Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
30,000 personal emails
The problem is that much of what Hillary called 'personal e-mails' turned out to be State Department-related that she never turned in as required by the law.nope, you don't own all info....personal emails are NOT to be sent to be archived and the rules and regs tell govt workers NOT to send personal work and emails involving personal work to the Govt Archives to be saved.Quit doing personal work on work time. Do not ues work tools to do personal. Always a rule. To the guy who said no snooping? Huh? She work for us. We own all info. FOIA.
I trust news reports more than your opinion, Hutch...
YOU DO KNOW that not one of those deleted 30,000 personal emails that she was legally NOT SUPPOSE to send to the govt archives to be saved per the Rules and Regs, were ALL RECOVERED and are ALL on her server that the FBI got back in August of last year don't you?
Which is why most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely.
PLEASE show us how laws permitted the Clinton Cabal to set up a hidden server for their private use lacking government oversight and security.
There were no laws in place during Hillarys time at the state dept.making the use of private email servers, and their contents unlawful, in any way, shape or form.
And to this very day, colin powells emails during his time at the state dept during the Bush years, have yet to be produced, nor is there one single repub party member inquiring as to why!
One can only concude, that Hillary is the victim of a witch hunt perpetrated by the Republican party.
the issue is not the server per se. the issue is the failure to properly protect classified data. BTW, the FBI is not the republican party. The FBI works for Obama.
Wrong again! The FBI works for the people, NOT Lame Duck President Obama.
true, but the FBI reports to the AG who is an Obama appointee, so in reality the FBI works for Obama. But if the evidence against Hillary is so strong that the FBI calls for an indictment and Obama stops the DOJ from issuing one, the FBI director and others may go public and stir up a real shit storm.
I believe the Director of the FBI would go public, and possibly resign, if that were too happen.
Here's a question that I believe is critical to any investigation or possible prosecution.
Who at the State Dept is the authority on what is classified material? Who decides?
Everything I have seen on the subject says the SoS or their appointee has that authority.
Who can classify information?
"In the State Department, original classification authority for top secret info goes to the secretary of state or anyone the secretary has said -- in writing -- can do the job. Past examples include: "Deputy Secretaries, the Under Secretaries, the Counselor, Assistant Secretaries and equivalents; Chiefs of Mission and U.S. representatives to international organizations."
Secret or classified information is decided on by the secretary and/or a senior agency official, who can give classification power to others in writing as well."
Obama on Hillary Clinton’s emails: ‘There’s classified and then there’s classified.’ How does that work?
just partisan garbage, telling her top aid, to send her the talking points memo if the secure fax could not be fixed via email was not a violation of her job or anything.... no one sent it because the fax was fixed....email is also a secure connection, and there was nothing top secret in the TALKING POINTS memo...after all, they WERE the Talking Points that she was to use, when TALKING with the media...Which is why most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely.
You honestly don't know one way or the other. This bandwagon claim that "most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely" is dishonest. It would be more logical to say that legal experts are conflicted on the issue.
Former US Attorney General Micheal Mukasey believes there's warrant for a charge:
"…from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge—it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.”
Former Assistant US District Attorney Andrew McCarthy also believes same:
"These attempts to suggest she was unaware of any wrongdoing are likely unavailing. .. The laws against mishandling classified information are prosecution-friendly. For example, it is a felony for one entrusted with classified information not only to communicate it to a person unauthorized to have it, but also to enable its removal from its secure storage facility through gross negligence. It is also a crime to fail to report that information’s improper removal or communication. So is retaining materials containing classified information at an unauthorized location… Secretary Clinton systematically conducted official business on a private unsecure system, and had subordinates do likewise, knowing the nature of their duties made classified communications inevitable."
These are people who have dealt directly with the machinations of US Federal law. They were charged with enforcing it. Not interpreting it via the filter of their political biases.
Then there's Hillary. She claims that she won't be prosecuted for her alleged crimes and misdemeanors. On what legal expertise did she derive such a conclusion?
Then there are "prosecutors" and "law professors" who say likewise. Some of them working under the false notion that none of the emails were classified at the time. As I pointed out to Care4All, that wasn't the case either. The IC IG said definitively that out of a sample of 40 emails his officials received four of them were classified at the time they were originated. Given that, how many more were "classified at the time originated"?
Do you even understand what we're talking about here?just partisan garbage, telling her top aid, to send her the talking points memo if the secure fax could not be fixed via email was not a violation of her job or anything.... no one sent it because the fax was fixed....email is also a secure connection, and there was nothing top secret in the TALKING POINTS memo...after all, they WERE the Talking Points that she was to use, when TALKING with the media...Which is why most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely.
You honestly don't know one way or the other. This bandwagon claim that "most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely" is dishonest. It would be more logical to say that legal experts are conflicted on the issue.
Former US Attorney General Micheal Mukasey believes there's warrant for a charge:
"…from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge—it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.”
Former Assistant US District Attorney Andrew McCarthy also believes same:
"These attempts to suggest she was unaware of any wrongdoing are likely unavailing. .. The laws against mishandling classified information are prosecution-friendly. For example, it is a felony for one entrusted with classified information not only to communicate it to a person unauthorized to have it, but also to enable its removal from its secure storage facility through gross negligence. It is also a crime to fail to report that information’s improper removal or communication. So is retaining materials containing classified information at an unauthorized location… Secretary Clinton systematically conducted official business on a private unsecure system, and had subordinates do likewise, knowing the nature of their duties made classified communications inevitable."
These are people who have dealt directly with the machinations of US Federal law. They were charged with enforcing it. Not interpreting it via the filter of their political biases.
Then there's Hillary. She claims that she won't be prosecuted for her alleged crimes and misdemeanors. On what legal expertise did she derive such a conclusion?
Then there are "prosecutors" and "law professors" who say likewise. Some of them working under the false notion that none of the emails were classified at the time. As I pointed out to Care4All, that wasn't the case either. The IC IG said definitively that out of a sample of 40 emails his officials received four of them were classified at the time they were originated. Given that, how many more were "classified at the time originated"?
NOTHING, EVER that is Secret or Top Secret, would be sent via FAX....
IN ADDITION
She, as SOS had the authority to declassify.
Well, Republicans have been attacking Hillary for 25 years and I doubt this will be the end of it. If she get's elected, there will always be an upcoming Senate or House investigating committee to carry on the fight. From the first day that Hillary stepped into the White House as the first lady, Republicans knew they had a problem. She couldn't just be a good little first lady who tended the rose garden and presided over the ladies tea parties.There are two statues involved. One is where you willfully disclose classified information. This is a felony. The other is mishandling classified information which is usually consider a misdemeanor. To prove the accused mishandled the information, the prosecution must show that the accused knowing mishandled the information or was negligent. Both can be difficult to prove, particularly in cases involving electronic transfer. High ranking officials are granted a great deal of latitude in their handling of classified information. For example other secretaries of state have used private email servers and worst which makes prosecution even more difficult.What is interesting in what this libidiot just said, let me try to give a reason why the vagina candidate will be put in Fort Leavenworth.CNN Reports FBI Has Found ‘No Criminal Wrongdoing’ in Hillary Clinton Email ‘Investigation’
Some of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides, including her longtime adviser Huma Abedin, have provided interviews to federal investigators, as the FBI probe into the security of her private email server nears completion, U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN. The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven’t found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say.
One the e-mail investigation is over, is will be over for Donald. She will CRUSH HIM IN NOVEMBER! And you Donald supporter will deny you ever supported him. FUNNY!
While in the military I had to process Top Secret documentation. There were others who worked with me on the process of handling the classified information, marking it, and then giving it to those who would use that information to protect the US. One individual did not willfully violate the law by not marking one Top Secret message, gave it to upper command and that individual ended up in Leavenworth for 5 years. He didn't willfully, but that didn't matter, he BROKE the law. The only crushing the loud mouth enabler will do, is crushing big rocks into little rocks. And you welfare pukes will have to go back to work. ROTFLMAO.....
View attachment 73963
In most instances, mishandling of classified information would simply result in a loss of security clearance. Not charges. The likelhood are charges are slim to none.
Hillary will be treated the same was Powell and Rice were. Which will infuriate many republicans.
No, Obama's comment in reference to email handling in the state department was “There’s carelessness in terms of managing emails, that she has owned up to it, and she recognizes it” The opposition changed the statement to an accusation by Obama that Hillary was negligent.Wrong Flopper....within the Espionage Act is a crime of 'negligence' which does not require an intentional act. Barry has already publicly declared Hillary was negligent...
So Obama actually said the word negligent? Link that chief....
Do you even understand what we're talking about here?just partisan garbage, telling her top aid, to send her the talking points memo if the secure fax could not be fixed via email was not a violation of her job or anything.... no one sent it because the fax was fixed....email is also a secure connection, and there was nothing top secret in the TALKING POINTS memo...after all, they WERE the Talking Points that she was to use, when TALKING with the media...Which is why most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely.
You honestly don't know one way or the other. This bandwagon claim that "most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely" is dishonest. It would be more logical to say that legal experts are conflicted on the issue.
Former US Attorney General Micheal Mukasey believes there's warrant for a charge:
"…from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge—it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.”
Former Assistant US District Attorney Andrew McCarthy also believes same:
"These attempts to suggest she was unaware of any wrongdoing are likely unavailing. .. The laws against mishandling classified information are prosecution-friendly. For example, it is a felony for one entrusted with classified information not only to communicate it to a person unauthorized to have it, but also to enable its removal from its secure storage facility through gross negligence. It is also a crime to fail to report that information’s improper removal or communication. So is retaining materials containing classified information at an unauthorized location… Secretary Clinton systematically conducted official business on a private unsecure system, and had subordinates do likewise, knowing the nature of their duties made classified communications inevitable."
These are people who have dealt directly with the machinations of US Federal law. They were charged with enforcing it. Not interpreting it via the filter of their political biases.
Then there's Hillary. She claims that she won't be prosecuted for her alleged crimes and misdemeanors. On what legal expertise did she derive such a conclusion?
Then there are "prosecutors" and "law professors" who say likewise. Some of them working under the false notion that none of the emails were classified at the time. As I pointed out to Care4All, that wasn't the case either. The IC IG said definitively that out of a sample of 40 emails his officials received four of them were classified at the time they were originated. Given that, how many more were "classified at the time originated"?
NOTHING, EVER that is Secret or Top Secret, would be sent via FAX....
IN ADDITION
She, as SOS had the authority to declassify.
yes it does.... the SOS and other dept heads have the authority to classify and declassify....Do you even understand what we're talking about here?just partisan garbage, telling her top aid, to send her the talking points memo if the secure fax could not be fixed via email was not a violation of her job or anything.... no one sent it because the fax was fixed....email is also a secure connection, and there was nothing top secret in the TALKING POINTS memo...after all, they WERE the Talking Points that she was to use, when TALKING with the media...Which is why most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely.
You honestly don't know one way or the other. This bandwagon claim that "most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely" is dishonest. It would be more logical to say that legal experts are conflicted on the issue.
Former US Attorney General Micheal Mukasey believes there's warrant for a charge:
"…from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge—it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.”
Former Assistant US District Attorney Andrew McCarthy also believes same:
"These attempts to suggest she was unaware of any wrongdoing are likely unavailing. .. The laws against mishandling classified information are prosecution-friendly. For example, it is a felony for one entrusted with classified information not only to communicate it to a person unauthorized to have it, but also to enable its removal from its secure storage facility through gross negligence. It is also a crime to fail to report that information’s improper removal or communication. So is retaining materials containing classified information at an unauthorized location… Secretary Clinton systematically conducted official business on a private unsecure system, and had subordinates do likewise, knowing the nature of their duties made classified communications inevitable."
These are people who have dealt directly with the machinations of US Federal law. They were charged with enforcing it. Not interpreting it via the filter of their political biases.
Then there's Hillary. She claims that she won't be prosecuted for her alleged crimes and misdemeanors. On what legal expertise did she derive such a conclusion?
Then there are "prosecutors" and "law professors" who say likewise. Some of them working under the false notion that none of the emails were classified at the time. As I pointed out to Care4All, that wasn't the case either. The IC IG said definitively that out of a sample of 40 emails his officials received four of them were classified at the time they were originated. Given that, how many more were "classified at the time originated"?
NOTHING, EVER that is Secret or Top Secret, would be sent via FAX....
IN ADDITION
She, as SOS had the authority to declassify.
Sorry, I meant to continue...
The entire State department's email system, State dot gov/state.gov was an UNCLASSIFIED SYSTEM....
The State Dept long before Hillary's appointment to SOS and for ALL previous Secretary of States before her since the gvt began using email, used the UNCLASSIFIED State.gov email for classified messages.... and if there was an FOIA request, they then had a team of people, going through any emails for release on the FOIA request and CLASSIFYING THEM after the fact.
This WAS their procedure. And even if Hillary had used the State.gov email address instead of the clinton email address, BOTH systems were UNCLASSIFIED until FOIA Requests make them release the material.
The secret or top secret info on the State.gov system and her email because someone on the State.gov system forwarded it to her should not have been there because both of these systems are UNCLASSIFIED servers....
Those emails were then investigated and it showed that ALL of them were NOT on the TOP SECRET govt system when her aids were emailing them to each other, then eventually forwarded to her....one of the email chains forwarded to her had been circulated on the State.gov UNCLASSIFIED system for a year, before it was sent to her. Everyone who emailed these top secret/secret emails HAD Top Secret clearance.
So NO ONE took this now classified Top secret/secret information off of the govt's Top Secret system (which btw does NOT connect to the internet or email or the State.gov's system) and illegally put them on to the State.gov unclassified system...that was already determined...the TOP SECRET system dates when info is classified Secret/Top Secret.
