Hillary Ordered Classified Marks to be Removed & Sent Unsecure

[LoneLaugher]

"But there’s another form Clinton was required to sign when she departed — SF-312. Unlike OF-109, this form pertains to classified documents. In fact, it’s a document signed by anyone who has been granted access to classified information, including government employees, military personnel, political appointees, and elected officials."

"Form SF-312 includes, but as we shall see is not limited to, an acknowledgement to be signed upon departure that the individual has turned over all of the classified information in her possession before leaving. This is the statement the individual signs at the time of departure:

I reaffirm that the provisions of the espionage laws, other federal criminal laws and executive orders applicable to the safeguarding of classified information have been made available to me; that I have returned all classified information in my custody; that I will not communicate or transmit classified information to any unauthorized person or organization; that I will promptly report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation any attempt by an unauthorized person to solicit classified information, and that I (have) (have not) (strike out inappropriate word or words) received a security debriefing.

Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller reports that the Senate Judiciary Committee has sought the SF-312 forms of Clinton and her key staffers. The Department reportedly agreed to turn them over by early September, but has not yet provided them. According to Ross, it has declined to say, at least publicly, whether they exist.

There is no longer any doubt that Hillary failed to turn over all of the classified information in her possession before she left the State Department. She now argues only that she possessed no information marked classified when she departed.

As Ross points out, however, SF-312 renders this argument moot. It states:

As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 13526.

What are the penalties for violating the agreement to return documents? The form states: “If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of sections 793 and/or 1924, title 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law.”"

GUILTY!

(For some reason my phone will not allow me to copy and paste the link, but the title of the article is FORM SF-312 AND ITS POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR HILLARY CLINTON'. Feel free to look it up...)

If this is accurate; and I have no reason to think it is not since this poster spelled it out for me with a great use of personal time, Hillary has no case to be POTUS, and nobody can make that case for her, without everybody laughing in their proverbial faces.

Following rules and laws that We the People impose upon our government officials, is paramount to the citizens belief in the credibility of it's government. To ignore abuse of such laws; especially ones not hidden from all of our officials who we elect, is akin to asking for tyranny to be imposed upon we, the citizenry.

To accept such a thing is stupidity by the electorate! Am I suggesting that the left is stupid? NO! I am only suggesting they are stupid, if they do not demand that the DNC give them a nominee who follows the rule of law. I am sure many of them agree with me, for they want a pathway to convince Americans not in their political fold, to vote for their candidate. Hillary can't do this, because GOPers, and independents, will never accept such a premise.

it would not be a LAW, it would be a regulation or protocol, Laws are made by Congress, regulations are made thru the executive branch on this kind of stuff, and if she never took the course, which I doubt, but if she had not, she would not be the wiser of the regulation.

regardless, it would be up to personnel, to make certain she went thru all the courses required and signed all that was required before being put in the new position.

Someone in the gvt, gave her a user id with password, to access the top secret server system, where only classified Top Secrets are stored....she could NOT gain access to it on her own,

so me thinks this is just more mud being slung against the wall to see if it would stick.

Have you been able to figure out what the motive is supposed to have been for all of this criminal activity? I've been told that motive isn't relevant......but I'd like to know anyway. Thoughts?

 

[The Rabbi]

"But there’s another form Clinton was required to sign when she departed — SF-312. Unlike OF-109, this form pertains to classified documents. In fact, it’s a document signed by anyone who has been granted access to classified information, including government employees, military personnel, political appointees, and elected officials."

"Form SF-312 includes, but as we shall see is not limited to, an acknowledgement to be signed upon departure that the individual has turned over all of the classified information in her possession before leaving. This is the statement the individual signs at the time of departure:

I reaffirm that the provisions of the espionage laws, other federal criminal laws and executive orders applicable to the safeguarding of classified information have been made available to me; that I have returned all classified information in my custody; that I will not communicate or transmit classified information to any unauthorized person or organization; that I will promptly report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation any attempt by an unauthorized person to solicit classified information, and that I (have) (have not) (strike out inappropriate word or words) received a security debriefing.

Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller reports that the Senate Judiciary Committee has sought the SF-312 forms of Clinton and her key staffers. The Department reportedly agreed to turn them over by early September, but has not yet provided them. According to Ross, it has declined to say, at least publicly, whether they exist.

There is no longer any doubt that Hillary failed to turn over all of the classified information in her possession before she left the State Department. She now argues only that she possessed no information marked classified when she departed.

As Ross points out, however, SF-312 renders this argument moot. It states:

As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 13526.

What are the penalties for violating the agreement to return documents? The form states: “If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of sections 793 and/or 1924, title 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law.”"

GUILTY!

(For some reason my phone will not allow me to copy and paste the link, but the title of the article is FORM SF-312 AND ITS POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR HILLARY CLINTON'. Feel free to look it up...)

If this is accurate; and I have no reason to think it is not since this poster spelled it out for me with a great use of personal time, Hillary has no case to be POTUS, and nobody can make that case for her, without everybody laughing in their proverbial faces.

Following rules and laws that We the People impose upon our government officials, is paramount to the citizens belief in the credibility of it's government. To ignore abuse of such laws; especially ones not hidden from all of our officials who we elect, is akin to asking for tyranny to be imposed upon we, the citizenry.

To accept such a thing is stupidity by the electorate! Am I suggesting that the left is stupid? NO! I am only suggesting they are stupid, if they do not demand that the DNC give them a nominee who follows the rule of law. I am sure many of them agree with me, for they want a pathway to convince Americans not in their political fold, to vote for their candidate. Hillary can't do this, because GOPers, and independents, will never accept such a premise.

Time spent repeating bullshit equates to accuracy? Awesome.

Have you figured out if not taking a class is a felony yet?

Do you belive Hillary violated the law, yes or no?

I'm not certain. There may be some regulation or other rule that she unknowingly violated. Maybe some step she skipped over for reasons related to expediency. We will see about that. But I do not think she intentionally broke any laws for her personal gain or tried to cover up any illegal activity.....especially not something that put our national security in danger for her personal gain. You freak, you.

OK youh ave established yourself as an idiot. It is certain she broke the law. Her lawyer has said so. The evidence is she did. Whether she did it for personal gain is irrelevant. Whether she knew was breaking the law is irrelevant. If you break the law you will go to jail. Whether you knew you were or not is not an excuse. Whether she endangered national security is irrelevant. She broke the law. Period. SHe does not get a pass for any of the reasons you mention.
You understand this, right?

 

[basquebromance]

FOLKS, FOLKS, THIS IS A BOMBSHELL!

A bombshell.

HANG THE SCOUNDREL!

 

[Jackson]

It does not say what the sensationalized headers are touting and without some true journalism, with research of what the talking points were, and whether the "talking points" were some how not really "talking points" at all....because talking points ARE UNCLASSIFIED Points on a subject to be given to the public.

I'm just sick and tired of the faux media not doing their jobs and reporting the facts and truth that they gathered through actually investigating instead of simply pushing the propaganda, sensationalized garbage.....and you all following this kind of thoughtless crap without thinking for yourselves.

Okay, Care. I can agree with that. We should wait for the FBI to be the source of the information. But, it appears they have been, hasn't it? How would we know about the number of TS emails to date have been sent to/from Hillary's email?

 

[LoneLaugher]

"But there’s another form Clinton was required to sign when she departed — SF-312. Unlike OF-109, this form pertains to classified documents. In fact, it’s a document signed by anyone who has been granted access to classified information, including government employees, military personnel, political appointees, and elected officials."

"Form SF-312 includes, but as we shall see is not limited to, an acknowledgement to be signed upon departure that the individual has turned over all of the classified information in her possession before leaving. This is the statement the individual signs at the time of departure:

I reaffirm that the provisions of the espionage laws, other federal criminal laws and executive orders applicable to the safeguarding of classified information have been made available to me; that I have returned all classified information in my custody; that I will not communicate or transmit classified information to any unauthorized person or organization; that I will promptly report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation any attempt by an unauthorized person to solicit classified information, and that I (have) (have not) (strike out inappropriate word or words) received a security debriefing.

Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller reports that the Senate Judiciary Committee has sought the SF-312 forms of Clinton and her key staffers. The Department reportedly agreed to turn them over by early September, but has not yet provided them. According to Ross, it has declined to say, at least publicly, whether they exist.

There is no longer any doubt that Hillary failed to turn over all of the classified information in her possession before she left the State Department. She now argues only that she possessed no information marked classified when she departed.

As Ross points out, however, SF-312 renders this argument moot. It states:

As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 13526.

What are the penalties for violating the agreement to return documents? The form states: “If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of sections 793 and/or 1924, title 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law.”"

GUILTY!

(For some reason my phone will not allow me to copy and paste the link, but the title of the article is FORM SF-312 AND ITS POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR HILLARY CLINTON'. Feel free to look it up...)

If this is accurate; and I have no reason to think it is not since this poster spelled it out for me with a great use of personal time, Hillary has no case to be POTUS, and nobody can make that case for her, without everybody laughing in their proverbial faces.

Following rules and laws that We the People impose upon our government officials, is paramount to the citizens belief in the credibility of it's government. To ignore abuse of such laws; especially ones not hidden from all of our officials who we elect, is akin to asking for tyranny to be imposed upon we, the citizenry.

To accept such a thing is stupidity by the electorate! Am I suggesting that the left is stupid? NO! I am only suggesting they are stupid, if they do not demand that the DNC give them a nominee who follows the rule of law. I am sure many of them agree with me, for they want a pathway to convince Americans not in their political fold, to vote for their candidate. Hillary can't do this, because GOPers, and independents, will never accept such a premise.

Time spent repeating bullshit equates to accuracy? Awesome.

Have you figured out if not taking a class is a felony yet?

Do you belive Hillary violated the law, yes or no?

I'm not certain. There may be some regulation or other rule that she unknowingly violated. Maybe some step she skipped over for reasons related to expediency. We will see about that. But I do not think she intentionally broke any laws for her personal gain or tried to cover up any illegal activity.....especially not something that put our national security in danger for her personal gain. You freak, you.

OK youh ave established yourself as an idiot. It is certain she broke the law. Her lawyer has said so. The evidence is she did. Whether she did it for personal gain is irrelevant. Whether she knew was breaking the law is irrelevant. If you break the law you will go to jail. Whether you knew you were or not is not an excuse. Whether she endangered national security is irrelevant. She broke the law. Period. SHe does not get a pass for any of the reasons you mention.
You understand this, right?

Silly nutbag. Your problem is that you think the people you are talking to (me, in this case) are as fucking stupid as you are.

The only two things that matter here are intent and due process. One for my vote, the other for our legal system.

If she never intended to break any laws....then I have no problem with her having broken them......as far as possibly giving her my vote goes. You get that, right?

Now..if she inadvertently broke some law...whether it caused harm to the nation's security or standing....or not....then I am content to let the justice system work as it has in all cases of this nature. She likely won't be indicted and her political career will continue. If she is indicted and found guilty and punished.....it is what it is.


All......and I mean ALL that concerns you is her political viability. You don't convince me with your "she broke the law, PERIOD" rant. You are transparent. If you were capable of being consistent it might be a different story, loser boy.

 

[The Rabbi]

If this is accurate; and I have no reason to think it is not since this poster spelled it out for me with a great use of personal time, Hillary has no case to be POTUS, and nobody can make that case for her, without everybody laughing in their proverbial faces.

Following rules and laws that We the People impose upon our government officials, is paramount to the citizens belief in the credibility of it's government. To ignore abuse of such laws; especially ones not hidden from all of our officials who we elect, is akin to asking for tyranny to be imposed upon we, the citizenry.

To accept such a thing is stupidity by the electorate! Am I suggesting that the left is stupid? NO! I am only suggesting they are stupid, if they do not demand that the DNC give them a nominee who follows the rule of law. I am sure many of them agree with me, for they want a pathway to convince Americans not in their political fold, to vote for their candidate. Hillary can't do this, because GOPers, and independents, will never accept such a premise.

Time spent repeating bullshit equates to accuracy? Awesome.

Have you figured out if not taking a class is a felony yet?

Do you belive Hillary violated the law, yes or no?

I'm not certain. There may be some regulation or other rule that she unknowingly violated. Maybe some step she skipped over for reasons related to expediency. We will see about that. But I do not think she intentionally broke any laws for her personal gain or tried to cover up any illegal activity.....especially not something that put our national security in danger for her personal gain. You freak, you.

OK youh ave established yourself as an idiot. It is certain she broke the law. Her lawyer has said so. The evidence is she did. Whether she did it for personal gain is irrelevant. Whether she knew was breaking the law is irrelevant. If you break the law you will go to jail. Whether you knew you were or not is not an excuse. Whether she endangered national security is irrelevant. She broke the law. Period. SHe does not get a pass for any of the reasons you mention.
You understand this, right?

Silly nutbag. Your problem is that you think the people you are talking to (me, in this case) are as fucking stupid as you are.

The only two things that matter here are intent and due process. One for my vote, the other for our legal system.

If she never intended to break any laws....then I have no problem with her having broken them......as far as possibly giving her my vote goes. You get that, right?

Now..if she inadvertently broke some law...whether it caused harm to the nation's security or standing....or not....then I am content to let the justice system work as it has in all cases of this nature. She likely won't be indicted and her political career will continue. If she is indicted and found guilty and punished.....it is what it is.


All......and I mean ALL that concerns you is her political viability. You don't convince me with your "she broke the law, PERIOD" rant. You are transparent. If you were capable of being consistent it might be a different story, loser boy.

Yes you dont care whether she broke laws. That is obvious. If a Republican broke a traffic law you'd be screaming for his impeachment.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Time spent repeating bullshit equates to accuracy? Awesome.

Have you figured out if not taking a class is a felony yet?

Do you belive Hillary violated the law, yes or no?

I'm not certain. There may be some regulation or other rule that she unknowingly violated. Maybe some step she skipped over for reasons related to expediency. We will see about that. But I do not think she intentionally broke any laws for her personal gain or tried to cover up any illegal activity.....especially not something that put our national security in danger for her personal gain. You freak, you.

OK youh ave established yourself as an idiot. It is certain she broke the law. Her lawyer has said so. The evidence is she did. Whether she did it for personal gain is irrelevant. Whether she knew was breaking the law is irrelevant. If you break the law you will go to jail. Whether you knew you were or not is not an excuse. Whether she endangered national security is irrelevant. She broke the law. Period. SHe does not get a pass for any of the reasons you mention.
You understand this, right?

Silly nutbag. Your problem is that you think the people you are talking to (me, in this case) are as fucking stupid as you are.

The only two things that matter here are intent and due process. One for my vote, the other for our legal system.

If she never intended to break any laws....then I have no problem with her having broken them......as far as possibly giving her my vote goes. You get that, right?

Now..if she inadvertently broke some law...whether it caused harm to the nation's security or standing....or not....then I am content to let the justice system work as it has in all cases of this nature. She likely won't be indicted and her political career will continue. If she is indicted and found guilty and punished.....it is what it is.


All......and I mean ALL that concerns you is her political viability. You don't convince me with your "she broke the law, PERIOD" rant. You are transparent. If you were capable of being consistent it might be a different story, loser boy.

Yes you dont care whether she broke laws. That is obvious. If a Republican broke a traffic law you'd be screaming for his impeachment.

Prove that, please. Find a single case of me ever saying anything about impeaching any Republican.....or discussing any Republican breaking the law.

You, like many dumb shits....can't keep track of who says and does what here. I'm not that guy. Idiot.

 

[hadit]

You just mentioned 2 sites. When I typed those words into Google and hit 'search' there were at least 30 articles....nice try. ROFLOL!

i didn't mention a number. multiple people repeating the same lie doesn't make it true.

the echo chamber does not equate to credibility.

do you have a credible source?

That's a false question unless you define credible. Without that, no matter what is presented, you can simply deem the source not credible and ignore it.

this is a problem. you guys don't understand what credibility means.

to make it easy on you let's say any established news media. any broadcast or cable network, newswire service, newspaper, magazine.

for this we could even go with official republican sources. press releases from the party, or members like gowdy. that sort of thing.

but none of those credible sources are running with this story. can you tell me why?

Worldnetdaily is an established news media, has been around a long time. Would you accept them?

worldnetdaily isnt a news service. their credibility, if it ever existed, has long been worthless due to their factually challenged "reporting"

So your qualifications are meaningless and return to "they're credible if they've said something with which I agree". Why don't you just state which sources you think ARE credible and save everyone some time?

 

[hadit]

how classified are ''talking points'' then they are TALKING POINTS to make to the public, are they not?

and no where does she say to unclassify them if they were classified at all, it could be they just wanted to fax it over a secure fax line...

this is just bull crap spinning again from the right wing, why is it you all are unable to smell the bull crud?

-no where does it say theses TALKING POINTS that she is suppose to use when TALKING in the public are classified.

-no where does Hillary tell anyone to declassify information that was classified.

-asking to remove the subject topic and send via fax or email that is not secure does not mean the talking points were ever marked as classified, and as mentioned, if they were TALKING points, it was already UNCLASSIFIED, so she could TALK about them.

you guys, once again, are making bull shit up....which is par for the course

but you are loyal little minions doing what your masters lead you to do.....pass the bull crud around....

If they were not classified, why would she be ordering classification markings be removed?

 

[easyt65]

If they were not classified, why would she be ordering classification markings be removed?

WINNER, WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER - SOMEONE WHO CAN THINK THINGS OUT ALL THE WAY THROUGH!

 

[NLT]

That indictment should be coming any minute now.

dont be so smug...it aint looking good for hildabeast,

The FBI is now officially expanding their investigations into Hillary’s illegal use of a home email server to transmit classified intelligence. Expanding beyond breaking laws against “gross negligence” with national defense information, she is now being investigated for violating a federal law due to providing “materially false” information. The law is U.S. Code 18, Section 1001.

Read more: The FBI Just Gave Hillary The Worst News Of Her Campaign!


The FBI Just Gave Hillary The Worst News Of Her Campaign!

 

[Care4all]

how classified are ''talking points'' then they are TALKING POINTS to make to the public, are they not?

and no where does she say to unclassify them if they were classified at all, it could be they just wanted to fax it over a secure fax line...

this is just bull crap spinning again from the right wing, why is it you all are unable to smell the bull crud?

-no where does it say theses TALKING POINTS that she is suppose to use when TALKING in the public are classified.

-no where does Hillary tell anyone to declassify information that was classified.

-asking to remove the subject topic and send via fax or email that is not secure does not mean the talking points were ever marked as classified, and as mentioned, if they were TALKING points, it was already UNCLASSIFIED, so she could TALK about them.

you guys, once again, are making bull shit up....which is par for the course

but you are loyal little minions doing what your masters lead you to do.....pass the bull crud around....

If they were not classified, why would she be ordering classification markings be removed?

She didn't order classification markings removed, she asked him to remove the heading , which can mean title ...

Talking points are sensitive to the extent that the administration may not want the public to know that they all got together to decide how they wanted to SPIN their view on how events happened on an incident, so they all say the same thing, or they all put the admin or president or even Nation in its best light.....

So, they are talking points they want the public to hear....

As example, the day before Rice went on the Sunday news programs to describe events in Benghazi, she was given talking points.... those talking points got released to the public by a Benghazi investigating committee, showing How the admin spun Benghazi, initially as an outrage against the video....

So, yes....they can be sensitive in nature because admin doesn't want us, the public, to know how they are directing the unclassified information to make us think a certain way.

The talking points themselves are declassified points, how the admin created them to guide our thinking, could be an embarrassment.....

Sullivan, a PRO, would KNOW not to send the sensitive parts as well..... he is not some low level assistant.

Also, the request by her, seems like it was something he knew how to handle....she did not go in to any type of detail, so I am presuming he KNEW what to do....to get it to her.....

He's not going to send classified information to her from his .gov email and chance going to prison.....they obviously have "work arounds"....

Turns out the fax was fixed, and he did not use the work around, to get her the information she needed.

 

[easyt65]

She didn't order classification markings removed, she asked him to remove the heading , which can mean title ...
Care, you keep saying that....but you are wrong. It has been proven to be wrong. But keep trying the Slick Willey definition of the word 'is' argument...

Are you seriously asking us to believe that instead of asking her subordinate to remove the title of the classified document and send it over an un-classified system instead of asking the guy to removed the classified marking itself and then send the document via un-classified means? Either way / excuse is ILLEGAL as it still involves sending classified info over un-class systems.

Spin is all you keep spewing.

She failed to signed 2 documents required by law once getting your clearance and when turning it in after you leave the position in which you are required to have a clearance.
- These are both proven / documented. She was required by law to do it - she didn't. SHE BROKE THE LAW.

SHE broke the law / rules handing over all State Dept-related e-mails and documents once she left the State Dept - this is a CRIME, especially when you testify under oath you did so but did NOT - THAT is a Felony count of PERJURY!

Illegal transportation of classified, illegal handling of classified, illegal storage of classified, illegal destruction (attempted), over 1,000 counts for ALL of these individually.

'She didn't know'
- She would have if she completed the training and, as required by the law, signed the affiliated documents.
- He e-mail shows her ordering her subordinate to strip the classification levels off of the document and send it via UNCLASS means because the classified fax was broken.

The State Dept declared she never turned over al lof her documents/e-mail - SHE BROKE THE LAW.

Her lawyer was walking around with classified on a thumb-drive
- Has No Security Clearance required
- Illegal transporting classified
- Illegal storage of that classified information

The tech company that held her flash drive did not have the proper security clearance to hold/access/maintain the server, the server was NOT stored in a legal location required for storing such highly classified info. The server itself was NOT legally protected according to govt requirement.

...and this is scratching the surface...

but back to your lame defense/justification:

Subordinate comes to Hillary and says they can't sent the classified document because the classified printer is not working
- you can not print / fax TS/SCI on a TS or SECRET fax - they have to have their own, just like they are required by law to have their own servers which are appropriately classified according to the classification level of the info stored on the PC....
----- So what was the classification of the document in question?
----- Were they illegally faxing different levels of classified documents on 1 fax machine?
----- The subordinate, through his question to Hillary, IDs the documents he wants to send as being CLASSIFIED (why else mention the Classified Fax machine is broken while talking about that document?). Ordering the subordinate to send the document . info out any other way except on / through the appropriately classified machine - telling him, in this case, to send the info via unsecure means - is telling him to break the law, no matter if he strips the classification or the heading off the documents 1st.

Dude, she has been caught dead-to-rights. I respect your loyalty, but DAMN! Loyalty must end where insanity and delusion begin. She's done...this is the nail in the proverbial coffin.

 

[gipper]

Do you belive Hillary violated the law, yes or no?

I'm not certain. There may be some regulation or other rule that she unknowingly violated. Maybe some step she skipped over for reasons related to expediency. We will see about that. But I do not think she intentionally broke any laws for her personal gain or tried to cover up any illegal activity.....especially not something that put our national security in danger for her personal gain. You freak, you.

OK youh ave established yourself as an idiot. It is certain she broke the law. Her lawyer has said so. The evidence is she did. Whether she did it for personal gain is irrelevant. Whether she knew was breaking the law is irrelevant. If you break the law you will go to jail. Whether you knew you were or not is not an excuse. Whether she endangered national security is irrelevant. She broke the law. Period. SHe does not get a pass for any of the reasons you mention.
You understand this, right?

Silly nutbag. Your problem is that you think the people you are talking to (me, in this case) are as fucking stupid as you are.

The only two things that matter here are intent and due process. One for my vote, the other for our legal system.

If she never intended to break any laws....then I have no problem with her having broken them......as far as possibly giving her my vote goes. You get that, right?

Now..if she inadvertently broke some law...whether it caused harm to the nation's security or standing....or not....then I am content to let the justice system work as it has in all cases of this nature. She likely won't be indicted and her political career will continue. If she is indicted and found guilty and punished.....it is what it is.


All......and I mean ALL that concerns you is her political viability. You don't convince me with your "she broke the law, PERIOD" rant. You are transparent. If you were capable of being consistent it might be a different story, loser boy.

Yes you dont care whether she broke laws. That is obvious. If a Republican broke a traffic law you'd be screaming for his impeachment.

Prove that, please. Find a single case of me ever saying anything about impeaching any Republican.....or discussing any Republican breaking the law.

You, like many dumb shits....can't keep track of who says and does what here. I'm not that guy. Idiot.

Now make sure to slap yourself really hard. It might knock some sense into you.

 

[NLT]

Rut Ro

FBI's Clinton probe expands to public corruption track | Fox News

 

[NLT]

rut ro #2

The scenario that could become a nightmare for Hillary Clinton

 

[easyt65]

Soooooo....you Dems really gonna stick with a guy who admittedly doesn't even belong to your party (Socialist Party - Bernie Sanders)?

 

[Care4all]

She didn't order classification markings removed, she asked him to remove the heading , which can mean title ...
Care, you keep saying that....but you are wrong. It has been proven to be wrong. But keep trying the Slick Willey definition of the word 'is' argument...

Are you seriously asking us to believe that instead of asking her subordinate to remove the title of the classified document and send it over an un-classified system instead of asking the guy to removed the classified marking itself and then send the document via un-classified means? Either way / excuse is ILLEGAL as it still involves sending classified info over un-class systems.

Spin is all you keep spewing.

She failed to signed 2 documents required by law once getting your clearance and when turning it in after you leave the position in which you are required to have a clearance.
- These are both proven / documented. She was required by law to do it - she didn't. SHE BROKE THE LAW.

SHE broke the law / rules handing over all State Dept-related e-mails and documents once she left the State Dept - this is a CRIME, especially when you testify under oath you did so but did NOT - THAT is a Felony count of PERJURY!

Illegal transportation of classified, illegal handling of classified, illegal storage of classified, illegal destruction (attempted), over 1,000 counts for ALL of these individually.

'She didn't know'
- She would have if she completed the training and, as required by the law, signed the affiliated documents.
- He e-mail shows her ordering her subordinate to strip the classification levels off of the document and send it via UNCLASS means because the classified fax was broken.

The State Dept declared she never turned over al lof her documents/e-mail - SHE BROKE THE LAW.

Her lawyer was walking around with classified on a thumb-drive
- Has No Security Clearance required
- Illegal transporting classified
- Illegal storage of that classified information

The tech company that held her flash drive did not have the proper security clearance to hold/access/maintain the server, the server was NOT stored in a legal location required for storing such highly classified info. The server itself was NOT legally protected according to govt requirement.

...and this is scratching the surface...

but back to your lame defense/justification:

Subordinate comes to Hillary and says they can't sent the classified document because the classified printer is not working
- you can not print / fax TS/SCI on a TS or SECRET fax - they have to have their own, just like they are required by law to have their own servers which are appropriately classified according to the classification level of the info stored on the PC....
----- So what was the classification of the document in question?
----- Were they illegally faxing different levels of classified documents on 1 fax machine?
----- The subordinate, through his question to Hillary, IDs the documents he wants to send as being CLASSIFIED (why else mention the Classified Fax machine is broken while talking about that document?). Ordering the subordinate to send the document . info out any other way except on / through the appropriately classified machine - telling him, in this case, to send the info via unsecure means - is telling him to break the law, no matter if he strips the classification or the heading off the documents 1st.

Dude, she has been caught dead-to-rights. I respect your loyalty, but DAMN! Loyalty must end where insanity and delusion begin. She's done...this is the nail in the proverbial coffin.

Yes, I am second guessing, JUST AS MUCH AS YOU ARE.....

Nothing will come of this, mark my words...

If the FBI investigation group thought this was critical in their case, they would not have allowed this email to be released, imo.

And it could be that the term heading means title and government seals, and yes, perhaps sensitive parts.... it's something that the two of them, understood when communicating with each other....

YOU want to automatically jump to conclusions and make this in to something criminal...and make Sullivan a criminal too, I on the other hand, see signs of how it isn't or wasn't.

We'll both know who is right, soon enough!

 

[easyt65]

CARE: 'Nothing will come of this, mark my words...'

You must define what that means:

If you mean they will never be able to expose criminal actions Hillary has already perpetrated, then that has already proven to be false.

If you mean she will never be indicted or if she is ever indicted the DOJ / Obama will make sure she never faced justice, like he protected his ex-Atty General from prosecution for 4 Felony counts of Perjury for his attempted cover up under of Fast and Furious, then you are probably right.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

That indictment should be coming any minute now.

Laughable, you dolt. WHO exactly would be seeking an Indictment?

Certainly nobody in our present joke of a "Justice" Department.