BREAKING NEWS.. State Dept ordered Hillary to delete e-mails

[Uncensored2008]

Good for him, I'm a big fan of Bernie.

Kim Jong Un has turned down the nomination then?

Why are you now trolling your own thread?

Irony...

 

[mudwhistle]

Clinton lawyer balked at first effort to delete classified email In violation of the court order. Hillary's lawyer did not comply with delete request.

Translation statement, this means that the e-mail or e-mails were of the HIGHEST top secret status, and they did not want the info being dumped to the media. This means that Obamas State Dept. considered the info that Hillary let be compromised was of the most damaging kind. This also means that the State Dept. can no longer police itself and that a special council will need to be appointed.


T

Is anyone surprised about anything anymore?

 

[Uncensored2008]

No posts on this message board will have any effect on the Hillary, either way.

That's the problem with echo chambers, they inevitably result in nonsensical over-arching conspiracy theories, and the constant need to take yourselves way too damn seriously.

So the classified and top secret emails the Hillary illegally sent from an unsecured server are a "conspiracy theory?"

What IS that smell? Oh, desperation....

 

[mudwhistle]

Clinton lawyer balked at first effort to delete classified email In violation of the court order. Hillary's lawyer did not comply with delete request.

Translation statement, this means that the e-mail or e-mails were of the HIGHEST top secret status, and they did not want the info being dumped to the media. This means that Obamas State Dept. considered the info that Hillary let be compromised was of the most damaging kind. This also means that the State Dept. can no longer police itself and that a special council will need to be appointed.


T

Was her lawyer even qualified to read it? He may well have had info that was ILLEGAL for him to have.

The hacker who had her e-mails came to the conclusion that he could not sell them, but had to turn them over to the FBI. As for this lawyer, he was likely lied to by Hillary about the contents, but once he knew he should have turned them over as well as he was not cleared to have the info. The cool thing is that Hillary may not have top secret clearance either at this point, and if it is not reinstated, there is no way she can be President in the first place. Nothing like this has ever happened before, so there are no answers. My hope is that just before the Democratic debate, and on camera, Hilly is taken away in cuffs.

Never happen.

Democrats don't follow laws like the rest of us.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

From: POTUS
To: SecState
Re: Sending Arms to Al Qaeda, ISIS and Jihadists through Benghazi
Date: Sept 10, 2012

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm trying to process the concept that Hillary's emails would have "street value" to hackers, over all manner of other targets.

Yeah, what would the Chinese intelligence agency want with the emails of the United States Secretary of State?

You Communists are fucking brilliant.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Who was in charge? Hillary was the "state department" as secretary of state. Did John Kerry order the deletion of Hillary's e-mails or did the order come from the White House? If it was the Nixon administration they would be talking about impeachment.

But we have already seen that the law does not apply to democrats.

Nixon was driven from office for merely SUGGESTING that the IRS be used on his enemies. Obama actually fucking did it, and the Communists call it "phony scandal." We have to accept that democrats are above the laws that govern others.

 

[mudwhistle]

Who was in charge? Hillary was the "state department" as secretary of state. Did John Kerry order the deletion of Hillary's e-mails or did the order come from the White House? If it was the Nixon administration they would be talking about impeachment.

But we have already seen that the law does not apply to democrats.

Nixon was driven from office for merely SUGGESTING that the IRS be used on his enemies. Obama actually fucking did it, and the Communists call it "phony scandal." We have to accept that democrats are above the laws that govern others.

This is the biggest threat in this country. ....a political class that controls the media and never pays a price for their illegal deeds. They can give away the entire farm to our enemies and it's just "another vast right wing conspiracy ".

 

[toxicmedia]

The first crime is not reporting a top secret e-mail not labeled and coming thru Google or AOL is the next. This is before Hillary even sent an e-mail.

That's confusing.....so is the allegation that she knew it was top secret, and benefited somehow from not reporting it? as top secret?

Are you thinking she is diabolical, or lazy?

Even smart peeps do stupid things and some of those things can (and should) have serious consequences.

Allowing top secret e-mail to be transmitted over Google is not dumb, it's a crime.

Her actions may not have been either diabolical or lazy as Toxic posed but rather just plain stupid. That doesn't make them any less a crime.

I have never asserted that Hillary did not commit a crime, nor have I asserted she should not be accountable if it's proven she did commit a crime.

My point is as follows:

1. Did she knowingly commit a crime.
2. Is the crime something that happens routinely, like going 50mph in a 45mph zone.
3. She must be charged with a crime
4. The charges must be proven.

As far as I've seen, none of my criteria has been met.

 

[toxicmedia]

The first crime is not reporting a top secret e-mail not labeled and coming thru Google or AOL is the next. This is before Hillary even sent an e-mail.

That's confusing.....so is the allegation that she knew it was top secret, and benefited somehow from not reporting it? as top secret?

Are you thinking she is diabolical, or lazy?

Even smart peeps do stupid things and some of those things can (and should) have serious consequences.

Allowing top secret e-mail to be transmitted over Google is not dumb, it's a crime.

Her actions may not have been either diabolical or lazy as Toxic posed but rather just plain stupid. That doesn't make them any less a crime.

I think she was hiding from Obama, which really backfired.

Hiding what from Obama?

 

[toxicmedia]

The first crime is not reporting a top secret e-mail not labeled and coming thru Google or AOL is the next. This is before Hillary even sent an e-mail.

That's confusing.....so is the allegation that she knew it was top secret, and benefited somehow from not reporting it? as top secret?

Are you thinking she is diabolical, or lazy?

Even smart peeps do stupid things and some of those things can (and should) have serious consequences.

Allowing top secret e-mail to be transmitted over Google is not dumb, it's a crime.

So she did it on purpose? Or is it just tough luck if it's ignorance of the law?

No matter. Ignorance of the law in this case is hardly a viable defense. She'll be needing better defense advice than that and soon.

Do you know you've pronounced her guilty without a trial?

Based solely on your desire to see her lose the 2016 Presidential election?

I don't believe your true motivation, and that of her GOP accusers, comes from concern for national security. You may have convinced yourself it's that, but it isn't

 

[toxicmedia]

I'm trying to process the concept that Hillary's emails would have "street value" to hackers, over all manner of other targets.

Yeah, what would the Chinese intelligence agency want with the emails of the United States Secretary of State?

You Communists are fucking brilliant.

Oh I'm a communist now?

If you, and the GOP, could point to a specific email that proves Hillary Clinton sent it when it was marked as classified...I'm all ears.

Until then...you're just yammering

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do you know you've pronounced her guilty without a trial?

Based solely on your desire to see her lose the 2016 Presidential election?

I don't believe your true motivation, and that of her GOP accusers, comes from concern for national security. You may have convinced yourself it's that, but it isn't

She is guilty, there is no question about it. You know it as well as we do. She has not been found guilty by a court of law, and as a democrat is not subject to the law, but she DID commit the crimes in question, that is simply irrefutable at this point.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh I'm a communist now?

What there a time when you weren't?

If you, and the GOP, could point to a specific email that proves Hillary Clinton sent it when it was marked as classified...I'm all ears.

Until then...you're just yammering

I know you're a hack, that party is the only thing for you, but must you be a moron as well?

{

For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids.

While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as "Classified," it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it.

But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.
}

Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest

 

[SAYIT]

That's confusing.....so is the allegation that she knew it was top secret, and benefited somehow from not reporting it? as top secret?

Are you thinking she is diabolical, or lazy?

Even smart peeps do stupid things and some of those things can (and should) have serious consequences.

Allowing top secret e-mail to be transmitted over Google is not dumb, it's a crime.

So she did it on purpose? Or is it just tough luck if it's ignorance of the law?

No matter. Ignorance of the law in this case is hardly a viable defense. She'll be needing better defense advice than that and soon.

Do you know you've pronounced her guilty without a trial?

Based solely on your desire to see her lose the 2016 Presidential election?

I don't believe your true motivation, and that of her GOP accusers, comes from concern for national security. You may have convinced yourself it's that, but it isn't

You now have the opportunity to quote anything of mine in which I pronounce Hilly guilty (you will fail) but she is rightfully being tried in the court of public opinion (where slick attorney tricks can not acquit) and the damage gets worse every day.

 

[toxicmedia]

Do you know you've pronounced her guilty without a trial?

Based solely on your desire to see her lose the 2016 Presidential election?

I don't believe your true motivation, and that of her GOP accusers, comes from concern for national security. You may have convinced yourself it's that, but it isn't

She is guilty, there is no question about it. You know it as well as we do. She has not been found guilty by a court of law, and as a democrat is not subject to the law, but she DID commit the crimes in question, that is simply irrefutable at this point.

It is apparently quite refutable

 

[toxicmedia]

Even smart peeps do stupid things and some of those things can (and should) have serious consequences.

Allowing top secret e-mail to be transmitted over Google is not dumb, it's a crime.

So she did it on purpose? Or is it just tough luck if it's ignorance of the law?

No matter. Ignorance of the law in this case is hardly a viable defense. She'll be needing better defense advice than that and soon.

Do you know you've pronounced her guilty without a trial?

Based solely on your desire to see her lose the 2016 Presidential election?

I don't believe your true motivation, and that of her GOP accusers, comes from concern for national security. You may have convinced yourself it's that, but it isn't

You now have the opportunity to quote anything of mine in which I pronounce Hilly guilty (you will fail) but she is rightfully being tried in the court of public opinion (where slick attorney tricks can not acquit) and the damage gets worse every day.

Hillary's poll numbers are improving, according to Fox News this morning

 

[toxicmedia]

Oh I'm a communist now?

What there a time when you weren't?

If you, and the GOP, could point to a specific email that proves Hillary Clinton sent it when it was marked as classified...I'm all ears.

Until then...you're just yammering

I know you're a hack, that party is the only thing for you, but must you be a moron as well?

{

For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids.

While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as "Classified," it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it.

But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.
}

Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest

Okay, let me see if I'm understanding you.

So...regardless of whether or not the emails Hillary gets are marked cassified or not, they should all be considered classified by Hillary?

Let me introduce you J. William Leonard, director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO)...the guy behind the concept that everything is classified from the git-go. And the obvious reason government officials would like the option to classify everything, and keep secrets that way.

If you have the attention span to read this document, you will see how things that need not be classified, and are not classified, can become classified, if only to figure out if they need to be classified

Declassification in Reverse: The Pentagon and the U.S. Intelligence Community's Secret Historical Document Reclassification Program

"Washington, D.C., February 21, 2006 - The CIA and other federal agencies have secretly reclassified over 55,000 pages of records taken from the open shelves at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), according to a report published today on the World Wide Web by the National Security Archive at George Washington University. Matthew Aid, author of the report and a visiting fellow at the Archive, discovered this secret program through his wide-ranging research in intelligence, military, and diplomatic records at NARA and found that the CIA and military agencies have reviewed millions of pages at an unknown cost to taxpayers in order to sequester documents from collections that had been open for years.

The briefing book that the Archive published today includes 50 year old documents that CIA had impounded at NARA but which have already been published in the State Department's historical series, Foreign Relations of the United States, or have been declassified elsewhere. These documents concern such innocuous matters as the State Department's map and foreign periodicals procurement programs on behalf of the U.S. intelligence community or the State Department's open source intelligence research efforts during 1948.

Other documents have apparently been sequestered because they were embarrassing, such as a complaint from the Director of Central Intelligence about the bad publicity the CIA was receiving from its failure to predict anti-American riots in Bogota, Colombia in 1948 or a report that the CIA and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community badly botched their estimates as to whether or not Communist China would intervene in the Korean War in the fall of 1950. It is difficult to imagine how the documents cited by Aid could cause any harm to U.S. national security.

To justify their reclassification program, officials at CIA and military agencies have argued that during the implementation of Executive Order 12958, President Clinton's program for bulk declassification of historical federal records, many sensitive intelligence-related documents that remained classified were inadvertently released at NARA, especially in State Department files. Even though researchers had been combing through and copying documents from those collections for years, CIA and other agencies compelled NARA to grant them access to the open files so they could reclassify documents. While this reclassification activity began late in the 1990s, its scope widened during the Bush administration, and it is scheduled to continue until 2007. The CIA has ignored arguments from NARA officials that some of the impounded documents have already been published.

"Every blue ribbon panel that has studied the performance of the U.S. defense establishment and intelligence community since September 11, 2001 has emphasized the need for less secrecy and greater transparency," said Aid. "This episode reveals an enduring culture of secrecy in the U.S. government and highlights the need to establish measures prohibiting future secret reclassification programs."

On Friday, February 17, Aid and representatives of the National Security Archive, the National History Coalition, Public Citizen Litigation Group, and the Society for the Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR), wrote to J. William Leonard, director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) asking ISOO to audit the reclassified documents, to return documents to the files, and develop better guidelines for the review of historical records.

 

[SAYIT]

Allowing top secret e-mail to be transmitted over Google is not dumb, it's a crime.

So she did it on purpose? Or is it just tough luck if it's ignorance of the law?

No matter. Ignorance of the law in this case is hardly a viable defense. She'll be needing better defense advice than that and soon.

Do you know you've pronounced her guilty without a trial?
Based solely on your desire to see her lose the 2016 Presidential election?

I don't believe your true motivation, and that of her GOP accusers, comes from concern for national security. You may have convinced yourself it's that, but it isn't

You now have the opportunity to quote anything of mine in which I pronounce Hilly guilty (you will fail) but she is rightfully being tried in the court of public opinion (where slick attorney tricks can not acquit) and the damage gets worse every day.

Hillary's poll numbers are improving, according to Fox News this morning

I'll take that to mean you found NOTHING in which I "pronounced her guilty without a trial" so the obvious question is: why did you feel the need to lie about what I've said? Could it be that the truth just doesn't support your POV?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hillary's poll numbers are improving, according to Fox News this morning

Yeah, bullshit.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh16dem.htm