Slashdot Mirror
Assange: Wikileaks Will Publish 'Enough Evidence' To Indict Hillary Clinton (rt.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via RT: Julian Assange says Wikileaks will have "a very big year" as it will publish enough new information about Hillary Clinton to indict her. In an ITV interview about the Democratic presidential candidate, Assange said, "We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication." As it stands, about 32,000 emails from Clinton's private server have been leaked by Wikileaks. Assange has yet to comment on how many new emails will be released or when they will be published. While he thinks there will be enough to indict Clinton, he doesn't think it will happen under Attorney General Loretta Lynch. He does think "the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment." Specifically, Assange revealed the leaked emails show that she overrode the Pentagon's reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that "they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country." Clinton's email controversy came to light in 2013 after a hacker named Guccifer breached her personal server.
Link to location for Publication
Might want to use TOR or your favorite hiding software.
Clinton authorized drone strikes (i.e. assassinations) via email from her phone, which went through her personal server. Peoples were literally being marked for death through her insecure email server. That alone should be enough to put her in a federal prison, but now Assange is telling us that there's more to be learned? Let all mortal flesh keep silence.
The proof is in the pudding, princess. and my spoon is clean.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld overrode the Pentagon's concerns about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. We were repeatedly told the war would be over very quickly, a matter of weeks, and that the Iraqis would pay for the reconstruction of their country through oil revenues. We were also told we would be welcomed with open arms by the entire Iraqi community.
Cheney continues to say he knows where the wmds are yet refuses to reveal their locations. Perhaps he should be waterboarded, since it's not torture, to reveal that information.
Still waiting on their indictments.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Even if 100% true making a choice to override military commanders is not an indictable offense (even if wrong in the end). Hell that's actually the exact reason why we have civilians in charge (to override commanders for non military reasons). If that statement is correctly attributed to him that's a shame on him. It is just a stupid statement.
What's even crazier is what he suggests will happen. He wants to give the FBI leverage over what is probably the next president, and he thinks that's a GOOD thing? Just what does he think they're going to do with that? In what world does he think they're not going to use that to make damn sure she doesn't do anything to rein in their abuses?
Hey, while we're at it, why not give the CIA information they can blackmail her on, too, so they can force her to authorize torture again. Give it to the NSA, too, so they can make her mandate sticking espionage chips in every orifice for everyone at birth.
I'm no GOP supporter, but what exactly was wrong with them "sending letters trying to stop the Iran nuclear deal"? They were merely trying to reclaim a power that the Constitution gives to the Legislative branch but was snatched by the Executive branch.
Things aren't that black and white anymore. Our government has been usurped, and as such been infiltrated at the highest levels by people who wish to see America and all of Western Civilization as we know it taken down to the ground. This includes many high-level Democrats and Republicans. A majority of Trump and Sanders supporters see their candidate's success as the only way to have even a long shot at an outsider restoring the Republic back to some semblance of normalcy, of true justice and being a nation of laws. It's not anti-American glee when the system you're rooting against has become obviously and vehemently anti-American.
But it's OK, keep rooting for the occupied establishment if that's the side of history you want to be on. At this point the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Something has to be done to stop the spread of ISIS and other terrorist groups from advancing further on Western Civilization, with which they are wholly incompatible. That won't be happening with any establishment candidate, as they are they ones encouraging more of the same. If you want about 10 more Orlandos, each bigger than the last, keep trying to spread your propaganda that being against Clinton is being for the KGB. I hope you can sleep at night afterwards.
Are you surprised? This is, after all, a guy who overrode the democratic vote of the Wikileaks party in Australia to preference with the fascist Australia First party over the Greens, describes himself as a "big admirer" of Rand Paul, opposes abortion, and supports both Putin and Assad. Who do you think he'd support in this election in the US?
Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
They could release that Hillary is a serial killer with 50 people locked up in her basement, but if Obama is in office and pardons her, it's all for naught.
Supposedly the FBI is waiting for her to be President, or not be President, but as long as the current President has her back, any evidence against her can be signed away.
The FBI already have the leverage. This is more about the rest of us knowing about said leverage as it is being applied.
Trump can serve as "the cleaner" as a lot of crap needs to be flushed out of DC. As with any cleaning agent, Trump will then need to be flushed out in a rinse cycle. A single 4 year term should prove long enough.
Actually, I think he's saying that the FBI already has leverage if Hillary is the next President. It's not like the FBI doesn't already have the information he's threatening to release to the public (where do you think the leaks came from?). What he's threatening is to show the public that the FBI has (and, presumably is using) some leverage they have over the Pres.
Mind you, he's wrong about that. If Hillary is elected, she can pardon herself quite legally, and there is ZERO chance of the Senate impeaching her. Hell, the Senate wouldn't impeach her if she visited the Senate to make a speech carrying Bill's severed head....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
If he wanted Trump for certain he would have waited a couple of months. Doing this now gives the Democrats a chance to switch horses.
It isn't so much as wanting interference of a foreign body, it is about wanting the corruption to come to light. If Hillary hasn't done anything wrong, then she shouldn't have anything to fear and hide. Would you be less bothered if this was occurring to Trump perhaps? Personally if it happens to Obama, Trump or any politician, who has been behaving less than morally and arguably in direct violation of the Constitution it would be good for the country. The sooner people see that criminals in highest levels of the political spectrum are held unaccountable the better. People need to understand a criminal in your party of preference is no better than a criminal in the party you oppose. Let them be held accountable as the criminals they have become.
"[Assange] doesn't think it will happen under Attorney General Loretta Lynch. "
Obama will not do anything to damage Hillary's chances of winning the election but there will be a limit to how much of a corrupt jackass Obama is willing to make himself look like to help here out. We already know, based on evidence released publicly, that Hillary is guilty and a crazy liar, so if Obama's justice department does not indict he goes down in history as the U.S. President more corrupt than Nixon.
A prediction: Obama has Lynch slow-walk the decision to indict until after Hillary is elected in November 2016, they they indict her. After Hillary takes office in January 2017, she pardons herself.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Negotiating treaties is the sole purview of the executive branch. The constitution gives the Senate the right to RATIFY a treaty with a 2/3rds vote but not the power to negotiate them.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
Showing glee at the downfall of that corrupt, lying, incompetent woman doesn't make one a Trump or Sanders supporter.
The regular population doesn't want a crook, but how are the parties and high-value donors supposed to control a politician who isn't a crook?
Specifically, Assange revealed the leaked emails show that she overrode the Pentagon's reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that "they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country."
Points here:
The regular population doesn't realize she is a crook. To the unwashed masses anything about their candidate is propaganda by the competing party to make them look bad, it "isn't a thing".
People want to be lied to.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Democratic national convention hasn't happened yet. She's just the presumptive nominee.
True, the power to negotiate treaties belongs to the Executive and the power to ratify a treaty belongs to the Senate.
Of course, the Senate is free to proclaim its intention to not ratify a treaty based on the information at hand. Plus, there's the whole notion that Obama knew damn well that the Senate would not ratify any such "treaty". So he just proclaimed that he was not negotiating a treaty, but instead working on a "non-binding agreement with some plans for enforcement" in a shallow attempt to bypass the ratification power of the Senate. It would seem to me that if he says he was not negotiating a treaty, then claiming the power to negotiate a treaty is moot.
As CNN put it at the time:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/...
If it looks like a treaty, walks like a treaty and talks like a treaty, is it a treaty?
According to the White House, only if the President of the United States says it is.
That's infuriating Republicans and even some Democrats, who are demanding that the Obama administration submit any final nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for approval.
"This is clearly a treaty," Arizona Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday. "They can call it a banana, but it's a treaty."
The GOP position could jeopardize the long-term survival of any Iran deal, and it represents the party's newest clash with President Barack Obama over the limits of executive authority, as Republicans object to a pact they warn could eventually give Tehran a nuclear bomb.
It's that skepticism that has largely led the White House to define the deal as a "nonbinding agreement" rather than a "treaty," which the Constitution requires Senate "advice and consent" on.
The distinction -- and whether it can legitimately be used to shut out Congress -- turns on complicated and unresolved questions of constitutional law. While Republicans call foul, the administration defends the differentiation as perfectly sound, and no surprise.
Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Wednesday that the administration never intended to negotiate a treaty.
"We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing.
That doesn't sit well with Republicans, many of whom believe the Senate's constitutional role is being bypassed.
Idaho Sen. James Risch dismissed the administration's argument: "Let there be no mistake, this is a treaty that is being negotiated. It's a treaty and should be treated as such."
The rank and file did not simply "not approve that", they explicitly voted against it. Assange and his representative controlled two seats of the council. His proposal got three votes for it (aka, only one other person), five opposed, and three obstained - it failed (this was the only of the 13 party meetings that Assange had actually bothered calling into). Yet somehow, not long after the vote, they ended up discovering that they were actually set up to preference with Australia First despite the vote. Assange blamed it on an "administrative error", and implied that it was the party's council's fault. The council fought and eventually got Assange to concede to allow an investigation into the issue of what happened. Only, they then subsequently discovered that he was only going to allow the investigation after the election and that he himself would personally run it. Eventually it emerged that Assange himself had ordered it. Four of the 11 council members resigned immediately. Four more council members joined in with a strong condemnation. There were mass waves of resignation from the party at lower levels. There was actually a statement posted on the Wikileaks party website apologizing for the subversion of democracy, encouraging people not to vote for them in NSW and to vote for Scott Ludlam instead.
This sort of stuff is really par for the course with the guy.
Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
E-mails are just text files, and can be easily forged. Anyone who's ever gotten a spam message from themselves should realize this.
Collecting forensics evidence from a hard drive so that it's admissible in courts is not the same as just dumping files. Last I knew, you have to preserve the data in the original format, and provide access to the defense.
Unless these E-mails are signed by a private key known to be Clinton's, I don't really see how they're going to be admissible.
Maybe he was talking about Belarus or Transnistria - KGB still exists there. Besides, FSB would be the wrong intelligence agency in this case - they are responsible for internal security, so they are more like the FBI. SVR RF is the foreign intelligence counterpart. The mistake is pretty common because KGB used to be responsible for both federal crime investigation and also for foreign intelligence.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Perhaps that's what he means, but that didn't appear to be what he said. Furthermore, if he really wanted to release information to weaken her as a candidate, the window for doing that in any sort of constructive manner (i.e., in time to help someone else such as Sanders win the primary) has closed. Does he think Donald "I want to make it easier to go after the press for publishing things I don't like" Trump is going to be better?
Maybe he thinks that the only way to make things better is by making them absolutely terrible first in order to get people to be less complacent? If so, that's utterly idiotic and counterproductive. Things can get much, much worse.
You paraphrased Trump and your nickname is Cro Magnon.
This stuff writes itself.
It was Europe that wanted the invasion. Hillary backed the wrong pony. And massage thinks that is indictable? He needs to show that she did that for personal gain. Or that she lied to make for personal gains. While I opposed Libya's invasion, the fact that she backed it is not a criminal act.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It hasn't. However, changing that and nominating someone else requires deliberately overriding the popular will of the voters. It's the same for the Republicans, many of whom are privately cringing at the prospect of Trump. The fact that they _could_ do it doesn't mean that the price is far too high, because overriding the will of those voters is going to cause a MASSIVE rift in whichever party that does so, and possibly even fatally weaken their legitimacy in the eyes of their supporters. They're not going to run that risk unless there's a clear and massive demand for it from those voters to begin with. For the Democrats to dump Hillary now would require one of three things - her suddenly dropping dead of a massive heart attack (or similar), announcing her outright withdrawal from the race, or some kind of black swan event, like if she shot a bunch of kindergartners with an AR-15 on national TV while laughing gleefully.
You don't understand the law.
Send information that is required by law to be on secure communications and you have committed a crime.
Markings, intent, not classified at the time... all of that is immaterial.
If you do it, even "accidentally", you are usually in deep shit.
But not Hillary. Wonder why....
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Actually, it was illegal at the time.
First, the Clinton campaign tried to excuse the server by conflating retroactively marking documents classified with retroactively classifying documents. Problem is markings are not what makes a document classified.
Currently, the Clinton campaign is trying to push an argument that she lacked intent, and thus can not be indicted. The problem is the relevant statute does not require intent. She can be indicted based on either 1) intent or 2) gross negligence. And the email saying "we got hacked, so we turned the server off for a minute" demonstrates gross negligence pretty well.
Already did. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/st...
Stupid meteors... Coming to our planet and taking extinction level event causing jobs away from hard-working Earth-based calamities. Super Volcano would have the best eruptions. Fantastic. He's destroy the most people ever. He's getting tons of compliments for how much destruction he'd cause. He'll build a wall of smoke around the world and make us all pay for it... with our lives.
This November, Vote Super Volcano 2016!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Clinton pushed for a stronger response to Crimea and an invasion of Syria while she was SoS. And Trump is kind of an isolationist, at least when it comes to the parts of the world Russia wants to influence.
So between Clinton and Trump, Putin benefits most from Trump.
First Woman President? Big deal. First pre-indicted President.
Not like she hasn't already built a throne of children's skulls, and a platform of war crimes, on from which to rule.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
No, the Daily Mail has more journalistic integrity than RT.
Ok, when did the deal get submitted to the Senate for ratification?
Maybe you're right in that this stuff writes itself. Your nickname is Dr. Evil and by bashing a Trump supporter you take a position that's pro Slitherly Clinton.
You are a melodramatic fantasist.
The problem is, everything IS as dire as you portray - but it's not a Manichean fairytale of "high level conspirators against 'Western Civilization"."
This IS the natural fruit of your so-called "civilization". A cursory understanding of history of the "Western" world - from Phoenicia and Greece through Rome, all the Renaissance and "enlightenment" to today - all of it is hardly different from what is portrayed on "Game of Thrones". I can say that without hyperbole.
The idea of "Western Civilization" is just another chauvinism - another mythology by which you are crudely manipulated as a tool of those same forces you imagine to be in "betrayal".
No man in earth understands ANYTHING, until he has insightful awareness that EVERYTHING he knows is WRONG.
Then his eyes may see clearly. He has no solution, but surely understands the nature of things.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Snopes says not true, to at least most of those: FALSE: Clinton Body Count.
I agree 100% AC. My question to the American "patriots" is what happens when the ideal America you are patriotic about, is not the America you live in? When do you recognize that the name itself does not warrant patriotism, but rather the ideals for which it actively works?
Notice I didn't say the ideals it claims to stand for, because saying you are for freedom and democracy is very different from actually allowing people to be free and have a functioning system of democracy. It seems to me (as a non-American) that America has been slipping further and further away from what the patriots claim America represents.
You don't live in the post-war 50's with an American dream available to all. You live in a country where the dictators all follow their name with a trademark symbol, and aren't breaking laws because they get to buy them from your "democratically elected" government. I use quotations because it seems odd to have a system where you are stuck with 1 of 2 possiblities, both of whom seem to be picked by the parties themselves more than voting, based on super-PAC funding and donations from the corporations.
So again I ask: What are you patriotic towards, the America of today, or the ideal of America?
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
After the election.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ah, the old Nixon defense:
In the context of American national security, Nixon replied: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
although it's difficult to imagine how they'd do that without looking stupid after Obama called her the 'most qualified candidate ever'.
With all the other stupid stuff he has said (57 states, ISIS is like a JV team, etc), people have got to be used to it or just not care.
That's basically part of the problem with all this. It's not to say that it wasn't a terrible idea that was horribly insecure, but none of it was per se illegal at the time.
First, it is highly illegal. (The "at the time qualifier" makes no sense... it's been illegal for a long, long time.)
Really the only thing that she could possibly be indicted/convicted on related to this is an attempt to cover up or destroy evidence - and even then, you'd pretty much have to get a smoking gun in this day and age, like catching her emailing her staffers with direct instructions to violate the law. Good luck finding anything like that.
Every paragraph of those documents would begin with a classification code. It's not like it's metadata that can be lost in a file transfer. She would have had to have someone print and re-type the documents to remove the codes. Unless that guy comes forward and falls on his sword, she has no defense. She willingly and deliberately circumvented the classification system, then put the documents on an insecure server. She has violated the law several times over, and it's probably killed several of our sources.
The DOJ has given the technician who set up the server immunity. They have on the order of 100 agents working the case. They have her. It's open and shut with testimony and evidence lined up. The could indict her at any time.
All it comes down to now is speculation about why they haven't. Is the President pressuring them to stay clear of his party's nominee (and presumptive nominee for months now - Sorry, Bernie)? Are they waiting to indict until after the election to avoid the appearance of bias? Are they waiting until after the election when Obama will no long be in office to pardon her? Are they waiting until after the election on the chance that she loses and she's left without anyone who will care enough to interfere? Are they holding onto the possibility of indictment to exchange politically for special treatment? Are they staying out because higher-ups recognize she will never actually serve time, so why bother to hurry?
There are a hundred scenarios that could play out, but All of them that based on her being innocent, unaware, or even just incompetent are in the rear view mirror.
The state department has said that her mail server was never authorized and would not have been permitted had she asked:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/...
She disregarded the Freedom of Information Act by keeping her official State Department communications on her server and therefore unavailable for retrieval and archiving as per FOIA.
That's illegal - she broke the law simply by operating her own server.
Security and the hacking of her server is irrelevant. Clinton stripping classified headers off of documents is irrelevant. Those charges, if proven, will simply add to her punishment (if there is any at all).
In a just world, she would have already been convicted in a court of law. What we know she did, by her own admission, should be enough for criminal prosecution and should disqualify her from the presidency.
Actually, she hasn't. Neither Hillary or Bernie have enough pledged delegates at this point to win the nomination. By design and rule, superdelegates are UNPLEDGED up to the point they cast their ballot. Bernie and his supporters are working on switching them, and apparently a few have actually switched. Neither candidate has this wrapped up - it's going to wait until the convention and the final tally of superdelegates is actually made.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
"The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request.
Mr. Putin prefers Trump to be the next president, as it may fragment NATO and other US alliances. This is his ultimate and most desirable goal, it will make him strongest bully in his yard.
He certainly has plenty of influence in the circles of people like Assange and can subtly manipulate them pushing to the right direction without them having a clue that they are manipulated and used.
It certainly would have helped if he'd published it a couple of months ago.
Yes, that would have helped Bernie Sanders, who would be a different candidate. I am guessing, that is not who they wanted to see picked. Even now the Democrats are headed to a technically open/contested convention. If Bernie would drop out (before) the convention, then we might see this kind of release of evidence to, "save the party." Without that concession, you run the risk of all the super delegates switching to Bernie and handing him the nomination. In most things timing is very important, politics is one of those things.
I will not mourn that which I never had to lose. - Unknown
The web site Truth or Fiction says not true.
So Assange wants us to end up with Trump?
Not particularly, but Clinton pushed hard for the prosecution of Assange for publishing the Classified leaks he got from Manning, this time it's personal.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Stripping the classification markings off a document without proper review is a problem. Whether it breaks "the rules" or "the law" depends on a lot of details about the circumstances.
We don't know what was or was not actually classified, since that part was redacted....which you'd know by reading the article.
Since there are redactions, either there was classified information, or someone illegally redacted the document. It would be nice to know which.
Clinton's email controversy came to light in 2013 after a hacker named Guccifer breached her personal server.
a) Guccifer exposed a handful of Clinton's emails by breaking into the email account of one of her friends and leaking the ones she sent him.
b) The email controversy came to light because the Republicans trying to lynch her for Benghazi realized she sent all her emails through the private server.
c) Guccifer's "hacking" involves guessing password reset questions and bragging about everything he finds. To think he not only "breached her personal server" but then kept his mouth shut about it and never dumped a thing is absurd.
This is a damn tech site, certainly people can show some basic critical thinking skills and not just repeat the wild-ass claims of every wannabe hacker looking for notoriety.
I stole this Sig
leaked data is always heavily politicized. Choices are made to publish the material. That in itself is a political act. Not controlling the information supplied to them, doesn't make them pro republican because they happen to get leaked data making a democrat look bad.
Except it wasn't illegal at the time.
Sending and storing classified material insecurely has been illegal for a very long time. It was definitely illegal during her term a Secretary of State. Knowing that the material is classified is on the onus of the sender/possessor, and as SoS she is legally expected to know what is classified. While she can technically tap dance around Department of State material classification since as SoS theoretically she gets to set the rules (though within limits, some I have listed below, and my guess is she violated those), she doesn't get to change other department's/agency's material. Leaving off the markings doesn't change that she was insecurely sending and storing classified material that by law has handling requirements that she was violating. As jeff4747 said, she is acting like the material is being retroactively classified which is isn't; it is being retroactively marked. It was classified at the time and by not marking it then, she is now claiming ignorance. If she was that ignorant of the rules she was placed in the position to enforce, then she had no right being the Secretary of State. Telling a staffer in an email to strip off classification markings and send a classified document by insecure means just demonstrates how she thought the law didn't apply to her.
She had no 'intent' to harm the interests of the United States.
Knowingly violating the laws designed to provide protection of information "which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security" just for her own convenience, and so she can skirt FOIA issues, is legally considered a form of "intent", i.e. gross negligence. Think of a guy at the NSA taking top secret documents home at night to work on them. He doesn't intend to cause harm, but he can still go to jail.
Do you have some statute that you're not selectively reading?
I think 46 CFR 503, EO13526, 32 CFR 2001, 18 USC 798, DoDD 5200 et al, etc., don't need to be selectively read. They make the duties of people dealing with classified info very clear - and the mishandling very illegal.
Or are you just listening to the other misogynists?
Ahhh, invoking an ad hominem attack, and a bad one at that. So you label anyone who speaks against her as a misogynist? In your world it's not possible for a person to disagree with her based on the merit of the facts? Just to be clear, you are the one who has brought her gender into the discussion.
The number of people who have been murdered or committed suicide that were going to testify or being investigated in regards to a Clinton related investigation is astounding! 89 deaths, 59 in 12 Plane Crashes, 13 Murders , 10 Suicides, 4 Friendly Fire during the Waco Assault and 03 Accidents.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
O pulled the same shit as the GOP does. Basically, he declared that it was not a treaty and set it up to by pass them. The exact same way that the GOP keeps one of their lackies sitting in 'CONgress', to keep it in session.
Personally, I think that both major parties are a bunch of losers, but esp the GOP for starting this BS.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
voting wont fix that mess anymore, the US Govt is beyond any help or repair
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I have a friend who believes in a lot of conspiracy theories that don't have much evidence, like chemtrails for example. He'll try to convince me that they're true and he thinks it's funny when I continue to insist that there is no evidence and get angry or frustrated about his unsubstantive claims. Maybe 4 or 5 years ago he had a new one, that the NSA was recording every phone call in the US. I was telling him how much access they would need to do that, at every phone company, how much storage space they would need to save all of that data, even if it was just text and not even audio, all of the reasons why that shouldn't be possible and, if it was, someone would know something and would tell everyone.
yeah...
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Is the Department of State part of the legislative or judicial branch?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
US Politics is a complete and total disaster, the US Govt is a mob of evil clowns, and Washington DC is their circus
This is what is known as a "vicious-cycle".
It's much, much more complicated than that. Just as one little wrinkle -- as Secretary of State (an official part of the executive branch), Hillary had the power to classify information or to de-classify already classified information IF the classification originated with her office. So, if she sent something that was classified by the Secretary of State office (which would be many things dealing with foreign intelligence), she could actually de-classify it, transmit it, then re-classify it later on a whim.
It's very, very hard to know what was and was not classified at the time she sent or received information and whether or not she had the power to de-classify anything that might have been sent or stored improperly.
The reason she's special is that she's a cabinet member, not some junior officer out at an army base. She has plenary power granted by the presidency to classify and un-classify documents herself that originate with her office. It absolutely DOES matter whether or not something was classified at the time it was sent or received, and if it is classified, it matters which department classified it.
As an aside, many things are "classified" just so certain people can get all of their e-mail through their classified-only e-mail account b/c they're too lazy to check 2 separate e-mails. I'm sure somewhere, there's a classified document on what pizza toppings a general wants at their upcoming office birthday party... b/c laziness.... not national security.
Hillary used the private e-mail server to intentionally control what information was available by the FOIA and federal records act, and she may be criminally indicted for improperly sending/receiving/storing classified info (though I doubt it.) The relevant laws do actually require knowledge and intent, not just the action... so, unless the DOJ gets Hillary's former underlings to roll on her (and assuming they aren't immediately reported to have suspiciously committed suicide), it's going to be a very difficult case to build against her.
Just to complicate things, not only is it up to the person writing a document to ensure the information is properly marked -- a process that is bound to be error prone, I believe that the Sec of State is one of the very numerous people who can legally change the classification of a piece of information. Not only is "I didn't think THAT was classified" often a legitimate defense, "I didn't think that SHOULD be classified" may well be a legitimate defense for the SecofState.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
What theory? that corporations fund election campaigns? That there are lobbiers sponsored by companies, whose entire job is to convince politicians. That senators get high paying executive jobs after they leave.
Companies don't do it out of the kindness of there heart they do it because it gets them political influence, which makes them money.
These aren't even secret. There are conspiracy theories that are probably nonsense, like the moon landing but this is not one of them.
The theory people with money will use it to seek power, in not a conspiracy theory it is human nature.
That's how it seems to me. On the other hand, people involved in politics have FAR more social contacts than others.