Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
I think the answer to those questions depends on who the senders were. Its possible some markings were intentionally stripped and some not.
Now can she be indicted????
- Thread starter Baja28
- Start date
I think the answer to those questions depends on who the senders were. Its possible some markings were intentionally stripped and some not.
Handled much highly classified information?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Not knowing what the information actually is, I would tend to agree with you that it's likely some were intentional and some were not.
But, that means that (a) Clinton had a staff that didn't know the classification of information being transmitted over open lines, or (b) Clinton is either so incompetent that she, too, as the "buck stops here" Secretary also did not know the information was classified - meaning she really can't be trusted as president, or that she knew and openly lied when she specifically stated that she neither sent nor received classified information, and (c) it's entirely true that none of this - intentional, unintentional, incompetent, or lying - are all not acceptable at the level of highest cabinet post in the country, and even less acceptable for a president (thus making her materially an unreasonable candidate for the Democrats to put forth).
Wouldn't you agree?
M
Momma
Guest
The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories
If you want to find out what Bill & Hilliary Clinton are really like, you owe it to yourself to read:
The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories
by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Sunday Telegraph, Washington bureau chief during Clinton years)
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Life-Bill-Clinton-Unreported/dp/0895264080/
(Used copy for 1-cent + shipping)
The synopsis:
I'm a moderate---pretty conservative on some things and liberal on others---and I was never a Clinton lover or hater. Reading this book almost made my head start spinning.
If you want to find out what Bill & Hilliary Clinton are really like, you owe it to yourself to read:
The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories
by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Sunday Telegraph, Washington bureau chief during Clinton years)
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Life-Bill-Clinton-Unreported/dp/0895264080/
(Used copy for 1-cent + shipping)
The synopsis:
I'm a moderate---pretty conservative on some things and liberal on others---and I was never a Clinton lover or hater. Reading this book almost made my head start spinning.
Attachments
PsyOps
Pixelated
You know boy, I don’t need to KNOW whether Hillary stripped the classification markers from a document. She held one of the highest positions in this country handling matters of national security. It is absolutely impossible for her to have conducted her business without sending and receiving TOP SECRET information; even on a daily basis. It’s impossible for her to not know that she was processing classified information. It’s impossible for her not to know that there are separate networks in place to handle these specific classifications levels: Unclassified, Secret, and Top Secret; and that you must be sitting at a computer that resides on these networks. People that receive Top Secret clearances are briefed about the handling of classified and the networks that handle them. If they handle SCI (which the SecState WOULD handle) information they are ‘read in’ to those compartments and briefed on how that information is handled. The Secretary of State is not exempt from these briefings. There are laws that require each person with these clearances handle classified in very specific manners. This DOES NOT allow for anyone, at any level to process classified on a private server in their home.
So, stripping a label off an email means nothing to me. She violated so many laws and rules that I don’t think it can be calculated. But this is what we have come used to with you people on the left; you not only explain away dishonesty and violations of the laws by your own; you’re proud of your Hillary having committed such heinous violations of the law and our trust. If I didn’t find this so dangerous, I would find it strange. And it is quite STRANGE that you welcome such corruption.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
There was no way she did not know that Secret files were coming in on her server.
There is no excuse for her using her own server.
She could not do the business of Secretary of State without sending and receiving Secret messages.
Anyone who blames this on some fricking label not being attached to an email is either stupid or agreeable to her corruption and violations of the law.
littlelady
God bless the USA
Thanks! Just put it on hold at the PF library.
PsyOps
Pixelated
And folks are focusing on top secret and secret being a problem, but what folks don’t seem to understand is even unclassified FOUO is NOT supposed to be processed on private computers. I can’t imagine anything the SecState does that isn’t in the capacity of, at minimum, FOUO. So, there really isn’t anything that she should have been doing in the official capacity of her SecState duties on anay sort of private network/server. I can’t even imagine coordinating her attendance to a Halloween party as being benign since it points to her schedule; which must be protected for her safety.
Last edited:
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Exactly. The ones making excuses for her are wrong in every way. There is no excuse.
Any email she got or sent in an official capacity should have been protected by a Government server. PERIOD. End of story.
It's the Law by God. How can they excuse it.
nhboy
Ubi bene ibi patria
You know him?...
Grandma is circling the drain.....
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/08/back-up-server-would-be-very-bad-news-for-hillary/
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/08/back-up-server-would-be-very-bad-news-for-hillary/
Perhaps someone could clarify two things that have always bugged me about the whole thing -
1. Who on earth allowed her to use that server in the first place? It's impossible that no one at State didn't know that.
2. She deleted 30,000 - about half - of the emails because they were personal in nature. Two things come to mind -
a. Who here working for the government wouldn't get their butt kicked if half of their work email was "personal" and
b. What in God's name is she doing at her job if half her email is "personal".
It's possible I am misunderstanding the use of the word "personal" with the Clintons - it may be she merely meant, it's inconsequential,
like "see you for lunch". But I have to wonder what anyone is doing if they have 30,000 emails of a personal nature over a four year period.
I don't have that many over the last twenty.
1. Who on earth allowed her to use that server in the first place? It's impossible that no one at State didn't know that.
2. She deleted 30,000 - about half - of the emails because they were personal in nature. Two things come to mind -
a. Who here working for the government wouldn't get their butt kicked if half of their work email was "personal" and
b. What in God's name is she doing at her job if half her email is "personal".
It's possible I am misunderstanding the use of the word "personal" with the Clintons - it may be she merely meant, it's inconsequential,
like "see you for lunch". But I have to wonder what anyone is doing if they have 30,000 emails of a personal nature over a four year period.
I don't have that many over the last twenty.
she is a Clinton - they do what they want
you have the JOB at State ... you gonna tell the boss no, or drop a dime ?
People have a way of dying around the Clinton's
It's not just Granny that needs to go to jail.....
http://gawker.com/state-department-finds-thousands-of-philippe-reines-ema-1724560491?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
http://gawker.com/state-department-finds-thousands-of-philippe-reines-ema-1724560491?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow