Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 80556]

What the heck is the FBI doing in Iraq?

This was my biggest takeaway from the article as well. Like WTH?

 

[Ether_Snake]

This was my biggest takeaway from the article as well. Like WTH?

I know they can assist in investigations, maybe it was related to networks that might be there and related to people in the US.

 

[MIMIC]

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.

Well for what it's worth, the NY Times says that it's "unclear" whether the FBI offered, or whether it was the State Department.

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?

(sorry I didn't see this earlier)

The problem isn't that he asked (disputes about classification apparently occur all the time). It's why he wanted it changed. From all accounts, it had to do with protecting Clinton, rather than a substantive dispute over the classification. Also, the FBI offering something in exchange for declassification and the State Department entertaining the idea is....a little unsettling, to say the least.

 

[Frustrated_me]

The State Dept totally fumbling the whole session yesterday, there is no clean answer here.

I find it surprising this isn't bigger news. It's a complete breach of ethics between government parties, any other election cycle this would have been HUGE.

Has Hillary made a response to this yet? Or is she still MIA with regards to this topic?

 

[Exile20]

The State Dept totally fumbling the whole session yesterday, there is no clean answer here.

I find it surprising this isn't bigger news. It's a complete breach of ethics between government parties, any other election cycle this would have been HUGE.

Has Hillary made a response to this yet? Or is she still MIA with regards to this topic?

Ye, it is best if she runs out the clock on wednesday. Just ignore it.

Oh Hillary, so many skeletons.

 

[gutter_trash]

the fact that this has been debunked last night but continues to be present in the news proves that the media is peddling a horse race narrative

 

[diablos991]

The State Dept totally fumbling the whole session yesterday, there is no clean answer here.

I find it surprising this isn't bigger news. It's a complete breach of ethics between government parties, any other election cycle this would have been HUGE.

Has Hillary made a response to this yet? Or is she still MIA with regards to this topic?

None of the leaks are making big news. It appears there is a media blackout pertaining to the DNC leaks that have been hapoening daily. There is also a video floating around that isn't getting coverage.

 

[Veritigo_X]

None of the leaks are making big news. It appears there is a media blackout pertaining to the DNC leaks that have been hapoening daily. There is also a video floating around that isn't getting coverage.

Please oh please tell me you are talking about the O'Keefe video.

 

[Frustrated_me]

The notes state that the FBI official who made the assertion “believes [the State Department] has an agenda which involves minimizing the classified nature of the Clinton emails in order to protect State interests and those of Clinton.”

Are these debunked quotes? There are posts in the first page that state these were debunked 15 months ago? Kinda confused here.

The FBI and State Dept may have got this all wrong and fumbled this bad.

 

[ClosingADoor]

None of the leaks are making big news. It appears there is a media blackout pertaining to the DNC leaks that have been hapoening daily. There is also a video floating around that isn't getting coverage.

That's because there isn't anything really interesting or surprising in it.

 

[Eidan]

(sorry I didn't see this earlier)

The problem isn't that he asked (disputes about classification apparently occur all the time). It's why he wanted it changed. From all accounts, it had to do with protecting Clinton, rather than a substantive dispute over the classification. Also, the FBI offering something in exchange for declassification and the State Department entertaining the idea is....a little unsettling, to say the least.

If these kind of classification disputes happen all of the time, what evidence is there that this time it was to protect Clinton?

 

[Frustrated_me]

That's because there isn't anything really interesting or surprising in it.

Breach of ethics between the State Dept, FBI and The Hillary campaign isn't explicit in nature to you? Are these not interesting in the slightest?

 

[Frustrated_me]

If these kind of classification disputes happen all of the time, what evidence is there that this time it was to protect Clinton?

Well these is this bit, unless I'm reading it wrong:

The notes state that the FBI official who made the assertion “believes [the State Department] has an agenda which involves minimizing the classified nature of the Clinton emails in order to protect State interests and those of Clinton.”

- Source.

 

[Wilsongt]

None of the leaks are making big news. It appears there is a media blackout pertaining to the DNC leaks that have been hapoening daily. There is also a video floating around that isn't getting coverage.

Someone isn't watching Fair and Balanced news!

 

[excelsiorlef]

Breach of ethics between the State Dept, FBI and The Hillary campaign isn't explicit in nature to you? Are these not interesting in the slightest?

Wait and the Clinton campaign?

I must have missed where they were involved in this specfic "incident"

 

[ClosingADoor]

Breach of ethics between the State Dept, FBI and The Hillary campaign isn't explicit in nature to you? Are these not interesting in the slightest?

Politicians doing politics. Is it all right and 100% how it should be? Probably not. But it isn't surprising or has a lot of impact. Or it is easily explained stuff that just happens all time. I haven't seen anything major news worthy in all these leaks.

 

[Frustrated_me]

Wait and the Clinton campaign?

I must have missed where they were involved in this specfic "incident"

Yeah I included the Hillary campaign because the notes from the FBI official state the request was being made so as "to protect State interests and those of Clinton".

 

[Eidan]

Well these is this bit, unless I'm reading it wrong:

- Source.

I'm aware of that bit. And I'm asking that, since classification disputes between the State department and FBI predate the Clinton email scandal, what evidence is there that this time was to protect Clinton? What is that FBI official basing the assumption on?

 

[Frustrated_me]

Politicians doing politics. It is all right and 100% how it should be? Probably not. But it isn't surprising or has a lot of impact.

Ohh, ok.

I'm aware of that bit. And I'm asking that, since classification disputes between the State department and FBI predate the Clinton email scandal, what evidence is there that this time was to protect Clinton? What is that FBI official basing the assumption on?

I can't possibly know this, not sure anyone could, I'm relaying what was said in the FBI officials notes. Just have to take his/her word for it since he/she said it.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Ohh, ok.

I'm just saying why it probably isn't major news. Is there anything in all these leaks that scream blatant corruption or has far reaching consequences for the public? I haven't seen it. So it isn't major news.

 

[psrock]

Ye, it is best if she runs out the clock on wednesday. Just ignore it.

Oh Hillary, so many skeletons.

But I can't think of anyone who has more information out than Hillary. We can see her taxes, emails, her employees and friends conversation. What do we have from the other side?

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

Yeah I included the Hillary campaign because the notes from the FBI official state the request was being made so as "to protect State interests and those of Clinton".

That was an inference, I thought, not confirmed. Not just that but:

• The email was originally unclassified.
• FBI wanted to classify it.
• Kennedy from State asked FBI not to do it.
• FBI mentioned in the same thread about the pending request to put more FBI operatives in Iraq
• Nothing came out of that, the email ended up being classified.

Was it unethical for them to discuss in this manner? Probably.
Was the Clinton campaign involved? That's not clear.
Does this reflect poorly on Clinton? I don't see how.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Well for what it's worth, the NY Times says that it's "unclear" whether the FBI offered, or whether it was the State Department.



(sorry I didn't see this earlier)

The problem isn't that he asked (disputes about classification apparently occur all the time). It's why he wanted it changed. From all accounts, it had to do with protecting Clinton, rather than a substantive dispute over the classification. Also, the FBI offering something in exchange for declassification and the State Department entertaining the idea is....a little unsettling, to say the least.

Seems completely innocuous to me. As you said, disputes over classification is common. Also, the FBI agent is behind the whole thing, anyways.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yeah I included the Hillary campaign because the notes from the FBI official state the request was being made so as "to protect State interests and those of Clinton".

There's no evidence of the Clinton campaign being actually involved in this story even if we take it at complete face value.


That said I don't, this is the opinion of one official, both the FBI and State Department have released statements that repudiate it.

 

[Frustrated_me]

That was an inference, I thought, not confirmed. Not just that but:

• The email was originally unclassified.
• FBI wanted to classify it.
• Kennedy from State asked FBI not to do it.
• FBI mentioned in the same thread about the pending request to put more FBI operatives in Iraq
• Nothing came out of that, the email ended up being classified.

Was it unethical for them to discuss in this manner? Probably.
Was the Clinton campaign involved? That's not clear.
Does this reflect poorly on Clinton? I don't see how.

Do you know why the email was sent as unclassified originally but then the FBI (or State Dept) deemed it was necessary to then classify it? I wonder if this is normal behaviour.

Edit: poster above said it was common, nm.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

🍴

 

[Eidan]

Ohh, ok.

I can't possibly know this, not sure anyone could, I'm relaying what was said in the FBI officials notes. Just have to take his/her word for it since he/she said it.

I just have a hard time finding this back and forth between the State department and FBI to be newsworthy, when the information provided doesn't specify how the request made by the State department was any different from other times the State department made the same request.

Also, the FBI classified over a hundred of Clinton's emails as classified. If Kennedy was trying to save Clinton in some insidious manner, why wouldn't he request that none of them be marked classified?

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

Do you know why the email was sent as unclassified originally but then the FBI (or State Dept) deemed it was necessary to then classify it? I wonder if this is normal behaviour.

Edit: poster above said it was common, nm.

A lot of people in the know have said that this is not just very common, but a real problem because different agencies can deem documents to be classified and at what level. There's no central classification agency that has the last word. However, one agency classifying something makes it classified for the whole government.

 

[rjinaz]

None of the leaks are making big news. It appears there is a media blackout pertaining to the DNC leaks that have been hapoening daily. There is also a video floating around that isn't getting coverage.

Corrupt media!

Please. The last couple of days I didn't even watch CNN because every time I turned it on it was about those damn emails. Well yesterday had Melania too, but mostly dam emails. The media will report on the things that will get them clicks. If something actually huge comes out on Hillary, it will be talked about for days.

 

[psrock]

Who are these in the know people?

 

[Blader]

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).

Weird, because when I read a thread title that says "U.S. State Dept official 'pressured' FBI to declassify Clinton email" I'm thinking that the argument you're making is that, well, a U.S. State Dept official pressured the FBI to declassify Clinton emails. Not to mention all of the lines you selectively bolded were all about Kennedy allegedly pressuring the FBI to declassify certain of Hillary's emails, which I guess you're now admitting is not the case.

Furthermore, if, as you say, State and FBI have disputes over email classifications all the time, then how is this an example of the two agencies colluding to specifically protect Hillary? Both her campaign and State have spent the past year explaining ad nauseam about classification disputes between agencies and that information Hillary handled that the FBI may have considered classified may not have been considered classified by State. So how does this email exchange between Kennedy and the FBI official deviate from that? It's an example of what they've been arguing about all along!

None of the leaks are making big news. It appears there is a media blackout pertaining to the DNC leaks that have been hapoening daily. There is also a video floating around that isn't getting coverage.

You must be joking. There are daily news stories about Podesta's hacked emails. (Note: Podesta email dump is different from DNC email dump, which happened months ago)

I'm sorry your candidate has indulged in a lifetime of sexually assaulting every woman in his immediate vicinity that it crowds out these emails from being the sole focus of every cable news talking head.

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

Corrupt media!

Please. The last couple of days I didn't even watch CNN because every time I turned it on it was about those damn emails. Well yesterday had Melania too, but mostly dam emails. The media will report on the things that will get them clicks. If something actually huge comes out on Hillary, it will be talked about for days.

Here's a summary of CNN:

• ANCHOR: New emails raise questions about Hillary Clinton.
• EXPERT / CLINTON SUPPORTER: These are the facts, and why it's being taken out of context and not a big deal.
• ANCHOR: But it got leaked so it's bad! Let's ask our panel how bad are these leaks?

If you listen carefully, they have little to nothing actually damaging, and most of the coverage centers is around the idea that: "Hillary didn't want this to come out, and they came out, therefore it's a defeat for her and it's bad." It doesn't matter what the content is. That's also the reason for the Wikileaks drip drip drip strategy. They know people aren't actually looking at this and the media is more focused on the leaked part than the facts.

 

[QuantumZebra]

Also, the FBI offering something in exchange for declassification and the State Department entertaining the idea is....a little unsettling, to say the least.

What you're calling unsettling is called politics. Welcome to America as it has been for over 200 years.

I'd recommend taking a break from thread-making for a while. Maybe take up weaving.

 

[blahness]

Here's a summary of CNN:

• ANCHOR: New emails raise questions about Hillary Clinton.
• EXPERT / CLINTON SUPPORTER: These are the facts, and why it's being taken out of context and not a big deal.
• ANCHOR: But it got leaked so it's bad! Let's ask our panel how bad are these leaks?

If you listen carefully, they have little to nothing actually damaging, and most of the coverage centers is around the idea that: "Hillary didn't want this to come out, and they came out, therefore it's a defeat for her and it's bad." It doesn't matter what the content is. That's also the reason for the Wikileaks drip drip drip strategy. They know people aren't actually looking at this and the media is more focused on the leaked part than the facts.

Actually I think that the Wikileaks drip strategy is more effective for processing the amount of emails that are coming out. People are looking at them and trying to process what it all means. It is true that there is nothing groundbreaking or career ending in the emails, but keep in mind that fewer than 18,000 emails out of ~50,000 have been released. Are they keeping juicy ones for later? Maybe, Maybe not. Who knows?

To say that all of the media is focused on the leaked parts rather than the factual info they contain is also a bit misleading. Big story on the bottom half of the front page of USA Today this morning is about the questions raised by Clinton Foundation fundraising efforts being used by companies to lobby the State Dept. The article is pretty non-partisan and does not reference the leaked emails at all, but is about the questions raised by what can be publicly seen as a possible conflict of interest for Clinton both during her term as Sec of State and if she becomes President.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...n-donors-lobbyists-state-department/92285652/

Again, nothing here reveals illegal activities, but does raise the questions on whether or not companies will get something out of backchannel fundraising through facetime, appointments, or other possible pay for play grants. There are a lot of these type of communications in the leaked emails, so they are definitely worth questioning. Claiming this is just politics benefits no one. Democrats were pissed when Bush appointed lobbyists and Republicans are pissed about Obama doing the same. This is something that should be looked at and changed for the good of the country as a whole.

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

Actually I think that the Wikileaks drip strategy is more effective for processing the amount of emails that are coming out. People are looking at them and trying to process what it all means. It is true that there is nothing groundbreaking or career ending in the emails, but keep in mind that fewer than 18,000 emails out of ~50,000 have been released. Are they keeping juicy ones for later? Maybe, Maybe not. Who knows?

To say that all of the media is focused on the leaked parts rather than the factual info they contain is also a bit misleading. Big story on the bottom half of the front page of USA Today this morning is about the questions raised by Clinton Foundation fundraising efforts being used by companies to lobby the State Dept. The article is pretty non-partisan and does not reference the leaked emails at all, but is about the questions raised by what can be publicly seen as a possible conflict of interest for Clinton both during her term as Sec of State and if she becomes President.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...n-donors-lobbyists-state-department/92285652/

Again, nothing here reveals illegal activities, but does raise the questions on whether or not companies will get something out of backchannel fundraising through facetime, appointments, or other possible pay for play grants. There are a lot of these type of communications in the leaked emails, so they are definitely worth questioning. Claiming this is just politics benefits no one. Democrats were pissed when Bush appointed lobbyists and Republicans are pissed about Obama doing the same. This is something that should be looked at and changed for the good of the country as a whole.

I was talking specifically about CNN; and I think the problem is that they need to wrap everything up in 3 or 4 minutes. A longer form like on the USA Today makes it easier to go deeper on the subject.

 

[FrontalMonk]

Who are these in the know people?

Top. Men.

 

[DOWN]

Ah, a Mimic thread. Ignoring that the FBI turned the conversation into Quid pro quo and that the email request was due to the email having not been classified when it was in Hillary's hands at the time.

 

[sflufan]

Brian McCauley, the FBI agent involved in the alleged "quid pro quo" discussion, has spoken with the Washington Post.

 

[DR2K]

Sorry Bernie lost MIMIC. You will get over it eventually!

Bernie still has a chance to become elected.

 

[MIMIC]

Weird, because when I read a thread title that says "U.S. State Dept official 'pressured' FBI to declassify Clinton email" I'm thinking that the argument you're making is that, well, a U.S. State Dept official pressured the FBI to declassify Clinton emails. Not to mention all of the lines you selectively bolded were all about Kennedy allegedly pressuring the FBI to declassify certain of Hillary's emails, which I guess you're now admitting is not the case.

What are you even talking about? That's exactly what happened. Not only that, but it's the title of the article. The State Department pressured the FBI to declassify Hillary's email and after some back and forth, the FBI ultimately said no.

Now I don't know whether you're intentionally misinterpreting things just to be difficult, or whether you're actually confused. Either way, several articles are worded in an almost identical fashion.

-Bloomberg: Pressure Cited Against Marking Clinton E-Mails Classified
-Guardian: Clinton emails: records suggest state department pressured FBI
-Newsweek (citing Reuters): HILLARY CLINTON'S EMAILS: DID THE STATE DEPARTMENT PRESSURE THE FBI OVER CLASSIFICATION? (First line: A senior State Department official sought to shield Hillary Clinton last year by pressuring the FBI to drop its insistence that an email on the private server she used while secretary of state contained classified information)

So if you're not understanding these stories either, then I really can't help. If you want articles to be written a certain way to suggest something YOU want it to suggest, then that's your problem. Not mine and not the news organizations.

Furthermore, if, as you say, State and FBI have disputes over email classifications all the time, then how is this an example of the two agencies colluding to specifically protect Hillary? Both her campaign and State have spent the past year explaining ad nauseam about classification disputes between agencies and that information Hillary handled that the FBI may have considered classified may not have been considered classified by State. So how does this email exchange between Kennedy and the FBI official deviate from that? It's an example of what they've been arguing about all along!

This is a straw man. I never said the two agencies were colluding to protect Hillary. Just that the State Department was trying to protect Hillary. Not the FBI.

If information suggests collusion, then I'll make that claim.

Ah, a Mimic thread. Ignoring that the FBI turned the conversation into Quid pro quo and that the email request was due to the email having not been classified when it was in Hillary's hands at the time.

Speaking of ignoring, looks like you simply ignored the entire OP. Because I put in bold what you accused me of ignoring:

"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."

If you want to be outraged, at least read what I put in bold.

 

[commedieu]

The fbi was asking for more personel.

Which was denied..right?

 

[RustyNails]

Well for what it's worth, the NY Times says that it's "unclear" whether the FBI offered, or whether it was the State Department.



(sorry I didn't see this earlier)

The problem isn't that he asked (disputes about classification apparently occur all the time). It's why he wanted it changed. From all accounts, it had to do with protecting Clinton, rather than a substantive dispute over the classification. Also, the FBI offering something in exchange for declassification and the State Department entertaining the idea is....a little unsettling, to say the least.

How do you know it was a means to protect Clinton? If that were the case, why didn't Hillary direct Kennedy to actually go after emails that were marked classified instead of the ones that were unclassified? It makes no sense. There are thousands of such retroactively classified emails. Why is this one made a big deal? This is standard inter-government agencies bitching at each other about what is deemed classified. The State Dept employee sent 5 unclassified emails to FBI and requested FBI do a review. FBI does its review, comes to conclusion that 1 is deemed classified and marks it as such. State Dept employee says noo, its unclassified because blah blah. FBI says lolno, and it remained classified. This is the bureaucratic process of retroactive classification. Then FBI brings up by the way, we need space in country x. The FBI agent brings up the term quid pro quo. State dept ignores the request. Life goes on. Just another day in government.

 

[MIMIC]

Brian McCauley, the FBI agent involved in the alleged "quid pro quo" discussion, has spoken with the Washington Post.

So the FBI agent asked for the favor before he knew what Kennedy wanted? Well that sounds better. I believe him (for many reasons).

I definitely don't believe Kennedy about his motivations not being political, though (again...for many reason).

How do you know it was a means to protect Clinton?

From the Wall Street Journal:

The FBI official told investigators that “State has an agenda which involves minimizing the classified nature of the Clinton emails in order to protect State interests and those of Clinton.”

It wasn’t just FBI officials who raised such concerns. Within the State Department, an unidentified employee told a similar story about how employees felt pressured to not mark as classified Mrs. Clinton’s emails related to the Benghazi attacks, according to the newly released documents.

 

[KHarvey16]

"Feeling pressure" is not a qualitative description. Any disagreement with a superior could be described as being pressured into doing x or y. That says nothing about whether x or y is correct or incorrect.

 

[Suikoguy]

"Feeling pressure" is not a qualitative description. Any disagreement with a superior could be described as being pressured into doing x or y. That says nothing about whether x or y is correct or incorrect.

Pretty much, besides using the phrase "asking for a favor" is a Psychology 101 of getting people to like you and work with you.

 

[psrock]

In keeping with the pressure wording, nothing shows anyone was pressured to do anything.

 

[excelsiorlef]

There is no evidence that Clinton knew about Kennedy’s and McCauley’s discussion, and McCauley said Kennedy never even invoked Clinton’s name

This is even less than nothing as it pertains to the Clinton camp.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What the heck is the FBI doing in Iraq?

Despite its domestic focus, the FBI also maintains a significant international footprint, operating 60 Legal Attache (LEGAT) offices and 15 sub-offices in U.S. embassies and consulates across the globe. These overseas offices exist primarily for the purpose of coordination with foreign security services and do not usually conduct unilateral operations in the host countries.[6] The FBI can and does at times carry out secret activities overseas,[7] just as the CIA has a limited domestic function; these activities generally require coordination across government agencies.

They investigate crimes against the US

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Stop helping Trump's bullshit by pushing your own.

 

[MIMIC]

"Feeling pressure" is not a qualitative description. Any disagreement with a superior could be described as being pressured into doing x or y. That says nothing about whether x or y is correct or incorrect.

"It wasn’t just FBI officials who raised such concerns." And the concerns were that the State Department had an agenda to protect their interest and Clinton's.

So in playing devil's advocate, you're completely ignoring the context of what kind of pressure is being applied. It's not just "any disagreement," as you disingenuously noted.