviews would impact the nomination process. But the Wapo journo kept his nose clean, while, as you describe, giving coded hints as to his personal views - as an investigative reporter.
My personal take is that, yes, she did do it for convenience, which makes exactly the point of her "being above the law" and above Foggy Bottom regs. I'm not qualified to judge legal stuff, and even if I was, don't know any facts kept back by the FBI - and there are sure to be lots of those.
LAT is exactly right - the political storm over this typically Clintonian behaviour is going to blow up. IMO, real big, real fast, once interviews begin. How big? Blow, wind, blow! :=) Best wishes,
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
Good advice, Gerrit. (n/t)
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Awww.... bless your heart.... n/t
Please help the Resilience Resource Library grow by adding your links.
First Nations News
Thanks, tapu.
Interesting article.
Not sure why all the unfriendly comments.
Cheers.
Well?
If I was a Clinton partisan, this writing style would probably piss me off too. But if you see it as deliberate "ass covering, so they can pretend they're Just Another Biased Press Corp", then you know they're dribbling out facts here and there in this article.
Thing is, if you were an actually-HONEST Clinton partisan, you would acknowledge the facts, and you would be pissed off at your candidate for being such a narcissistic dumbass to think the entire arm of the government she sits in charge of should accommodate her own personal wishes of convenience.
But did the commenter do that? Well, you could say "no, they didn't", so....well, that's irritating on a Monday morning, too...
PS
If you wanted to know how fake and ass-covering WaPo is being here, just keep an eye out to see if the writer of this mess ends up on a Clinton shitlist sometime or not
Not sure what you expected
from tapu. Not sure what you're saying here. I took the title to be a common expression, not necessarily the author's opinion.
Oh, no!
No, no, no! I'm in full agreement with the post, including the usage of the word "nothingburger" here. Sorry, I didn't make it clear that my disdain in this context has to do with so many of HRC partisans calling it a "nothingburger" and then we all get cynical about it (or at least, I do) because the press can't even get it right. And it's hard not to be cynical, reading all this passive-aggressive bullshit from the Washington Post lately. Which is what the OC was complaining about, right? They're so out to get her and they should just fuck off? No they're not out to get her at all! They're just trying to cover their own asses with this style. Still, the style, were I a Clinton partisan (wearing blinders, even), I would be pissed over it.
Wait...that's even more cynical. Or maybe the OC was being snarky. I don't know! Maybe I just need more coffee before I post so early
Thank you for this, tapu.
“I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.”
― Harry Truman
Let's look at this charitably.
Let's set aside those two extreme goals of greatest ease and rigid, secretive control.
Let's set aside, too, the amateurishness of using unencrypted communications from a private server. Seriously, a lot of teenagers know better than that.
You still are left, at a minimum, with someone whose arrogance leads her to think her comfort level with her Blackberry should supersede the security of the nation. I mean, who would think that? If your Blackberry is more important to you than the nation you've been appointed to serve, maybe you should have pursued a career as a personal shopper or a writer of a lifestyles column, not as Secretary of State.
Personal shopper (!!!!!!!)
Nice smackdown, truly. She could not use a PC???????And she's an abuela?
The internets galloped along, she did not adapt. The Foundation deals may bring down the House of Cards.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I say this as a tech phobe
It's scary to be around smart older people and their gadgets. I'm a generation younger than Hillary, and am able to convince most people I am intelligent, and yet am utterly embarrassed by my rudimentary comfort and skill around today's freshest bits of tech gizmos.
But then there's thinking that the fucking world should rework itself around your shortcomings. The email thing is such a symbol, the type of arrogance that leads people to lie to the American people about reasons for war or to convince them that torture is legit. If she will distort reality to warp itself around something so commonplace, how far will she go when she has access to more power to bring her most esoteric fantasies into being.
Five words, four tags and a link
Am all in favor of succinct writing but this is a little to minimal imo
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” -Voltaire
a post re the emails
by bobswern is up this morning at TOP.
L A Times
TOP link
What a mess that place is...
In some ways, the comment sections are worse at GOS than they are at friggin' Yahoo. And that takes talent...
Yahoo!?! Ouch!!
//
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
It looks like bob
registered here but has not posted.
Jeff Bezos WaPo can suck it and the Clintons too
Page hits for millionaires, meh. Okay I read it anyway, blood pressure rising. Not tapu dali's fault
thanks for the link.
FTS, no more technical incompetents in positions of power. No! It makes me furious, first granting monopolies to crap proprietary software via patents, then deploying it insecurely at the highest level of government, Because convenience is what money buys. I'm pretty sure no millionaire will ever get my vote again, they are so far removed from my reality it ain't funny. Nearly blew a vein toward the end:
Riiiiight yeah uh huh. And no aide ever once used a printer, or an email FWD CC or BCC function of course, and where is that noted by investigators? Their rabbit-hole is quite shallow if you ask me it goes nowhere, slowly. How convenient.
Peace
The thing that struck me,
as usual, is just the arrogance. I want what I want, give it to me.
That's why you have tech people, because that shit is incomprehensible to the average person (speaking as a geek wannabe, myself) and it requires constant vigilance to keep up with the latest threats. How much more important is that for someone in the position she was in.
I'm just waiting for some leak to show up that can arguably, even if not clearly, be traced back to her. It was stupid, stupid, stupid, and what makes it even stupider is that it was avoidable had her pragmatism (given her political aspirations) outweighed her arrogance.
The smaller the mind the greater the conceit. --Aesop
The "convenience"
of not having to comply with FOIA requests perhaps? I'd like to know what was in those 36K+ emails that were deleted -- certainly more than just pictures of the grandbaby...
Reading both the LA Times and
Reading both the LA Times and WaPo articles, it is clear that the department security team demonstrated the high standard of security needed for the SoS's emails. The fact that they wanted her personal bb in a sealed box whenever she visited her office is a pretty good clue. For HRC to turn around after all of this and think that the best solution was to carry on with her personal device connected to a private server with fairly basic security measures demonstrates unbelievably poor judgment on her part.
On top of that, you have the President issuing memos that the government is going to be transparent. How did she think her emails were going to be preserved as part of the official record?
On the basis of these 2 issues alone, HRC should be ineligible to be President.
When you factor in the content of the some of the emails, such as secretly backing the trade agreement with Columbia when she was publicly opposed to it, engineering the removal of the democratically elected leader of Honduras, plus the blurred lines between her role as SoS and the activities of the Clinton Foundation, she is untrustworthy and self-serving.
She may not be charged or convicted or sentenced in these matters. I can see where she could slide through legal loopholes. However I do think she should be ostracized.
And I should care why?
This is what I imagine her auto-response is to any problem presented to her, followed quickly by, "What's in it for me?"
Ostracized is not the right word.
Censured forever. Is that about right?
Do we think that HRC was made SoS with another Grand Bargain by BO to have an enemy held close? And she revolted from his leash. Bad puppy. Executive branch may be very unhappy.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Censured forever
I guess I am pretty naive to hope that there might be a way to publicize these issues in such a way that a majority of people would turn their backs on HRC, give her the cold shoulder or ostracize her. After all, nobody in the Bush administration has been prosecuted for war crimes or ostracized, and the evidence is much clearer and more obvious.
An official censure would be much more likely to affect public opinion. I suspect that PBO is pretty pissed at HRC for her actions while SoS. At least it seems on the surface that she flouted his directives, derided his preferences for peaceful negotiations and ignored the requirement to keep Clinton Foundation activities out of official business. However, Obama seems to be supporting HRC at this point.
It seems to me that once you get to a certain elite level in the United States, your actions are officially condoned, no matter what. Hence, no charges for the top executives of the major banks, no charges for the war criminals and no criticisms for conflicts of interest or putting top secret information at risk.
It's the old boys' network
for lack of a better term. None in the club will condemn another member because it could just as easily be them next time, and they need to be able to call in those favors. It never occurs to them if they just quit acting like amoral criminals they wouldn't need such favors.
The smaller the mind the greater the conceit. --Aesop
What Thursday Next said...
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Yes!!
All those points would certainly have made her ineligible for MY job, let alone SoS or President.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
If HRC is such a tech neophyte...
Who suggested the private server as a legit, viable alternative?
She can't have come up with the idea on her own.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Actually I can see it going down like this.
HRC: I WANT my fucking Blackberry. What do we have to do to make that happen within the guidelines. How does this work? I want an answer, RIGHT NOW.
Techguy: Well, it runs to a server that isn't properly secured...
HRC: FINE. Get me one that is.
Techguy: Uh... ok. Yes Ma'am.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Yep.
I can't see it any other way.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
So governance via temper tantrum
That bodes well.........
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
more like temper tantrum
posing as governance. We apparently gave up on actual governance some time ago.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
What's scary is that if you've ever worked...
in any kind of government office, you see that attitude among the bosses CONSTANTLY.
If you've ever been called onto the carpet because somebody forgot to make the coffee in the morning...
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Yes
That is a piece of this whole thing that keeps niggling at me.
Wonder if her donations will dry up?
Imagine what her PAC contributors are thinking right about now.
Inside info
I was pondering the same thing. What I'm worried about is that if the PAC donations are NOT drying up, the wealthy elite have insider info about how this is all going to pan out. And also, they think that she is going to keep giving them what they want.
They want what they ALWAYS want...
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQUXuQ6Zd9w]
Oink oink.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.