State Dept. Never Told DHS About Hillary's Server Despite The Rules

a reply to: xuenchen

But some agency has confirmed classified info was emailed.

Proof?

And Hillery herself said she was going to scrub the personal stuff and leave the official stuff.

She (and other SD employees) used her server for official transmissions.

Official is not classified.

Has she been found guilty of any wrongdoing?

a reply to: introvert

The FBI has not concluded their investigation.

I know you know this. But.

July 1, 2015

The State Department on Wednesday conceded that two dozen of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails did contain classified information, a fact that could trigger a U.S. policy that authorizes the government to take control of her private server and sanitize the contents.

Admission of Hillary Clinton’s classified emails opens door for feds to seize her servers

Maybe Hillary could make a video, put it on you tube.
Then she could blame it on the video!

I thought the big news about Clinton's email was the rumoured second server:

Discrepancies regarding when emails were erased from Hillary Clinton's private server have raised questions of whether the former secretary of state had a device other than the one that was recently obtained by the FBI.

"There's pretty definite time stamps when you move information from one computer to another," Marcus Rogers, head of computer information technology at Purdue University, told The Washington Examiner on Saturday. "Somebody knows exactly when this happened because those time stamps are there."

source

a reply to: introvert

I am not sure that it applies to government, but in the world of business, what she did is a felony. She did not maintain the records from the email server, which would be reasonably believed to be records that are legally relevant. If i did that, it would be a felony and a huge fine.

a reply to: xuenchen

Thank you. Interesting read.

The intelligence source told The Times it is unclear at this point whether these steps already have been taken in the case of Mrs. Clinton

State spokesman John Kirby said on Wednesday those 25 were deemed classified at the time of review and that it does not necessarily reflect on Mrs. Clinton.

“In the review process it was deemed that some of the information, at least some of the information in that traffic, should be classified, and so it was,” Mr. Kirby said. “That doesn’t mean that at the time it was sent it needed to have been classified.”

When asked whether State will try to determine that, he said, “I’m not aware of any investigative effort to affix blame for that.”

The intelligence source told The Times that State did not have the option of classifying them in the past because they did not know they existed until an internal State review and pressure from the House committee investigating Benghazi.

Well, that seems to corroborate Clinton's "story" and this appears to be another Benghazi witch hunt.

Would you agree?

Another quote from the OP article....

The State Department did not comment on requests about why it did not comply with the DHS security review requirement.

"There are reviews and investigations under way, including by the IG and Congress," said State Department Spokesman Alec Gerlach. "It would not be appropriate to comment on these matters at this time."

Doink Doink !!

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

I am not sure that it applies to government, but in the world of business, what she did is a felony. She did not maintain the records from the email server, which would be reasonably believed to be records that are legally relevant. If i did that, it would be a felony and a huge fine.

I completely understand and agree. That's why I'm trying to get past the spin and actually get to the root of the matter to have a better grasp of things.

Does it apply to government? If not, why not? If not, what's the goal here? Is it to show wrongdoing, or to discredit with propaganda when no wrongdoing has occurred?

a reply to: introvert

Well if there's a smear campaign going on, Maybe Obama is in on some sinister plot to unthrone Hillary in favor of another "Candidate".

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Well if there's a smear campaign going on, Maybe Obama is in on some sinister plot to unthrone Hillary in favor of another "Candidate".

Why don't you enlighten us on the end plot? You seem to be part of the smear campaign.

I'd rather wait for some hard evidence to surface, instead of posting and perpetuating spin for the sake of sensationalism.

Isn't that the wise thing to do?

a reply to: introvert

This would make it a felony.

18 U.S.C § 793(f) provides:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or

(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

18 U.S.C § 793(f) governs the “position” of “photograph, photographic negative,
blueprint, plan, map . . . relating to the national defense
ACLJ

a reply to: ~Lucidity

The rule was occasional use of private was ok, not constant use as she did besides she asked SD employees to not use private email in 2011.

The MM article is tripe.

a reply to: burntheships

Just to make this very clear for everyone..........

"Classified" is not a prerequisite in violating this law.

The term "relating to the national defense" does not mean "classified" in regards to this law.

Is that correct?

Video from last week....

Published on Aug 18, 2015

Rudy Giuliani says that Hillary Clinton is going to need a criminal lawyer. The former Federal prosecutor said Clinton is susceptible to at least half a dozen Federal charges, including:Conflict of Interest,Obstruction of Justice,Destruction of Government Property,Mishandling Classified Information.

Rudy Giuliani:Hillary Clinton Needs a Criminal Lawyer | Hannity 8 /18 /15

originally posted by: Phoenix

"Classified" is not a prerequisite in violating this law.

The term "relating to the national defense" does not mean "classified" in regards to this law.

Is that correct?

It would seem so.

She has played her game of suppositions craftily,
as if she knew the accusations before they came.

a reply to: AlaskanDad
I don't know about you but I keep a backup separate from my servers at work. And I also keep separate backups of my home computers. I am SURE that there is a backup somewhere. With all the thumb drives it's probably in the cloud by now!!

There is no such thing as ignorance of the Law..Especially from a Law maker

originally posted by: SPECULUM
There is no such thing as ignorance of the Law..Especially from a Law maker

Or a lawyer like Hillary.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: SPECULUM
There is no such thing as ignorance of the Law..Especially from a Law maker

Or a lawyer like Hillary.

Exactly

a reply to: xuenchen

As this continues it appears that the "smear campaign" you blame on Obama is not working well.

Why are you part of the Obama smear campaign? Your info says you reside in Chicago. You must be participating in the Chicago political disinfo machine.