For years the GOP and their legions of shrill extreme right wing pundits have been waging a veritable war of attrition on the Clintons ... their legacy and their character. It is one of the most ugly persistent prolonged smear campaigns in US political history, and is the only reason Clinton has a high unfavorability rating. They have used every propaganda trick and legislative gimmick deliberately designed to literally destroy her ... code-words, dog whistles. endless congressional investigations and widely publicized kangaroo-court-style hearings, and even pointless impeachment proceedings ... all based on contrived lies and obfuscations ... ultimately going no where. The charges made and the evidence offered up invariably through prolonged 'due process' slowly dissolved into nothing but unfounded scurrilous gossip and innuendos as both the GOP concocted Benghazi and email server episodes so poignantly demonstrate. Yet the GOP drumbeat goes on with the never ending spewing of exaggerated notion's of Hillary Clinton's being "untrustable" (sic) and baseless unfair one sided attacks on her record.
4
This is what I understand :
$ The emails were deemed classified at the time it was on Hillary's private server. The state dept. wanted the classification removed, not for any noble public service, but Hillary can then go out and claim that she did not send /receive any classified emails.
$ The quid pro quo was initiated by the state dept. which could be seen as unduly influencing the investigation.
$ Whether the quid pro quo went thru or not, the act of the offer itself is not legal (try offering a bribe to a traffic cop).
Hillary, we have a problem. A big problem. We need to talk.
$ The emails were deemed classified at the time it was on Hillary's private server. The state dept. wanted the classification removed, not for any noble public service, but Hillary can then go out and claim that she did not send /receive any classified emails.
$ The quid pro quo was initiated by the state dept. which could be seen as unduly influencing the investigation.
$ Whether the quid pro quo went thru or not, the act of the offer itself is not legal (try offering a bribe to a traffic cop).
Hillary, we have a problem. A big problem. We need to talk.
4
I'd suggest you reread the article. It says it's unclear which side initially made the quid pro quo offer.
2
Would it be to hard to just report the news, which is that State and the FBI disagree on classification without the partisan bickering? We know the GOP considers it an outrage, whatever the issue. That isn't news.
3
One confusing aspect of this situation is that there is no one standard for something being "confidential" among US government agencies. Each agency establishes its own standards and largely self-regulates. It is not really surprising, then, that two parts of the government would butt heads like this over the issue, particularly when one is given the power to investigate and evaluate the other. This does not excuse intentional violations or even just lazy stupidity, but the lack of clear and overarching guidelines may make this sort of back and forth negotiation/pressure/bickering almost inevitable.
4
In my experience as a US Army Reserve captain with a secret clearance and as a federal government political appointee, I observed a tendency to over-classify documents and to classify information for purposes unrelated to national security.
5
Pretty underwhelming if you ask me. And the statement by Flynn, that this is "undeniable proof" that Clinton was involved in a cover up is simply absurd. Nothing in the article suggested there was any evidence Mrs. Clinton had any knowledge whatsoever of this in fighting between these two departments over her e-mails.
4
Hang on a second, the State Dept. wanted it unclassified - meaning the public will have full access to its content and there will be no conspiracy theories. FBI wanted it classified.
So why is Hillary at fault for wanting to be completely open?
So why is Hillary at fault for wanting to be completely open?
5
"The email they were struggling over was sent on Nov. 18, 2012, by William V. Roebuck, who oversaw the department’s office for North Africa and is now the American ambassador to Bahrain.
In it, he notified five other officials of the arrest of “several people” in Libya on suspicion they were connected with the Benghazi attack two months earlier. It was subsequently forwarded to senior officials at the department and then to Mrs. Clinton on her private email account by her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan, with a short “f.y.i.” note."
Here are my questions for State, Jake Sullivan and Sec. Clinton, 1) Is it uncommon for documents to be retroactively classified after they are generated and originally sent? And when the answer is obviously yes 2) isn't that the reason officials with secret clearances are instructed to use secure government communication channels for all communication that could become classified by a future classifying agency? 3) Was Sec. Clinton's private email server set up to the standards and pursuant to the laws of secure government classified servers? 4) And finally Mr. Sullivan, IF you had believed this email contained information that MIGHT BE classified by a future State Dept., FBI or CIA assessment, which email address would you have used to forward it to Sec. Clinton?
And my final question for the NYT et al that call themselves journalists... why haven't any of you asked these simple straightforward questions???
In it, he notified five other officials of the arrest of “several people” in Libya on suspicion they were connected with the Benghazi attack two months earlier. It was subsequently forwarded to senior officials at the department and then to Mrs. Clinton on her private email account by her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan, with a short “f.y.i.” note."
Here are my questions for State, Jake Sullivan and Sec. Clinton, 1) Is it uncommon for documents to be retroactively classified after they are generated and originally sent? And when the answer is obviously yes 2) isn't that the reason officials with secret clearances are instructed to use secure government communication channels for all communication that could become classified by a future classifying agency? 3) Was Sec. Clinton's private email server set up to the standards and pursuant to the laws of secure government classified servers? 4) And finally Mr. Sullivan, IF you had believed this email contained information that MIGHT BE classified by a future State Dept., FBI or CIA assessment, which email address would you have used to forward it to Sec. Clinton?
And my final question for the NYT et al that call themselves journalists... why haven't any of you asked these simple straightforward questions???
6
Obviously answer to first question is no (not yes) it is not uncommon for upgrades in classification. Need to work on that subject verb agreement stuff they taught in school.
They don't, and won't ask, because to do so, is to direct deserved attention to the national security aspects of this egregious, and dangerous actions of our so called Secretary of State.
3
Ah, so one agency staffer should be able to predict, with prescience bordering on psychic, what a completely separate agency -- with a different mission, command structure, et cetera, may at some time in the future deem or not deem classified? Are you joking?
3
Establishing classification of documents (or anything else) is not explained in this or, to my recollection, previous reporting. The originating entity with its subject matter expertise determines whether to classify and the specific classification level. Ascending order examples are "restricted," "confidential," "secret," and "top secret." Outermost, visible document front/back pages are conspicuously stamped so a "secret" document is not inadvertently looked at by person(s) not granted at least a "secret" clearance. And there are additional procedures that direct handling classified material so it is appropriately protected. In forty years working with this system I'm not aware of any "C" designation, whether on paper or granted to a person. "C" doesn't fit the hierarchal design of the system. "State" leans to an outward looking perspective compared to defense and intelligence. Also, at times, the system has been used to hide potential embarrassments. Even 20-20 hindsight can be flawed.
3
The New York Times is a disgrace to every American. Wikileaks has exposed such corruption for all to see and the New York Time is still trying to convince the American people that everything is just fine. These leaks are huge and they are not covering it - period. They are not covering it because they are in on it. This newspaper is an insult to the intelligence of every American. We, the sheeple, have finally woken up and are going to take our country back from the corrupt politicians, mainstream media, international banksters and the Bush and Clinton crime families who have been controlling us for too many decades now. A vote for Trump is a vote to take our country back from these evil beings and they know it. Please Vote
Trump as this is our last chance at saving America.
Trump as this is our last chance at saving America.
7
Hmmmmm.......
“[REDACTED] received a call from [REDACTED] of the International Operations Division (IOD) of the FBI, who ‘pressured’ him to change the classified email to unclassified,” the FBI documents reveal. “[REDACTED] indicated he had been contacted by PATRICK KENNEDY, Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.’”
“[REDACTED] received a call from [REDACTED] of the International Operations Division (IOD) of the FBI, who ‘pressured’ him to change the classified email to unclassified,” the FBI documents reveal. “[REDACTED] indicated he had been contacted by PATRICK KENNEDY, Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.’”
3
What's a disgrace to every able-minded American is Donald Trump.
2
And you know all this HOW?! Besides your inaccuracies & uncritical thinking, you also lash out at NYTimes for not publishing something YOU want published. Meanwhile you have no expertise, no evidence, no proof. And you're slamming someone without finding out the actual situation. I don't know the details, but I certainly wouldn't slam someone without first researching, discussing with others who know more than I do, & I especially wouldn't sound off without doing some THINKING first. Just because you heard something doesn't mean it's the truth. Just because you're mad doesn't mean you're right!
3
Our government is corrupt from tip to toe. Positive action is necessary to clean it up . Term limits and replacing the Supremes who allow corporations to bribe with impunity can be a first action. Out with the Congress, every last one of them! Vote against the office holders no matter what their party.
10
Huh? I thought the topic was classification of email?! You sound like you've gone off topic & grabbed all the bathtubs in the entire country, & you're ready to throw them all out--all the bathtubs, all the water, all the babies! Doesn't work that way! And besides, can't you think of even one good thing about your great country?!
4
Not trying to justify anything re: HRCs email server fiasco. She screwed up in epic proportions and could lose the election over it - should've never been allowed by any government official in the first place. On the issue of quid pro quo - while there appears to be ambiguity here about who asked for it, although probably not really - my question is this: how many of you have engaged in some sort of quid pro quo in your job? I do it in mine sometimes and there's no malicious intent whatsoever, no cover up or trying to change facts. It's how I sometimes need to get from point A to point B in a completely legal, moral, and ethical manner. Does anyone actually think government agencies do not routinely engage in quid pro quo, especially the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ, DOS. In the words of Obama...Come on Man! And to Mr. Trump - can you say with a straight face that you've never bribed anyone to get your buildings built and never engaged in quid pro quo over your deals? Bit of the pot calling the kettle black here.
9
Thank you, NYT, Eric Lichtblau, and Steven Lee Myers, for a clear and concise account of the clash between the FBI and the State Department regarding classification. It's unfortunate that the TV/CABLE people can't seem to find the resources to report facts. Instead they convict Hillary Clinton with soundbites from themselves and the Republicans.
It is time for someone to bring Republican e-mails out into the open so all of us can compare and contrast what Republicans and Democrats say when they think outsiders and opponents do not have access to their e-mails. I suspect that we would find that the Republicans talk much the same as the Democrats.
It is time for someone to bring Republican e-mails out into the open so all of us can compare and contrast what Republicans and Democrats say when they think outsiders and opponents do not have access to their e-mails. I suspect that we would find that the Republicans talk much the same as the Democrats.
11
Joan: fair, calm, & rational assessment & suggestion. You're a breath of fresh air in the midst of a sea of often great ( partisan & divisive ) emotion. Thank you!
3
A comment by shayladane said one can't be prosecuted if they "should have known" Unfortunately, the law states "ignorance of the law is no defense", and many have been prosecuted for unknowinly (SP) breaking the law.
3
The reaction of various Republicans to this just shows that they have once again contracted a bad case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, even before this Clinton has been elected or taken office. As if more proof were needed. Mr. McCain's promise to never approve any SC nominee put forth by Clinton is yet another piece of evidence.
It isn't "Both sides do this", people. As Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein put it in their indispensable book of black humor, It's Even Worse Than It Looks.
It isn't "Both sides do this", people. As Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein put it in their indispensable book of black humor, It's Even Worse Than It Looks.
5
Did anyone seriously believe this cat could be put back in the bag ??
Ever since Bill Clinton parked his plane, on a runway, and walked directly to the plane of Lorretta Lynch, the Attorney General of the United States of America, the Justice Department investigating Hillary, who "happened" to be relaxing in her plane, on the same runway, it is clear to even the most obtuse that a fix was in.
Contrary to assertions stating otherwise, the meeting was planned, to work out details so Hillary could once again escape indictment.
Washington Post excerpt and link -
"Bill Clinton has made a mess. It was either out of foolish indifference or plain foolishness, but it has created a terrible moment for his wife and the Democrats, and for President Obama and perceptions of the integrity of his administration.
Clinton’s private, unplanned meeting with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch at the Phoenix airport last week, coming at a time when the Justice Department should be nearing completion of its examination of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails as secretary of state, will inevitably — and negatively — affect public attitudes about that investigation."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-everyone-looks-bad-because-b...
Ever since Bill Clinton parked his plane, on a runway, and walked directly to the plane of Lorretta Lynch, the Attorney General of the United States of America, the Justice Department investigating Hillary, who "happened" to be relaxing in her plane, on the same runway, it is clear to even the most obtuse that a fix was in.
Contrary to assertions stating otherwise, the meeting was planned, to work out details so Hillary could once again escape indictment.
Washington Post excerpt and link -
"Bill Clinton has made a mess. It was either out of foolish indifference or plain foolishness, but it has created a terrible moment for his wife and the Democrats, and for President Obama and perceptions of the integrity of his administration.
Clinton’s private, unplanned meeting with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch at the Phoenix airport last week, coming at a time when the Justice Department should be nearing completion of its examination of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails as secretary of state, will inevitably — and negatively — affect public attitudes about that investigation."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-everyone-looks-bad-because-b...
9
The fix was really in. I've read that Obama's emails were in there too and that he lied about not knowing about her server. That's why Obama's emails were specifically mentioned in the leaked emails. They knew they'd come in handy for protection. They were right, it seems.
6
For those of us who are not part of the elite this sort of "clash" would constitute an old fashioned abstraction of justice. Indeed trying to retroactively change the classification of emails, recklessly kept on unprotected private server, just to protect Clinton is interfering in an ongoing investigation in order to divert its course.
The State Department need not worry, Clinton is part of 'the untouchables' or 'above the law' class of politicians, financiers and dynasties who can do whatever they wish with no consequences. Just like CEOs' of big banks who drove our economy to the ground - and made fortune on the way - but faced no investigation or prosecution, Clinton can be as careless, incompetent and lie as she wish and still be considered for the top job of the land.
If you're in the real job market and your personal file carries a note from the FBI saying that you have been 'extremely careless' with classified information, forgot about finding a job, even in McDonald.
Of course Clinton had a bag full of the most outlandish excuses, she actually told the FBI that; She didn't know the 'C' on documents meant 'classified' nor that information about future drone strikes is classified either. She could not remember being told not to use personal computer/device for state affairs due to her head injury.
Clinton can always say that it's the Russian fault, or Putin or that she did it because of the 9/11 attack (actual excuse for receiving millions from Wall street)
The State Department need not worry, Clinton is part of 'the untouchables' or 'above the law' class of politicians, financiers and dynasties who can do whatever they wish with no consequences. Just like CEOs' of big banks who drove our economy to the ground - and made fortune on the way - but faced no investigation or prosecution, Clinton can be as careless, incompetent and lie as she wish and still be considered for the top job of the land.
If you're in the real job market and your personal file carries a note from the FBI saying that you have been 'extremely careless' with classified information, forgot about finding a job, even in McDonald.
Of course Clinton had a bag full of the most outlandish excuses, she actually told the FBI that; She didn't know the 'C' on documents meant 'classified' nor that information about future drone strikes is classified either. She could not remember being told not to use personal computer/device for state affairs due to her head injury.
Clinton can always say that it's the Russian fault, or Putin or that she did it because of the 9/11 attack (actual excuse for receiving millions from Wall street)
7
Again the emails are front and center, and rabid Clinton supporters will cry a right wing conspiracy. Admiral Kirby of the State Department was pressed this morning when asked if Navy personnel handled classified material as did Clinton would they be prosecuted; he answered yes. Daily emails reveal that she was involved setting up meetings in exchange for generous donations to her foundation; she assigned less than competent individuals to highly sensitive intelligence positions because of a large donation to her campaign. These events are well documented and will likely be countered with a right wing conspiratorial response by team Clinton. This campaign is between two disliked candidates; both with enormous baggage yet one one gets the negative attention!
8
This is more 'proof' .FBI and STATE colluded with POTUS and lied to us.
9
to some extent, this sounds like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The number of angels isn't really the point. Regardless of how many e-mails may have been classified -- whether it is one or 1000 makes little difference. HRC should have known that the Secretary of State sees and handles classified information. It may be documents, it may be e-mails. The SofS communicates with staff and others about classified information. She knew all that and still set up a private server. And when her e-mails were subpoenaed, she had her staff destroy huge numbers -- we don't even know how many or what they contained. Then she lied to congress, the American public, the FBI.
The devotees of HRC clearly want to believe there is no there there, that somehow Trump's sexual misbehavior is more important than HRC compromising national security. Really. What planet are you people living on?
HRC should be indicted -- or - a special prosecutor should be appointed who is beyond the influence of POTUS or State. Period.
The devotees of HRC clearly want to believe there is no there there, that somehow Trump's sexual misbehavior is more important than HRC compromising national security. Really. What planet are you people living on?
HRC should be indicted -- or - a special prosecutor should be appointed who is beyond the influence of POTUS or State. Period.
7
Ah yes, that time tested failure of Republican outrage, the special prosecutor. By all means, let's waste another $25 mil.
3
Perfect example of missing the forest through the trees.
Who really cares if the documents were top secret classified or cat gifs. The point of this entire scheme was a deliberate attempt to circumvent Freedom of Information laws. Much of the content will never be appropriately deemed classified or not, because it was wiped ("You mean with a cloth??") or smashed out of existence with hammers.
People on this forum openly ridicule the Trump drones for being impervious to facts, and ironically they are just as brainwashed as the Trump people.
Who really cares if the documents were top secret classified or cat gifs. The point of this entire scheme was a deliberate attempt to circumvent Freedom of Information laws. Much of the content will never be appropriately deemed classified or not, because it was wiped ("You mean with a cloth??") or smashed out of existence with hammers.
People on this forum openly ridicule the Trump drones for being impervious to facts, and ironically they are just as brainwashed as the Trump people.
8
A friend of Abraham Lincoln asked him of his private opinion on a public issue, Lincoln responded "I can't tell you my friend. you are not my paid audience."
2
STOP reporting this as a "possible quid pro quo" already.
The "quid pro quo" was the idea of a rogue FBI agent, yet the reporting insinuates that it originated with the State Dept and ultimately HRC herself.
The headline should state very clearly who the bad actor was in this exchange, yet I've yet to see one media outlet do that.
The insistence of the media to overstate Clinton scandals is EXACTLY why we have Trump today. And then you all cry "Why do we have Trump ?"
Well, this manipulative reporting is a good place to start.
The "quid pro quo" was the idea of a rogue FBI agent, yet the reporting insinuates that it originated with the State Dept and ultimately HRC herself.
The headline should state very clearly who the bad actor was in this exchange, yet I've yet to see one media outlet do that.
The insistence of the media to overstate Clinton scandals is EXACTLY why we have Trump today. And then you all cry "Why do we have Trump ?"
Well, this manipulative reporting is a good place to start.
8
If the FBI had opted to prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, she could have argued in court that some of the emails contained information that should not have been classified secret. She might have won on some, but would have undoubtedly lost on others. Some of the email contained information classified above Top Secret. Undersecretary Kennedy tried to persuade the FBI to reclassified email to prevent it from being used as evidence against Clinton.
12
There is no "above top secret".
Actually, there are levels above "Top Secret", in the SCI category. Compartmentalized, for eyes only, kind of information.
5
The FBI Director rolled over. His family members are on the Clinton payroll.
2
This is a classic "dog bites man" story. It reveals some interesting behind the scene intrigue into the Clinton emails and how agencies wrangled over control of their classification but hey, (as they used to say) "Where's the beef"?
Or more to the point, where is the part that implicates Mrs. Clinton in something illegal or unscrupulous?
Not until the 5th paragraph do we read "There is no indication from the documents that Mrs. Clinton was aware of the discussion".
There is no "there" there. The FBI seems to think it was their employee that brought up the foreign postings of its agents, not State so this is just more innuendo that can be distorted by Trump and fire up more chants of "lock her up".
Or more to the point, where is the part that implicates Mrs. Clinton in something illegal or unscrupulous?
Not until the 5th paragraph do we read "There is no indication from the documents that Mrs. Clinton was aware of the discussion".
There is no "there" there. The FBI seems to think it was their employee that brought up the foreign postings of its agents, not State so this is just more innuendo that can be distorted by Trump and fire up more chants of "lock her up".
13
Just to rehash what people want to forget:
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
...
"None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail."
...
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
From EO 13526:
"(c) Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation.
(d) The agency head, senior agency official, or other supervisory official shall, at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority of any individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in applying the classification standards of this order."
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
...
"None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail."
...
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
From EO 13526:
"(c) Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation.
(d) The agency head, senior agency official, or other supervisory official shall, at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority of any individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in applying the classification standards of this order."
6
Some e-mails might be obvious and others might be in a gray area.
the e-mail mentioned is clearly in the gray area. It's impossible to determine whether this e-mail should have been classified without the context of what was occurring when it was written.
Imo, the FBI's claims should be taken with a grain of salt. Having worked in law enforcement for many years I came to realize that many people who choose law enforcement have a significant bias against women in power and vote Republican. There are studies which support me in this. I wonder how this investigation would have been handled if the person being investigated was a man.
Further evidence of the FBI's questionable conduct in this matter was Director James Comey's polemic against Clinton when he announced that there was no evidence to support a criminal charge against Clinton. It reeked of anger because he was unable to order her arrest. That is inappropriate in a man who represents any His job is to supervise agents who pursue facts, not become emotionally involved in a case.
the e-mail mentioned is clearly in the gray area. It's impossible to determine whether this e-mail should have been classified without the context of what was occurring when it was written.
Imo, the FBI's claims should be taken with a grain of salt. Having worked in law enforcement for many years I came to realize that many people who choose law enforcement have a significant bias against women in power and vote Republican. There are studies which support me in this. I wonder how this investigation would have been handled if the person being investigated was a man.
Further evidence of the FBI's questionable conduct in this matter was Director James Comey's polemic against Clinton when he announced that there was no evidence to support a criminal charge against Clinton. It reeked of anger because he was unable to order her arrest. That is inappropriate in a man who represents any His job is to supervise agents who pursue facts, not become emotionally involved in a case.
9
Did you ever have a US government security clearance?
3
This striokes me as a prescript of what will after November's election become a postscript.
1
Let me help you rewrite this story. Overzealous CIA classification officers after the fact wanted to classify routine diplomatic communications. The State Dept. pushed back. An FBI officer offered a deal, but the deal never materialized.
THIS IS NOT A STORY.
One imagines the delusional GOPers looking at the following with outrage:
"Teen vow he will stay up all night to study for test, but goes to sleep at 10:30 pm, still makes good grade."
How dare that teen stay up all night! This is proof that he is irresponsible! Or cheating! Or something!
It is sad that the NY Times chose to cover this in this way.
THIS IS NOT A STORY.
One imagines the delusional GOPers looking at the following with outrage:
"Teen vow he will stay up all night to study for test, but goes to sleep at 10:30 pm, still makes good grade."
How dare that teen stay up all night! This is proof that he is irresponsible! Or cheating! Or something!
It is sad that the NY Times chose to cover this in this way.
12
"State Department employees who reviewed nearly 300 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails on the Benghazi attacks in early 2015 in response to requests from Congress had “felt intense pressure” from Mr. Kennedy and other senior State Department officials to complete their review quickly and “not label anything as classified.”
This wasn't two departments just debating classification. There was an active investigation which the State Department tried to stall from the beginning. Connecting the dots is fairly easy for anyone looking at this objectively.
This wasn't two departments just debating classification. There was an active investigation which the State Department tried to stall from the beginning. Connecting the dots is fairly easy for anyone looking at this objectively.
9
Hillary Clinton is being treated to an unprecedented level of scrutiny into her and her associates' internal communications. Considering that the centerpiece of these stories is stolen emails from the DNC, it's nothing short of an illegal invasion of privacy, after all. So I was thinking, just in the interests of fairness, to help put the insinuations of impropriety on her part into a broader perspective, perhaps the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS News, the Wall Street Journal and other news outlets would agree to have all of their internal communications regarding their coverage of this campaign made public. Perhaps only then could we readers judge whether these organizations themselves are living up to the good faith and transparency that they demand from the Clinton campaign. How do you think their internal communications would compare? Fair's fair, isn't it?
11
You know what I want to see? Breitbart, Drudge, and Fox emails. Now those would be interesting.
7
Nobody is even a little concerned about this? No one thinks it's inappropriate for the State Department to be working on this and deciding whether their boss made errors, or broke the law, or anything in between?! So, this is how our government overseas itself. By charging the same department that's under investigation with overseeing the investigation. Sounds like the ATL school scandal all over again - the school board found no wrong doing, but in the end over 150 teachers and principals were found to have cheated on kids national exams. Took over 6 years and millions of tax payer dollars. This is the way local and national government works - and you readers think that banks and CEOs are the bad guys?!!!
7
Why doesn't the Congress show the same fervor in fighting the Zika pandemic, cyber-terrorism, rebuilding infrastructure, or addressing climate change?
29
I guess they feel national security and government officials trying to hide public business are important issues.
3
I'm sure corrupt democrats would love their focusing on something else.
2
I don't care if Hillary hanged Mother Teresa in effigy, she is still better than Trump. I know this because I read the New York Times. /s
7
This is the second story of this nature. The first one was when Clinton Foundation donors lobbied a Clinton Dept. of State staffer for diplomatic passports - and then didn't get them. Now we have one where a DoS staffer tried to engage in some bureaucratic horse trading - and didn't trade any horses.
In other words - two stories about things that didn't happen. Why is this on the front page of the NYT?
In other words - two stories about things that didn't happen. Why is this on the front page of the NYT?
11
We read it here because the GOP black ops wing nuts fed it to the NYT, and the NYT now says it is "news" because the vast right wing conspiracy has dumped a load on the doorstep yet again. Before Hillary announced her candidacy, she polled as one of the most respected women in America. And then the right wing went to work to destroy her (again). Remember, the right has been trying to destroy the Clintons from the day Bill was elected in Little Rock. This is no longer "news" so the NYT does not feel the need to remind readers of the backstory. The right is still investigating Whitewater. Keep that in mind when you read another weirdly damaging story. As another reader has said, there is no story here. Nothing happened.
And anyway, who gets to say what's classified or what isn't? I would think the decision belongs to State. Where does the FBI, a domestic agency, get the idea that it can know what is or is not "classified," pertaining to State Department matters? What if State butted in to FBI emails and started judging the contents? Sounds like a turf war that has nothing to do with the Secretary of State.
And anyway, who gets to say what's classified or what isn't? I would think the decision belongs to State. Where does the FBI, a domestic agency, get the idea that it can know what is or is not "classified," pertaining to State Department matters? What if State butted in to FBI emails and started judging the contents? Sounds like a turf war that has nothing to do with the Secretary of State.
4
No we read this because your flawed candidate has baggage and lied about it. Or, doe snot recall it. Who has not been honest t the American people and won;t be honest when she is in office. Like, Nixon, her paranoia will catch up with her. It may cat ch up to before 8 November.
2
Agencies clashed! Okay, but where's the beef? The Times looks like nothing else but another one of Trump's top of the line mouthpieces with this nothing, nothing story.
10
Our Government is SO broken, at every level.
10
You mean "CORRUPT", from the White House, down to the local level; makes Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall, the New York entirely corrupt Democratic political machine of the 1850's, look like saint.
As a nation which pretends to observe the law, we are the laughing stock of the planet.
Maybe Congress, or some patriotic group, will do something and somehow or other get Bernie back in the saddle.
Time is not on our side.
As a nation which pretends to observe the law, we are the laughing stock of the planet.
Maybe Congress, or some patriotic group, will do something and somehow or other get Bernie back in the saddle.
Time is not on our side.
3
The fact that the Times would run this story instead of an expose into the unprecedented slop and immunity give away that was the so-called FBI investigation is all you need to know about the state of our government and media. HRC intentionally subverted civilian oversight and then she deleted thousands of her communications that were the property of the people and were under subpoena. Oh sure, she is totally innocent,....look, the Donald said something outrageous.
16
Dick Cheney deleted some 300,000 (!) e-mails. Where is the outrage? I assume many concerned the Iraq war and his company's financial gains from it. Explain.
12
The fact that these government agencies are fighting over what is and isn't classified to me illustrates that HRC did not violate clearly defined rules. And this level of mercurial in-fighting also shows why she was afraid of having her personal emails on the .gov account.
29
Ann, the rules are clearly defined. Hillary just believes that the rules are not made for her. She is above the rules, like any good narcissist. There is the infighting because some people are doing the right thing and bring this all to light. Then there are others who believe Hillary can do no wrong.
3
The fight was over clearly classified email about Benghazi, which the second person at State, Kennedy, asked to be declassified in view of the debacle. It's pretty clear!
3
What this tells me is that Hillary was using her undue influence as former secretary of state to pressure her former staff to back her up. I guess that's why I am a Trump fan and you're a Hillary fan though. We each have our opinions of who she is as a person!
6
I realize it is your responsibility to keep us informed about our people in government and certainly those who are running for office. That being said, is it possible to start toning it down when it comes to Secretary Clinton's private email server? Where does it get us to read about what I feel is irrelevant, or to glean out of the latest Wikileaks some form of "covert" or "insidious" actions coming from the Clinton team? This is conjecture, not fact. And you are just feeding into the vitriol spewed by Donald Trump. The point is, thank God, that no lasting harm - or any harm - was done to our national security. More harm is being done to our nation by Assange, who, in my estimation, is a person who is of the same ilk as Putin and Trump. That is not a compliment.
We Clinton supporters will not be swayed by this latest minutiae in the big scheme of things, nor will Trump's supporters stop in their quest to have their nominee be our next president - God forbid. Let the NY Times focus instead on Hillary Clinton's experience, stability, and smarts necessary to be a global leader. I and many others are disgusted with the tabloid-like reporting done for too long during this election season. It is time to report what really matters, Clinton's superior goals and plans to better this nation.
We Clinton supporters will not be swayed by this latest minutiae in the big scheme of things, nor will Trump's supporters stop in their quest to have their nominee be our next president - God forbid. Let the NY Times focus instead on Hillary Clinton's experience, stability, and smarts necessary to be a global leader. I and many others are disgusted with the tabloid-like reporting done for too long during this election season. It is time to report what really matters, Clinton's superior goals and plans to better this nation.
21
I found this article incredibly relevant and as I have yet to "drink the Hillary coolaid" I do appreciate being informed on issues such as this before casting my vote. This article, in my opinion, was toned down considering the gravity of its implications.
9
What are we to believe anymore? This article states two different scenarios: that it was the State Department that pressed for the declassification in one and in the very next paragraph it says the opposite. What I heard all day yesterday from the reporters on MSNBC was that it was the FBI who asked for the declassification, not state. Did the Times reporters read the documents? We already know that Republicans, who have not yet read the emails, are planning on holding hearings when they go back into session. As Bernie Sanders so eloquently said: "I'm getting sick of hearing about Hillary's damn emails." What kind of "good" journalism is this? Not very, I'd say.
15
While I agree we should wait for the facts, it wouldn't make much sense for the FBI to ask for the declassification and also for more staffing in Iraq. "Quid pro quo" would become "et hoc plus".
3
Indeed. A now-retured FBI agent, currently under review by the FBI, is alleged to have initiated this ostensible "quid pro quo."
So many articles of late unfairly critical of HRC, including one stoking the fires of the Bernie or Bust crowd with more ridiculous e mail chatter.
Please just send these writers to their rooms without supper and get them off the speculation and false equivalence behavior at which they have become so adept.
So many articles of late unfairly critical of HRC, including one stoking the fires of the Bernie or Bust crowd with more ridiculous e mail chatter.
Please just send these writers to their rooms without supper and get them off the speculation and false equivalence behavior at which they have become so adept.
3
I am amazed that the State Department and the FBI can't agree on what is classified. Isn't there one classification system throughout the government? If not, why not? So now we learn that unmarked information that one agency considers not classified and another agency considers classified is good practice? This is ridiculous.
Furthermore, this matter has been discussed and investigated ad nauseum, and I, for one, am sick of it. You can't prosecute someone on "she ought to have known," for heaven's sake, and you shouldn't prosecute anyone when even the agencies themselves can't agree on what is classified.
President Obama should set up a panel to review all agencies' classification rules and draft a policy that will be used in the entire federal government.
Furthermore, this matter has been discussed and investigated ad nauseum, and I, for one, am sick of it. You can't prosecute someone on "she ought to have known," for heaven's sake, and you shouldn't prosecute anyone when even the agencies themselves can't agree on what is classified.
President Obama should set up a panel to review all agencies' classification rules and draft a policy that will be used in the entire federal government.
36
That is exactly how it works, shayladane. Even within the IC, the exact same information/materials/tools/techniques are not necessarily classified the same way across agencies.
Most of the handwringing and abysmal media coverage has failed to reflect in any way the (absurd) realities, and that's reflected quite poorly on the Times and others.
Most of the handwringing and abysmal media coverage has failed to reflect in any way the (absurd) realities, and that's reflected quite poorly on the Times and others.
1
There is such a panel and it has been meeting for several years. The point not discussed is that the policies and procedures for challenging the classification of a document were not being followed.
3
Shayladane, although the government more or less uses a single set of classifications (unclassified, confidential, secret, top secret -- and please note the "more or less" qualification) the reason these kinds of arguments happen is that each department and agency is supposed to be expert in the information in possesses, and therefore best qualified to judge whether the public release of said information would be harmful to national security. You are witnessing the practical application of this theoretical notion.
5
Wow, those Trump people are desperate. They're trying to take a routine matter and make it look like some huge conspiracy.
The House Republicans who sent a letter to John Kerry know they are in big trouble with the American people, who are sick of their "do nothing but persecute the opposition" attitude.
Since they have no real ideas for governing and no ability to come up with legislation that would benefit the American people, all they do is waste our time with dubious "investigations" to distract attention from the fact that they have't done one single useful thing the entire time they've been in office.
Vote these bums out. The American people need to get rid of as many sitting Republicans as possible, so that government can start being useful again.
The House Republicans who sent a letter to John Kerry know they are in big trouble with the American people, who are sick of their "do nothing but persecute the opposition" attitude.
Since they have no real ideas for governing and no ability to come up with legislation that would benefit the American people, all they do is waste our time with dubious "investigations" to distract attention from the fact that they have't done one single useful thing the entire time they've been in office.
Vote these bums out. The American people need to get rid of as many sitting Republicans as possible, so that government can start being useful again.
12
Undersecretary Kennedy tried to get the FBI to alter the evidence against Hillary Clinton. That's attempted obstruction of justice.
8
A disagreement on what is classified between the FBI and DoS is a routine matter? I understand that you're a Hillary supporter but as an independent I don't think it's a big leap for the DoS to feel some pressure from its former boss Secretary Clinton.
6
@Brian Kunzig: Yes, it is a routine matter. No agencies have the same systems for determining what is classified and what is not, because each agency or department has different priorities. Each agency is allowed to classify documents according to its own discretion.
The State Department does an enormous amount of ordinary, everyday business, and the fact that the FBI saw the classification of this particular document as negotiable is simply more evidence that this was not a big deal in their eyes, either..
The document was also released, along with the others, and revealed nothing of any spectacular import. This is just another very transparent Republican attempt to pretend that something terrible happened, because they want to draw attention away from the fact that their presidential nominee is a thoroughly unqualified bigot utterly devoid of ideas.
The State Department does an enormous amount of ordinary, everyday business, and the fact that the FBI saw the classification of this particular document as negotiable is simply more evidence that this was not a big deal in their eyes, either..
The document was also released, along with the others, and revealed nothing of any spectacular import. This is just another very transparent Republican attempt to pretend that something terrible happened, because they want to draw attention away from the fact that their presidential nominee is a thoroughly unqualified bigot utterly devoid of ideas.
2
the F.B.I. concluded this summer that at least 110 emails had contained classified information, even if they had not been marked as such at the time... ok it seems like they change the speed limit from 70 to 50 and they can issue a ticket for all the times you drove that road at 65...
And that is supposed to make sense because????
And that is supposed to make sense because????
14
Some categories of information that has not yet been classified are supposed to be treated as classified until its release has been authorized. High-ranking agency officials frequently deal with secret or sensitive information before it has gone through the classification process. They know the rules.
8
The Clinton Foundation will be running the government in a month, so what's to worry?
18
I am not sure why the NYTimes is misrepresenting this situation with their bombastic headline - it has been widely reported already that
1) This was more about a federal agent acting on his own than any quid pro quo coming from the State department
2) The State department, no matter the administration, typically argue over how to classify communications on a regular basis
3) The email remained classified and whatever the federal agent wanted out of this non-deal he did not get
4) The FBI is doing their own internal investigation into this federal agent's actions anyway
I think Hillary should be held accountable for whatever wrong-doings she has committed, but could the NYTimes try in these last few weeks to avoid adopting and provoking more mass hysteria than already exists? At this rate, our entire country's blood pressure is about to go through the roof! We don't need any encouragement on false/misrepresented claims at this point.
1) This was more about a federal agent acting on his own than any quid pro quo coming from the State department
2) The State department, no matter the administration, typically argue over how to classify communications on a regular basis
3) The email remained classified and whatever the federal agent wanted out of this non-deal he did not get
4) The FBI is doing their own internal investigation into this federal agent's actions anyway
I think Hillary should be held accountable for whatever wrong-doings she has committed, but could the NYTimes try in these last few weeks to avoid adopting and provoking more mass hysteria than already exists? At this rate, our entire country's blood pressure is about to go through the roof! We don't need any encouragement on false/misrepresented claims at this point.
15
This first reason this matters is that but for Hillary being Hillary the FBI would have likely recommended charges against her. But for the fact that she is a big deal with lots of friends running for President, the FBI wouldn't have been cowed into their half-way strategy of being openly critical but not recommending charges. The second reason this matters, and probably the more important of the two, is that as much damage to Hillary needs to be done now to reduce any kind of political capital that she might have after winning the election.
9
Whoa, way to go, impugning the FBI, a federal agency! Just because you didn't get the result you wanted doesn't mean the agency is not professional and above board. The director is a Republican, you know.
4
When will this go away? It was settled by the investigation earlier in the year. She testified and there were no charges. This is just more mud racking. Trump needs something to complain about.
11
It won't go away until those who maintained her server do not have to take the 5th yo explain what really happened with a bunch of deleted e-mails. It won't go away until WikiLeaks releases the e-mails that are left. And, it won't go away until Ms. Clinton tells all in her equivalent of Nixon' "Checker's Speech".
3
It won't go away because the government and Hillary have not been forthcoming. After they declined to charge Clinton, we learn the State Department was actively trying to influence the investigation by working to get email classifications changed.
2
Clinton said she takes responsibility for the her email mistake. No she doesn't. She should reimburse the taxpayers for the cost of the FBI investigation for her deliberate decision not to use an official government email account and server.
12
What does this have to do with Sec. Clinton? Just asking.
7
Emails.
Benghazi.
Desperate Republicans need new lyrics. This song has dropped off the charts and nobody's listening anymore.
Benghazi.
Desperate Republicans need new lyrics. This song has dropped off the charts and nobody's listening anymore.
8
Each cabinet agency, and each branch of the military generates classifies documents according to its own rules. The FBI routinely disputes the methods they are using but has no power to compel them to apply the same standards.
Disputes over whether a document is misclassified have nothing to do with espionage and treason. Trumpists have invented a crime that does not exist under the law -- but one that would have been comfortably at home during the Reign of Terror.
Disputes over whether a document is misclassified have nothing to do with espionage and treason. Trumpists have invented a crime that does not exist under the law -- but one that would have been comfortably at home during the Reign of Terror.
12
"But she was forced to backtrack, as the F.B.I. concluded this summer that at least 110 emails had contained classified information, even if they had not been marked as such at the time." If the emails hadn't been marked as such some of the accusations are nonsense. Furthermore, it was the duty of the IT department associated with the State Department to ensure that the Secretary had secure email set up. Her name and her position should not have meant anything in terms of making certain that she was using a secure server. That they did not do this suggests that it was not a real issue at the time, or that they didn't care enough to enforce rules that were in place, or that this is a campaign issue for the GOP to harp on because they can't accuse her of anything else.
The real issues in this campaign are being overshadowed by Trump's constant stream of lies about everything. The debates aren't even real debates because he's all over the place. He talks about immigration like it's a threat to the country when it's not. Benghazi has been investigated to death by the GOP in hopes of finding some way to prosecute Clinton. All they've done is waste time and money.
Drop the email issue and start worrying about what is going to happen if Clinton wins and Trump refuses to concede the election or if his supporters riot. Or worse, what will happen if Trump wins because, as we've seen, he cannot be controlled or control himself.
The real issues in this campaign are being overshadowed by Trump's constant stream of lies about everything. The debates aren't even real debates because he's all over the place. He talks about immigration like it's a threat to the country when it's not. Benghazi has been investigated to death by the GOP in hopes of finding some way to prosecute Clinton. All they've done is waste time and money.
Drop the email issue and start worrying about what is going to happen if Clinton wins and Trump refuses to concede the election or if his supporters riot. Or worse, what will happen if Trump wins because, as we've seen, he cannot be controlled or control himself.
13
I have experience with DoD and State procedures for handling classified material. The difference between them is Venus and Mars. I do know that State's system can very easily trip up. Information overload is normal at State -- the volume of emails is extreme (Foreign Service Officers are a wordy bunch, very bureaucratic), what is classified is frequently ambiguous (comments about a foreign leader, a congressional delegation travel schedule, etc), certain events unfold quickly, and there's State's institutional bias toward openness.
I don't believe Secretary Clinton misused email any more that Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice. I've not seen reporting that addresses a couple of fundamental questions:
How many emails does any modern Secretary of State receive on a typical day? How many or unclassified, classified? Does the Secretary read every email, or are most screened by staff? Is every email from the Secretary drafted by the Secretary, or by staff? Given there are two communication channels, classified and unclassified, inevitably some communications initially considered unclassified are in retrospect deemed classified. How often does this happen?
I don't believe Secretary Clinton misused email any more that Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice. I've not seen reporting that addresses a couple of fundamental questions:
How many emails does any modern Secretary of State receive on a typical day? How many or unclassified, classified? Does the Secretary read every email, or are most screened by staff? Is every email from the Secretary drafted by the Secretary, or by staff? Given there are two communication channels, classified and unclassified, inevitably some communications initially considered unclassified are in retrospect deemed classified. How often does this happen?
60
NYT coverage of Clinton's crimes (or depending on your take, the Clintons' crimes) is absurd. NYT has become so much an active part of the Clinton campaign that any legit journalist or reader, would simply kick back and laugh at the idea that this is reporting. Here's a suggestion: how about your so-called print journalists declaring their party affiliation in the byline?
10
Why don't the republicans try something different - like governing! While they were in control of all three branches of government (bush) and now both the House and the Senate, all they could come up with is how to break the economy, undermine the constitution with an illegal war, declare war on our Bill of Rights, gerrymandering, insult women, minorities, people with disabilities and our collective intelligence, and transfer wealth from those who sew to those that only reap. Now they want to play the impeachment game again! I'm disgusted with the Grab Our Privates (GOP) party and their Nazi-leaning ilk.
6
Hillary Clinton is SO powerful she controlled the State Department 4 years after she left the Secretary of State office?
Wow, this is a giant nothing-burger.
Wow, this is a giant nothing-burger.
6
Hard to believe that Mr. Comey and therefore the FBI would do Anything to help/benefit/put in a good light Mrs. Clinton. There was no 'quid pro quo'. End of story.
4
Another non-story about a Clinton e-mail.
The right wing should have stopped at ACORN, their greatest phoniest "success."
The right wing should have stopped at ACORN, their greatest phoniest "success."
5
1. Every agency has been hacked, including the NSA. The flurry of "They1 said; they2 said" ignores the larger issue. How are we going to establish secure communications for the government and leaders? Do you really believe the Congressional committee members haven't done the same things?
2. Over classified? Sort of. For example, we have technical specs on foreign equipment. They are classified. In other words, the details of a Soviet tank are classified. One might guess the Soviets know their own tanks.
3. This sentence sort of summarizes one issue: "the F.B.I. concluded this summer that at least 110 emails had contained classified information, even if they had not been marked as such at the time."
4. I really don't care anymore about who shot who. Who believes anybody can read 66,000 emails and figure out 3 paragraphs were improperly marked or classified and figure out which unmarked ones were classified?
5. Dear hackers. Please be fair. Hack the Congressional subcommittee.
The real lesson learned is don't write anything you don't want to be seen on the front page of the NYT.
2. Over classified? Sort of. For example, we have technical specs on foreign equipment. They are classified. In other words, the details of a Soviet tank are classified. One might guess the Soviets know their own tanks.
3. This sentence sort of summarizes one issue: "the F.B.I. concluded this summer that at least 110 emails had contained classified information, even if they had not been marked as such at the time."
4. I really don't care anymore about who shot who. Who believes anybody can read 66,000 emails and figure out 3 paragraphs were improperly marked or classified and figure out which unmarked ones were classified?
5. Dear hackers. Please be fair. Hack the Congressional subcommittee.
The real lesson learned is don't write anything you don't want to be seen on the front page of the NYT.
5
So this happened in 2015. John Kerry was the Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton was not employed by the federal government. In a worst case smear, at the very moment this discussion took place Hillary Clinton was speaking in New York to Goldman Sachs for $250,000, just a stone's throw from where the discussion about her e-mail classification was taking place. She obviously knew nothing about this discussion. Will Mr. Trump now cast Patrick Kennedy as part of a vast conspiracy of federal government corruption? Will he claim that there was some mental telepathy between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy? His mindless ability to knit together completely unrelated facts into a fable of corruption, the finger of which points at Hillary Clinton, is never ending. And yes, it is deplorable that people believe it.
6
Ever rewriting facts and history, I wonder which government job President Hillary Clinton will have for her loyal acolyte Patrick F. Kennedy once she's in the White House. Hillary is famous for valuing loyalty above all else and Patrick F. Kennedy has earned quite a few loyalty chips to use in a new Clinton Administration.
9
You didn't read the article, did you? "The new documents also cast particular attention on the role of Mr. Kennedy, a State Department civil servant for more than four decades, in working to oversee the review and public release of tens of thousands of Mrs. Clinton’s private emails."
Mr. Kennedy is, therefore, an "acolyte" of a number of different presidents--from both parties.
Mr. Kennedy is, therefore, an "acolyte" of a number of different presidents--from both parties.
4
my biggest problem with this article is that's it's wrong. It's being reported as news and isn't accurate. Even the FBI said they were the ones to initiate the quid pro quo. You just give Bannon and Trump more things to lthrow at the wall and you are helping to make it stick by not being accurate. Trump doesn't mind lying but I'd think you would.
6
“in exchange for marking the email unclassified, State would reciprocate by allowing the F.B.I. to place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden”
Now that's what I call a strategy for National (and International) security. No wonder the U.S. is the laughing stock of the free world. Politics before principles.
Now that's what I call a strategy for National (and International) security. No wonder the U.S. is the laughing stock of the free world. Politics before principles.
6
"What remained unclear from the documents was whether it was Mr. Kennedy or an F.B.I. official who purportedly offered the “quid pro quo”: marking the email unclassified in exchange for the State Department’s approving the posting of more F.B.I. agents to Iraq."
The writers assume a fact that their very next line undercuts:
"Officials at both the F.B.I. and the State Department said Monday that no deal had been struck, or even offered, over the classification of Mrs. Clinton’s private emails."
Who "purports" this deal when each party says that it was never considered?
The writers assume a fact that their very next line undercuts:
"Officials at both the F.B.I. and the State Department said Monday that no deal had been struck, or even offered, over the classification of Mrs. Clinton’s private emails."
Who "purports" this deal when each party says that it was never considered?
5
The story that is emerging is how subjective and sloppy the secrecy system remains, even after Vietnam, Watergate, Oliver North and Contragate. It's not advancing technology, it is the fractured system of intelligence gathering and classification that is the root cause of this uproar over Sec. Clinton's emails. In this instance, it is a bureaucratic turf war.
6
It's incredible that the Trump Republicans can find 100 different ways to beat Secretary Clinton on the same emails scandal (an error she recognizes and has apologized for), and beat up the media for not giving equal coverage to the problems with the two campaigns and candidacies.
People, these two candidates are not the same...
On one side, you have the "damn emails", on the other you have a candidate who (1) hasn't released his tax returns; (2) is being supported by Russia through hacks of his political opponent; (3) has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault; (4) wants to deport 12 million immigrants; (5) has called for ban on entry of Muslims; (6) insulted disabled people; (7) engaged in sexist, misogynist, and racist comments; (8) ridiculed a war hero and attacked parents of Gold Star parents; (9) engaged in a twitter war with a former beauty queen; (10) attacked US democracy with unsubstantiated allegations of rigging without evidence; (11) advocated nuclear weapons for all and transforming NATO into a mafia operation ("pay for play"); (12) acknowledged paying politicians as a businessman (and receiving favors back in Trump U case not being prosecuted in FL)... one could list a dozen other scandals which Trump hasn't acknowledged or apologized for.
But, the Republicans would rather claim media foul on covering Trump's woes non-stop, as opposed to acknowledging the real scandal: their support for a candidate manifestly unfit for the office of President.
People, these two candidates are not the same...
On one side, you have the "damn emails", on the other you have a candidate who (1) hasn't released his tax returns; (2) is being supported by Russia through hacks of his political opponent; (3) has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault; (4) wants to deport 12 million immigrants; (5) has called for ban on entry of Muslims; (6) insulted disabled people; (7) engaged in sexist, misogynist, and racist comments; (8) ridiculed a war hero and attacked parents of Gold Star parents; (9) engaged in a twitter war with a former beauty queen; (10) attacked US democracy with unsubstantiated allegations of rigging without evidence; (11) advocated nuclear weapons for all and transforming NATO into a mafia operation ("pay for play"); (12) acknowledged paying politicians as a businessman (and receiving favors back in Trump U case not being prosecuted in FL)... one could list a dozen other scandals which Trump hasn't acknowledged or apologized for.
But, the Republicans would rather claim media foul on covering Trump's woes non-stop, as opposed to acknowledging the real scandal: their support for a candidate manifestly unfit for the office of President.
17
"Locker Room Talk"
15
Yeah, that's the same.
2
In other words, in reviewing the emails as part of their investigation, FBI wanted to classify some *retroactively*. This is what it's all about?
Ryan & Chaffetz know better--This is a bogus "scandal."
But I know how Donald must feel, because on this whole emails thing, the media is solidly against Clinton.
Ryan & Chaffetz know better--This is a bogus "scandal."
But I know how Donald must feel, because on this whole emails thing, the media is solidly against Clinton.
7
NY Times, Please stop. If you can't find any real dirt on Secretary Clinton to equal the salaciousness of Trump, then at least talk about her policies instead of just making up news. There is no news here. The FBI and ALL OTHER federal agencies clash constantly over issues like these. A document is not classified until it is classified by a human being or a group of human beings making a subjective decision. Document classification is done differently by each organization. In a case like this, there are bound to be disagreements. It doesn't mean there is some big political conspiracy. Secretary Clinton is most likely going to be our next president. I want to know about her policies.
9
Or at least talk about the transcripts that now make it explicitly clear just who this woman represents. Give me a W A L L S T R E E T. What's it spell. What's it spell.
9
I find it strange that the FBI should have a voice in the classification of State Department emails. It is not their job to oversee or even influence the work of other government departments. They have, been asked to review Mrs Clinton's use of a private server, and have found that no law was broken.
The FBI Director stepped out of line when he went to Congress and gave his opinion that Mrs. Clinton had acted recklessly. It reeked of a political attack. He is supposed to investigate potentially criminal activities and gather evidence for prosecutes to evaluate. his opinions are not appropriate for public discourse, or even for testimony at trial; he should deal only in factual evidence.
Mr. Comey appears to have a touch of J. Edgar Hoovers trumpist attitudes.
The FBI Director stepped out of line when he went to Congress and gave his opinion that Mrs. Clinton had acted recklessly. It reeked of a political attack. He is supposed to investigate potentially criminal activities and gather evidence for prosecutes to evaluate. his opinions are not appropriate for public discourse, or even for testimony at trial; he should deal only in factual evidence.
Mr. Comey appears to have a touch of J. Edgar Hoovers trumpist attitudes.
10
Once again we are ill served by a media that is spinelessly responding to Republican pressure, by ignoring the facts,and trying to avoid the "rigged election charge". Hillary Clinton had no connection whatsoever, with the alleged "pro quid quo". In addition, Obama's executive order 13526 gave the Vice President and over 20 individuals the power to classify documents. Differences of opinion over classifications that are not obviously fundamental to U.S. National security, are not that unusual, because of their subjective nature. Republicans know this, but are about using whatever it takes including lying, hyperbole, and distortion, to manipulate an American public uninformed about the classification process, and to skew the facts to validate Republican demonizations and dogma.
7
Now...WHY is this a story on the front page again? Oh, false equivalence again rears its head.
7
So many comments to ignore these facts and move!
Why so much fear in these comments???
Why have so many of Hillary's "people" plead the 5th instead of talking?
You do not plead the 5th unless you've got something to hide!
Why were so many of Hillary devices crushed with a hammer, according to the FBI?
I know, move along from this too...
Why so much fear in these comments???
Why have so many of Hillary's "people" plead the 5th instead of talking?
You do not plead the 5th unless you've got something to hide!
Why were so many of Hillary devices crushed with a hammer, according to the FBI?
I know, move along from this too...
16
Ok--let's be fair: this is not right. We should not have a discussion of quid pro quo when something is being investigated. Even if they recognized they were being subjected to a witch hunt, in no way should this have been even bandied about.
But let's keep it in perspective, shall we?
If Hillary Clinton was running against, say, Kasich or Romney, then I would be happy to engage in a discussion about the responsibility of leaders to manage ethical organizations ALL THE TIME. I could talk about how discrediting this lapse was--how it reflects on the organizational culture blah blah blah.
.....but we are NOT facing off Mitt Romney or John Kasich. Those two fine men are outliers in an otherwise crooked Republican party. A party that has traded on misinformation, propaganda and countless of witch hunts agains their political opponents all the while ignoring REAL scandals such as:
1. Going to war over WMDs
2. The outing of Valerie Plame as retribution for Joe Wilson exposing the lies that led to war
3. The coverup of Pat Tillmans death
4. The lies around Jessica Lynch
Those are a just few thing that should have outraged PATRIOTS and not just partisan hacks.
More recently we have one of Trump's BFFs, Chris Christie, CLOSING DOWN A DAMN BRIDGE to even a score.
.....and the biggest red herring of them all: Donald Trump. Proven liar, charlatan, rule breaker, con man, thief, dead beat, non-tax paying scam artists.
Sorry, right, try again.
But let's keep it in perspective, shall we?
If Hillary Clinton was running against, say, Kasich or Romney, then I would be happy to engage in a discussion about the responsibility of leaders to manage ethical organizations ALL THE TIME. I could talk about how discrediting this lapse was--how it reflects on the organizational culture blah blah blah.
.....but we are NOT facing off Mitt Romney or John Kasich. Those two fine men are outliers in an otherwise crooked Republican party. A party that has traded on misinformation, propaganda and countless of witch hunts agains their political opponents all the while ignoring REAL scandals such as:
1. Going to war over WMDs
2. The outing of Valerie Plame as retribution for Joe Wilson exposing the lies that led to war
3. The coverup of Pat Tillmans death
4. The lies around Jessica Lynch
Those are a just few thing that should have outraged PATRIOTS and not just partisan hacks.
More recently we have one of Trump's BFFs, Chris Christie, CLOSING DOWN A DAMN BRIDGE to even a score.
.....and the biggest red herring of them all: Donald Trump. Proven liar, charlatan, rule breaker, con man, thief, dead beat, non-tax paying scam artists.
Sorry, right, try again.
3
Only in the Hillaryland conjured by the New York Times is this front page news. Let's see: the FBI investigates the State Department and the State Department does not let itself get pushed around by the FBI on the question of which communications are classified and which are not. And this is, by innuendo, another 'cloud' that's 'shadowing' the Clinton campaign, even though she had nothing to do with any of this, and even though every single department of state is routinely involved in turf struggles with other departments? And all of this is still news after the FBI admitted that the facts of Hillary/private server case do not come within a million miles of prosecutable? Why isn't the story written in terms that are actually relevant and accurate? How about: the correspondence between the FBI and the State department undermines the Trump allegations that the FBI investigation into the Clinton was 'rigged.'
7
This article is another example of how far reporting at the NYT has fallen. Sad, just plain sad.
3
Why? Because it chose to report a negative story abut Hillary Clinton? In a newspaper which has been like 10 - 1 reporting negative Trump and Sanders articles? That Clinton is so perfect, that only good press can be written? Iis that her White House, that only good news be reported, or face being banned from press conferences? Yes folks, I am looking forward to the Hillary and Bill Show part II.
13
WRONG.
IF you bother to read the redacted item, it is clear that the FBI approached the State Department.
Not the other way around. Nothing was exchanged....ergo, No Quid Pro Quo
IF you bother to read the redacted item, it is clear that the FBI approached the State Department.
Not the other way around. Nothing was exchanged....ergo, No Quid Pro Quo
6
I'm so tired of people (i.e., many of those commenting on this article) blaming the media for doing nothing more than reporting the news. Whether you like the content or not, whether it supports your candidate or not -- it's news. An informed electorate safeguards our democracy, and the press is there to keep the electorate informed. Even biased outlets like Fox News and MSNBC provide that service, albeit less objectively than the Times. The Times may be perceived as left-leaning, but clearly this article is not representative of that.
Get the info, take it with a grain of salt, be analytical, make up your own mind, and stop blaming the media for doing what the US Constitution put in place for the common good.
Get the info, take it with a grain of salt, be analytical, make up your own mind, and stop blaming the media for doing what the US Constitution put in place for the common good.
28
I don't believe people object to reporting the news. I believe what you're seeing in the comments is pushback from people with even just a glimmer of understanding of how these systems work, decrying the obvious lack of comprehension that's reflected in the reporting. If you don't understand what you're writing about, you fundamentally can't convey an even semi-accurate picture to your readers.
2
Other news organizations including the WaPo, were about 24 hours ahead of the NYT reporting this story.
3
WikLeaks keeps dropping small bomblets on the Clinton e-mails. The Clinton supports keep harping on the Russians, and the like. But, they forget, that if Clinton played by the rules, and did not have a private e-mail server, there would be no e-mails to hack. As for the DNC, and the Clinton campaign, if they were not so bent on getting Clinton elected, and trying to sabotage the electoral process, there would be nothing worth releasing from a hack. If nothing else, released e-mails and speech transcripts, continue to bring forward the real Hillary Clinton. In politics, it is like making sausage; and it isn't pretty (her own words). And, these words will haunt her.
Unless a total disaster hits, Clinton will be the next president; her baggage and Bill's with it. She will be under the media microscope. She will be under a Congressional microscope. And, the court of public opinion, of the 50+% of the voters who did not voter for her. And, all of them will be looking for anything that spells scandal and lies.
Clinton will be the most watched president in American history. Because, again, over 60% of America does not trust her or will respect her. She will have to prove to American that she can be trusted, honest and open. Something, so far, she has not been able, or willing, to do.
Unless a total disaster hits, Clinton will be the next president; her baggage and Bill's with it. She will be under the media microscope. She will be under a Congressional microscope. And, the court of public opinion, of the 50+% of the voters who did not voter for her. And, all of them will be looking for anything that spells scandal and lies.
Clinton will be the most watched president in American history. Because, again, over 60% of America does not trust her or will respect her. She will have to prove to American that she can be trusted, honest and open. Something, so far, she has not been able, or willing, to do.
17
She's already under the microscope and laws and regulations aren't enforced now. Once she is in power people won't even bother to say she has violated the law.
3
All the media has to say is the magic words: eMail-Hack and everyone bundles the whole thing together as Hillary's eMail problem-- or crime, depending on how you are trying to spin it.
You & everyone else have confused the recent Hacks of the DNC & Hillary's Campaign with Hillary's private server use while Secretary of State. There has been NO Hacking of Hillary's server. Those eMails were the one turned over to the FBI. So far we haven't heard anything that amounts to anything from her server eMails.
In fact, so far it seems the safest place for eMails is on Hillary's private server.
You & everyone else have confused the recent Hacks of the DNC & Hillary's Campaign with Hillary's private server use while Secretary of State. There has been NO Hacking of Hillary's server. Those eMails were the one turned over to the FBI. So far we haven't heard anything that amounts to anything from her server eMails.
In fact, so far it seems the safest place for eMails is on Hillary's private server.
1
Y.Ellen, and guess what, we do not know that either. The people who maintained her server took the 5th. Clinton won't protect them from prosecution.
2
Here we go... Once Clinton is in office, expect NON-STOP investigations into absolutely nothing. We wonder why she has such a trust deficit? This so-called smoking gun doesn't even involve her directly and the facts around it are murky at best. But that won't stop the GOP-controlled House from having 950 investigations into it at a cost of millions per investigation.
Vote in the Democrats, if for nothing else, to preserve our sanity as a nation and to let Clinton get on with actual business of governing our country.
Vote in the Democrats, if for nothing else, to preserve our sanity as a nation and to let Clinton get on with actual business of governing our country.
11
Read about a dozen comments and had to stop - its amazing how you're ignoring the corruption that the Clinton's have been fueling for all of there lives - take my word - Trump is no Ronald Reagan (and I'm sure most of the Times readers despise Reagan as well), but you should be praising Trump, as it wasn't for him, there's no way Hillary wins this election against Kasich or Rubio
10
If it was not for the RNC and for Republican voters, Mr Trump would not be on the ballot, so it is the republican voters and the RNC that we Democrats sincerely thank, not the real estate mogul
4
I get that some of HRC's activities appear to not be above board, but after years of investigations and millions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of man hours poured into this, no smoking gun has been discovered. At this point I'm so email fatigued that even if wiki leaks released and email from Hillary stating she was the Zodiac Killer, it wouldn't even register.
Furthermore, the sheer hypocrisy of all these investigations is starting to inure me to all attacks on Clinton. Wouldn't it be great if from now on, anyone who wanted to investigate Clinton's emails had to release all of their emails as well? I have a strong suspicion that everything she's done that looks shady is pretty commonplace.
Furthermore, the sheer hypocrisy of all these investigations is starting to inure me to all attacks on Clinton. Wouldn't it be great if from now on, anyone who wanted to investigate Clinton's emails had to release all of their emails as well? I have a strong suspicion that everything she's done that looks shady is pretty commonplace.
7
Someone made a great analogy, Clinton is like the minority person who drives into the fancy neighborhood and who repeatedly gets pulled over by the Republican police but is never found guilty but has to endure lectures and warnings.
7
Its more like she is the minority that just robbed a house in the wealthy neighborhood for the 5th time , she has been on the police radar for years but her lawyers have claimed that the racist police are picking on her because she is a minority . Open your eyes . This is not a pro Trump response , this is a wake up call , stop hitting the snooze button .
5
If the spin from each side of the aisle about this private server and email issue were put to music, hands down, it would have to be the 1969 hit "Dizzy" by Tommy Roe.
1
It speaks volumes about the sorry state of affairs in Washington when the issue of classification of official documents containing sensitive information like national security also depend on the whims and convenience of certain officials rather follow a well laid down protocol under something like the state secrets legislation. The disclosure of the differences between the state department and the FBI on the question of classification/declassification of the Benghazi operation orders during Harry Clinton's tenure as the Secretary of State instead of shedding light on the issue rather complicates and mystifies the whole Clinton email saga.
6
It is important to recognize that the secrecy classification is not a science. It is an assessment of the importance that the information may have for potential enemies. This assessment is made by individuals possessing no absolute wisdom or knowledge and as such is susceptible to questioning. As we well know, secrecy agencies would likely classify the recipe for apple pie in case the knowledge of the yield in the orchards of the state of Washington might indicate a weakness in the US economy. There is constant discussion even within the agency on the necessity of labeling the degree of classification or even if it should be. So, any discussion at this time is par for the course. As far as we are concerned, we have to decide whether we give these ghosts the power to retain information from us. God knows that there are enough things kept from us, without adding more to it.
8
Except programs like the drone program which are not recognized (or at least weren't then) as being a US program. It is my understanding that everything that references the drone program is classified - even if it contains no information of value to another government.
2
@Karen. I presume that the people who are the recipients of these gifts from the sky know about them and therefore become known to other people. It reminds of corporations paying a large fine for damage done without admitting guilt. In this case, we are not assuming responsibility for our drones.
I find it very strange because the drones are talked about in foreign media, so it's no secret. But I think it is what caused many of Clinton's emails to be later classified, even when they may not have contained any real or damaging information. (see WSJ article "Emails in Clinton Probe Dealt with Planned Drone Strikes"). The state department was brought in to approve the CIA drone strikes, but sometimes because of time issues, approval emails had to be sent "low-side" (off the classified system and w/o any damaging information in them). I guess certain Republicans think they should have skipped going for those targets so that they wouldn't break protocol. It's a crazy and sad world we live in.
There is nothing there. Politics as usual. Let's move on.
28
Yes, much ado about nothing.
1
No one, and I mean no one, is going to change their vote at this point due to yet another e-mail scandal 'revelation.' You can only cry wolf so many times. They would have to find an email in which Clinton confesses to drinking the blood of children, and even then, I still might consider her to be less of a threat to our Democracy than Trump.
121
I know you would. And that's the problem.
3
Pointing out mass violation of our laws and the attempts to cover it up is "crying wolf" to you. Thank you for admitting that your mind is completely closed to the possibility that a criminal Clinton who is extremely careless (grossly negligent) in the handling of classified material, who uses a non-secure Blackberry in Russia (handing the Russians her password), and who obstructs justice on a scale that dwarfs the Nixon administration could be a greater threat to Democracy than the vulgarian used-car salesman.
5
This is really "much ado about nothing!" Hillary had nothing to do with it as you note late in the article. Nothing was changed: the email remained classified, and no additional FBI agents were allowed to be posted abroad. And, according to other news sources the State Department had nothing to do with the "quid pro quo:" that came from the FBI. Isn't finally time to move beyond the Clinton emails? There's nothing there.
17
When the media jumps on Hillary for this latest incident, they neglect to emphasize that Hillary was not part of this exchange that it occurred last year. When presented without making this information obvious, the reader or media viewer thinks she was directly involved in this incident during her term as Secretary of State.
If the media continues to put out this information with innuendo that she was involved, they contribute to undermining the legitimacy of the presidency and encourage continued divisiveness in our country.
If the media continues to put out this information with innuendo that she was involved, they contribute to undermining the legitimacy of the presidency and encourage continued divisiveness in our country.
25
All the evidence that we can see suggests that this is how government works. Back-room deals made by the rich and powerful are what got us where we are: a system of government where Wall Street has pretty much vanquished the claims of Main Street.
"This is how it's done" is no excuse, or it should not be, especially for Democrats/progressives. If we don't have one party that stands against this kind of thing, then we're doomed to an ever-lowering standard of living.
Donald Trump may be one of the most odious politicial figures we have ever seen, but he is not 100% wrong. He is right about this looking like a cover-up.
The Clinton emails show that it's going to be business as usual after she is elected.
In this Interview from Now This News, Bernie Sanders talks about what is super important: the day after Clinton becomes president. He plans to introduce legislation to enact the progressive elements in the Democratic platform.
When told that people don't trust Clinton, Sanders said, "OK. In that case they're going to have to work with me to make sure that happens. This is not trust...It is the opposite of what I'm saying to say, 'Oh, sit back, elect Clinton, and then trust'. No. Mobilize. Educate. Fight."
This Sanders interview is the first hopeful thing I have seen in a long time.
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/788383153681424384
"This is how it's done" is no excuse, or it should not be, especially for Democrats/progressives. If we don't have one party that stands against this kind of thing, then we're doomed to an ever-lowering standard of living.
Donald Trump may be one of the most odious politicial figures we have ever seen, but he is not 100% wrong. He is right about this looking like a cover-up.
The Clinton emails show that it's going to be business as usual after she is elected.
In this Interview from Now This News, Bernie Sanders talks about what is super important: the day after Clinton becomes president. He plans to introduce legislation to enact the progressive elements in the Democratic platform.
When told that people don't trust Clinton, Sanders said, "OK. In that case they're going to have to work with me to make sure that happens. This is not trust...It is the opposite of what I'm saying to say, 'Oh, sit back, elect Clinton, and then trust'. No. Mobilize. Educate. Fight."
This Sanders interview is the first hopeful thing I have seen in a long time.
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/788383153681424384
6
Shouldn't the words "after the fact" be part of the title here?
20
Regarding Hillary Clinton, this story is so six-degrees-of-separation and he-said-she-said it makes my head hurt.
A State Department official, originally appointed by George W. Bush, may or may not have discussed a quid-pro-quo about an email classification three years after Hillary Clinton left the State Department, according to contradicting heresay accounts from unnamed internal sources. The officer has since left the FBI, and whatever quid-pro-quo there may or may not have been never came to fruition.
But I guess it contained the word "Benghazi" so let's all get ready to gear up for another round of taxpayer money-wasting, partisan Congressional hearings.
A State Department official, originally appointed by George W. Bush, may or may not have discussed a quid-pro-quo about an email classification three years after Hillary Clinton left the State Department, according to contradicting heresay accounts from unnamed internal sources. The officer has since left the FBI, and whatever quid-pro-quo there may or may not have been never came to fruition.
But I guess it contained the word "Benghazi" so let's all get ready to gear up for another round of taxpayer money-wasting, partisan Congressional hearings.
49
Can we sue Chaffetz when he tries to use taxpayer dollars for his "four hearings" (when?) he says Congress is going to conduct over this non-issue?
2
"Officials at both the F.B.I. and the State Department said Monday that no deal had been struck, or even offered, over the classification of Mrs. Clinton’s private emails."
So in other words, nothing. Nada. Zilch to report except of course it's so much FUN to make up articles that imply wrong doing.
So in other words, nothing. Nada. Zilch to report except of course it's so much FUN to make up articles that imply wrong doing.
39
You should check your facts before writing a story. You are getting more Trumpian every day. The real story in emails is that Russia is using them to influence our election for trump. That is what should be in the headlines everyday.
Steve Bannon, Rober Mercer and Bossi's backgrounds should be in the news every day. They are using the big lie technique and you are helping them. Tell a lie 3 times and people start thinking it's true. This info doesn't belong in opinion columns. It is news.
Steve Bannon, Rober Mercer and Bossi's backgrounds should be in the news every day. They are using the big lie technique and you are helping them. Tell a lie 3 times and people start thinking it's true. This info doesn't belong in opinion columns. It is news.
21
Another non story required today by the MSM to demonstrate what Prof. Krugman calls "extreme centrism."
If you say something bad about X you must say something bad about Y even if it isn't bad so that you are not charged by the right with "liberal media bias."
No wonder Hillary is viewed as untrustworthy; how can you defend yourself from decades of non-malfeasance reported as the opposite?
She is the only political figure who must forever prove she didn't do it.
If you say something bad about X you must say something bad about Y even if it isn't bad so that you are not charged by the right with "liberal media bias."
No wonder Hillary is viewed as untrustworthy; how can you defend yourself from decades of non-malfeasance reported as the opposite?
She is the only political figure who must forever prove she didn't do it.
61
The problem is that she fails to prove she didn't do it and, in fact, did it, but never, ever suffers any consequences. Or maybe you're right: she is pure as the driven snow.
3
Washington politics regularly operates on quid pro quo. The fact that the FBI offered this option to the State Department infers that this is inter-agency "business as usual". The fact that it was not acted upon is only fortunate for the candidate.
Thanks, Paul.
I think it's called misogyny.
I think it's called misogyny.
Are you reporting on documents that are verified not to be fakes? And if verified to be real...it show not tremendously surprising or disturbing news. All candidates make mistakes and have flaws...a few are just monstrous disasters waiting to happen...e.i. the orange one and several of his cohorts, including Giuliani, Ailes, et al.
6
Anyone who ever has held a security clearance knows that lots of material can be classified that shouldn't be. Anyone who has worked for the defense agencies knows that classification battles happen, long after the subject of the material no longer matters or is in the public domain. I am waiting for media to consult someone knowledgeable to learn how manifestly irrelevant this is.
24
Let me get this straight: we're suppose to believe that the plan behind this so-called "cover-up" was to UN-classify an email? That, had the FBI agreed with the State Department under secretary, the email would have been released completely unredacted? I mean, come on, use some common sense. What kind of cover-up wants to expose MORE documents? On its face, the notion the State Department was trying to bury the email defies common sense. The reporting on this is so focused on the allegation of a "quid pro quo" that it's completely missed the forest for the trees, i.e. the alleged scheme makes no sense.
19
Your article states it is unclear from the documents who offered the quid pro quo. The FBI states "An unnamed FBI employee alleged that a senior State Department official, Patrick Kennedy, had offered a "quid pro quo" to settle a dispute over the classification of one email." That seems pretty clear to me!
6
Watergate has just been surpassed. Total breakdown of the system at the highest levels to say HRC knew nothing about that is a stretch too far. This paper should also review the Veritas tapes and report on that.
7
We all know the news media - yes, even the NYTimes - wants to keep this election tight and tense by continuing to fan the flames of controversy, even when there's nothing to report. The last line of the first paragraph is prime example: "...including a discussion of a possible “quid pro quo” to settle one dispute."
Notice to NYTimes: There's no story here. In the end, nothing happened. No quid pro quo was ever agreed to or even offered. There was no quid pro quo. The fact that people at two different agencies had different views about classification of emails and entertained possible ways to resolve disputes is not and should not be controversial. It happens all the time. You guys are trying to create news when this is a nothing story. More to the point, what does this have to do with Hillary? This "discussion" happened long after she had left the State Department. She wasn't there anymore. It had NOTHING to do with her.
Please, NYTimes, please focus on actual news and not artificial, made up controversies.
Notice to NYTimes: There's no story here. In the end, nothing happened. No quid pro quo was ever agreed to or even offered. There was no quid pro quo. The fact that people at two different agencies had different views about classification of emails and entertained possible ways to resolve disputes is not and should not be controversial. It happens all the time. You guys are trying to create news when this is a nothing story. More to the point, what does this have to do with Hillary? This "discussion" happened long after she had left the State Department. She wasn't there anymore. It had NOTHING to do with her.
Please, NYTimes, please focus on actual news and not artificial, made up controversies.
10
Each new piece of evidence is not much more than an ideological Rorschach. People need to understand the implications of their own choice to view this situation as clear cut, free of nuances, the moral prism through which one color is selected out as though no others were present. This situation is complex, and people need to wrestle with the idea that accepting what we know and certainly what we don't know, is more virtuous than picking a side that simplifies our ability to make a judgment. We must resist our temptation to construct our own moral superiority by selecting our own reality because reality refuses to be simplified. If we are going to predict our own future better, we cannot rest assured in our own distortion fields. We can only look at the information given and refuse to let ourselves make it simple.
2
While she has many strengths as a public servant, Hilary Clinton is a seriously terrible presidential candidate and her penchant for secrecy and stonewalling is one reason why.
She's darn lucky she drew a matchup with Trump because Rubio any number of generic inoffensive Republican nominees would probably be up 3-5 points right now
She's darn lucky she drew a matchup with Trump because Rubio any number of generic inoffensive Republican nominees would probably be up 3-5 points right now
8
This country will never knowingly have elected such a corrupt and dishonest person to the WH since Nixon--and possibly not even then. Everyone learned from Watergate that to survive a scandal the easiest thing to do is to destroy evidence and then lie, lie lie--and continue to deflect until the prosecution starts to look bad. Eventually people get tired of hearing the accusations without the "smoking gun." Well, in her case, you will never see a smoking gun because she and her cohorts are too smart for that. She will continue to run down the clock, destroy evidence, claim that something is "old news," and use her prodigious legal powers--and the loyal powers that be in DC--to rise above it all. She's going to win, plain and simple. No sentient person in the universe can possibly regard Trump a better choice, but this year's nightmare scenario is not going to be ameliorated or made relatively better by the lesser of two evils. She's gotten virtually everywhere on carpetbagging and using her husband's name (and then rejecting his legacy only when it was expedient to do so). Trump is unthinkable--but nobody should ever attempt to convince me that I'm meant to be enthused about this person, who hasn't any principles or sense of right and wrong. Her defenders among this board have no credibility. She's a lightning rod for a very good reason: she doesn't care and she has never had to. People hate her accusers more than they hate her disregard for the law.
3
Bill:
You have captured it perfectly. I would only disagree with one point. Trump is not unthinkable. He's just really hard to imagine. What's unthinkable to me is electing a criminal like Hillary Clinton. The thought of what she'll do to this country is sickening. Look at where we are, and she hasn't even begun to use her power.
You have captured it perfectly. I would only disagree with one point. Trump is not unthinkable. He's just really hard to imagine. What's unthinkable to me is electing a criminal like Hillary Clinton. The thought of what she'll do to this country is sickening. Look at where we are, and she hasn't even begun to use her power.
1
And the liberals get all indignant at the "lock her up" chants. The chants are well deserved.
11
Liberals want to see people tried before they are locked up. We chalk it up to a little old thing called The Constitution. But rest assured that those of us liberals who have access to reliable information (usually leaked on the Internet, and rarely reported in the mainstream media) have long since concluded that Hillary Clinton is unfit for public office. We're just on the fence about what to do with that knowledge on election day.
2
Surprised Hillary's campaign gave the NY Times permission to run this article.
14
Last night on the news they debunked that theory that Kennedy offered quid pro quo. Even the FBI said it was them who offered the deal so when are you guys going to catch up instead of reporting misleading stories and headlines?
17
THIS whole HRC email Saga is a "Total Distraction" as my Analysis of the Polls suggests that she will end up with 53-55% of the Popular Vote or the "ONLY Poll That Counts, The Final Vote".
AND here is why, Gender and Race:
I. 55% of the Voters are Non-White;
II. 53% of Voters are Women.
AND She is beating Trump 2:1 with both.
MY analysis suggests that HRC will get 66% of the Non-White Vote or 36%; 50% of the White Female Vote or 12%; and 25% of White Male Vote or 5% with a total of (36+12+5=53).
THIS would be a Base for HRC on Election Day with Trump around 38-40% and the two other Candidates 7-9%.
AND the reason the Polls do not capture the above is the Composition of their Samples that do NOT correspond to "Realities On The Ground" as it relates to Gender and Race.
AND here is why, Gender and Race:
I. 55% of the Voters are Non-White;
II. 53% of Voters are Women.
AND She is beating Trump 2:1 with both.
MY analysis suggests that HRC will get 66% of the Non-White Vote or 36%; 50% of the White Female Vote or 12%; and 25% of White Male Vote or 5% with a total of (36+12+5=53).
THIS would be a Base for HRC on Election Day with Trump around 38-40% and the two other Candidates 7-9%.
AND the reason the Polls do not capture the above is the Composition of their Samples that do NOT correspond to "Realities On The Ground" as it relates to Gender and Race.
4
As with most US elections, 56% - 44% is reserved for candidates like Obama, Nixon, GHW Bush and Reagan. Clinton has no where near the popularity. Neither Trump or Clinton will get above 50% of the vote. And in that vote, Clinton and Trump will be nearly tied. She will win the Electoral College, but not exceed 290 EV. Utah and Vermont looks like they will go third party. It may even be closer than that. Congress will remain in GOP hands; though the Democrats will gain a few Senate seats.
In the end, we will get a president that did not win more than 50% of the popular vote. This will result in push for elimination of the Electoral College and force the demand for direct vote for president. Such a change will force candidates to campaign in all 50 states, and not just a handful. This may be the only good that comes out of this election.
Hopefully, if Congress,a nd the public, force a new Constitutional amendment, that government funding of presidential elections are included. As the Clinton and Trump campaigns are a perfect example of how unfettered money, and lust for power, corrpt teh election process.
In the end, we will get a president that did not win more than 50% of the popular vote. This will result in push for elimination of the Electoral College and force the demand for direct vote for president. Such a change will force candidates to campaign in all 50 states, and not just a handful. This may be the only good that comes out of this election.
Hopefully, if Congress,a nd the public, force a new Constitutional amendment, that government funding of presidential elections are included. As the Clinton and Trump campaigns are a perfect example of how unfettered money, and lust for power, corrpt teh election process.
1
I Disagree as Historical Data do NOT apply here in the presence of "Two Statistically Significant Biases", namely Gender and Race and HRC Owns the Upside on Both.
AND the reason the Polls do not reflect the reality on the ground is that their Samples do not "Capture the Gender and Race Biases" and the Pollsters do not Normalize the Data as when the Composition of the Respondents in the Samples "Correlate" with the said Biases, you see them moving above 50% (Please see the Upshot of today).
SO the Challenge for HRC Camp is to: "Get The Vote out"!
Stay Tuned.
AND the reason the Polls do not reflect the reality on the ground is that their Samples do not "Capture the Gender and Race Biases" and the Pollsters do not Normalize the Data as when the Composition of the Respondents in the Samples "Correlate" with the said Biases, you see them moving above 50% (Please see the Upshot of today).
SO the Challenge for HRC Camp is to: "Get The Vote out"!
Stay Tuned.
The content of these emails actually torpedo the sensational effect Ryan and Trump try to give it. It was the FBI employee who, in what is apparently common in Washington, proposed a quid pro quo - which actually didn't even occur as the document remained marked classified.
So what does this have to do with Hillary Clinton?
Nothing.
But the greater threat to our democracy in all of this remains the Russian state sponsored hacking of one of our major political parties, using WikiLeaks and its rapist leader as vessels to try and influence our Presidential election. And the GOP is cheering it on to their own shame.
They call themselves patriots - they are really treasonous.
So what does this have to do with Hillary Clinton?
Nothing.
But the greater threat to our democracy in all of this remains the Russian state sponsored hacking of one of our major political parties, using WikiLeaks and its rapist leader as vessels to try and influence our Presidential election. And the GOP is cheering it on to their own shame.
They call themselves patriots - they are really treasonous.
18
Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy obviously was trying to protect his boss, Hillary Clinton, from criminal prosecution for mishandling classified information by altering the evidence against her. If partisan politics were not involved, Kennedy would be charged with obstruction of justice. The Times notes that "there is no indication that Mrs. Clinton was aware of the discussion," but there is no shortage of email evidence that Clinton's State Department subordinates engaged in a coordinated coverup and damage control effort.
10
With the Trump campaign imploding with a steady stream of (mostly self-inflicted) wounds, Hillary is going to win this election by a landslide. After that, if anyone thinks this and other deeply troubling actions by the Clintons are going to "go away," they are sadly mistaken. We'll be reading about more revelations for months to come. And to think I was looking forward to this election being "over."
1
It certainly is deeply troubling that the relentless scrutiny and distortions by the right will be self-fulfilling: "Do you really want someone as president who will be endlessly harassed [by us] ?"
Two substantial wins by Obama and a landslide by Clinton won't move the right off their playbook of attempting to delegitimize Democratic presidents. I wouldn't worry about it. It's not because of Hillary. It would be the same with any Democrat.
Two substantial wins by Obama and a landslide by Clinton won't move the right off their playbook of attempting to delegitimize Democratic presidents. I wouldn't worry about it. It's not because of Hillary. It would be the same with any Democrat.
3
The real news that the Times and other major oulets is the media pickup and promotion of Trump's maniacal ravings that Clinton was involved in this quid pro quo that an FBI agent sought and that her State dept. rejected. The more interesting question now is whether Comey's opinion of Clinton's email are actually revenge that the State Dept would not buckle to the FBI's quid pro quo demand. In any case, I am waiting to see which outlet actually has the courage to call Trump what he is - as unhinged as Hitler, Mussolini and Kim Jong Un - and as dangerous to democracy and liberty.
13
It disheartens me to see the strident positions liberals (like me) take to defend Clinton and her team's actions here. Yes, she will get our vote, and to state the obvious, she is superior to Trump in almost every conceivable way. Does that mean she should be completely immune from legitimate criticism?
Please think about the precedent you're setting and whether we want Democrats to be as hostile to facts that paint us in a poor light as Republicans are, or if we want to be the party that supports truth even if it's ugly. I prefer the latter.
What was done here was wrong, what Clinton did in having a private server was wrong, and the campaign's response to the revelations has been dead wrong from a political perspective (no, no one died as a result. but it was still wrong). When Clinton is in office, we'll want to hold her administration accountable on transparency. Pretending nothing wrong was done here will make that impossible. And Trump and Powell being worse/the same is just not relevant.
Please think about the precedent you're setting and whether we want Democrats to be as hostile to facts that paint us in a poor light as Republicans are, or if we want to be the party that supports truth even if it's ugly. I prefer the latter.
What was done here was wrong, what Clinton did in having a private server was wrong, and the campaign's response to the revelations has been dead wrong from a political perspective (no, no one died as a result. but it was still wrong). When Clinton is in office, we'll want to hold her administration accountable on transparency. Pretending nothing wrong was done here will make that impossible. And Trump and Powell being worse/the same is just not relevant.
60
If the "criticism" is legitimate, yes.
But in the article, forth paragraph down after they vomit up "quid pro quo" for the eyes of Clinton haters that are just looking for this red meat, final clarifies "Officials at both the F.B.I. and the State Department said Monday that no deal had been struck, or even offered, over the classification of Mrs. Clinton’s private emails."
So it's just another ginned-up nothing burger satisfying the itch that the NYTimes can't help but scratch all in the service of click-bait.
But in the article, forth paragraph down after they vomit up "quid pro quo" for the eyes of Clinton haters that are just looking for this red meat, final clarifies "Officials at both the F.B.I. and the State Department said Monday that no deal had been struck, or even offered, over the classification of Mrs. Clinton’s private emails."
So it's just another ginned-up nothing burger satisfying the itch that the NYTimes can't help but scratch all in the service of click-bait.
8
Exactly correct and I am neither liberal nor conservative. The Clintons definitely has issues. Hillary's supporters can act deaf, dumb and blind to them, try to deflect the criticism and apologize for their actions. but for much of it, the criticisms have validity at some level.
Am I comfortable voting for her? NO. Do I honestly feel I have an alternative given her opponent? NO.
The controversies surrounding the Clintons will not go away unless both of them make a concerted effort to be accountable, transparent and accessible. I'm including Bill because anyone who thinks he will retire gracefully as First Husband needs to look back and remember they have been and continue to be a team.
Am I comfortable voting for her? NO. Do I honestly feel I have an alternative given her opponent? NO.
The controversies surrounding the Clintons will not go away unless both of them make a concerted effort to be accountable, transparent and accessible. I'm including Bill because anyone who thinks he will retire gracefully as First Husband needs to look back and remember they have been and continue to be a team.
1
Hillary and Bill Clinton got $150 million (!) from speeches to special interests and she refuses to tell the American public what she said. She has not held a press conference in months. She destroyed and/or hid tens of thouseands of emails that are the property of the America people because she thinks it's none of our business. My question is this: How are you going to "hold her accountable" or demand transparency when she's in office if you can't do the same while she's a candidate? When you look at the private server, unseemly acts like the FBI Director's tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, and the literally thousands of irregularities that took place in the Democratic primary, it seems clear that Hillary Clinton and her political machine have more power over media and law enforcement than any true democracy would tolerate. For that reason alone, I disagree that she is superior to Donald Trump.
3
There is a lot of smoke here and my hunch is we are about to see a reversal of natural sequence where this smoke trail doesn't lead to a fire but is used to start one.
3
Regardless of the facts that this is not at all related to Hillary Clinton's own actions and that it sounds like nothing actually even happened, cue the conspiracy theorists that will highlight this "quid pro quo," or what others would probably call politics/business as usual, as undeniable proof that Hillary should be locked up because she and the Clinton Foundation clearly partook in pay for play corruption of the highest levels.
Ugh.
At this point in time, these email leaks are grasping at straws and being drawn out over months and months for the sole purpose of damaging a reputation. These leaks are purposefully designed to make mountains out of molehills -- probably because there are no real mountains.
I'm all for transparency of information, but if this were really about transparency then all the documents would be out already.
This stuff is getting very old, very fast.
Ugh.
At this point in time, these email leaks are grasping at straws and being drawn out over months and months for the sole purpose of damaging a reputation. These leaks are purposefully designed to make mountains out of molehills -- probably because there are no real mountains.
I'm all for transparency of information, but if this were really about transparency then all the documents would be out already.
This stuff is getting very old, very fast.
7
Impossible to damage HRC's reputation at this point.
1
"There is no indication...that Mrs. Clinton was aware of the discussion" which occurred when she was no longer Sec'y of State. With respect to the presidential election, isn't that the only truly newsworthy aspect of this?
58
The email was from her time at the State Dept.
2
To Looking,
1. Clinton did not send the underlying post-Benghazi e-mail.
2. She was not the initial recipient of that e-mail.
3. It was later forwarded to her with an "f.y.i.".
4. It was not deemed/labled classified when originally sent or later forwarded.
5. The "dispute" over how it should be labled arose after Clinton left the State Dept and the State Dept deemed it "routine".
6. Trump. Ryan et al. are getting desperate.
1. Clinton did not send the underlying post-Benghazi e-mail.
2. She was not the initial recipient of that e-mail.
3. It was later forwarded to her with an "f.y.i.".
4. It was not deemed/labled classified when originally sent or later forwarded.
5. The "dispute" over how it should be labled arose after Clinton left the State Dept and the State Dept deemed it "routine".
6. Trump. Ryan et al. are getting desperate.
4
Rumor has it that you got this backwards; it was the FBI asking State for office space overseas- not the State Department as this article speculates.. Check your facts before you go down this rabbit hole; And in any event, there wasn't any quid pro quo- naturally- the fox propaganda department will have a field day with it and Darrel Isis and his ilk will burn a few million more of taxpayers dollars to find- nothing..
44
We hear about political "tribalism" and partisanship, but the facts clearly show that this is way more of a problem with Dems than the Repubs.
Trump said some lewd things about women in private 11 years ago - a bunch of Repubs are running for exits and majority is giving him a stern talking to.
Records just came out now - Clinton has emailed classified info, lied about it to public (and has to continue to lie, because if she states the truth, she will be charged), had a State dept employee (not Clinton's state dept!) try to cover it up - not a single peep from Dems.
Dems claim a moral high ground - where is it when they talk about Clinton?
Trump said some lewd things about women in private 11 years ago - a bunch of Repubs are running for exits and majority is giving him a stern talking to.
Records just came out now - Clinton has emailed classified info, lied about it to public (and has to continue to lie, because if she states the truth, she will be charged), had a State dept employee (not Clinton's state dept!) try to cover it up - not a single peep from Dems.
Dems claim a moral high ground - where is it when they talk about Clinton?
11
There is no ambiguity in Trump's lewdness.
There is ambiguity in Clinton's stupidity.
Trumps actions reinforce that his personality is what many already suspected. It's more difficult to understand how Clinton would have personally benefitted from the alleged actions.
There is ambiguity in Clinton's stupidity.
Trumps actions reinforce that his personality is what many already suspected. It's more difficult to understand how Clinton would have personally benefitted from the alleged actions.
1
Your headline wrieters are masters of euphemism. "Agencies Clashed on Classification" is one way of putting it. Another is that Mrs. Clinton flouted longstanding, well-defined rules, then belatedly tried to bully the intelligence community into changing them. Ours is a government of laws, not men. Or women. I hope that America comes to its senses before it allows this amoral woman to lie and cheat her way to the White House. I hate to say it, but Go Trump! Full disclosure: I am a lifelong progressive Democrat voted for Bill Clinton.
14
Now, WHEN did this non-event occur again? And WHEN did SOS Clinton leave again?
2
@Tammy Sue: This article makes it patently clear that there are no clearly defined, long-standing rules about the classification of documents.
Two entities, the FBI and the State Department, have two separate sets of rules that are obviously not clearly defined, because they are each negotiating the classification of the document in question.
The FBI wanted to classify it one way, the State Department said it should be classified another way. Just the fact that the discussion even took place shows there are no clearly defined rules. If there had been a clear rule, both agencies would have had to comply and this negotiation would never have taken place.
Additionally, the fact that the FBI agent offered to accept the State Department's classification in exchange for permission to place FBI agents overseas also shows that the FBI didn't think that the classification issue was that important, either.
So your whole argument is built on sand.
Two entities, the FBI and the State Department, have two separate sets of rules that are obviously not clearly defined, because they are each negotiating the classification of the document in question.
The FBI wanted to classify it one way, the State Department said it should be classified another way. Just the fact that the discussion even took place shows there are no clearly defined rules. If there had been a clear rule, both agencies would have had to comply and this negotiation would never have taken place.
Additionally, the fact that the FBI agent offered to accept the State Department's classification in exchange for permission to place FBI agents overseas also shows that the FBI didn't think that the classification issue was that important, either.
So your whole argument is built on sand.
1
First, thank you for the very careful reporting in this article - that it's unclear actually who offered this quid pro quo (DOS or FBI), that there's no indication Hillary Clinton was aware of it, that the release of the email included a blocked sentence which the FBI wanted, that in the end no additional FBI agents were posted, & that a subsequent email offers a very different interpretation of this exchange. I wish all reporting on the email saga was as thorough & clear. There would've been waaaay less wild misinterpretation of this situation had that been so.
Secondly, what stands out for me is the fact that security classification of such communications is clearly not written in stone & that changing it is far more routine than the public may have thought generally. Here is a four-decade career civil servant - not a partisan Clinton appointee at all & someone, BTW, who's keeping his job - discussing the option of re-classifying something as though that happening is hardly an earth-shattering event. There could be many reasons for such re-classification too. It's long seemed to me that a great proportion of the furor over Hillary Clinton's action as Sec of State come from a poor understanding in the public of how these government bodies operate, who's responsible for what, & what accepted practices actually are.
Secondly, what stands out for me is the fact that security classification of such communications is clearly not written in stone & that changing it is far more routine than the public may have thought generally. Here is a four-decade career civil servant - not a partisan Clinton appointee at all & someone, BTW, who's keeping his job - discussing the option of re-classifying something as though that happening is hardly an earth-shattering event. There could be many reasons for such re-classification too. It's long seemed to me that a great proportion of the furor over Hillary Clinton's action as Sec of State come from a poor understanding in the public of how these government bodies operate, who's responsible for what, & what accepted practices actually are.
37
Seems HRC herself has a poor understanding, despite her long years in Washington.
7
1. It is somewhat common to have handling mistakes. You have thousands of people handling thousands of documents daily. Documents are moved around in briefcases. People travel. Safes only slow folks down (mostly they're just thicker file cabinets). A lot of information moves electronically (which makes it vulnerable). The really serious stuff is handled in secure rooms with no external wiring and shielded walls. Even windows or keyboards can leak info.
2. Generally, people who make mistakes are counseled, given a reprimand, given extra training, or moved to another job. Folks are only fired if they commit a serious error or prosecuted if they deliberately release something serious. Part of that is determining the impact of the information. "Saddam is an idiot" is classified and "Joe X, our spy in Iraq" is classified. One of those is basically meaningless.
3. Its is impossible to sort out if HRC actually read those emails and cannot reasonably assign any evil intent. Frankly, all the executives I know assign email reading to a subordinate; otherwise they'd never get any work done. Certainly everybody handling a lot of emails skims then forwards, trashes, or saves. And we cannot evaluate the "classified" information's value because we can't see it. Plus information is constantly being declassified.
I'm just glad all the stupid stuff I did didn't get permanently archived in the web. Whew.
2. Generally, people who make mistakes are counseled, given a reprimand, given extra training, or moved to another job. Folks are only fired if they commit a serious error or prosecuted if they deliberately release something serious. Part of that is determining the impact of the information. "Saddam is an idiot" is classified and "Joe X, our spy in Iraq" is classified. One of those is basically meaningless.
3. Its is impossible to sort out if HRC actually read those emails and cannot reasonably assign any evil intent. Frankly, all the executives I know assign email reading to a subordinate; otherwise they'd never get any work done. Certainly everybody handling a lot of emails skims then forwards, trashes, or saves. And we cannot evaluate the "classified" information's value because we can't see it. Plus information is constantly being declassified.
I'm just glad all the stupid stuff I did didn't get permanently archived in the web. Whew.
3
It's not a poor understanding in the public, it's just the Republican Congress smearing her and taking advantage of the public's lack of knowledge.
4
Fox News has has a phony scandal, and will remind us of Nixonian operations for next three weeks. This will be their Hollywood Access video. Unfortunately some undecided voters will buy it. Will it be enough for Trump? I am afraid to even think about it.
4
Wheeling and dealing and Negotiating, that's Trump's domain. The gall of them Fedral agents.
3
This is a form of corruption. Plain and simple.
13
For whom? Not Clinton
1
Why are these stories running when it was proved last night that it was the ransom FBI guy who came up with the brilliant idea of trading the classification of that one e-mail for allowing more agents in other parts of the world? No deal was struck, so why is this a story? It is typical for agencies to go back and forth on what should be classified. I just don't get why the editorial board is allowing these smears to go forward.
55
"There is no indication from the documents that Mrs. Clinton was aware of the discussion."
And yet you know darn well the Trump/Breitbart/Putin campaign will use this as another false equivalence. Aren't you reporters and editors tired of playing their seditious game?
And yet you know darn well the Trump/Breitbart/Putin campaign will use this as another false equivalence. Aren't you reporters and editors tired of playing their seditious game?
85
The NYTimes appears to be relishing playing everyone against each other. Are ratings, or clicks all that matter to them. They even published an expose of the Clintons based largely on reporting by Briebart News last month.
4
Has it occurred to anyone that the comments that sounded like quid pro quo were sarcastic, as in "yeah, we'll do that when you..."? I can't imagine what people might infer if they cherry picked through my emails. It would be nice though, if someone wrote a piece on the difference of opinion between agencies on what needs to be classified, and on what over-classification does to impede daily agency operations.
76
I'd like to read that article !
I'd also like to read an article about the ethics of political "transparency".
I'd also like to read an article about the ethics of political "transparency".
2
This is a problem with electronic communication. No inflection. No nuance. As a man who enjoys irony and sarcasm, I know that it is easy to be misunderstood. I am not the only person who regrets that Facebook lacks a "sarcastic" font.
Near the beginning of the article it says there is no indication that Clinton had knowledge of these back and forth communications between underlings just trying to do their bureaucratic jobs.
My summation of it all: a big YAWN.
Now, with all the stuff coming out of Trumps own mouth, day in and day out, my summation of it all: OBSCENELY DISGUSTING, INACCURATE, MYSOGINISTIC, AND FEAR MONGERING. (now ask me how I really feel.)
My summation of it all: a big YAWN.
Now, with all the stuff coming out of Trumps own mouth, day in and day out, my summation of it all: OBSCENELY DISGUSTING, INACCURATE, MYSOGINISTIC, AND FEAR MONGERING. (now ask me how I really feel.)
114
looks like a cover up has already started i.e. trump has got it right again
17
Trump has never had it right. Ever.
8
Yawn... How many different investigations have been done on this? In every one, let's remember, Hillary Clinton has been EXONERATED. Unless you're interested in Fox News talking points, this is a non-event in a big non-story.
Move along folks, nothing to see here...
Move along folks, nothing to see here...
62
Nothing to see because, as usual, the persons involved are trying to cover it up and it just so happens those people involved are the FBI, State Department and whomever else has a vested interest in maintaining power.
5
EXONERATED? No. The FBI said they didn't find enough evidence to prosecute. They didn't say, she didn't do anything wrong. They did say, Mrs. Clinton was too incompetent to understand what she was doing was wrong.
These aren't Fox talking points, these are FBI notes that were written without knowing they would ever become public. Had Clinton, the State Department and the FBI been more transparent from the beginning, we wouldn't be talking about this today.
These aren't Fox talking points, these are FBI notes that were written without knowing they would ever become public. Had Clinton, the State Department and the FBI been more transparent from the beginning, we wouldn't be talking about this today.
9
Do we even have a word for the shady, ethical issues that keep cropping up with Hillary and Bill? The best I could come up with is "Clinton exceptionalism," meaning the Clinton's feel free to skirt the law and sometimes, they cut the corners just too short. I believe the lack of a word for what keeps happening to the Clintons is an indication of just how unique (e.g. how outrageous) they are in the history of American power.
Assuming she wins, I don't know what I dread more: doomed to four or eight more years of exposes of Clinton exceptionalism or, with the power of the Oval Office, not even having her manipulations known in our lifetimes.
Of course, a Trump presidency offers other distasteful consequences. What's a voter to do next month?
Assuming she wins, I don't know what I dread more: doomed to four or eight more years of exposes of Clinton exceptionalism or, with the power of the Oval Office, not even having her manipulations known in our lifetimes.
Of course, a Trump presidency offers other distasteful consequences. What's a voter to do next month?
14
The event in question, a disagreement between the State Department and the FBI over classification, occurred two years after Clinton left the State Department. The idea of a quid pro quo seems to have been initiated by the FBI. The e-mail classification was not changed and the redacted e-mail was made public some time ago. Maybe you could explain why you think this has anything to do with Clinton other than an attempt at innuendo.
34
They've been throwing stuff at the Clintons for 20 years and can't prove anything. But we know Trump cheata people and lies to them constantly. Ameican banks won't lend him money anymore because he's a bad risk.
6
Maybe you should rely on a little more checking into all these allegations when nothing ever gets proven and Hillary is never charged. If you read the article, this happened after she left the State Department and she had nothing to do with it but you feel she is still guilty of something.
3
All this time and money on one email? Meanwhile, total silence on the hundreds, maybe thousands of .gov accounts hacked from Ashley Madison. There is your security risk. Hackers pulled accounts from a huge range of Federal, state, and regional government agencies. That is an avenue for them to hack the various government systems. But our "leaders" are too busy trying to influence an election to worry about real security issues.
9
I thought that the FBI was an investigative agency that was strictly limited to domestic matters. How do they enter into decisions over whether documents should be classified or unclassified?
13
Good defense. Feds are conflicted about what "Classified" means, and that it's a bargaining chip to boot!
2
A perfect example of Trump and his minions spinning a mountain from a molehill. Clinton only got the email forwarded to as an "FYI." Sounds like it was something between Patrick Kennedy & the FBI agent.
12
Hillary Clinton's decision to use a private email server after being told by the State Department IG that she must use the State Department shows really bad judgment. The effort was to protect her from scrutiny. The US though has a law that any document she produces has to be saved. So now she has tied the Obama Administration in knots as they try to avoid prosecuting her for improper handling of classified documents.
22
Was General Petraeus prosecuted? He explicitly and intentionally shared classified documents with his mistress who had no security clearance.
Was Colin Powell prosecuted? As Secretary of State, Colin Powell exclusively used an outside, personal e-mail account to conduct State Department business. Why aren't we poring over his emails? Because he deleted them all and he and his staff have refused requests to try to retrieve them from his service provider.
Ah yes, Clinton rules.
Was Colin Powell prosecuted? As Secretary of State, Colin Powell exclusively used an outside, personal e-mail account to conduct State Department business. Why aren't we poring over his emails? Because he deleted them all and he and his staff have refused requests to try to retrieve them from his service provider.
Ah yes, Clinton rules.
21
1. After Clinton left State the server that she, in bad judgement, chose not to use, was hacked by the Russians. There is no evidence her "unsecured" private server was ever hacked. There is no such thing as a secure email server. Any server attached to a public network is vulnerable, even if it's buried a mile under Cheyenne Mountain. 2. Funny that Clinton sent/received 30k work related emails, many, no doubt, to/from members of Congress, over a four year period, and none of them noticed it was a private address until the Benghazi investigations. 3. Government employees are required to retain documents related to government business, not any document they produce. It is up to the employee to determine what is government related and what is private.
1
Clinton was not told by the State Department IG that she must use the State Department email server. The Inspector General (IG) only weighed in AFTER Clinton had left the office of Secretary of State with his report investigating whether or not she had followed rules related to preserving those emails. I can find nothing anywhere about anyone telling her she couldn't use that private server. Is it possible she was using her own server for convenience rather than to avoid scrutiny? Like others before her? How do you know she was trying to avoid scrutiny? Please get your facts straight.
5
Umm...this happened LAST YEAR. Hillary hasn't been Secretary of State since 2013.
Is there ANYTHING the right won't do to try and smear this woman?
No news here. Move on, people.
Is there ANYTHING the right won't do to try and smear this woman?
No news here. Move on, people.
139
You're right, because those within her "oribit" at State stopped talking to her the moment she stepped down. Of course this is a story, and big one at that.
9
the decision on how to classify the email was last year, but the email this article is about is from november 2012.
4
Good point!
Why is it we only get to see Clinton's emails and not the Rice and Powel emails; or the Russian hacked NDC emails but not RNC emails? And what about the Bush-Cheney administration's "lost" 22 MILLION emails!! Many of which had to do with the invasion of Iraq, which is the actual genesis of so many of the problems that are happening in the Middle East today, including the Islamic State. There's something terribly out of whack here.
180
To John,
Thank-you for referencing the millions of "lost" e-mails from the Bush II tenure. The available evidence tends to show that Karl Rove ("Bush's Brain") was directly involved in this, and that aprox. 95% of his e-mail communications were via a private RNC server.
Thank-you for referencing the millions of "lost" e-mails from the Bush II tenure. The available evidence tends to show that Karl Rove ("Bush's Brain") was directly involved in this, and that aprox. 95% of his e-mail communications were via a private RNC server.
88
A wild shot in the dark: none of the individuals you mention are currently running to be President of the United States. As for Trump, who needs hacked emails when you have 99% of the media working your game?
19
Rice and Powell are not the candidates for
the presidency of USA. As Trumps behavior toward
the women is being scrutinized, other men
are being spared because they are not contesting
the election although sexual assault is common.
the presidency of USA. As Trumps behavior toward
the women is being scrutinized, other men
are being spared because they are not contesting
the election although sexual assault is common.
2