Justice Dept grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server...
- Thread starter Busybody
- Start date
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
M
miles
Guest
The rules of confidentiality forbade it. There is no way in hell she didn't know she was violating the law by sharing confidential information with someone who didn't have a need to know.
People have gone to the joint for much less.
The lemmings who are still defending her are blind, deaf, and dumb. Very dumb.
M
miles
Guest
Nixon looks like a saint compared to her. She broke several laws and is still in CYA mode.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
But as toobs and I are discussing in the other thread, no one in the "media" is calling her on it, they just report what she says...
Brett Bair stood there in the town hall last night and stood sheepishly by while she said nothing I sent or received was marked "classified." Candy Crowley, if Hillary were a Republican, would have called her out pointing out that no transmission is ever marked "classified," classified is the name of a genre...
M
miles
Guest
But as toobs and I are discussing in the other thread, no one in the "media" is calling her on it, they just report what she says...
Brett Bair stood there in the town hall last night and stood sheepishly by while she said nothing I sent or received was marked "classified." Candy Crowley, if Hillary were a Republican, would have called her out pointing out that no transmission is ever marked "classified," classified is the name of a genre...
He should have nailed her to the cross but didn't do his job as a journalist because he didn't want to appear "biased."
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
But as toobs and I are discussing in the other thread, no one in the "media" is calling her on it, they just report what she says...
Brett Bair stood there in the town hall last night and stood sheepishly by while she said nothing I sent or received was marked "classified." Candy Crowley, if Hillary were a Republican, would have called her out pointing out that no transmission is ever marked "classified," classified is the name of a genre...
As was reported in several media blurbs what was going on was that the staffers were re-writing classified documents and forwarding them to the server (Hillary) with all the essential information but with the classification notations stripped away. So from a purely technical standpoint she is correct. Lame and weak, but technically correct.
Ishmael
Beco
I'm Not Your Guru
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2002
- Posts
- 57,795
The said they are starting to look into the Clinton Foundation.....rut row...
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
Exactly...
She is a liar..., lawyer, as in the movie, what's the difference?
From a practical standpoint, none.
The equipment that is used to store and/or transmit classified information are housed in "Tempest" (to one level or another depending on the information) certified equipment. Hillary's server was NOT so housed. Further the lines that connected to the premise were wide open to 'sniffing' technology. ie. copying all transmissions sent or received via inductive coupling. Using that technology you can essentially hack the server without ever really gaining electrical access. Point being that any interested party with access to sophisticated technology could suck every piece of information out of that server without ever having to passwords, trojan's or any other traceable fingerprints. This would necessarily require the resources of a Nation/State, but there are many of those that would be interested in reading the Sec. State's mail, friendly or otherwise.
Ishmael
M
miles
Guest
She's going to walk...Clintons always do. It's the way of the world.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Indeed.
It was out there for the world to see, and she could not care less because it was all about the ability to cover her lard ass because she's been running for the Presidency ever since she took china and furniture home from the White House...
... to place in the Chappaquiddick home purchased by donors.
They were dead broke!
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
It's a pity that you actually have to prove that someone did something illegal to toss them in jail huh?
If only you could ex post facto their asses. Which is essentially what retroactively classifying information and then trying to prosecute someone for sharing it is.
Meanwhile we have good old golden boy General Petraeus who knowingly shared classified Intel with his mistress / biographer allowed to plead down to a much lower infraction of the law, unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, and was sentenced to two years probation and a fine of $40,000. As an aside he also falsely swore when he left the CIA in 2012 that he had no classified information in his possession or control and gave false statements to the FBI regarding giving his mistress the notebooks.
He should be in a cell right next to Chelsea Manning.
M
miles
Guest
She could have the lowest approval rating for an Inauguration Day president in American history!
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Hillary’s ‘No Classified Markings’ Canard Actually Makes Things Worse
@ANDREWCMCCARTHY As our friend Guy Benson tallies things up in the Clinton email scandal, there were not only a whopping 2,079 emails containing classified information that were stored and transmitted on Hillary Clinton’s non-secure private server system. It turns out that she personally wrote 104 such emails – which, the Washington Post gingerly observes, “could complicate her efforts to argue that she never put government secrets at risk.” I’ll say. In fact, I have said: see my February 6 column describing the damage the former secretary of state has done to national security by exposing intelligence secrets, collection methods, and sources of information to hostile foreign intelligence services. Let’s also keep in mind a fact that’s easy to forget since what’s before our eyes is so outrageous: For now, we are only talking about the Clinton emails that she deigned to turn over to the government. As Guy reminds us, there are another 32,000 emails that she attempted to delete.
There have been reports indicating that the FBI has been able to recover at least some of these from the server. It is a shoe that has yet to drop. Recall the state of play: Mrs. Clinton originally insisted no classified information was ever transmitted on her servers. When this became untenable, she changed her story to claim that she never personally sent or received classified emails – a claim that, even if true, would be of little legal relevance since she caused the creation of the private server system via which, because of the way she ran her office, the transmission of classified emails by her underlings was inevitable. But of course, we now know for sure that the claim is not true: Wholly apart from what she may have received, Clinton personally wrote and sent those aforementioned 104 emails containing classified information.
So the final evolution in this bogus defense is that there were “no classified markings” on emails stored or sent via the private server. Obviously, this is offered to intimate that she had no way of knowing she and her subordinates were handling classified information with criminal recklessness. As I’ve repeatedly explained, this is an absurd suggestion: Government officials with security clearances are trained in categories of information that are classified pursuant to executive order, and documents that incorporate national defense secrets are “born classified” regardless of whether they are marked classified – e.g., if a government official takes notes at a classified briefing or from a classified document, the notes are classified even if not marked as such; or if information comes from foreign governments, it is presumptively classified under President Obama’s pertinent executive order (which mainly repeats longstanding categories of information deemed classified). For instance, former CIA director David Petraeus’s highly classified journals were not marked classified, but he pled guilty to mishandling them anyway because he well knew the lack of markings were not a defense. In fact, the lack of markings not only fails as a defense. It is more likely to be evidence of guilt.
The government maintains separate networks for classified and unclassified documents. The documents on the classified system are the ones marked classified. It is not physically possible to email documents from the classified to the unclassified system. Therefore, if information marked classified somehow ends up outside the classified system in an unmarked form, it can only be because someone willfully and at considerable effort put it in the unmarked form. If many of Mrs. Clinton’s emails are not marked classified even though they contain classified information, it took quite intentional labor to get them that way. The most likely scenario involves either taking notes by hand while reading information on the classified system and then turning those notes into an email sent on the unclassified system; or directly typing into an unclassified computer what one is reading or has read off the classified computer (either in real time or from memory), and then transmitting what has been typed via unclassified email. Another possibility is to conceal the classified markings on a physical document taken from the classified system, then scan the document into the unclassified system, after which the scanned copy (still the same classified information but with classified markings now removed) can be emailed.
This is to say: the most logical explanation for the removal of classified markings would be that the high official knows what she or he is doing is wrong; hopes the absence of markings will minimize the chances of being caught; and, if caught, has corruptly planned in advance to claim, “Look, the documents are unmarked. How could I have known they were classified?” Mind you, we already know of one instance in which then-Secretary Clinton, impatient over the delay in receiving a classified fax over the secure system, instructed an underling (Jake Sullivan) to “turn it into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure” – i.e., create a scanned electronic copy minus the original markings and send it on the nonsecure system. “No classified markings” is more likely to be proof of misconduct than a valid defense for Mrs. Clinton and her underlings.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner
@ANDREWCMCCARTHY As our friend Guy Benson tallies things up in the Clinton email scandal, there were not only a whopping 2,079 emails containing classified information that were stored and transmitted on Hillary Clinton’s non-secure private server system. It turns out that she personally wrote 104 such emails – which, the Washington Post gingerly observes, “could complicate her efforts to argue that she never put government secrets at risk.” I’ll say. In fact, I have said: see my February 6 column describing the damage the former secretary of state has done to national security by exposing intelligence secrets, collection methods, and sources of information to hostile foreign intelligence services. Let’s also keep in mind a fact that’s easy to forget since what’s before our eyes is so outrageous: For now, we are only talking about the Clinton emails that she deigned to turn over to the government. As Guy reminds us, there are another 32,000 emails that she attempted to delete.
There have been reports indicating that the FBI has been able to recover at least some of these from the server. It is a shoe that has yet to drop. Recall the state of play: Mrs. Clinton originally insisted no classified information was ever transmitted on her servers. When this became untenable, she changed her story to claim that she never personally sent or received classified emails – a claim that, even if true, would be of little legal relevance since she caused the creation of the private server system via which, because of the way she ran her office, the transmission of classified emails by her underlings was inevitable. But of course, we now know for sure that the claim is not true: Wholly apart from what she may have received, Clinton personally wrote and sent those aforementioned 104 emails containing classified information.
So the final evolution in this bogus defense is that there were “no classified markings” on emails stored or sent via the private server. Obviously, this is offered to intimate that she had no way of knowing she and her subordinates were handling classified information with criminal recklessness. As I’ve repeatedly explained, this is an absurd suggestion: Government officials with security clearances are trained in categories of information that are classified pursuant to executive order, and documents that incorporate national defense secrets are “born classified” regardless of whether they are marked classified – e.g., if a government official takes notes at a classified briefing or from a classified document, the notes are classified even if not marked as such; or if information comes from foreign governments, it is presumptively classified under President Obama’s pertinent executive order (which mainly repeats longstanding categories of information deemed classified). For instance, former CIA director David Petraeus’s highly classified journals were not marked classified, but he pled guilty to mishandling them anyway because he well knew the lack of markings were not a defense. In fact, the lack of markings not only fails as a defense. It is more likely to be evidence of guilt.
The government maintains separate networks for classified and unclassified documents. The documents on the classified system are the ones marked classified. It is not physically possible to email documents from the classified to the unclassified system. Therefore, if information marked classified somehow ends up outside the classified system in an unmarked form, it can only be because someone willfully and at considerable effort put it in the unmarked form. If many of Mrs. Clinton’s emails are not marked classified even though they contain classified information, it took quite intentional labor to get them that way. The most likely scenario involves either taking notes by hand while reading information on the classified system and then turning those notes into an email sent on the unclassified system; or directly typing into an unclassified computer what one is reading or has read off the classified computer (either in real time or from memory), and then transmitting what has been typed via unclassified email. Another possibility is to conceal the classified markings on a physical document taken from the classified system, then scan the document into the unclassified system, after which the scanned copy (still the same classified information but with classified markings now removed) can be emailed.
This is to say: the most logical explanation for the removal of classified markings would be that the high official knows what she or he is doing is wrong; hopes the absence of markings will minimize the chances of being caught; and, if caught, has corruptly planned in advance to claim, “Look, the documents are unmarked. How could I have known they were classified?” Mind you, we already know of one instance in which then-Secretary Clinton, impatient over the delay in receiving a classified fax over the secure system, instructed an underling (Jake Sullivan) to “turn it into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure” – i.e., create a scanned electronic copy minus the original markings and send it on the nonsecure system. “No classified markings” is more likely to be proof of misconduct than a valid defense for Mrs. Clinton and her underlings.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
if the DELETED emails really were personal
it would have been BETTER to have kept em
we KNOW why they were deleted
and dont forget
she said they contained personal emails to and from DickClitman
same DickCitman who sez he doesnt get nor send emails
it would have been BETTER to have kept em
we KNOW why they were deleted
and dont forget
she said they contained personal emails to and from DickClitman
same DickCitman who sez he doesnt get nor send emails
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
It's impossible to presume they won't indict Clinton considering she's the author of (at least) 104 of these emails. It's equally impossible to presume that Barack Obama is going to hand the Republicans the general election by allowing his DoJ to indict their presumptive nominee.
It's a paradox: There's no way Clinton can evade justice for such a plainly criminal act but there's no way they're going to indict the first woman president.
It's a paradox: There's no way Clinton can evade justice for such a plainly criminal act but there's no way they're going to indict the first woman president.
M
miles
Guest
This is the most bizarre presidential race of my life.
My money is on the FBI recommending an indictment and the DOJ slow walking their decision until after the election. If she wins the presidency the issue is history. Even if she loses I doubt a new administration would indict her.
For the umpteenth time, she's going to walk.
The FBI can squawk and leak all the information they want, but it won't do a bit of good.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Similar threads
