Support NeoGAF

[Drek]

What is this even referring to? The article is mostly about a conversation that took place between an FBI official and a State Department senior manager. Additionally, both the State Department and the FBI confirmed that the conversation took place.



So what was "debunked" exactly?

That a U.S. State Dept. official initiated a quid pro quo discussion. In fact, the FBI agent did.

That the pressure was anything beyond standard inter-department classification squabbles.

That this was anything significant whatsoever.

I'm just assuming that MIMIC is Jonathan Allen, the hack writer at Reuters who consistently writes some of the most absurd contortion of the facts anti-Clinton pieces you'll find outside the alt-right echo chamber.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Why don't you mimic rational Bernie supporters and just take that L

God, no kidding. BoBers are such annoying fucks. I get you love Bernie, but fuck. This election just isn't the time for petty shit like that.

 

[LucidMomentum]

Is the Alt-Right / GOP just now picking this up? Is that why it's getting reposted on the internet so much today?

 

[OraleeWey]

https://youtu.be/OztgH7gNBEY

 

[gcubed]

Is the Alt-Right / GOP just now picking this up? Is that why it's getting reposted on the internet so much today?

Trying to steal the headlines before a 10th woman the Trump sexually assaulted comes forward

 

[MIMIC]

Summed up better than I can do it:

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=220389321&postcount=3917

Well, this addresses the Weekly Standard's reporting of the story (and a tweet that someone apparently sent out that I really don't want to go out of my way to look for). This is a Reuters article.

As for the retroactive classification (that wasn't discussed in the Reuters article), I remember some posters a while ago arguing that the FBI was somehow "wrong" in regards to the classification, but these new documents shed light into conversations that took place with regard to the State Department-FBI disagreements.

Wikileaks striking out with all the faux scandals the last couple of weeks.

This was information released by the FBI today, not Wikileaks.

 

[Nerdkiller]

God, no kidding. BoBers are such annoying fucks. I get you love Bernie, but fuck. This election just isn't the time for petty shit like that.

But I vote with my CONSCIEEEEEEEEENCE!

 

[King Tubby]

Wow, way to pile on the OP for linking and accurately quoting from an article posted by that notorious conspiracy rag Reuters. How about don't be defensive assholes?

 

[KHarvey16]

(that wasn't discussed in the Reuters article)

Weird!

 

[commedieu]

Jesus gaf.

 

[Drek]

As for the retroactive classification (that wasn't discussed in the Reuters article), I remember some posters a while ago arguing that the FBI was somehow "wrong" in regards to the classification, but these new documents shed light into conversations that took place with regard to the State Department-FBI disagreements.

It does shed new light. It reveals that the FBI would trade classification for additional postings as they're the ones who brought it up. Obviously the FBI didn't consider the classification of the data in question to be that important if they're willing to use it as a bargaining chip, likely pointing out exactly why a state dept. official disagreed with it's classification in the first place and requested the change.

Wow, way to pile on the OP for linking and accurately quoting from an article posted by that notorious conspiracy rag Reuters. How about don't be defensive assholes?

How about:

1. MIMIC is the king of false equivolency shit posting when it comes to Hillary Clinton on this entire forum.

2. The article posted in fact is a piece of shit. The author titled it with "U.S. State Dept. official pressured FBI" and then waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy down near the bottom he mentions that the entire quid pro quo thing he trots out in paragraph #2 was actually a suggestion by the FBI agent, not the State Dept. official.

So unless there is something inherently wrong with agencies disagreeing about classification of data that inherently impacts all other agencies' ability to do their jobs having conversations about these disagreements I'm having a hard time seeing the problem here.

Unless of course burying the truth paragraphs down in an article with an intentionally misleading headline and opening "reporting" is considered good journalism.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said there was "no quid pro quo," and told reporters that it was the FBI official who raised the possibility with Kennedy of the State Department allowing more agents in Iraq during the conversation about the email.

"After the conversation took place about the upgrading classification, at the end of that, there was a kind of, 'Oh, by the way, hey, we're looking at how we want more slots" in Iraq, Toner said, calling it a "clear pivot" in the topic of conversation.

The FBI also confirmed both topics were raised in the same conversation. "Although there was never a quid pro quo, these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review," the FBI said in its statement, which did not say what the outcome of the review was.

 

[MIMIC]

That a U.S. State Dept. official initiated a quid pro quo discussion. In fact, the FBI agent did.

That the pressure was anything beyond standard inter-department classification squabbles.

That this was anything significant whatsoever.

I'm just assuming that MIMIC is Jonathan Allen, the hack writer at Reuters who consistently writes some of the most absurd contortion of the facts anti-Clinton pieces you'll find outside the alt-right echo chamber.

1. That's in the article. I even put that in bold.

2. Well I don't know about that, considering that there seemed to be some sort of effort to mislead the public (according to findings from the investigation, also cited in the article)

3. I'd say the significance is subjective. One crowd wishes this would all go away, while another one wishes there was more of it.

4. Is this thread about me, or the article?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Wow, way to pile on the OP for linking and accurately quoting from an article posted by that notorious conspiracy rag Reuters. How about don't be defensive assholes?

Please. It's MIMIC.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Wow, way to pile on the OP for linking and accurately quoting from an article posted by that notorious conspiracy rag Reuters. How about don't be defensive assholes?

You must be new.

 

[Ozigizo]

Wow, way to pile on the OP for linking and accurately quoting from an article posted by that notorious conspiracy rag Reuters. How about don't be defensive assholes?

Did you even read the rest of the links provided later in the thread?

 

[King Tubby]

Please. It's MIMIC.

Yeah, I know. He likes Bernie Sanders and is skeptical of Hillary. So what? He's not the one in this thread being obnoxious.

Did you even read the rest of the links provided later in the thread?

Yeah, I did. You can post them without resorting to the insults.

 

[Eidan]

The FBI initiated the conversation about a quid pro quo. No quid pro quo occurred.

I'm forced to ask a question I feel like I have to ask in every MIMIC Clinton thread: What should I be outraged about here? That Kennedy asked that a email classification be changed at all?

 

[Wafflecakes]

Wow, way to pile on the OP for linking and accurately quoting from an article posted by that notorious conspiracy rag Reuters. How about don't be defensive assholes?

Mimic is the Bernie supporter equivalent of Kellyanne Conway.

Honestly his mere mentioning of a news story makes me suspicious of its legitimacy... that is how bad of a rep he has.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Wow, way to pile on the OP for linking and accurately quoting from an article posted by that notorious conspiracy rag Reuters. How about don't be defensive assholes?

MIMIC is infamous for starting threads like these. He's earned the shit

 

[MIMIC]

It does shed new light. It reveals that the FBI would trade classification for additional postings as they're the ones who brought it up. Obviously the FBI didn't consider the classification of the data in question to be that important if they're willing to use it as a bargaining chip, likely pointing out exactly why a state dept. official disagreed with it's classification in the first place and requested the change.

That's a huge leap. Literally anything can be bargained for (and the one bargaining apparently didn't have the authority to do it in the first place)

 

[JABEE]

Wow, way to pile on the OP for linking and accurately quoting from an article posted by that notorious conspiracy rag Reuters. How about don't be defensive assholes?

I also think it's weird to expect people to know what has been covered already in PoliGAF, a community thread which is a rationalization and defense for this situation. I guess he should just "take the L." Is there another thread on this subject or is this a "/thread" moment where the political answer has been determined and no further discussion is needed?

This seems like a legitimate thread on a "new" news story.

As for the email situation, one could draw the conclusion that something was being requested politically in exchange for something else, even if the information wasn't classified at the time and nothing resulted. This is a bureaucratic maneuver and deserves to be out in the open.

This appears to something many news outlets deem news-worthy.

 

[SwiftDeath]

Are we sure the email wasn't about aliens?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I also think it's weird to expect people to know what has been covered already in PoliGAF, a community thread which is a rationalization and defense for this situation. I guess he should just "take the L." Is there another thread on this subject or is this a "/thread" moment where the political answer has been determined and no further discussion is needed?

This seems like a legitimate thread on a "new" news story.

As for the email situation, one could draw the conclusion that something was being requested politically in exchange for something else, even if the information wasn't classified at the time and nothing resulted. This is a bureaucratic maneuver and deserves to be out in the open.

This appears to something many news outlets deem news-worthy.

Shocking!

 

[joebruin]

people are just going to read the headline (like trump). lol

crooked hillary.

 

[Drek]

1. That's in the article. I even put that in bold.

After you selectively quoted and put in bold this line:
Soon after, one of the official's colleagues at the FBI received a call from Kennedy in which Kennedy "asked his assistance in altering the email's classification in exchange for a 'quid pro quo.'"

Which is clearly phrased to imply Kennedy was the one offering quid pro quo, when in fact it was the other way around.

Oh, you also posted this quote:
"After the conversation took place about the upgrading classification, at the end of that, there was a kind of, 'Oh, by the way, hey, we're looking at how we want more slots" in Iraq, Toner said, calling it a "clear pivot" in the topic of conversation.

While selectively dropping the far more revealing lead into it:
State Department spokesman Mark Toner said there was "no quid pro quo," and told reporters that it was the FBI official who raised the possibility with Kennedy of the State Department allowing more agents in Iraq during the conversation about the email.

Sorry, you clearly selectively quoted the original article to suit your own views, made pretty blatantly obvious when the article in question did exactly the same thing with the entire "story" here.

Don't blame me for your inability to muckrake without revealing your massive amounts of personal bias every step of the way.

 

[besada]

Those of you who'd rather discuss the person who posted the story (or anything else) than the story should find some other thread to plague. Those discussing the actual contents of the OP are welcomed and lauded.

 

[Za-Neen-Jya]

The trolls under the_donald bridge are calling this 'The Kill Shot'. It is to laugh.

The alt-right have cried wolf so many times over every Clinton revelation, and after all of them have been proven to be mild at best, I don't even know why anyone bothers to read them any more.

 

[JABEE]

I feel this type of thing is probably bureaucratic stuff that happens all the time. It does not matter if the change was actually made. It is the pressure and the intermingling of the agencies.

I have no trust in the FBI in terms of ethicality. Their history in this country and the means by which they served the executive branch is self-evident. I feel these kinds of conversations should be aired publicly and I do not believe they would be performed if there was an expectation of real transparency at agencies. The same applies to classified documents which are redacted and classified to protect careers rather than lives.

This is the status quo though. Because agencies deny and politicians spin it to be standard procedure we accept this as a way of life in Washington.

Reuters has sources confirming they have felt pressured. It wouldn't surprise me in either direction.

 

[Ozigizo]

Yeah, I did. You can post them without resorting to the insults.

I didn't insult anyone?

 

[LucidMomentum]

So if the FBI themselves suggest favors / quid pro quo to declassify documents, why is the classification of said emails as big a deal as we are lead to believe, at least in regards to the overall election and not just the last couple of weeks?

I'm really having trouble figuring out what this entails in regards to the ongoing Email circus and if it'll have any effect on things. Doesn't seem like it brings much to light, apart from the FBI being interested in Quid Pro Quo agreements.

 

[diablos991]

So if the FBI themselves suggest favors / quid pro quo to declassify documents, why is the classification of said emails as big a deal as we are lead to believe, at least in regards to the overall election and not just the last couple of weeks?

I'm really having trouble figuring out what this entails in regards to the ongoing Email circus and if it'll have any effect on things. Doesn't seem like it brings much to light, apart from the FBI being interested in Quid Pro Quo agreements.

I think both the FBI willing to entertain to quid pro quo and the State Department offering quid pro quo are problems in an ongoing investigation.

 

[MIMIC]

After you selectively quoted and put in bold this line:
Soon after, one of the official's colleagues at the FBI received a call from Kennedy in which Kennedy "asked his assistance in altering the email's classification in exchange for a 'quid pro quo.'"

Which is clearly phrased to imply Kennedy was the one offering quid pro quo, when in fact it was the other way around.

Is this a joke? Later in the article it is not only mentioned, but I BOLDED the the fact that it was FBI who was asking for it, and what they were asking for.

Oh, you also posted this quote:
"After the conversation took place about the upgrading classification, at the end of that, there was a kind of, 'Oh, by the way, hey, we're looking at how we want more slots" in Iraq, Toner said, calling it a "clear pivot" in the topic of conversation.

While selectively dropping the far more revealing lead into it:
State Department spokesman Mark Toner said there was "no quid pro quo," and told reporters that it was the FBI official who raised the possibility with Kennedy of the State Department allowing more agents in Iraq during the conversation about the email.

Seriously? Again, it was addressed earlier in the article more specifically (again, in bold): "if the State Department would consider allowing more FBI agents to be posted in Iraq in exchange."

I thought it was redundant to say "here's what they asked for" in addition to "they asked for it." If that's you're beef, then you're being really nit-picky.

Sorry, you clearly selectively quoted the original article to suit your own views, made pretty blatantly obvious when the article in question did exactly the same thing with the entire "story" here.

Don't blame me for your inability to muckrake without revealing your massive amounts of personal bias every step of the way.

That was a complete and utter misreading of the OP.

EDIT: And honestly, is it "better" that the FBI was asking for something (allegedly) in exchange for a declassification instead of the State Department?

 

[Forearms]

I think both the FBI willing to listen to quid pro quo and the State Department offering quid pro quo are problems in an ongoing investigation.

...the FBI offered the quid pro quo, not the State Department. This is why everyone is upset with MIMIC in this thread - for emboldening the twisted statements within the article.

 

[JABEE]

So if the FBI themselves suggest favors / quid pro quo to declassify documents, why is the classification of said emails as big a deal as we are lead to believe, at least in regards to the overall election and not just the last couple of weeks?

I'm really having trouble figuring out what this entails in regards to the ongoing Email circus and if it'll have any effect on things. Doesn't seem like it brings much to light, apart from the FBI being interested in Quid Pro Quo agreements.

Anything that focuses on this controversy is a detriment to Clinton's campaign. It is also related to Clinton being cleared of criminal charges by the same agency the state department was applying pressure on.

These things are linked in people's minds. This association is not favorable which makes sense why the two agencies would publicly deny there was any actual "quid quo pro."

I think more people being able to see behind the curtains no matter how mundane or inconsequential is important. This is how a representative democracy is supposed to work.

Things like public vs private policy and the influence moneyed interests have over laws is extremely crucial. I'm of the opinion that the people are not being served. Legislation and decisions are being made in fast order without the public noticing. It's working as it has been intended to work.

There have been many generations of this happening in American History. Reformers cracking down on monopolies, donor appointments, and land deals have been a positive for all people. This quid quo pro mentality is not some crazy conspiracy. It's something I would assume is practiced by any agency or business who does not have to answer to any other body or institution.

 

[MIMIC]

...the FBI offered the quid pro quo, not the State Department. This is why everyone is upset with MIMIC in this thread - for emboldening the twisted statements within the article.

This is in bold:

"According to the interview summary, the official said he told Kennedy he would look into the email, which he had not yet seen, if the State Department would consider allowing more FBI agents to be posted in Iraq in exchange."

What did you glean from this item? That the State Department was offering something in exchange for something, or the FBI?

 

[diablos991]

...the FBI offered the quid pro quo, not the State Department. This is why everyone is upset with MIMIC in this thread - for emboldening the twisted statements within the article.

Well then the reverse of my statement is true. Who investigates the FBI?

 

[excelsiorlef]

This is in bold:

"According to the interview summary, the official said he told Kennedy he would look into the email, which he had not yet seen, if the State Department would consider allowing more FBI agents to be posted in Iraq in exchange."

What did you glean from this item? That the State Department was offering something in exchange for something, or the FBI?

The State Department offered nothing in that exchange... the FBI asked for something.

 

[digdug2k]

I think both the FBI willing to entertain to quid pro quo and the State Department offering quid pro quo are problems in an ongoing investigation.

There's literally zero evidence either party asked for any qui-pro-quo in this case, and plenty of accounts from people saying that there was no quid-pro-quo. One of the requests was granted the other wasn't, also not supporting the idea that either party felt obligated to tie the two requests together. There is nothing here.

Its good to investigate government corruption and make sure it doesn't happen. When you don't find what you thought you might, be happy. Pat the people involved on the back and say "Wow, great job Steve/Hillary/Hilda. Some people might have been tempted to do something unethical there. Its great to see you're not one of them.".

 

[Forearms]

This is in bold:

"According to the interview summary, the official said he told Kennedy he would look into the email, which he had not yet seen, if the State Department would consider allowing more FBI agents to be posted in Iraq in exchange."

What did you glean from this item? That the State Department was offering something in exchange for something, or the FBI?

I gleaned that the FBI asked for a favor in the same conversation as the request for declassification of an email by the State Department. However, you also bolded the following line from earlier in the article:

Soon after, one of the official's colleagues at the FBI received a call from Kennedy in which Kennedy "asked his assistance in altering the email's classification in exchange for 'quid pro quo.'"

I suppose that means Kennedy was hitting up multiple folks at the FBI, and offered something during a separate conversation than the one with the original official from the FBI. It would be much clearer if they just named the names of these officials on the FBI side of things, while also helping the article appear less biased.

 

[Blader]

Well, this addresses the Weekly Standard's reporting of the story (and a tweet that someone apparently sent out that I really don't want to go out of my way to look for). This is a Reuters article.

Are the Weekly Standard and Reuters somehow reporting completely different angles of the same story? Who cares what outlet you first read it in? It's the same story.

 

[USC-fan]

This was the lead story on the CBS evening new. Not a good look.

 

[Armaros]

Yeah, I know. He likes Bernie Sanders and is skeptical of Hillary. So what? He's not the one in this thread being obnoxious.



Yeah, I did. You can post them without resorting to the insults.

Once or twice or three times can be written off.

MIMIC has done this multiple mulitple times since the primary started. He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.

Which makes sense considering that is his default position regarding Hillary Clinton, so everyone is just reciprocating the feeling.

 

[ShironRedshift]

This was the lead story on the CBS evening new. Not a good look.

Indeed, it's definitely not a good look that our media is even giving this trash the time of day at all just to entertain some notion of having a horse race, I agree.

 

[jon bones]

This was the lead story on the CBS evening new. Not a good look.

always the usual suspects

 

[MIMIC]

Are the Weekly Standard and Reuters somehow reporting completely different angles of the same story? Who cares what outlet you first read it in? It's the same story.

The criticism regarding the Weekly Standard piece is that it is claiming that the State Department offered something in exchange for something (literally -- the post I was linked to says just that: "The claim: Patrick Kennedy a senior State official offered a “quid pro quo” to the FBI to declassify an email found in Clinton's server"). The same cannot cannot be made about the Reuters piece, which makes it crystal clear that it's the other way around. So it is not the same story (which is why it doesn't make sense to just lump all news stories together because of the appearance that it might make Hillary look bad).

 

[Rebel Leader]

If Hillary isn't careful, this email thing might become a GOP talking point...

It's not already?

=p

 

[MHWilliams]

Well, this addresses the Weekly Standard's reporting of the story (and a tweet that someone apparently sent out that I really don't want to go out of my way to look for). This is a Reuters article.

As for the retroactive classification (that wasn't discussed in the Reuters article), I remember some posters a while ago arguing that the FBI was somehow "wrong" in regards to the classification, but these new documents shed light into conversations that took place with regard to the State Department-FBI disagreements.

This was information released by the FBI today, not Wikileaks.

Nope.

Started the with FBI agent. Was shot down.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/17/politics/hillary-clinton-server-patrick-kennedy-quid-pro-quo/

Both FBI and State on Monday denied any "quid pro quo."

"The FBI determined that one such email was classified at the Secret level," FBI said Monday in a statement. "A senior State Department official requested the FBI re-review that email to determine whether it was in fact classified or whether it might be protected from release under a different FOIA exemption. A now-retired FBI official, who was not part of the subsequent Clinton investigation, told the State Department official that they would look into the matter. Having been previously unsuccessful in attempts to speak with the senior State official, during the same conversation, the FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending, unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad."

The FBI maintained the email should remain classified.

State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner called allegations of a quid pro quo "inaccurate" and said Monday that Kennedy was trying to "understand" the FBI's decision to withhold the information.

"Classification is an art, not a science, and individuals with classification authority sometimes have different views," Toner said. "There can be applicable FOIA exemptions that are based on both classified and unclassified rules. ... We have been committed to releasing as much information to the public as possible, and ensuring that documents are withheld due to classification only when necessary to prevent damage to national security -- as the Executive Order on classification calls for."

 

[Ether_Snake]

What the heck is the FBI doing in Iraq?

 

[MIMIC]

Nope.

Started the with FBI agent. Was shot down.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/17/politics/hillary-clinton-server-patrick-kennedy-quid-pro-quo/

I don't get it. Nope what? The part about the request starting with the FBI is in the Reuters article (although it doesn't mention the part about it being pending/unaddressed).

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

It's not already?

=p

thatsthejoke.jpg