News reported today that Hillary turned over her server to the State Dept.
Remember , "There were No classified e mails on my computer."? Well it was reported there was classified documents and 2 Top Secret e mails too.

Maybe she just forgot from getting over the TBS she got from the sniper fire?

I thought I read that when the emails where sent that they weren't classified?

I thought I read that when the emails where sent that they weren't classified?
Details, details...

I thought I read that when the emails where sent that they weren't classified?

That was what she said a few weeks ago. That may have simply been her lie de jour. It is being reported that the information was tagged as classified when she had the emails on her server. We need to find out if that's true, and if so, she can tell us which part of the "vast right wing conspiracy" is responsible for this latest moral lapse.

Maybe she just forgot from getting over the TBS she got from the sniper fire?

If she gets the nomination, I pray to God that the GOP nominee spits that lie in her face every other sentence. How did that not end her career.

That, and she denied Bill was cheating on her, but instead he was being framed by the "vast right wing conspiracy". If she truly believed that, she's to stupid for the job. If she didn't believe that, then she's too dishonest.

I guarantee that information passes through email (including non-government servers) all the time before it's categorized as classified or top secret. It's quite likely the person sensing failed to tag it or even that they didn't realize significance until a later date.

I guarantee that information passes through email (including non-government servers) all the time before it's categorized as classified or top secret. It's quite likely the person sensing failed to tag it or even that they didn't realize significance until a later date.

"I guarantee that information passes through email (including non-government servers) all the time "

Maybe. Maybe she did nothing that they don't all do. But she denied it. Does everyone else lie about doing it? If it turns out she lied, that's worth knowing, isn't it?

Furthermore, it's my understanding that it's now illegal to put classified info on a non-secure server, and there didn't used to be a law against that. I absolutely could be wrong there, though.

I guarantee that information passes through email (including non-government servers) all the time before it's categorized as classified or top secret. It's quite likely the person sensing failed to tag it or even that they didn't realize significance until a later date.

Do presidential candidates routinely lie about getting coming under sniper fire, Spence?

That was what she said a few weeks ago. That may have simply been her lie de jour. It is being reported that the information was tagged as classified when she had the emails on her server. We need to find out if that's true, and if so, she can tell us which part of the "vast right wing conspiracy" is responsible for this latest moral lapse.

The State Department disputes that the emails were classified at that time.

"Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011 and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton," said State Department spokesman John Kirby. "They were not marked as classified."

I guarantee that information passes through email (including non-government servers) all the time before it's categorized as classified or top secret. It's quite likely the person sensing failed to tag it or even that they didn't realize significance until a later date.

I guarantee you there was classified information on that server. What is worse, I can guarantee you that between the Russians and Chinese reading our mail through her server, and the the 2 years of access to our OPM records (they did), they have a significant ability to read our thoughts and intentions. Maybe Obama isn't such a bad president after all. Since the Russians and Chinese know what he is going to do before he goes to do it they could counter and intellectual superiority of our almighty Obama - real or imagined.

Mix these with the compromise of JCS secure systems and you have perhaps the biggest IC failure in decades since well into the Cold War.

The entire server was a security risk and hackable.

This is such a breach of security that if any of us had done something half as bad we would be locked away.

She is the friggin Secretary of State....pretty much every e-mail she sends is of a sensitive nature......even if it is an RSVP for lunch, it shows the movement of a top US official and should be, at the very least treated as unclassified but sensitive.

Sorry, but she is an idiot for having a non-secure e-mail server.....don't care who thinks otherwise.

i agree it was stupid - but from what I read there were no classified or top secret emails that where sent. I'm waiting for the OP to come back and maybe provide a link to article he read.

Hillary Clinton will get the nomination she may even become president. I will in fact make a bold prediction that who ever raises the most money from large corporate interests will win the presidency. She is winning the money race. We will hear politicized arguments about women's rights, women's rights to choose, women's health, increased minimum wage etc. all of the apologists, unions, etc will say why she is great. At the end of the day we will all be sold down the river again. The silent majority of individuals who have zero time to crusade for a candidate that is the lesser of all evils but better for the country will lose again. It sucks but it is the way of the land. Sold to the highest bidder. We are being force fed lines of BS in this country based on the needs of large corporate interest. If any one thinks democrats and republicans differ in this regard sorry you are a moron.

The only fly in the ointment will be whether or not Trump or Sanders decides to run as an indie candidate taking votes from one of the two ruling parties.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She is the friggin Secretary of State....pretty much every e-mail she sends is of a sensitive nature......even if it is an RSVP for lunch, it shows the movement of a top US official and should be, at the very least treated as unclassified but sensitive.

Sorry, but she is an idiot for having a non-secure e-mail server.....don't care who thinks otherwise.

Full Stop. All correct.

i agree it was stupid - but from what I read there were no classified or top secret emails that where sent. I'm waiting for the OP to come back and maybe provide a link to article he read.

Almost everything was secret, as for specific items, at least two in the released emails were reclassified is "TOP SECRET" and if the linked article is to be, well beyond top secret

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article30714762.htmlhttp://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article30714762.html

The inspector general for the Intelligence Community notified senior members of Congress that two of four classified emails discovered on the server Clinton maintained at her New York home contained material deemed to be in one of the highest security classifications - more sensitive than previously known.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article30714762.html#storylink=cpy
That would indicate 2 emails - of a small pool of emails according to CNN - are above TOP SECRET which would indicate compartmentalized classified information that might include things like satellite imagery or stuff NOFORN (no foreign nationals).

So, this is a small set of emails from the small set released by the State Department, of the less than half of emails HC gave to State, after deleting more than half of the files.

This is big and it has been said so for some time but nobody wants to care. The fact that the server was not properly secured means that the potential exists for thousands of emails were possible classified. Anyone else would go to a long time of making little rocks out of big rocks.

This is big and it has been said so for some time but nobody wants to care. The fact that the server was not properly secured means that the potential exists for thousands of emails were possible classified. Anyone else would go to a long time of making little rocks out of big rocks.

"nobody wants to care"

Her numbers are tanking, and the Maoist Bernie Sanders is ahead of her in NH. I wouldn't say nobody cares. Not as many as should care. Her ratings for trustworthy are low, but it's unfathomable that they aren't precisely 0...or 1, counting Spence.

"Anyone else would go to a long time of making little rocks out of big rocks"

I think it's established that her recent predecessors did the same thing. But as I stated, I think (could be wrong!) that it's now illegal to do what she did, whereas before it was stupid but legal. But the laws don't apply to the Clintons, never have.

I would love, love, love to know what Biden's team is thinking. How can he not run? The DNC cannot let Sanders get the nomination, and he has all the momentum right now.

I love it. Grabs popcorn.

So, this is a small set of emails from the small set released by the State Department, of the less than half of emails HC gave to State, after deleting more than half of the files.

This is big and it has been said so for some time but nobody wants to care. The fact that the server was not properly secured means that the potential exists for thousands of emails were possible classified. Anyone else would go to a long time of making little rocks out of big rocks.

I would venture to say that 99% of the e-mails on that server were, at the very least, Unclassified/FOUO (For Official Use Only). Which means only for people with a "Need to Know"

Don't think Chinese Hackers fall into that category.....

just think about the kinds of things that other candidates have been run out of contention for...that this woman is even a marginal thought as a potential US President is laughable and frightening, she's a disaster ....what's the "state of the dem's"?? this disaster, a socialist dinosaur, biden and chaffee(dumb and dumber)....not crazy about most of the GOP but they sure look great next to the dem's line up of losers

It's now being reported (not confirmed I don't think) that she had emails on her personal server classified as Sensitive Compartmentalized (SCI), which I think is higher than Top Secret.

It's also being reported that the classified info on her personal server was not flagged as classified when she received it. But that they WERE flagged as classified at the state department. Meaning, someone erased the classification, and then forwarded the emails to her personal server. That's a couple of felonies right there, just ask David Petreaus.

That, of course, explains her carefully parsed statement that she never received emails on her server that were classified at the time she received them on her server. Never mind that they were tagged as classified (or higher) just before they were sent to her server. That's not a concern to her.

Lucy, ju got some splainin' to do...

It's not possible that someone sent classified stuff to her personal server (it's an internet based server for Christ's sake) without knowing what they were doing. The only people who have access to that stuff, are trained on how to handle it, and what happens if you fail to comply.

This just rose to a whole new level.

And my bet is, she'll blame it, once again, on the "vast right wing conspiracy". Every TV station except one will ignore it.

I am DYING to know what Biden's team is thinking.

not crazy about most of the GOP but they sure look great next to the dem's line up of losers

Have you given Ben Carson a look? I don't think he has a prayer, but my God, the guy is impressive. He went to Harlem yesterday, and told people in Harlem (talk about going into the belly of the beast) and told them that it's not white republicans who are to blame for their problems, but rather the liberal policy "of not showing us respect, not treating us like equals, but patting us on the head and treating us like pets. That's what happens when they don't respect you, but take care of you, so that in turn, you will take care of them". Heroically, he likened liberal policies to Lyndon Johnson's famous statement "if we give these n's free stuff, they'll vote for us for 200 years". He also said that the only solution is to embrace the only values that matter, family and faith.

Brave, and very intellectually honest.

I always liked him. A bright guy who seems very honest and trustworthy.

I always liked him. A bright guy who seems very honest and trustworthy.

He gave a great answer on his abortion position very recently. He said that he worked most of hi scareer as a pediatric neurosurgeon, an dthat he couldn't count ho wmany times he and his team fought all night long, giving everything they had, to save critical babies, sometimes who were still in the womb. So he said that no one should be shocked that he's not in favor of killing babies for convenience.

I thought it was a fair, honest answer.

He just comes across as a decent, honest, thoughtful man.

I always liked him. A bright guy who seems very honest and trustworthy.

He gave a great answer on his abortion position very recently. He said that he worked most of hi scareer as a pediatric neurosurgeon, an dthat he couldn't count ho wmany times he and his team fought all night long, giving everything they had, to save critical babies, sometimes who were still in the womb. So he said that no one should be shocked that he's not in favor of killing babies for convenience.

I thought it was a fair, honest answer.

He just comes across as a decent, honest, thoughtful man.

So neither of you have any problems with his research on tissue from aborted fetus'?

So neither of you have any problems with his research on tissue from aborted fetus'?

A tough but fair question.

I don't think most people have a problem with performing medical research on corpses, even babies. I have no quarel with that. But I would assume that those folks died of natural causes or an accident. I also assume, as the law requires, that fetal corpses used for research, were not manipulated while still alive, for the specific reason of maximizing harvestable tissue. Finally, what sickened a lot of folks about PP, was the absolute callousness with which they discussed such things, but in my opinion, you need to have something deeply wrong with you to do that for a living, so maybe it's not that surprising.

So neither of you have any problems with his research on tissue from aborted fetus'?

If it matters, Carson is denying that he ever performed research on fetal tissue. His surgeries. done in the effort to save lives, were sometimes used as a source for scientific research. He has no ethical issue with that research, but claims he has never been involved.

So neither of you have any problems with his research on tissue from aborted fetus'?

Today was the first I heard of that.
He is being interviewed tonight so I will wait to see what he has to say
before I pass judgment.

Interesting article which goes far deeper than my hightlights that I posted earlier:



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/12/the-spy-satellite-secrets-in-hillary-s-emails.html

Today was the first I heard of that.
He is being interviewed tonight so I will wait to see what he has to say
before I pass judgment.

Saw an interview, he adamantly denied ever doing research, though he stated he has no ethical quarrels with research of fetal tissue, as long as it is acquired in an ethical way. He had some real words about Planned Parenthood and their founder, Margaret Sanger, an unapologetic, loathsome racist.

If it matters, Carson is denying that he ever performed research on fetal tissue. His surgeries. done in the effort to save lives, were sometimes used as a source for scientific research. He has no ethical issue with that research, but claims he has never been involved.

No he isn't. He simply detached his research from how the tissue was obtained.

He's a massive hypocrite.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He simply detached his research from how the tissue was obtained.

He's a massive hypocrite.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was my thought. Just say that you've changed your mind in the 20 years since you did it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

.

He's a massive hypocrite.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS That was my thought.




great example...this could easily sink his chances and the details aren't all that clear as it's only been a few days, but Hillary and others can lie, cheat, steal and be a "massive hypocrite" for decades and still get the nomination....funny what becomes "qualities and assets" when you sit on the other side of the aisle

TS/SCI compromise would put a normal person (peon) away for a while. Even if it was not from her... it was on her server which makes her an accomplice. She acknowleges using a thumb drive which has been a no no on Government systems for quite a few years now. Likely scenario - she downloaded emails off a secure system at State onto thumb drive - takes thumb drive home and uploads what she thinks are unclass emails and ooops - too late.

Likely scenario - she downloaded emails off a secure system at State onto thumb drive - takes thumb drive home and uploads what she thinks are unclass emails and ooops - too late.
I believe the thumb drive was just used to create a backup of her server for her attorneys to have.

The weekend is here - this is closed until Monday at 8:00.

The weekend is here - this is closed until Monday at 8:00.

I love Paul, nicely done...everybody go fishing :lm:

😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep this thread on the email server, the other thread for your derailment and roll back the personal attacks

Update- 20% of e mails read with 355 Classified e mails found on Hilary's email.
Bob Woodward thinks this is as serious as Watergate.

Update- 20% of e mails read with 355 Classified e mails found on Hilary's email.
Bob Woodward thinks this is as serious as Watergate.
That's not what he said. He said it reminds him of watergate. The idea that a private conversation could become public...

They also didn't find 355 "classified" emails on her server. The emails were suggested to be reviewed by other agencies…which means none were likely marked classified.

That's not what he said. He said it reminds him of watergate. The idea that a private conversation could become public...

They also didn't find 355 "classified" emails on her server. The emails were suggested to be reviewed by other agencies…which means none were likely marked classified.

Last I heard, there were 350 emails with classified info. The State Dept found these in a sample of 20% of the emails on her server. The State Dept won't say whether or not the emails were flagged as classified.

Spence, nothing to see here? Nothing at all?

That's not what he said. He said it reminds him of watergate. The idea that a private conversation could become public...

They also didn't find 355 "classified" emails on her server. The emails were suggested to be reviewed by other agencies…which means none were likely marked classified.

Suggested, interesting word.
Spence, if you say so it must be true.
Prolly my failing hearing and eyesight. :hihi: :doh:

And this is the stuff they filtered out.

And this is the second server - who knows what was on the previous server (current server at time of this catching fire was Exchange Server 2010 - not securely patched BTW - which was not available until a lot later).

This is either a lack of seriousness on the nature of sensitive and classified information or a complete eff you to all us little people. Anyone else would go to jail for putting this on a non secure yet STILL government server - she put it on a public server, on the public Internet, managed by a company not certified by government IT office that certifies external vendors to manage systems that contain sensitive information - let alone classified info.

Anyone else would do Jail

Anyone else would do Jail

can't wait to hear her bitch during the campaign about how the wealthy, powerful and well connected are always getting special treatment and are never held accountable while the average folk that she is the champion of, are always getting screwed


just saw a clip from morning Joke on MSNBC...trailer across the screen asks "Clinton emails: Reality or Right-Wing Conspiracy?".......right......the vast right wing conspiracy concocted all of Hillary's email problems....also responsible for all of Bill's philandering and any other issues that Hillary experiences in her life....."Hillary's Menopause...Reality or Right-Wing Conspiracy"

can't wait to hear her bitch during the campaign about how the wealthy, powerful and well connected are always getting special treatment and are never held accountable while the average folk that she is the champion of, are always getting screwed


just saw a clip from morning Joke on MSNBC...trailer across the screen asks "Clinton emails: Reality or Right-Wing Conspiracy?".......right......the vast right wing conspiracy concocted all of Hillary's email problems....also responsible for all of Bill's philandering and any other issues that Hillary experiences in her life....."Hillary's Menopause...Reality or Right-Wing Conspiracy"

"can't wait to hear her bitch during the campaign about how the wealthy, powerful and well connected are always getting special treatment"

Gee, when you put it that way, it seems kind of laughable, doesn't it?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I am dying to know what Biden's advisors are saying.


"also responsible for all of Bill's philandering and any other issues that Hillary experiences in her life"

Correct. If she really denied that the patron saint of infidelity was having an affair, but instead was being framed by a vast conspiracy of Republicans, then she doesn't have the judgment to deal with Putin or Iran, she simply doesn't. And if she doesn't believe it was the GOP, then yet again, she is a liar.

"Hillary's Menopause...Reality or Right-Wing Conspiracy"

Funny!


"

That's not what he said. He said it reminds him of watergate. The idea that a private conversation could become public...

They also didn't find 355 "classified" emails on her server. The emails were suggested to be reviewed by other agencies…which means none were likely marked classified.

ok, reword in a context that you will be able to justify voting for this person as president of the United States of AMERICA who has clearly shown lack of good judgement. is that what I am reading here? And you think Trump is dangerous, well I don't know which is worse

Trump is way way more dangerous.

Imagine #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney with a cocaine addiction and a verbal turrets syndrome running for president and you have Trump.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump is way way more dangerous.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump is not going to be the nominee. 75% of those polled support someone else. He's only in the lead, because right now, there are 85 "someone elses" to choose from. As the field narrows, the non-Trump vote will consolidate, and his position will drop. Guaranteed.

I know that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, how do you wrap your mind around this statement by Hilary?

"I never sent or received any classified or top secret e mails on my server?
Seriously.

Spence, how do you wrap your mind around this statement by Hilary?

"I never sent or received any classified or top secret e mails on my server?
Seriously.
It means never sent or received any classified or top secret emails on her server.

If information passed through her email that was later classified that doesn't mean she sent or received. I doubt she'd be making that statement without her attorney's doing a careful scrub of the content.

Also, classification isn't a black or white subject. It's often quite subjective...

It is a witch hunt

Looks like they found the witch, too.

It means never sent or received any classified or top secret emails on her server.

If information passed through her email that was later classified that doesn't mean she sent or received. I doubt she'd be making that statement without her attorney's doing a careful scrub of the content.

Also, classification isn't a black or white subject. It's often quite subjective...

Actually, classification is pretty concrete. As are the rules that prohibit most of it being on even the less secure Federally protected networks, let alone a private server in a residence. If even part of what is being reported is true, this is a significant breech of security.

If your IT people did this with important business emails at the company you strategically message for, they would be fired. And that information, relatively speaking, is not important.

It means never sent or received any classified or top secret emails on her server.

If information passed through her email that was later classified that doesn't mean she sent or received. I doubt she'd be making that statement without her attorney's doing a careful scrub of the content.

Also, classification isn't a black or white subject. It's often quite subjective...

Spence, I think we also now know, that classified emails were stripped of their classified status, and then sent to her server. That is more than one felony.

Hence her carefully worded statement that she never sent or received emails that were classified at the time they were sent to her server. But I think it's basically settled that her statement is only true because someone committed felonies to make it true.

Top secret and compartmentalized aren't very subjective. If she can't tell what's at that level, she's not qualified to swim at the deep end of the pool.

It means never sent or received any classified or top secret emails on her server.

If information passed through her email that was later classified that doesn't mean she sent or received. I doubt she'd be making that statement without her attorney's doing a careful scrub of the content.

Also, classification isn't a black or white subject. It's often quite subjective...



The FBI should stop it's investigation immediately. :)

2 days ago, she jokes at a rally that she opened a snapchat account, and loves it because messages are deleted immediately. Haw, haw, haw! Mishandling of top secret messages is so funny!

Yesterday, a reporter asked her if, as the FBI suspects, her server had been wiped. She replied "what, do you mean with a cloth"?

Is this what we want, another 8 years of a POTUS who will parse and obfuscate, never just being honest?

Jerk.

Spence, I think we also now know, that classified emails were stripped of their classified status, and then sent to her server. That is more than one felony.
You don't know that.

You know what's sad? The ignorance of the American people. The ignorance to let this bull#^&#^&#^&#^& distract them from what really matters.. Her political agenda. In all honesty I wonder if she actually wants this to happen so she doesn't have to talk about what she plans to do if elected.
Damn the 24 hour news cycle, which perpetuates endless drama in the name of "news".

Let's hear some promises so she can break them later :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You don't know that.

I think we do know that at this point. How else did stuff that was originally coded as classified, end up on her server, without the classified status? It's my understanding that's the case. Maybe MSNBC didn't report on it, so maybe you aren't aware of it.

You know what's sad? The ignorance of the American people. The ignorance to let this bull#^&#^&#^&#^& distract them from what really matters.. Her political agenda. In all honesty I wonder if she actually wants this to happen so she doesn't have to talk about what she plans to do if elected.
Damn the 24 hour news cycle, which perpetuates endless drama in the name of "news".

Let's hear some promises so she can break them later :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If she mis-handled classified material, and then lied about it, that doesn't really matter? She may well have committed a felony. If that doesn't matter to you, that's your right. It matters to many others.

If the Secstate committed a felony, that's not news to you?

I think we do know that at this point. How else did stuff that was originally coded as classified, end up on her server, without the classified status? It's my understanding that's the case. Maybe MSNBC didn't report on it, so maybe you aren't aware of it.
Where did you read that classified information was stripped of status and emailed to her? I've never seen that.

If she mis-handled classified material, and then lied about it, that doesn't really matter? She may well have committed a felony. If that doesn't matter to you, that's your right. It matters to many others.

If the Secstate committed a felony, that's not news to you?

It just strikes me as kind of sad that everyone is looking for the "gotcha!" Moment.
I really wish she would just go away... She's really just a republican in Sheeps clothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It just strikes me as kind of sad that everyone is looking for the "gotcha!" Moment.
I really wish she would just go away... She's really just a republican in Sheeps clothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"It just strikes me as kind of sad that everyone is looking for the "gotcha!" Moment" True, and many are doing it for purely political reasons.

"She's really just a republican in Sheeps clothing."

Then what's Marco Rubio, a Nazi?

Wasn't she a republican when she was younger ? Before she got into politics?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, classification is pretty concrete. As are the rules that prohibit most of it being on even the less secure Federally protected networks, let alone a private server in a residence. If even part of what is being reported is true, this is a significant breech of security.
How classified information should be handled is pretty concrete, but how it becomes classified in the first place is quite subjective. With this specific case, when it became classified is being completely misreported given the current information.

While I'm sure we should (and now do) have laws to prevent this kind of behavior, I still haven't seen any real evidence that undermines her argument of convenience or that laws were broken.

We'll see if the FBI determines this a little or big issue...

We'll see if the FBI determines this a little or big issue...

The fact they are investigating makes it a big issue.
This is serious stuff that affects our national security.

My wife worked under top secret clearance. If anyone forgot to
lock a cabinet or desk overnight there would be a big red put sticker put on it.
You got fired immediately if you accumulated 3 stickers, and that was a low level position.

Hillary should be fired just for keeping women's pants suits in style. :hihi:

You know what's sad? The ignorance of the American people. The ignorance to let this bull#^&#^&#^&#^& distract them from what really matters.. Her political agenda. In all honesty I wonder if she actually wants this to happen so she doesn't have to talk about what she plans to do if elected.
Damn the 24 hour news cycle, which perpetuates endless drama in the name of "news".

Let's hear some promises so she can break them later :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

People can die when stuff is leaked like this. Our foreign policy suffers greatly when the other people can read the mail (literally) of the Secretary of State. Maybe Obama is really as smart as you seem to think he is but his efforts were undermined by the beyond negligent handling of secure information and perhaps worse, intent, because his Secretary of State could not keep sensitive effing data on secure networks. Instead she served it on a porcelain platter for the countries that seek (successfully in many ways) to undermine your hero of the people.

I am not a Guvmint Intelligence type though I read a little open source and have known a spook or three (seriously). I am , professionally, an IT person that supports smaller IT and if what HALF has been reported in fairly reliable news sources is legit. She effed up. Big Time.

How classified information should be handled is pretty concrete, but how it becomes classified in the first place is quite subjective. With this specific case, when it became classified is being completely misreported given the current information.

While I'm sure we should (and now do) have laws to prevent this kind of behavior, I still haven't seen any real evidence that undermines her argument of convenience or that laws were broken.
It is not subjective. It is concrete. It is clearly defined.

http://20committee.com/2015/08/12/the-spy-satellite-secrets-in-hillarys-emails/

We'll see if the FBI determines this a little or big issue...

Yes, we will: http://www.npr.org/2015/08/19/432908987/government-inquiry-into-clinton-emails-likely-to-widen?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=politics&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews

The fact they are investigating makes it a big issue.
:hihi:

Of course. The FBI doesn't pick people at trandom to investigate. If the FBI (who works for Obama, not the Koch Brothers) is investigating her server, it's because there is some evidence to suggest that laws were broken.

Interesting piece puts things in perspective

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillarys-security-breach-and-why-it-matters/article/2570680

I believe the thumb drive was just used to create a backup of her server for her attorneys to have.

So it was just used for making copies of e-mails, she shouldn't have had on her personal server in the first place, so she could give them to other people to open up on their non-government secured networks.....Brilliant.

I guess that's no big deal then....maybe she should just put'em up on instagram then.

she's toast........and draft Biden is the response?...gotta hand it to the dems.....while the repubs are sorting things out with their field of many, they don't have anyone running that is as dishonest as Hillary, as dumb as Biden or as distant from America's founding principles as Bernie

she's toast........and draft Biden is the response?...gotta hand it to the dems.....while the repubs are sorting things out with their field of many, they don't have anyone running that is as dishonest as Hillary, as dumb as Biden or as distant from America's founding principles as Bernie

Trump, while successful, is a clown. But I think there are soime great talents in that field, and Ben Carson impresses me more and more every time he open his mouth.

It is not subjective. It is concrete. It is clearly defined.

http://20committee.com/2015/08/12/the-spy-satellite-secrets-in-hillarys-emails/

What should happen once information is classified is clearly defined but the process as to how it gets there is quite subjective.

The other little item lost on everyone also seems to be that the state.gov email address she "should" have been using isn't supposed to have "classified" information on it either.

Compare this to the gwb43.com debacle and Clinton doesn't even come close...

Compare this to the gwb43.com debacle and Clinton doesn't even come close...

Only time will tell after the FBI investigation is complete.

Wasn't the server supposed to be in Chapaqua where Hillary felt "comfortable"
because secret service guarded the property there, but ended up in a bathroom in Jersey?

What should happen once information is classified is clearly defined but the process as to how it gets there is quite subjective.

The other little item lost on everyone also seems to be that the state.gov email address she "should" have been using isn't supposed to have "classified" information on it either.

Compare this to the gwb43.com debacle and Clinton doesn't even come close...


Seeing you like Business Insider (fluff pieces mostly) I link the article from there:

The "extremely serious" investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she served as secretary of state is being led by an FBI "A-team," an intelligence source told Fox News.

The source said the investigation is centered around 18 US Code 793, a section of the Espionage Act related to gathering and transmitting national-defense information.

Two emails reportedly found on Clinton's server from 2009 and 2011 contained information regarded as "Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information," one of the highest levels of classification.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-and-hillary-clinton-private-email-2015-8

the process as to how it gets there is quite subjective.


No it's not.....

ALL government networks carry a classification level.....any data....ANY data generated on that network carries that classification until it is authorized to be downgraded to a lower level.

And even if she used her .gov email and transmitted or stored classified data on it, that would be a spill and would generate an automatic investigation.....

And just because documents don't carry a classification of Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret doesn't mean it doesn't fall under other categories that need special attention.

Categories like Unclass but Sensitive, FOUO (For Official Use Only), or NOFORN (No Foreign Nationals).....are all types of documents that may not carry a Classification but still need to be treated appropriately.....

At the very least she is guilty of gross negligence for by-passing government systems/safeguards......if they find out that she knowingly moved classified documents from government systems to Unclass systems, she should be doing time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wonder if Bill is secretly hoping that she does time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No it's not.....

ALL government networks carry a classification level.....any data....ANY data generated on that network carries that classification until it is authorized to be downgraded to a lower level.

And even if she used her .gov email and transmitted or stored classified data on it, that would be a spill and would generate an automatic investigation.....

And just because documents don't carry a classification of Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret doesn't mean it doesn't fall under other categories that need special attention.

Categories like Unclass but Sensitive, FOUO (For Official Use Only), or NOFORN (No Foreign Nationals).....are all types of documents that may not carry a Classification but still need to be treated appropriately.....

At the very least she is guilty of gross negligence for by-passing government systems/safeguards......if they find out that she knowingly moved classified documents from government systems to Unclass systems, she should be doing time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:kewl:

If ANYONE else, any mere mortal, had done this, they would already be locked up with an investigation well underway.

The fact that politicians can skirt the same rules that bind the rest of us is absurd and is another indication on how far we have fallen from the path the founding fathers intended.

We the people for the people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/30/clinton-controversy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/

We the people for the people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Amazing how quickly they forget as soon as they get into office.
I'm sure the Founding Fathers felt it was an honor to serve the people.
I still feel each candidate should only be allowed to spend the same amount
of $ to run for office and shorter term limits applied.
It will never happen as they would have to initiate the change.

Think about it, most of these Congressmen are lawyers capable of making
mega bucks a year but choose to work for less than $200, 000 a year.

IMHO it certainly isn't because they want to SERVE the People. :doh:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/30/clinton-controversy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/

That article does absolutely nothing to change what I stated....

Amazing how quickly they forget as soon as they get into office.
I'm sure the Founding Fathers felt it was an honor to serve the people.
I still feel each candidate should only be allowed to spend the same amount
of $ to run for office and shorter term limits applied.
It will never happen as they would have to initiate the change.

Think about it, most of these Congressmen are lawyers capable of making
mega bucks a year but choose to work for less than $200, 000 a year.

IMHO it certainly isn't because they want to SERVE the People. :doh:

It goes kinda like this.


http://youtu.be/CkTBf7HW_rg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No it's not.....

ALL government networks carry a classification level.....any data....ANY data generated on that network carries that classification until it is authorized to be downgraded to a lower level.

And even if she used her .gov email and transmitted or stored classified data on it, that would be a spill and would generate an automatic investigation.....
If all government networks carry a classification level, yet there was no hard rule against using private email, that would suggest the default classification at state.gov was pretty low, if existent at all.

So if there wasn't a hard rule on using private email, and the state.gov servers aren't supposed to have classified information on them anyway, I don't see where the argument is that she broke any laws. It's a totally different scenario than Petraeus.

Remember that Clinton isn't even the subject of the DOJ investigation and I believe none of the information was sent or received with a classified status.

Sure, it wasn't wise for a variety of reasons but I'm not sure they were doing it to hide anything. If that was the case you'd have a totally clandestine account.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-e-mail-scandal-that-isnt/2015/08/27/b1cabed8-4cf4-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html

If all government networks carry a classification level, yet there was no hard rule against using private email, that would suggest the default classification at state.gov was pretty low, if existent at all.

So if there wasn't a hard rule on using private email, and the state.gov servers aren't supposed to have classified information on them anyway, I don't see where the argument is that she broke any laws. It's a totally different scenario than Petraeus.

Remember that Clinton isn't even the subject of the DOJ investigation and I believe none of the information was sent or received with a classified status.

Sure, it wasn't wise for a variety of reasons but I'm not sure they were doing it to hide anything. If that was the case you'd have a totally clandestine account.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-schindler-emailgate-20150825-story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-e-mail-scandal-that-isnt/2015/08/27/b1cabed8-4cf4-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html


"“It’s common” that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information."

Interesting that this Jeffrey Smith frequently quoted in you article was several times an adviser to The Clintons

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/wapo-fails-to-identify-close-clinton-adviser-used-in-ignatius-column-to-clear-hillary-in-email-scandal/

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-schindler-emailgate-20150825-story.html
2 emails that should have been top secret out of over 6,000 doesn't a "systematic effort" make.

Additionally, isn't the outrage over these stats pretty moot without a baseline to compare them against? How common is this?

If all government networks carry a classification level,

Its not "If".....they do.....anywhere from "Top Secret" to "Unclassified" , Every network as to be certified to a certain level.....this is what type of information that is certified to be present on that network

yet there was no hard rule against using private email, that would suggest the default classification at state.gov was pretty low, if existent at all..

She can use private e-mail....there is no Rule against it....but there are plenty of rules a responsible government official must adhere to when transmitting government docs....and putting any classified/unclassified sensitive information on them is a no-no

So if there wasn't a hard rule on using private email, and the state.gov servers aren't supposed to have classified information on them anyway,

Again, there are hard rules on what types of documents can be on an unclassed network...if state.gov mail server is on an unclassed network, then she can't have them on that server either

I don't see where the argument is that she broke any laws. It's a totally different scenario than Petraeus.

We'll find out when they are done with the investigation, won't we?

Sure, it wasn't wise for a variety of reasons but I'm not sure they were doing it to hide anything. If that was the case you'd have a totally clandestine account.

Of course she wasn't doing it to hide anything...that's obvious....it was all hanging out there for every hacker in the world to look at...the problem is she should have taken the safeguards to HIDE EVERYTHING....that's the problem

2 emails that should have been top secret out of over 6,000 doesn't a "systematic effort" make.

Additionally, isn't the outrage over these stats pretty moot without a baseline to compare them against? How common is this?

Two emails out of 6K is not the sample pool being discussed. TWO emails out of FORTY in the sample reviewed by the Intelligence Community Inspector General had top secret / compartmentalized information.

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/Classified%20docs,%2008-11-15,%20ICIG%20CN%20-%20Update%20on%20Classified%20Materials%20on%20Per sonal%20thumb%20drive.%20Clinton%20server.pdf


Its not "If".....they do.....anywhere from "Top Secret" to "Unclassified" , Every network as to be certified to a certain level.....this is what type of information that is certified to be present on that network



She can use private e-mail....there is no Rule against it....but there are plenty of rules a responsible government official must adhere to when transmitting government docs....and putting any classified/unclassified sensitive information on them is a no-no



Again, there are hard rules on what types of documents can be on an unclassed network...if state.gov mail server is on an unclassed network, then she can't have them on that server either



We'll find out when they are done with the investigation, won't we?



Of course she wasn't doing it to hide anything...that's obvious....it was all hanging out there for every hacker in the world to look at...the problem is she should have taken the safeguards to HIDE EVERYTHING....that's the problem

Yes - she was at best, sacrificing security for convenience, at worst she was blatantly and willfully defying the rules and logic on handling government information to prevent future investigations against her. Meanwhile, she made it easier for other governments to read the email of the Secretary of State.

Two emails out of 6K is not the sample pool being discussed. TWO emails out of FORTY in the sample reviewed by the Intelligence Community Inspector General had top secret / compartmentalized information.
The State Department has already released over 6000 emails and another 6000 today I believe which a few hundred of are being referred to other agencies for further review.

The Inspector General decided to take no further action on the two they felt should be top secret and many have even argued the information in them is pretty benign.

Yes - she was at best, sacrificing security for convenience, at worst she was blatantly and willfully defying the rules and logic on handling government information to prevent future investigations against her. Meanwhile, she made it easier for other governments to read the email of the Secretary of State.
Considering we know that state.gov has already been hacked I'm not sure it really means all that much. It's a wake up call to harden everything...

The State Department has already released over 6000 emails and another 6000 today I believe which a few hundred of are being referred to other agencies for further review.pretty benign. [/UOTE]

Yes, I believe there were around 150 classified out of the ones released today.


Considering we know that state.gov has already been hacked I'm not sure it
really means all that much. It's a wake up call to harden everything...

Your right Spence, what better way to wake up to the Dangers then to make an example of a High Profile person like Hillary. Put her in the clink and throw away the key. :)

Your right Spence, what better way to wake up to the Dangers then to make an example of a High Profile person like Hillary. Put her in the clink and throw away the key. :)
There's no evidence yet she did anything illegal. Why would you throw her in the clink?

If there are bigger issues our government needs to address then that's a systems problem.

There's no evidence yet she did anything illegal. Why would you throw her in the clink?

- Yet- ,that is the key word.


If there are bigger issues our government needs to address then that's a systems problem.


Your right, but the others are not as much fun to follow as Hillary drops in the
the trust and integrity polls. :)

that's classic isn't it? it really a "systems problem" not the creeps manipulating and undermining the system.....it becomes a "bigger issue" when no one is held accountable....dumb


We must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society(or the system) is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his/her actions.(particularly if that individual is vying for the public trust)

Ronald Reagan

Scott, she just comes across the the least authentic, least sincere person on the planet...that's assuming she is actually a person and not a robot. At every press conference, I expect her to seize up and utter "oil can" out of the side of her mouth like the Tin Man from Wizard Of Oz.

I want someone to debate her who will ask her why she believed she was shot at in Bosnia or wherever, and whe she thought it unlikely the her husband was cheating on her, and more likely that he was being framed by the Republicans. What is her response to that? War on women?

I want someone to debate her who will ask her why she believed she was shot at in Bosnia

As it has been stated here many times before, if you can't be
trusted in little things, you can't be trusted in big things as has been
proven time and time again by Hillary.

As it has been stated here many times before, if you can't be
trusted in little things, you can't be trusted in big things as has been
proven time and time again by Hillary.

Agreed. But we need someone who will club her with that.

I saw Ben Carson give, what I thought was, a great answer on his abortion views. He said, and I am paraphrasing, "I worked most of my career as a pediatric neurosurgeon, often working on babies, including babies in the womb. I can't tell you how many times my team and I fought with everything we had, as hard as we could, all night long, desperately trying to save these precious babies. So no one who knows me, would be surprised to hear me say that no, I don't think we should be killing babies for convenience."

Yes, Ben Carson is an honorable man and tells it like it is.
IMO, once a heart beat is started you are killing an innocent child with abortion.
A women has a choice in the matter but who represents the child"s rights?

Rape , incest, threat to a mothers life are a different matter, but the first two cases can be handled with the day after pill while in the last case ,it may take
longer to diagnose. Understandable.

I think Ben Carson will become a lot stronger candidate as the debates
continue.

Yes, Ben Carson is an honorable man and tells it like it is.
IMO, once a heart beat is started you are killing an innocent child with abortion.
A women has a choice in the matter but who represents the child"s rights?

Rape , incest, threat to a mothers life are a different matter, but the first two cases can be handled with the day after pill while in the last case ,it may take
longer to diagnose. Understandable.

I think Ben Carson will become a lot stronger candidate as the debates
continue.

Pretty legit right there. That pill should be available as an over the counter medication. No questions asked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think Ben Carson will become a lot stronger candidate as the debates
continue.

I think you are correct. He just reeks of decency, thoughtfulness, and competence (in my opinion...plus, naturally, I agree with him on most issues). His favorability ratings are insane, it's just that a lot of people don't know who he is, but those that know of him, really like him. I was assuming he'd be out before he had a chance to get in front of many people, but it appears I was wrong on that score. I don't know how his fundraising is going.

I don't know how his fundraising is going.

Therein lies the problem. People outside the politicians don't have
the big combines giving them the money they need. I think there
should be a reasonable $ limit set for all candidates on how much
they can spend on election.


The polls are showing that the American people are tired of the same old
politicians and the same old BS and want some fresh blood in office that
have real job business experience and common sense.
Carley Farina is an example along with Trump and Ben Carson who have worked in the real world.

The polls are showing that the American people are tired of the same old
politicians and the same old BS and want some fresh blood in office that
have real job business experience and common sense.
Carley Farina is an example along with Trump and Ben Carson who have worked in the real world.

That's an understatement, that people are fed up, on both sides I think.

Yup
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence....she did a lot wrong....when they take office they read the law.....she sent secured(secret etc:) emails and she has stated that she never had.....LIAR... LIAR... PANT SUIT ON FIRE.....lol...:)

Spence....she did a lot wrong....when they take office they read the law.....she sent secured(secret etc:) emails and she has stated that she never had.....LIAR... LIAR... PANT SUIT ON FIRE.....lol...:)
6 emails of hers were classified AFTER she left office. That's no lie.

6 emails of hers were classified AFTER she left office. That's no lie.

U must B in a dream world saying hillary only had 6 emails that were of classified....the latest is over 200 that she personally sent

U must B in a dream world saying hillary only had 6 emails that were of classified....the latest is over 200 that she personally sent
No, quite lucid...

200 or so emails on her server contained information that was later classified.

6 emails that Clinton herself authored were later classified.

200 or so emails on her server contained information that was later classified.

6 emails that Clinton herself authored were later classified.

Spence, what's your source for those facts?

Spence, what's your source for those facts?
Any news report but FOX or Drudge :hihi:

Any news report but FOX or Drudge :hihi:

Actually, I heard on Fox the same facts.

Spence, if she authors an email as Secstate, shouldn't she know whether or not it has content that is suitable for non-secure servers?

I don't think there is any evidence that she sent or received emails that were classified at the time she sent/received them. That's important to keep in mind.

It's also fair to question her judgment for failing to recognize the sensitivity of the emails she composed herself.

There's also no excuse to her response when asked if she had the server wiped - "what, you nmean with a cloth". Yeah, because natiional security lapses are so hysterical.

Spence, answer me this. She claimed, as First Lady, that Bill wasn't cheating on her, but rather he was being framed by Republicans (the vast right-wing conspiracy). In my opinion, that's an absurdly stupid statement to make. If she really believes that the GOP framed her husband, she's too paranoid/stupid to be POTUS. And if she didn't really believe what she was saying, then she's too dishonest to be POTUS. There is no third option. What do you think?

Any news report but FOX or Drudge :hihi:

Ya gotta look at them all Spence for reference or, you could miss something. :)

Like for instance, if you were looking for news on Cheryl Mills, long time Hillary aide, who helped her set up her server, you wouldn't know she is going to Plead The 5TH on the Hillary's Congressional hearings. Could find it on NBC and ABC though.

Guess CBS didn't think it wasn't important news.
The plot thickens. :hihi:

Spence, if she authors an email as Secstate, shouldn't she know whether or not it has content that is suitable for non-secure servers?
That depends, certainly there is some information she would know should only be sent on a classified network. Other information may seem banal at the time, but could be classified later because of the situation or another government agency has a different opinion about it's nature.

That's why I'd like to see how much email on state.gov is later classified to gain a baseline understanding. I'd wager it's quite a lot.

There's also no excuse to her response when asked if she had the server wiped - "what, you nmean with a cloth". Yeah, because natiional security lapses are so hysterical.
No doubt she hasn't handled the situation well.

Spence, answer me this. She claimed, as First Lady, that Bill wasn't cheating on her, but rather he was being framed by Republicans (the vast right-wing conspiracy). In my opinion, that's an absurdly stupid statement to make. If she really believes that the GOP framed her husband, she's too paranoid/stupid to be POTUS. And if she didn't really believe what she was saying, then she's too dishonest to be POTUS. There is no third option. What do you think?
Her remark wasn't about just infidelity, but the relentless attacks Bill was under once his announced his candidacy and throughout his first term. Remember, there were people bribing others to manufacture scandal.

Like for instance, if you were looking for news on Cheryl Mills, long time Hillary aide, who helped her set up her server, you wouldn't know she is going to Plead The 5TH on the Hillary's Congressional hearings. Could find it on NBC and ABC though.

Guess CBS didn't think it wasn't important news.
The plot thickens. :hihi:

She is probably just trying to avoid a potential life threatening accident or assisted suicide(merely speculation)

Hillary will not be indicted she will not serve time and she will be the nominee for POTUS. She is over 70 million raised currently. Higher than any other candidate aside from Jeb who is over 110 million. Bought and sold
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like for instance, if you were looking for news on Cheryl Mills, long time Hillary aide, who helped her set up her server, you wouldn't know she is going to Plead The 5TH on the Hillary's Congressional hearings. Could find it on NBC and ABC though.
Pleading the 5th doesn't mean you have anything to hide. Many of those she would have to go before have already made criminal accusations, it's a witch hunt I certainly wouldn't want to be a part of.

Ya gotta look at them all Spence for reference or, you could miss something. :)

Like for instance, if you were looking for news on Cheryl Mills, long time Hillary aide, who helped her set up her server, you wouldn't know she is going to Plead The 5TH on the Hillary's Congressional hearings. Could find it on NBC and ABC though.

Guess CBS didn't think it wasn't important news.
The plot thickens. :hihi:

a quick search on CBS news of "Cheryl Mills" turned this up as the 1st article.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-staffer-who-assisted-clinton-with-email-will-plead-the-fifth-to-congress/

Pleading the 5th doesn't mean you have anything to hide.

:rotf2:

a quick search on CBS news of "Cheryl Mills" turned this up as the 1st article.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-staffer-who-assisted-clinton-with-email-will-plead-the-fifth-to-congress/


Ya, a day late and a dollar short.

They had no choice but to cover it today. :hihi:

Pleading the 5th doesn't mean you have anything to hide. Many of those she would have to go before have already made criminal accusations, it's a witch hunt I certainly wouldn't want to be a part of.

Simple, if you don't lie and tell the truth you don't need a good
memory and nothing to fear.

Simple, if you don't lie and tell the truth you don't need a good
memory and nothing to fear.
If it was an objective investigation one might hope that would be true. I don't see how anyone could see any of this as objective.

If it was an objective investigation one might hope that would be true. I don't see how anyone could see any of this as objective.

If it proved Hillary was innocent you would be the first one to say
it was objective. :hihi: :buds:

..........

..........

LOL Nebe, the perfect squelch. :btu:

Pleading the 5th means guilty period...nothing to hide YYYYY plead the 5th....taking the 5th means that your answer might incriminate you....:)

Why is it the only part ofThe Constitution libs believe in is the 5th ammendment, seems like all else is up for negotiation...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think they should review Hillary's Top Secret Clearance to determine, even
now , if she would be eligible to keep it, let alone qualified to run for President.

You both have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You both have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this reminds me of one of those snobby obama remarks about being a "Constitutional law professor" and therefor know more about the law etc. than others... but in fact, constantly he proves that he knows almost nothing about the Constitution or the law and is rather, well practiced in various ways and rhetoric to undermine the law and Constitution, deceive and make a lotta chit up :laugha:

You both have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please enlighten us ,Spence. My understanding of TSC is if you are going to work
in a national security position your complete background is personally checked by interviews with the FBI. When I was dating my wife the FBI came to my house and even interviewed my parents as well as myself and many from her job etc. in order for her to get TSC,

There is a "need to know" in order to receive or send classified information.
This is non negotionable, you are dealing with National Security. What could be
more important then to safeguard it. If any one does not lock their office files
overnight they get 3 chances, then lose their TSC and get's fired immediately.
Nothing can leave the workplace.

So you mean Hillary using her own unsecured server for sending and receiving
classified and TSC information should be allowed to keep her TSC ?
No need to goggle the law, common sense says she broke it by using her own
unsecured server, deleted 1000's of e mails when she was found out and refused to turn it over until she was forced to by the FBI.
Spence, you are dealing with our national security upheld by a top government official, and liar to boot. She either had her own reasons to do what she did or she was stupid for not knowing the most important law she was working under.

Time will tell.

OK, the inspector general's office is commenting here about two emails that were not only classified, biut were classified as top secret.

"the overall classification of those two emails remains unchanged. Both emails were classified when they were created and remain classified now."

This seems to contradict Hilary's statement that she received no emails that were classified at the time she received them. Unless the classification was changed at the State Department, which I think would be a crime, since only the Agency that developed the information can change the classification, and neither of these 2 were developed by State.

I'd be curious to know what The Dad Fisherman thinks, since (1) he seems to know a lot about this, and (2) he isn't blinded by either side's ideology.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/08/intel-review-backs-up-finding-that-clinton-emails-had-top-secret-information/?intcmp=hpbt1

Please enlighten us ,Spence.
My remark was in context of pleading the 5th an admission of guilt.

My remark was in context of pleading the 5th an admission of guilt.

Spence if UUUUUUUU ever in front of a jury and going to plead the 5th UUUUU best speak up and ask if Flyrod is in the jury.......GUILTY....GUILTY......LOL....:)

I'd be curious to know what The Dad Fisherman thinks,

first question I would want to know is how did it "Jump" Networks? A TS network isn't simply connected/or has the ability to send e-mails to a non-secure network. That usually means that someone had to transfer the docs on purpose. That's a HUGE No-No....

I would also think that someone who has access at the Originating Agency would have to be the one to initiate it. its not like someone with no access can just "Go Get It"

You would think this would broaden the Investigation to the Originating Organization.....follow the trail

first question I would want to know is how did it "Jump" Networks? A TS network isn't simply connected/or has the ability to send e-mails to a non-secure network. That usually means that someone had to transfer the docs on purpose. That's a HUGE No-No....

I would also think that someone who has access at the Originating Agency would have to be the one to initiate it. its not like someone with no access can just "Go Get It"

You would think this would broaden the Investigation to the Originating Organization.....follow the trail
Or it may have never jumped networks.

A big factor with this entire topic is how different agencies collect and classify information. Let's say the State Department and CIA gather the same info at the same time. CIA thinks it should be classified and State doesn't. CIA uses classified network and State doesn't. Years later it's reviewed and the CIA says it was classified. State doesn't agree.

Or it may have never jumped networks.

A big factor with this entire topic is how different agencies collect and classify information. Let's say the State Department and CIA gather the same info at the same time. CIA thinks it should be classified and State doesn't. CIA uses classified network and State doesn't. Years later it's reviewed and the CIA says it was classified. State doesn't agree.

The article doesn't say that anyone is claiming that State simultaneously came up with the same info, and chose not to classify it.

From the article..."In both emails, the State Department did not generate the intelligence, and therefore did not have classification authority"

Hilary is sticking to her claim that it's all about differing, subjective classification between different agencies. Well, if State generated the same info and chose not to classify it, then Hilary should be vindicated. If State in fact did independently generate the same information and chose not to classify it, that should be very sinmple to determine. But the quote I just pulled from the article, seems to contradict that assertion.

Let's find out!

Hillary will not be indicted she will not serve time and she will be the nominee for POTUS. She is over 70 million raised currently. Higher than any other candidate aside from Jeb who is over 110 million. Bought and sold
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

^ it all comes down to this, just too many now invested in her being elected. Honestly she is really the Dems only hope, even if Biden decides to run its an uphill battle with all of his buffoonery. Then he will pick Chief E. Warren and blow the whole thing anyway!

^ Then he will pick Chief E. Warren and blow the whole thing anyway!

Biden will absolutely pick Apache Chief if he gets the nomination, he would need her to energize the radical left wing faction of the party.

Or it may have never jumped networks.

A big factor with this entire topic is how different agencies collect and classify information. Let's say the State Department and CIA gather the same info at the same time. CIA thinks it should be classified and State doesn't. CIA uses classified network and State doesn't. Years later it's reviewed and the CIA says it was classified. State doesn't agree.

So on what planet does information on North Koreas Nuclear Capabilities not carry any classification level....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So on what planet does information on North Koreas Nuclear Capabilities not carry any classification level....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

LMAO. Right, yoga classes, Chelsea's wedding plans, North Korea's nuclear capabilities, you know, the usual personal stuff.

So on what planet does information on North Koreas Nuclear Capabilities not carry any classification level....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spenceworld:eek5: