What Will Happen to Hillary Over the Mishandling of Classified Material?

[Slyhunter]

She'll be Censured. ooOOOO

 

[IsaacNewton]

This was nothing more than a government employee, like all employees at all places, being less than exact on 'company policy'. No one is ever 100% accurate and in compliant with company policy. Previous people that had her position in the government and many other people that worked for the state department over the years treated email exactly the same way.

Will they now tighten things up and demand everyone be more careful? Of course. 5 years from now will there be anyone that hasn't stuck to that stringent requirement 100% of the time. Bet on it. No secrets were lost, nothing was compromised. And it's just another in a long list of crap 'issues' that Republicans have tried to turn into something against the Clintons.

Get over it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"What Will Happen to Hillary Over the Mishandling of Classified Material?"

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

I disagree. It doesn't say anything debatable. I don't think anybody would argue that she did mishandle classified material at this point. I'm like 99.9% certain that that has been verified beyond reasonable doubt (you are certainly welcome to educate me however as I haven't really followed the issue in a while).

A loaded question fallacy is where a lie is contrived and offered in bad faith as a ‘question,’ where any attempt to respond to the ‘question’ is to admit that the lie is ‘true’ – and fails as a fallacy accordingly.

Also known as a ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ fallacy, it’s a dishonest and cowardly ‘debate’ tactic devoid of value or merit – its intent is not to engage in an objective, factual exploration of an issue, but rather to propagate a partisan lie disguised as ‘legitimate debate.’

That you might disagree in no way mitigates the fact that the thread premise indeed fails as a fallacy.

 

[flacaltenn]

This was nothing more than a government employee, like all employees at all places, being less than exact on 'company policy'. No one is ever 100% accurate and in compliant with company policy. Previous people that had her position in the government and many other people that worked for the state department over the years treated email exactly the same way.

Will they now tighten things up and demand everyone be more careful? Of course. 5 years from now will there be anyone that hasn't stuck to that stringent requirement 100% of the time. Bet on it. No secrets were lost, nothing was compromised. And it's just another in a long list of crap 'issues' that Republicans have tried to turn into something against the Clintons.

Get over it.

That is not even CLOSE to correct. The State Dept was in the 19th century on email until about when Colin Powell stepped down. They did not have EXTERNAL secure links for employees to use unless you went to an embassy or some other intelligence/military facility while on the road. She used this UNPROTECTED, UN-CERTIFIED communications link for her CONVENIENCE and because she wanted deniability for her work. And she used it EXCLUSIVELY when out of the office.

You don't know that "no secrets were lost".. You don't even understand the meaning of the words "comprising security info".. If a briefcase leaves your hand for 5 minutes with security docs in it -- YOU have compromised that information. If you violate protocol for communicating info -- YOU have compromised that info.. Doesn't matter whether it was intercepted or not.

Wouldn't expect folks to understand we are NOT dealing with jewelry here. Just by putting that system ON-LINE she opened herself up to future blackmail if a foreign govt or some jerky org like Anonymous got a hold of embarrassing personal or national information. The PRESS doesn't even understand the implications or the serious of this matter.. But you making EXCUSES for this arrogance and sloppiness -- is even worse..

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Do I understand it correctly that she 'hired' or otherwise had someone come in and set up her computer or email account or the server or whatever? Then allowed or instructed her aide to send/receive emails on her behalf? Plus her own sending/receiving?

If so, then it sounds like she's responsible alright. Why would she do that and go that far, if it wasn't for wrongdoing?

Then it brings an even bigger question......how can she do something like that without higher up approval?

If her purpose in having this private server set up to do work that would include sensitive material and information outside the office, she knew what she was doing was wrong to begin with because any information exchanged outside office perimeters is inappropriate and illegal, never mind how it was classified.

 

[IsaacNewton]

This was nothing more than a government employee, like all employees at all places, being less than exact on 'company policy'. No one is ever 100% accurate and in compliant with company policy. Previous people that had her position in the government and many other people that worked for the state department over the years treated email exactly the same way.

Will they now tighten things up and demand everyone be more careful? Of course. 5 years from now will there be anyone that hasn't stuck to that stringent requirement 100% of the time. Bet on it. No secrets were lost, nothing was compromised. And it's just another in a long list of crap 'issues' that Republicans have tried to turn into something against the Clintons.

Get over it.

That is not even CLOSE to correct. The State Dept was in the 19th century on email until about when Colin Powell stepped down. They did not have EXTERNAL secure links for employees to use unless you went to an embassy or some other intelligence/military facility while on the road. She used this UNPROTECTED, UN-CERTIFIED communications link for her CONVENIENCE and because she wanted deniability for her work. And she used it EXCLUSIVELY when out of the office.

You don't know that "no secrets were lost".. You don't even understand the meaning of the words "comprising security info".. If a briefcase leaves your hand for 5 minutes with security docs in it -- YOU have compromised that information. If you violate protocol for communicating info -- YOU have compromised that info.. Doesn't matter whether it was intercepted or not.

Wouldn't expect folks to understand we are NOT dealing with jewelry here. Just by putting that system ON-LINE she opened herself up to future blackmail if a foreign govt or some jerky org like Anonymous got a hold of embarrassing personal or national information. The PRESS doesn't even understand the implications or the serious of this matter.. But you making EXCUSES for this arrogance and sloppiness -- is even worse..

Ben Gassy didn't work, so Republicans absolutely forgot about that and believed they had the golden chalice with email.

It's the same lame crap. Republicans spending millions of taxpayer dollars for political purposes to try to harm their opponents presidential candidate.

It is treason if you want to be truthful about it. Just another example of how Republicans have admitted this democracy no longer works for them. So they have to cheat.

 

[easyt65]

Politicians, so bitterly and completely divided along party lines and so committed to supporting and defending each other that one of their own could kill someone and they would still block any judicial attempt to hold them accountable, has set the judicial requirement bar for what is needed to Indict and / or impeach that it may never be reached again in our lifetime, the lawlessness to go on indefinitely now.

Case in point: Ex-Attorney General Eric Holder, testifying before Congress under oath, was caught dead-to-rights, beyond-the-shadow-of-doubt perpetrating 3 Felony Counts of Perjury by giving false testimony. The committee prepared the required paperwork and submitted it to the DOJ requesting the proper steps be taken to indict Holder and charge him with his crimes. The DOJ, of course - Eric Holder's hand-picked staff - REFUSED to fulfill their responsibilities / duty and REFUSED to do so. (At this point all of them doing so should have been relieved of their positions.)

At this point the responsibility to hold one of his top Cabinet members accountable for the crimes he committed fell on President Obama, a man who demonstrated within the 1st week in office that his oath of office, the rule of Law, or his vow...his responsibility...to enforce the Rule of Law meant anything at all. Despite having undeniably having perpetrated multiple Felony counts of Perjury under oath, a federal crime, Holder was PROTECTED, shielded from prosecution....by the President of the United States.

If an ATTORNEY GENERAL can be made exempt from law, protected from high crimes and misdemeanors, then how can one EVER expect those elected in Washington, those entrusted to uphold and defend the constitution and to enforce the Rule of law, to hold any among them accountable?

President Clinton, despite the false claims of Liberals who seek to defend the man and their party, was brought up on Impeachment charges, not for some indiscretion with an intern, but because he committed an unethical act under oath during his Sexual Harassment law suit, the 1st of its kind involving a sitting US President. He deliberately attempted to deceive and pervert the justice system in order to avoid being held accountable for his actions. In doing so he violated the people's trust, he attempted to deny a US citizen her right to a fair trail. Much like Hillary had done in the Watergate Commission years earlier, he tried to circumvent the legal system though unethical means, and for his actions he was found in Contempt of Court and disbarred.

He had committed an unethical act, broke his oath of office to enforce the Rule of law, had betrayed the people's trust, and had embarrassed the position of President. Liberals, because he was THEIR President, defended him and disagreed that such actions deserved Impeachment...and quickly began falsely declaring that the entire situation was over an affair with an Intern. Whether knowingly or not they succeeded in raising the proverbial 'bar' in regards what constitutes an 'Impeachable Offense' that it may never be reached again. If it was not raised enough to guarantee that in the defense of bill Clinton it surely has under Obama.

Obama has violated both Constitution and rule of law. he and his administration has refused to enforce existing law, has protected those who have violated the Constitution and Law, have engaged in such criminal activity as Human Tracking in bringing illegals here, and he and his administration have violated court orders and found in Contempt of court numerous times...and has not been held accountable once. According to Liberals none of these rise to the level of being an 'Impeachable Offense'. We, Americans, have elevated our politicians to near god-like status where they are all but un-touchable.

As laid out, the bar has been set so high, the 'rules' for who and who is not 'un-touchable' - a list that no ordinary citizen will EVER be on because the rules and laws only apply to US! 'Too big to jail' - that list already exists...and Hillary is on that list...'too big to jail'.

 

[easyt65]

Hillary Clinton was given an extremely high level security clearance and at that time received a briefing required by law. In that briefing she was told that no matter what the classification level of the information she was handling, all of it would be handled as if it were all classified. She signed this document, a binding legal document. From that point on she was responsible for every piece of data, every document, every e-mail relating to government / State Department service. She signed it and was thus legally bound by it.

The vast majority of Liberals want to completely skip right on by this massive FACT. They might not like it. They may disagree with it. That, however, does not change the fact that it is the law, one that Hillary VIOLATED...as in BROKE THE LAW.

One of the programs, one of many, that she was 'Read Into' was extremely highly classified. Once she finished as Secretary of State and started out-processing she was 'Read Out' of the program. In this briefing she was told she would not speak, write, communicate in any way any information pertaining to this / these programs. She was required to turn in ALL classified information, documents, notes, folders, papers, e-mails - ALL CLASSIFIED. She could no longer have them in her possession because she no longer had a 'need to know' and had no business being involved in any of that classified material any more as a citizen.

The very FACT that she still had over 1,000 pieces of classified information - some clearly marked and NOT classified after the fact, is a violation of the law. The fact that she had all of this EXTREMELY Classified information in her possession is a serious breach of Intelligence and security. Many liberals want to skip right over this, as well. You CAN'T claim she did not know. The information in her possession, the information regarding the program she was 'read into' - all of this information, what it pertained to, was made clear to her - that's what happens when they read you into such a program...so her claim that she did not know this stuff was classified is B$! She was 'read out' - it was again explained to her, along with the direction that she was not to have any of it in her possession.

She broke the law...period.

Then again...Doesn't matter.

 

[Care4all]

Hillary Clinton was given an extremely high level security clearance and at that time received a briefing required by law. In that briefing she was told that no matter what the classification level of the information she was handling, all of it would be handled as if it were all classified. She signed this document, a binding legal document. From that point on she was responsible for every piece of data, every document, every e-mail relating to government / State Department service. She signed it and was thus legally bound by it.

The vast majority of Liberals want to completely skip right on by this massive FACT. They might not like it. They may disagree with it. That, however, does not change the fact that it is the law, one that Hillary VIOLATED...as in BROKE THE LAW.

One of the programs, one of many, that she was 'Read Into' was extremely highly classified. Once she finished as Secretary of State and started out-processing she was 'Read Out' of the program. In this briefing she was told she would not speak, write, communicate in any way any information pertaining to this / these programs. She was required to turn in ALL classified information, documents, notes, folders, papers, e-mails - ALL CLASSIFIED. She could no longer have them in her possession because she no longer had a 'need to know' and had no business being involved in any of that classified material any more as a citizen.

The very FACT that she still had over 1,000 pieces of classified information - some clearly marked and NOT classified after the fact, is a violation of the law. The fact that she had all of this EXTREMELY Classified information in her possession is a serious breach of Intelligence and security. Many liberals want to skip right over this, as well. You CAN'T claim she did not know. The information in her possession, the information regarding the program she was 'read into' - all of this information, what it pertained to, was made clear to her - that's what happens when they read you into such a program...so her claim that she did not know this stuff was classified is B$! She was 'read out' - it was again explained to her, along with the direction that she was not to have any of it in her possession.

She broke the law...period.

Then again...Doesn't matter.

Boy oh boy you are a STORY TELLER....

 

[pwjohn]

What Will Happen to Hillary Over He Mishandling of Classified Material?

Nothing at all should happen to Hillary because she was no less a victim of Obamas war In Libya, that should never have been fought to begin with.

Obamas eurotard pals are to blame for conning Obama into waging yet another unnecessary war

 

[PredFan]

Nothing will happen to her. She has a "D" after her name. Those people can do anything they want to.

 

[hadit]

Wouldn't the employees who EMAILED her be in trouble ?

If a CIA agent sends classified information to my Hotmail account why would I be the one to get in trouble?

If you are authorized and responsible to identify classified information and so and classify it when you see it, and fail to do so you will get in trouble. As Sec State, Hillary was so authorized and responsible. Thus, if she received emails with information that should be classified and failed to classify and properly handle it, she was negligent.

 

[hadit]

Just because a corrupt judicial system refuses to prosecute the crimes of their party elite is no reason for honest Americans to stop exposing them.

What's the crime ? Mishandling classified info ?

Isn't it the email sender who's commiting the crime ?

If the receiver is authorized and responsible to handle classified information properly and fails to do so, he/she is also guilty.

 

[Timmy]

Wouldn't the employees who EMAILED her be in trouble ?

If a CIA agent sends classified information to my Hotmail account why would I be the one to get in trouble?

If you are authorized and responsible to identify classified information and so and classify it when you see it, and fail to do so you will get in trouble. As Sec State, Hillary was so authorized and responsible. Thus, if she received emails with information that should be classified and failed to classify and properly handle it, she was negligent.

The sender has more responsibility .

We are talking the high level state department . Everyone knew what was going on with this outside email.

Why is only HILLARY being hassled ?

 

[hadit]

BTW --- because of this evil behaviour on the part of Mrs Clinton in regards to the protection of national secrets (see my sigline for her clueless hypocrisy) ---- the most critical question for an applicant of "Are you a target for blackmail for things you might be hiding in your personal life " ---------------------- that becomes a primary concern.


Because by running her communications exclusively on an unapproved unsecured system, who the hell knows who has hacked that system when it was available. And any of the redacted info that could be embarrassing to her or the country might be sitting out there SUBJECT TO BLACKMAIL or pressure from foreign entities or individuals like Anonymous, WikiLeaks or the drug cartels.

I could just see her at a summit with Putin. She demands that he back out of whatever nation he's trying to drag back into a new Soviet Union, and he says, "I have a thumb drive here that I'd like you to take a look at"...

 

[hadit]

Wouldn't the employees who EMAILED her be in trouble ?

If a CIA agent sends classified information to my Hotmail account why would I be the one to get in trouble?

If you are authorized and responsible to identify classified information and so and classify it when you see it, and fail to do so you will get in trouble. As Sec State, Hillary was so authorized and responsible. Thus, if she received emails with information that should be classified and failed to classify and properly handle it, she was negligent.

The sender has more responsibility .

That's really irrelevant to whether Hillary was negligent or not.

We are talking the high level state department . Everyone knew what was going on with this outside email.

Why is only HILLARY being hassled ?

Why do you think she's the only one being investigated? She's the one running for president, so if she is that careless with classified information, she needs to be stopped ASAP. If other high level officials, like John Kerry, sent her classified information through unsecured channels and didn't even bother to mark it as classified, they should be prosecuted as well.

 

[hadit]

Do I understand it correctly that she 'hired' or otherwise had someone come in and set up her computer or email account or the server or whatever? Then allowed or instructed her aide to send/receive emails on her behalf? Plus her own sending/receiving?

If so, then it sounds like she's responsible alright. Why would she do that and go that far, if it wasn't for wrongdoing?

Then it brings an even bigger question......how can she do something like that without higher up approval?

If her purpose in having this private server set up to do work that would include sensitive material and information outside the office, she knew what she was doing was wrong to begin with because any information exchanged outside office perimeters is inappropriate and illegal, never mind how it was classified.

The company she hired to administer the server (ie, have total access to all the information stored on it), was not cleared to handle classified information. Basically, everything she put on that server was accessible by uncleared personnel.

 

[easyt65]

What Will Happen to Hillary Over He Mishandling of Classified Material?

Nothing at all should happen to Hillary because she was no less a victim of Obamas war In Libya, that should never have been fought to begin with.

Obamas eurotard pals are to blame for conning Obama into waging yet another unnecessary war

I agree with you on all but 1 point:

The woman who denied a US Ambassador in harm's way of additional security hundred os times, laughed about it under oath and claimed she thought it was a joke...the woman who stripped him of 14 members of his security team against his will AFTER 2 terrorist attacks on his compound, knowing of the threat still pending, and supposedly knowing there was no help available should another attack occur...the woman who was safe back in the US when she was notified by the State Department officials that a TERRORIST attack had just started in Benghazi and who then made up the LIE about a video, confirmed in her own e-mails...was never and is NOT a 'victim' of anything but her own unethical, immoral, pathological, psychopathic mental disorder which drives an extreme sense of self-preservation, to do or say anything to keep herself out of trouble.

She was as much a 'victim' during Libya / Benghazi as she was while dodging Sniper Fire in Bosnia!

 

[easyt65]

Why do you think she's the only one being investigated? She's the one running for president, so if she is that careless with classified information, she needs to be stopped ASAP. If other high level officials, like John Kerry, sent her classified information through unsecured channels and didn't even bother to mark it as classified, they should be prosecuted as well.

She is not the only one being investigated. Her aides are also being investigated.

BECAUSE who she is, if someone needs to go to jail over this she and those supporting her are going to try to make sure it isn't her.

AGREED, anyone who violated the laws - ANYONE - needs to be held accountable.

 

[pwjohn]

What Will Happen to Hillary Over He Mishandling of Classified Material?

Nothing at all should happen to Hillary because she was no less a victim of Obamas war In Libya, that should never have been fought to begin with.

Obamas eurotard pals are to blame for conning Obama into waging yet another unnecessary war

I agree with you on all but 1 point:

The woman who denied a US Ambassador in harm's way of additional security hundred os times, laughed about it under oath and claimed she thought it was a joke...the woman who stripped him of 14 members of his security team against his will AFTER 2 terrorist attacks on his compound, knowing of the threat still pending, and supposedly knowing there was no help available should another attack occur...the woman who was safe back in the US when she was notified by the State Department officials that a TERRORIST attack had just started in Benghazi and who then made up the LIE about a video, confirmed in her own e-mails...was never and is NOT a 'victim' of anything but her own unethical, immoral, pathological, psychopathic mental disorder which drives an extreme sense of self-preservation, to do or say anything to keep herself out of trouble.

She was as much a 'victim' during Libya / Benghazi as she was while dodging Sniper Fire in Bosnia!

That's a really big point containing many complex issues that never would have become a reality, had Obama not been conned into waging yet another unnecessary war. All sort of after the fact, so to speak.