APNewsBreak: Gov't finds 'top secret' info in Clinton emails

[Publicus]

...and the death by 1,000 cuts continues:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pressure on Lynch to step aside in Clinton email probe

By Julian Hattem - 02/08/16 06:00 AM EST

Loretta Lynch is on the edge of the spotlight, about to be dragged to the center.

If the FBI finds sufficient evidence to launch a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton or one of her top aides for mishandling classified information, Lynchs Justice Department will have to decide whether to press ahead.

Even if no evidence of wrongdoing is found, Clintons many critics are unlikely to take the word of an appointee of President Obamas and will doubt that justice has been served.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/268456-pressure-on-lynch-to-step-aside-in-clinton-email-probe

First word of the article is IF.

So the whole of it is speculation and continuing wet dreams of the rightwhingenut mass of highly financed and hyperactive media and their followers.

Nothing on it has come before Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The inquiry is still occurring.

Leaks are selective and calculated and always appear in the right wing mass of super funded media. The published links are always promoted from and by the vast rightwhinge.

No prosecutor, no grand jury, no indictments, no charges, no nothin except desperado and determined rightwhingenuts.

[chuckd]

It seems there is breaking news nearly every day in the FBI investigation that isn't.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Documents suggest State Dept. asked Clinton to delete classified emails

By Sarah Westwood

2/10/16 12:55 PM

A series of letters sent back and forth between State Department officials and Hillary Clinton's legal team last year sheds light on the agency's scramble to recover classified documents that had been stored in unsecured environments.

The letters, made public Wednesday by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch, suggest the State Department was concerned about Clinton's lawyers handling records that had been upgraded to "secret," the second-highest level of classification in government.

Recovering now-classified emails that have been potentially touched by dozens of unqualified people posed problems for the State Department, especially since Clinton's lawyers said they were unable to delete the sensitive records as requested because they faced preservation orders from the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

More here: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/documents-suggest-state-dept.-asked-clinton-to-delete-classified-emails/article/2582954

[chuckd]

That last post was yesterday. This is today's breaking news.

FOX NEWS WARNING - CAN PROVE HAZARDOUS TO LIBERAL MINDS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Official: Top Clinton aides also handled ‘top secret’ intel on server

By Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne

Published February 11, 2016

EXCLUSIVE: At least a dozen email accounts handled the “top secret” intelligence that was found on Hillary Clinton’s server and recently deemed too damaging for national security to release, a U.S. government official close to the review told Fox News.

The official said the accounts include not only Clinton’s but those of top aides – including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines – as well as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy and others. There is no public evidence they were authorized to receive the intelligence some of which was beyond Top Secret.

A second source not authorized to speak on the record said the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server.

Much more information here: www.washingtonexaminer.com/documents-suggest-state-dept.-asked-clinton-to-delete-classified-emails/article/2582954

[Chicog]

It seems there is breaking news nearly every day in the FBI investigation that isn't.

If there was, you'd be able to post a link from a bona fide news site, not a right wing political mouthpiece.

a U.S. government official close to the review told Fox News.

A second source not authorized to speak

Amazing how there is never a named source.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Chicog

[Publicus]

More selected leaks to selected rightwhinge media that has to be coming from inside the intelligence agencies and their IG officials due to the fact the leaks always have a predictable twist to them.

Lotsa stuff being put out from the inside, and all of it one-sided. Piecemeal. Fragmented. Always the same bias; always the same slant. Always the mysterious but extremely knowledgeable inside source.

The rightwhingers do love their wet dreams.

[tonbridgebrit]

More selected leaks to selected rightwhinge media that has to be coming from inside the intelligence agencies and their IG officials due to the fact the leaks always have a predictable twist to them.

Lotsa stuff being put out from the inside, and all of it one-sided. Piecemeal. Fragmented. Always the same bias; always the same slant. Always the mysterious but extremely knowledgeable inside source.

The rightwhingers do love their wet dreams.

Publicus, what are you talking about ?

Look, if this was actually about the right wing media trying to hurt Hillary, well, they would wait until Hillary has won the nomination for the Democratic Party, AND THEN, they will destroy her with the emails or whatever.

Let's get real, Hillary Clinton is basically a person with Republican values who is trying to become leader of the Democratic Party. Why are you being a cheer-leader for her ? Remember, Hillary is almost as much a war-monger as George Bush (that's if you reckon that Bush was a war-monger), and you still want to be a cheer-leader for her ? With Hillary in charge of the USA, the ridiculous 'War on Terror' will carry on (actually, intensify), the chances of conflict with the Muslims will increase.

These emails are highly damaging, and THEY DO reveal a dangerous part of Hillary Clinton's mentality.

[chuckd]

And some more news about the imaginary investigations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillary Clinton Is Now Tied To At Least Four Investigations By Federal Agencies

CHUCK ROSS

Reporter

2:32 PM 02/11/2016

The State Department’s inspector general last year subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation for documents related to work that required approval from the Hillary Clinton State Department, making it now at least four investigations involving the Democratic presidential candidate being conducted by federal agencies.

According to The Washington Post, the State Department inspector general’s subpoena, which was filed in the fall, also sought records related to longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s concurrent employment in 2012 with the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, and Teneo Holdings, a Clinton-connected consulting firm.

Clinton’s critics have asserted that the overlap between the State Department, her family’s foundation, and Teneo during her tenure created potential conflicts of interest. <snip for fair use>

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/11/hillary-clinton-is-now-tied-to-at-least-four-investigations-by-federal-agencies/#ixzz3zvF0MSVH

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then we have this...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report: FBI Now Investigating Hillary’s State Department For Corruption

CHUCK ROSS

Reporter

10:56 AM 01/11/2016

The FBI is investigating whether Hillary Clinton’s State Department improperly directed contracts to Clinton Foundation donors, in possible violation of public corruption laws, Fox News is reporting.

Three sources confirmed the previously-unknown investigation angle to Fox reporters Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne.

“The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed,” one law enforcement source told Fox.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/11/report-fbi-now-investigating-hillarys-state-department-for-corruption/#ixzz3zvGfa9vP

[Ulysses G.]

It's all a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

It's all a vast right-wing conspiracy.

...led by the left wing.

[mopar71]

It's all a vast right-wing conspiracy.

...led by the left wing.

This is how the White House gets Biden in the race without embarrassing himself in debates.

Biden fits in perfectly with the Democrats - old, 70-something white guy who has spent his entire life "serving the people".

After Hillary is forced from the race, Biden will be seen as the elder statesman riding to the rescue and to keep Republicans from putting blacks "back in chains." The liberal media will love it.

[boomerangutang]

Where were all these right-wingers when a president was secretly selling weapons to a country with which the US had an arms embargo, and the proceeds from those sales were used to fund a clandestine war involving the US, which congress wouldn't approve of.

Oh, almost forgot, it was the president which all Republicans are duty-bound to adulate: Ronald Reagan.

Where was the out-cry from Republicans when it was shown the Bush/Cheney/Powell deliberately misled Americans (and the world via their UN presentation) about Iraq - because the right-wingers were so eager to start another war? Cheney didn't mind, as he owned vast business interests which profited handsomely from supply contracts for the soldiers.

Where was the indignation from the same sorts who are trying to burn Hillary at the stake for unwittingly using a non-secure email account?

Have any of the same right-wingers spoken out about one of their own soliciting gay sex in an airport public bathroom? Did any express indignation for one of their own texting pics of himself with a hard-on to congressional page boys?

No, of course not. Right wingers are only trained to smell blood for people like Hillary. They never care to discipline their own ranks, no matter how grievous the wrongdoing.

Sorry for so many questions, but it's known none will be answered.

[lannarebirth]

Where were all these right-wingers when a president was secretly selling weapons to a country with which the US had an arms embargo, and the proceeds from those sales were used to fund a clandestine war involving the US, which congress wouldn't approve of.

Oh, almost forgot, it was the president which all Republicans are duty-bound to adulate: Ronald Reagan.

Where was the out-cry from Republicans when it was shown the Bush/Cheney/Powell deliberately misled Americans (and the world via their UN presentation) about Iraq - because the right-wingers were so eager to start another war? Cheney didn't mind, as he owned vast business interests which profited handsomely from supply contracts for the soldiers.

Where was the indignation from the same sorts who are trying to burn Hillary at the stake for unwittingly using a non-secure email account?

Have any of the same right-wingers spoken out about one of their own soliciting gay sex in an airport public bathroom? Did any express indignation for one of their own texting pics of himself with a hard-on to congressional page boys?

No, of course not. Right wingers are only trained to smell blood for people like Hillary. They never care to discipline their own ranks, no matter how grievous the wrongdoing.

Sorry for so many questions, but it's known none will be answered.

I agree with you about both the illegal and unethical schemes carried out by Republiicans and also that those Republicans attacking Hillary would likely try to spin their own malfeasances and illegalities into much ado about nothing. Where you lost your credibility however, was when you spun Hillary's multiple count, serious crimes into an unwitting mistake. You are either seriously uninformed or no better than those you accuse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/11/hillary-clintons-week-just-went-from-bad-to-worse/

Edited February 12, 2016 by lannarebirth

[Chicog]

More selected leaks to selected rightwhinge media that has to be coming from inside the intelligence agencies and their IG officials due to the fact the leaks always have a predictable twist to them.

Lotsa stuff being put out from the inside, and all of it one-sided. Piecemeal. Fragmented. Always the same bias; always the same slant. Always the mysterious but extremely knowledgeable inside source.

The rightwhingers do love their wet dreams.

Publicus, what are you talking about ?

Look, if this was actually about the right wing media trying to hurt Hillary, well, they would wait until Hillary has won the nomination for the Democratic Party, AND THEN, they will destroy her with the emails or whatever.

Let's get real, Hillary Clinton is basically a person with Republican values who is trying to become leader of the Democratic Party. Why are you being a cheer-leader for her ? Remember, Hillary is almost as much a war-monger as George Bush (that's if you reckon that Bush was a war-monger), and you still want to be a cheer-leader for her ? With Hillary in charge of the USA, the ridiculous 'War on Terror' will carry on (actually, intensify), the chances of conflict with the Muslims will increase.

These emails are highly damaging, and THEY DO reveal a dangerous part of Hillary Clinton's mentality.

I have a reading suggestion for you. A hugely influential book.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book)

Edited February 12, 2016 by Chicog

[chuckd]

Where were all these right-wingers when a president was secretly selling weapons to a country with which the US had an arms embargo, and the proceeds from those sales were used to fund a clandestine war involving the US, which congress wouldn't approve of.

Oh, almost forgot, it was the president which all Republicans are duty-bound to adulate: Ronald Reagan.

Where was the out-cry from Republicans when it was shown the Bush/Cheney/Powell deliberately misled Americans (and the world via their UN presentation) about Iraq - because the right-wingers were so eager to start another war? Cheney didn't mind, as he owned vast business interests which profited handsomely from supply contracts for the soldiers.

Where was the indignation from the same sorts who are trying to burn Hillary at the stake for unwittingly using a non-secure email account?

Have any of the same right-wingers spoken out about one of their own soliciting gay sex in an airport public bathroom? Did any express indignation for one of their own texting pics of himself with a hard-on to congressional page boys?

No, of course not. Right wingers are only trained to smell blood for people like Hillary. They never care to discipline their own ranks, no matter how grievous the wrongdoing.

Sorry for so many questions, but it's known none will be answered.

"Where was the indignation from the same sorts who are trying to burn Hillary at the stake for unwittingly using a non-secure email account?"

Unwittingly?

If it makes you feel better, let me proclaim here and now I think any Republican or Democrat caught soliciting gay sex in an airport public bathroom should be banned from politics for life.

Feel better?

Now what about Presidents that assault interns and other women over a 30 year period and has his wife cover up for him?

Do you feel that is worth a sentence or two?

[Publicus]

More selected leaks to selected rightwhinge media that has to be coming from inside the intelligence agencies and their IG officials due to the fact the leaks always have a predictable twist to them.

Lotsa stuff being put out from the inside, and all of it one-sided. Piecemeal. Fragmented. Always the same bias; always the same slant. Always the mysterious but extremely knowledgeable inside source.

The rightwhingers do love their wet dreams.

Publicus, what are you talking about ?

Look, if this was actually about the right wing media trying to hurt Hillary, well, they would wait until Hillary has won the nomination for the Democratic Party, AND THEN, they will destroy her with the emails or whatever.

Let's get real, Hillary Clinton is basically a person with Republican values who is trying to become leader of the Democratic Party. Why are you being a cheer-leader for her ? Remember, Hillary is almost as much a war-monger as George Bush (that's if you reckon that Bush was a war-monger), and you still want to be a cheer-leader for her ? With Hillary in charge of the USA, the ridiculous 'War on Terror' will carry on (actually, intensify), the chances of conflict with the Muslims will increase.

These emails are highly damaging, and THEY DO reveal a dangerous part of Hillary Clinton's mentality.

Pointedly lecture scold and issue demands to someone else and somewhere else plse thx.

Or no thanks. Makes no difference.

[boomerangutang]

Where were all these right-wingers when a president was secretly selling weapons to a country with which the US had an arms embargo, and the proceeds from those sales were used to fund a clandestine war involving the US, which congress wouldn't approve of.

Oh, almost forgot, it was the president which all Republicans are duty-bound to adulate: Ronald Reagan.

Where was the out-cry from Republicans when it was shown the Bush/Cheney/Powell deliberately misled Americans (and the world via their UN presentation) about Iraq - because the right-wingers were so eager to start another war? Cheney didn't mind, as he owned vast business interests which profited handsomely from supply contracts for the soldiers.

Where was the indignation from the same sorts who are trying to burn Hillary at the stake for unwittingly using a non-secure email account?

Have any of the same right-wingers spoken out about one of their own soliciting gay sex in an airport public bathroom? Did any express indignation for one of their own texting pics of himself with a hard-on to congressional page boys?

No, of course not. Right wingers are only trained to smell blood for people like Hillary. They never care to discipline their own ranks, no matter how grievous the wrongdoing.

Sorry for so many questions, but it's known none will be answered.

"Where was the indignation from the same sorts who are trying to burn Hillary at the stake for unwittingly using a non-secure email account?"

Unwittingly?

If it makes you feel better, let me proclaim here and now I think any Republican or Democrat caught soliciting gay sex in an airport public bathroom should be banned from politics for life.

Feel better?

Now what about Presidents that assault interns and other women over a 30 year period and has his wife cover up for him?

Do you feel that is worth a sentence or two?

Did Bill 'assault interns' ? He had consensual & brief sex with one (singular, not plural). Personally, I don't have a problem with that. If you do, then that's your issue. There, that's 2 sentences.

Linda Tripp, Ken Starr and Republicans tried to blow that up as if Bill nuked Fort Knox. In a more civil place like France, people would just have gossiped a bit about it, made some jokes about fat girls, ....and moved on.

[chuckd]

" He had consensual & brief sex with one (singular, not plural)."

Do you live under a giant mushroom?

Look up:

Juanita Broaddrick

Paula Jones

Kathleen Willey

Connie Hamzy

Eileen Wellstone

Christy Zercher

Gennifer Flowers (12 year 'brief" affair)

...and there are more.

Leaks are out now that his current Secret Service detail calls his newest find the "Energizer Bunny".

[mopar71]

Where was the out-cry from Republicans when it was shown the Bush/Cheney/Powell deliberately misled Americans (and the world via their UN presentation) about Iraq - because the right-wingers were so eager to start another war? Cheney didn't mind, as he owned vast business interests which profited handsomely from supply contracts for the soldiers.

Where were you? Hillary, Kerry and every other Democrat in the leadership were just as eager to start the war. Just because they chose to replace support for the troops for borderline treason during the 2004 & 2006 election cycles doesn't absolve them of their guilt.

[mopar71]

Where were all these right-wingers when a president was secretly selling weapons to a country with which the US had an arms embargo, and the proceeds from those sales were used to fund a clandestine war involving the US, which congress wouldn't approve of.

Oh, almost forgot, it was the president which all Republicans are duty-bound to adulate: Ronald Reagan.

At least Reagan got Iran to release hostages and moved money to fight Bernie's commie friends in Latin America. When Obama covertly sold weapons he created ISIS. Then there are the guns he put in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

[SgtRock]

chuckd, on 12 Feb 2016 - 20:54, said:

" He had consensual & brief sex with one (singular, not plural)."

Do you live under a giant mushroom?

Look up:

Juanita Broaddrick

Paula Jones

Kathleen Willey

Connie Hamzy

Eileen Wellstone

Christy Zercher

Gennifer Flowers (12 year 'brief" affair)

...and there are more.

Leaks are out now that his current Secret Service detail calls his newest find the "Energizer Bunny".

Is that the US equivalent of a Rampant Rabbit ?

[boomerangutang]

Where was the out-cry from Republicans when it was shown the Bush/Cheney/Powell deliberately misled Americans (and the world via their UN presentation) about Iraq - because the right-wingers were so eager to start another war? Cheney didn't mind, as he owned vast business interests which profited handsomely from supply contracts for the soldiers.

Where were you? Hillary, Kerry and every other Democrat in the leadership were just as eager to start the war. Just because they chose to replace support for the troops for borderline treason during the 2004 & 2006 election cycles doesn't absolve them of their guilt.

Whatever Dems voted for the 2nd Iraq war were voting based on 'intelligence' released by Bush/Cheney. It was only later that the 'intelligence' was found to be faulty and skewed. Bush/Cheney/Powell didn't have any spies on the ground in that part of the world, so they were basing all, I repeat ALL their intelligence on one Iraqi informant who, it was found out months later, was feeding them liquored camel shit.

Where were all these right-wingers when a president was secretly selling weapons to a country with which the US had an arms embargo, and the proceeds from those sales were used to fund a clandestine war involving the US, which congress wouldn't approve of.

Oh, almost forgot, it was the president which all Republicans are duty-bound to adulate: Ronald Reagan.

At least Reagan got Iran to release hostages and moved money to fight Bernie's commie friends in Latin America. When Obama covertly sold weapons he created ISIS. Then there are the guns he put in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

Reagan didn't get the Ayatollah to release the hostages. Carter was president. Iranians at that time hated the US and Carter was their poster boy to direct their hatred. Iran released the hostages on the day of Reagan's inaugeration as a way of giving Carter the finger.

[mopar71]

Where were you? Hillary, Kerry and every other Democrat in the leadership were just as eager to start the war. Just because they chose to replace support for the troops for borderline treason during the 2004 & 2006 election cycles doesn't absolve them of their guilt.

Whatever Dems voted for the 2nd Iraq war were voting based on 'intelligence' released by Bush/Cheney. It was only later that the 'intelligence' was found to be faulty and skewed. Bush/Cheney/Powell didn't have any spies on the ground in that part of the world, so they were basing all, I repeat ALL their intelligence on one Iraqi informant who, it was found out months later, was feeding them liquored camel shit.

At least Reagan got Iran to release hostages and moved money to fight Bernie's commie friends in Latin America. When Obama covertly sold weapons he created ISIS. Then there are the guns he put in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

Reagan didn't get the Ayatollah to release the hostages. Carter was president. Iranians at that time hated the US and Carter was their poster boy to direct their hatred. Iran released the hostages on the day of Reagan's inaugeration as a way of giving Carter the finger.

1) Hillary & company did not need to rely on Bush-Cheney for intel on Saddam Hussein. Her husband was president for 8 years prior to Bush (obvious, but there are apparently newbies on this forum who still may not know that). She knew what Saddam was and what he was up to. Hillary, Kerry, and other Democrat leaders were banging those war drums just as hard as anyone else in the build up to the war. Then in the run-up to the 2004 Presidential election Dems pivoted to become against the war, abandoning the troops in order to win an election.

The Iraq intel wasn't only from Chalabi (that is the "one Iraqi informant" you speak of) or only from the USA either. Many countries around the world contributed intel and it all pointed to the same thing. In fact, after the war it was discovered that Iraqi Revolutionary Guard units themselves thought Iraq had WMDs (in David Kay's report to Congress). Saddam thought his bluffing was protecting him from domestic & foreign enemies. The French & Germans (who benefited from the UN's Oil For Food Scandal) assured him that even with coalition armies massed on his border, he would not be attacked. Bad advice motivated by greed. People following the issue at the time know all this. Anyone getting their info from post-2003 liberal press wouldn't have a clue.

2) The hostages related to Iran-Contra weren't the US Embassy hostages from years prior. I-C was about American hostages held by Iranian surrogates in Lebanon - who were held for much longer than the Embassy hostages.

[Chicog]

Reagan didn't get the Ayatollah to release the hostages. Carter was president. Iranians at that time hated the US and Carter was their poster boy to direct their hatred. Iran released the hostages on the day of Reagan's inaugeration as a way of giving Carter the finger.

As part of a deal to get Reagan to sell them weapons more like.

[Linzz]

Where were you? Hillary, Kerry and every other Democrat in the leadership were just as eager to start the war. Just because they chose to replace support for the troops for borderline treason during the 2004 & 2006 election cycles doesn't absolve them of their guilt.

Whatever Dems voted for the 2nd Iraq war were voting based on 'intelligence' released by Bush/Cheney. It was only later that the 'intelligence' was found to be faulty and skewed. Bush/Cheney/Powell didn't have any spies on the ground in that part of the world, so they were basing all, I repeat ALL their intelligence on one Iraqi informant who, it was found out months later, was feeding them liquored camel shit.

At least Reagan got Iran to release hostages and moved money to fight Bernie's commie friends in Latin America. When Obama covertly sold weapons he created ISIS. Then there are the guns he put in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

Reagan didn't get the Ayatollah to release the hostages. Carter was president. Iranians at that time hated the US and Carter was their poster boy to direct their hatred. Iran released the hostages on the day of Reagan's inaugeration as a way of giving Carter the finger.

1) Hillary & company did not need to rely on Bush-Cheney for intel on Saddam Hussein. Her husband was president for 8 years prior to Bush (obvious, but there are apparently newbies on this forum who still may not know that). She knew what Saddam was and what he was up to. Hillary, Kerry, and other Democrat leaders were banging those war drums just as hard as anyone else in the build up to the war. Then in the run-up to the 2004 Presidential election Dems pivoted to become against the war, abandoning the troops in order to win an election.

The Iraq intel wasn't only from Chalabi (that is the "one Iraqi informant" you speak of) or only from the USA either. Many countries around the world contributed intel and it all pointed to the same thing. In fact, after the war it was discovered that Iraqi Revolutionary Guard units themselves thought Iraq had WMDs (in David Kay's report to Congress). Saddam thought his bluffing was protecting him from domestic & foreign enemies. The French & Germans (who benefited from the UN's Oil For Food Scandal) assured him that even with coalition armies massed on his border, he would not be attacked. Bad advice motivated by greed. People following the issue at the time know all this. Anyone getting their info from post-2003 liberal press wouldn't have a clue.

2) The hostages related to Iran-Contra weren't the US Embassy hostages from years prior. I-C was about American hostages held by Iranian surrogates in Lebanon - who were held for much longer than the Embassy hostages.

I thought the Iraqi government at that time denied having WMD's and said so at UN meetings so did they bluff that they had and denied that they had at the same time?