SMOKING GUN? Hillary e-mail Instructs Aide To Transmit Classified Data Without Markings

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Can you be charged with a crime for exercising that "personal judgement", even though info was still sent via secure transmission?

A question on this point if you please,

Providing that fax at sending point was secure is a given, was the receiving end secure? or was it the by now well known to be insecure possibly or more probably hacked private email account of HRC?

What say you or other HRC defenders?

Both machines have to be secure via a approved secure fax machine vetted by NSA. It is established via a link between two STE (Secure Telephone Equipment) phones at whatever classification of the cards inserted into the phones... if that makes any sense.

The fax machines themselves are not considered Controlled Cryprographic Items (CCI) because they are not capable of the actual encryption. It is the link between the two machines that provides the encryption, in this case, most likely two STE phones which use KSV Cards for encryption,,, the older models were called STU's...(Secure Telephone Units).

You can not send a Top Secret Fax to a machine that has a Secret card... they both have to have the same level of cards inserted.

People are getting hung up defending their points and failing to realize that no matter what transpired after the fact, a request was made by either HRC or someone who had access to her email account and they requested another person to remove "classification markings" from a document in order to bypass sending it via a secure method. That is illegal and charges should be filed. Doesn't matter if it was sent or not, it is the request itself which puts you in legal jeopardy.

That is the bottom line here.

a reply to: Phoenix

was it the by now well known to be insecure possibly or more probably hacked private email account of HRC?

Although the State Department said a review showed the document never was sent to Clinton by email, and instead apparently by secure fax, after all,

It was sent via secure fax and not to Clinton's email.

hosted.ap.org...

And just to clarify, I am not a Clinton supporter. I'd like to see Clinton fry as well, but this is not a criminal investigation and all this "crying wolf" is exhausting.

a reply to: RickinVa

Very good explanation of the question asked and should help future posters on the subject at hand.

Hat tip

a reply to: stevieray

I hear ya,,,,

I had to speak up because I have seen other people fired or walked out of a great paying government job for way way less.

If anybody in the intelligence community was caught sending an email requesting someone to strip the marking off of a document and sending it over a regular fax because they couldn't get the secure fax to work, they would be guaranteed to lose their clearance, and most likely be facing jail time. All it would take is that single email and nothing else.

It bothers me on a personal level (as you can tell) after 25 years of living by the books to keep my clearance, to see someone so flagrantly break every rule I was held accountable to.

It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Glad I am retired now, but I will always speak up when someone tries to BS their way through numerous security violations to become the POTUS.

Thank you for bringing this to the forums. As a long time lurker, it's sometimes great to get this sort of news in it's purest form, before the msm. Try as anyone might, in this mode of media or any other, to derail the topic, anyone with a clear conscious and an equally clear mind will see this for what it is.

a reply to: BestinShow

And keep in mind, if a GOP candidate did this and the AG was a Republican, it would be the same outcome - no charges.

Quite possibly, but you can be sure that every press outlet would be screaming about it nonstop instead of the relative crickets this has received.

I just read this entire thread, and all I can say is "Wow!"

I'm honestly appalled at the cognitive dissonance from a couple of you. I now know to never waste another second even skimming any of your posts.

According to former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova:

“This is gigantic,” said diGenova. “She caused to be removed a classified marking and then had it transmitted in an unencrypted manner. That is a felony. The removal of the classified marking is a federal crime. It is the same thing to order someone to do it as if she had done it herself.”

“This makes it impossible for the bureau not to recommend charges,” diGenova said of the FBI. “This makes it impossible not to go forward, and it certainly ties the hand of the attorney general.”

“This means that when she said, ‘I never received anything marked classified,’ she in fact did,” diGenova said.

www.lifezette.com...

originally posted by: stevieray

***Ill-Mannered Post Removed***

I suppose I am compelled to respond since I was referred to.

It's quite obvious that many of my fellow members want to see Hillary fall hard. I get that and I can understand why. I would like to see her out of the race as well and it's about time we shut-down these dynasties. But her demise will not be precipitated by ridiculous accusations, wishful-thinking or crying wolf. You have to have evidence of real wrongdoing.

As the saying goes, "you can wish in one hand and # in the other, and see which one fills-up first". You can hope and pray for her to be guilty all you want, but without clear proof in one hand, all you end-up with is a hand full of #.

We've been through, I believe, nine Benghazi investigations and no wrongdoing was found. In fact, these investigations found that many of the claims against Clinton, the State Department and the Obama administration were completely wrong and the opposite was found to be true.

We've been through this constant investigation in to the email scandal and we have yet to find any criminal wrongdoing on anyone's part. This particular topic is just another in a long list of things people wish would stick to Clinton, but it doesn't because it appears she hasn't broken any laws. Let's also not forget that this investigation is not a criminal investigation. It's an investigation in to security procedure. They are not looking to find something to charge Clinton with.

As I said earlier, it's exhausting to be constantly bombarded with threads and propaganda that Hillary did this or that, but when we actually look in to the topic and ask for clear evidence, it falls short. Wishful-thinking and crying wolf. It's mental gymnastics hoping to catch Hillary in the wrong, and every time we end up with a hand full of #.

Don't people get tired of being played for fools and sucked-in to these stories that don't amount to a hill of beans? Don't people get tired of being suckered in to these stories that have you believe it's the "smoking gun", but it's just another non-story that will not end with a conviction? Better yet, why are people more concerned with getting Hillary than leaving themselves with their honesty and integrity intact? Many of you will utterly destroy your honesty and integrity all for a hand full of #.

So you are more than within your right to attack me and any other member for trying to stick-up for truth and not wishful-thinking. That's fine. I will "keep on keeping on" and at the end of the day the worst repercussions I have to face is the possibility I was wrong. But at the end of the day many of you may have to face the fact you fell for propaganda and sold your self-respect for a line of crap.



ADMIN NOTE: Please alert us when you are the target of an ad hominem attack or other forms of trolling. There's no need to respond, and doing so is usually off-topic (though in this case I can't bring myself to remove such a passionate rebuttal). Still, it's a lot easier to let us deal with problem posts. Just sayin' -- Majic

LOL man you dig and dig and dig for enough years, you find a fax.....

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
LOL man you dig and dig and dig for enough years, you find a fax.....

If you want to get right down to it, I'm sure you felt righteous about Scooter Libby. Dig and dig and dig and you can zap someone for perjury.

But let's get real, someone who should have known better received classified docs, removed the marks in an attempt to hide that and sent them via unsecure/personal networks. It means she knew full well what she was doing and that the material was NOT classified after someone saw it.

She subverted a secure method for ease of use. If that's not against their security policy I'd be surprised.

a reply to: ketsuko

someone who should have known better received classified docs, removed the marks in an attempt to hide that and sent them via unsecure/personal networks.

That is incorrect. The information was sent through proper channels and nothing was sent to her email server. Links to that have already been provided.

a reply to: introvert

The problem is, that no matter what evidence is brought forth, it gets dismissed for no other reason than the fact that some don't like it.

I too think that some are selling their integrity and buying into propaganda. It just may not be the same people that you're thinking of.

At this point, I think we all are better off agreeing to disagree and see where the cookie crumbles.

a reply to: ketsuko

I'm sure you felt righteous about Scooter Libby.

I have no idea who that is or what you are talking about, but OK, guess you know me best.

I'm aware of your glee at this, But I don't really care.

I find it weirder there were people out there working maniacally to discover this fax. Think about what the dastardly minutia it took to find it.....I suspect it included digging up dirt and threatening the former deputy chief of staff with something for it to come out just now.

It is the behavior of those who dug I find as alarming as Clinton asking for a fax classification to be changed.

Who are the evil ones?......

Who ever you think is in opposition to your political beliefs I suspect.

To me, They are all pathetic .

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: IAMTAT

If this derails the untouchable Hillary Clinton's campaign, I will tend to believe the fix is in for Bernie. I still don't believe that Hillary would ever be indicted, but I do suspect she is a plant candidate for the DNC.

And I see Bernie is seriously closing the gap: RCP polls

a reply to: Chickensalad

The problem is, that no matter what evidence is brought forth, it gets dismissed for no other reason than the fact that some don't like it.

Sure. And if no evidence is found some will dismiss it because they don't like it.

I like to deal with facts and evidence. Until that is presented, this sort of garbage is a waste of time.

I always find the need to remind people that the Clintons left office only 15 years ago but accumulated a life time of dirt on their friends and enemies. Mrs. Clinton will never pay one dime for any crime she has committed and if anyone is stupid enough to bet against her in this race, as far as the primary goes, she'll win the left because Biden looks like a no show. You can bet that once this story gets wadded up by Loretta Lynch and thrown in the trash can maybe everyone will realize just how dangerous this woman and man are.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Chickensalad

The problem is, that no matter what evidence is brought forth, it gets dismissed for no other reason than the fact that some don't like it.

Sure. And if no evidence is found some will dismiss it because they don't like it.

I like to deal with facts and evidence. Until that is presented, this sort of garbage is a waste of time.

I'm having a hard time understanding how you think an email record isn't evidence. Your political bias is showing.