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...825-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...email-scandal/

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?

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

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...n%20server.pdf


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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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...:)

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

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.

Spence, what's your source for those facts?

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?

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:

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.

No doubt she hasn't handled the situation well.

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.

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

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.

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-s...h-to-congress/

:rotf2:

Ya, a day late and a dollar short.

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

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

..........

LOL Nebe, the perfect squelch. :btu: