The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    The email number was 110

    By Flavius on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 10:01pm |

    at least so far.

    Hillary's "arrogant,selfish actions "   (Maureen Dowd) "contaminated......Barack Obama etc. etc.etc." by not  volunteering that there were  110 emails  with classified information among those she turned over to State.

    And "at least 3 " more classified emails among not turned over to State.

    This is nonsense.

    Neither State,the do nothing  Congress,  the FBI  nor us should be wasting time discussing 113 "classified" emails even if they were all classified for deep security reasons.

    And maybe they were.

    Or not.

    What do you think the odds are that some of those 28 emails per year were classified  because,say, they contained bits of gossip about  Angela Merkel?  Or insults of Vladimir Putin? Or the personnel file for a Department employee having an affair.

    Ironically it's only this security classification which protects Hillary's enemies from having to admit that this is a frivolous attempt to generate a new supply of  over hyped material   for the Maureen Dowds of the world

     

    Comments

    I'd say that speculation is too weak tea and feed into the FBI possibly being right and worse, even-handed.

    In reality there are a whole bunch of cases where they go after press and whistle-blowers, create trumped up info and entrapment (e.g. a "classified" rotary dial manual used to convict), tamper with witnesses and evidence, have embarrassing losses like with Ted Stevens and John Edwards, and then give Petraeus probation with no charge of lying to the FBI when he handed over 8 big code books to his mistress who was quite possibly connected to the Russians in the chummy local social circle.

    https://www.emptywheel.net/tag/john-kiriakou/

    I was perfectly content to hear of some mistakes Hillary had made, but to hear Comey so quickly exaggerating and distorting basic case facts did nothing to make me take it serious.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 6:13am

    113. Out of more than 30,000  emails over 4 years.

    That's the extent of Hillary's "extremely careless" handling of "top secret" information! Give me a break.

    And that's before we learn whether all  of these contained top secret information about US military assets.  Which of course they didn't. Which of course  is why Comey hasn't been asked that question  already.

     Since it's not in the Republicans'  interests to disabuse the public of the automatic assumption that "classified" =s  "military ". Which it doesn't.

    This "scandal"  is destined to sink slowly below the horizon. Not before time., To be replaced by the next fabricated anti- Hillary issue. Like the 25 year old Roz Chast cartoon in which her usual character claims she was standing behind  Hillary in the supermarket line and saw her hiding a package of Tootsie Rolls.

    Oh well. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


    by Flavius on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 8:36am

    Yeah, but they'll even float those 113 as somehow convincing whatever the %. If you look at their track record combined with this, and that they didn't actually come out with a smoking gun aside from Comey's distortions, yes, nothing there.  And for Maiello, before there was Dowd there was Safire. He pretended to be serious, she pretends to be funny. Neither is true.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 8:47am

    I was a computer programmer in the army for several months in about 1980 and I had a security clearance. I believe it was "secret" but that was too long ago for me to remember. The most damming information I could get was the number of Article 15's a person had. That's Classified you know. An Article 15 is simply a disciplinary action. It could mean assault on an officer or it could mean frequently late to work.

    People think classified means important and dangerous to release. It could mean Hillary noted in an email that Sergeant York got reprimanded for being late to work.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 8:15pm

    Wait, are you sure youre allowed to disclose that? Only 35 years, could be stull valid.  Loose punchcalards sink ships and all.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 10:02pm

    For decades, Maureen Dowd has lobbed accusations of corruption against the Clintons in The New York Times and when pressed for evidence says "read the paper!"


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 8:23am

    I do not understand Maureen. hahahah

    She is the queen of snark?

    WHAT THE HELL DOES SHE WANT?

    Well, i guess, she wishes to be read.

    No purpose, no goal, no aim....kind of like a lot of the media. hahahah

    Emails?

    GOPers will love to advertise stuff about emails all the while T-Rump twitters?

    But real people worrying about emails?

    We shall see.


    by Richard Day on Mon, 07/11/2016 - 6:31pm

    This is a pathetic attempt at sandbagging to excuse the high crimes and misdemeanors the Red Queen is so prone to commit. You should be celebrating the fact that her growing power and influence won out over the rule of law even if Obama's FBI had to admit that she knowingly, they were labeled,  mishandled top secret documents on an unsecured private email system. There were reports that the most serious breaches of security were related to ongoing drone strikes and the high level decision making involving them.

    The investigation, at least the public part of it, was a farce excusing criminal behavior with BS about intent when the law addresses actions and leaves intent for the penalty discussions after the guilty verdict. The private unsecured email system may not have been a great crime, it just shows her as incompetent, untrustworthy and self serving, but her serial lying about it with her minions deleting or failing to surrender evidence certainly was and that's why those crimes were conveniently not addressed by the investigation, see no evil.


    by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 11:19am

    So let's see -

    1) compared to blacks being gunned down pointblank, abortion clinics being closed due to malicious laws nationwide, more terrorist shootings & bombings, minorities being kept from voting, multinationals avoiding taxes and hiding profits in offshore havens, the rise of ISIS including using girls as sex slaves and hacking heads off, mass government surveillance of emails & social media - where does sending 110 variously classified documents of unknown seriousness that aren't known to have been intercepted lie?

    2) How many people have gone to jail for emailing classified information to intended recipients?

    3) Is there any evidence whatsover that the emails re: drone strikes helped alert the intended targets, and weren't the drone strike emails specifically routed to her to provide state level response since once the drone strikes hit, everyone obviously knows about them....?

    4) how far did we get with those government investigations of 9/11 and false information leading us to war in Iraq and the financial meltdown and subsequent trillion dollar bank giveaways, mortgage robosigning and other egregious offenses? How many people went to jail for these (excluding home living entrepreneur Martha Stewart and Bernie Madoff).


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/12/2016 - 11:45am