Email Scandal: Hillary Clinton’s Last Defense Just Blew Up

a reply to: introvert

I am trying to be fair here... why I don't know.

She kept classified emails on an unauthorized email server.

I did not say that it wasn't an illegal server, just that it wasn't authorized to contain classified information. The server became illegal the instant the first classified email touched it.

Forget email server for a moment and think email server hard drive... that's all that matters here. That hard drive became classified to the highest level of information it contained. Even erased, that drive is still classified until physically destroyed.

Do you not understand what unauthorized storage of classified information is?

For anybody interested in searching the Hillary emails, here's the official State Department site that has 30,332 of 'em.

To see the ones sent from HER, place an " H " in the search box and hit the enter key.

There's lots with plenty of censored parts !!!!!!!

The Hillary "Collection"

a reply to: introvert

Sullivan did not remove headers on classified material.. They were sent as is through the proper channels.

Not talking about what Sullivan did. Talking about what Hillary did.

As for it being ok, that is for the FBI and JD to decide.

Would you have done the same thing?

I'll ask again. Was Hillary the person whom sent the offending emails?

According to the Washington Post story that has been put forth on this thread, yes.

a reply to: RickinVa
Why Rick, do you mean to tell me that unauthorized storage, transfer and possession of classified materials is illegal?

a reply to: RickinVa

I am trying to be fair here... why I don't know.

Your kindness is only surpassed by your arrogance.

Do you not understand what unauthorized storage of classified information is?

Yes I do. If her server was not illegal and she was allowed to use the server, as many other government officials have done before, how can we say she is guilty of unauthorized storage of classified information?

a reply to: butcherguy

Not talking about what Sullivan did. Talking about what Hillary did.

Is what she did illegal?

Would you have done the same thing?

Irrelevant.

According to the Washington Post story that has been put forth on this thread, yes.

The Washington Post has been one of the sites spreading inaccurate information on this issue. Can you provide a link in which it states the emails in question were specifically sent by Hillary to someone else?

a reply to: Whatsreal

I still maintain she is playing word games as the term classified is not used. The 3 levels used are confidential, secret and top secret. I want the media to ask if she ever emailed any confidential, secret or top secret info.

originally posted by: introvert
Is what she did illegal?

Yes

She violated several federal laws and in the case of confidential, secret and top secret info and email the violations were egregious.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: introvert
Is what she did illegal?

Yes

She violated several federal laws.

Which laws?

It was legal to use the private email.

It was legal to use her private server.

The emails on the server, so far, have either been retroactively classified or have not been specifically stated to have originated from Hillary herself.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

I am trying to be fair here... why I don't know.

Your kindness is only surpassed by your arrogance.

Do you not understand what unauthorized storage of classified information is?

Yes I do. If her server was not illegal and she was allowed to use the server, as many other government officials have done before, how can we say she is guilty of unauthorized storage of classified information?

Do you know what a SCIF is?

Do you know TS/SCI information must be kept in a SCIF or under very strict documented two person integrity when outside the SCIF?

Do you understand there are different levels of classification? Her private server was only good for personal email and anything else unclassified, it was not rated for any higher level of use, there are strict guide lines that must be followed for storage of classified information. Her server was not approved above anything besides Unclassified. She had a lot of classified emails. I wouldn't want to be in her shoes right now.

HILLARY'S PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO HANDLE ANY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. No matter how bad you or any other Hillary fan would like it to be.

The clock is ticking.

I can't wait to see the FBI briefing...soon my preciousssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon.

a reply to: RickinVa

Do you know TS/SCI information must be kept in a SCIF or under very stricted documented two person integrity when outside the SCIF?

Did any of those emails contain information classified at that level that were not retroactively classified?

Her private server was only good for personal email and anything else unclassified, it was not rated for any higher level of use, there are strict guide lines that must be followed for storage of classified information.

Did any of those emails contain classified information that were not retroactively classified that Hillary originated?

HILLARY'S PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO HANDLE HANDLE ANY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. No matter how bad you or any other Hillary fan would like it to be.

The same question applies. You have to prove Hillary originated an email that contained classified information that was classified at the time of transmission....and not retroactively.

If you do not have that proof, you are only speculating.

By the way, I'm not a Hillary fan. I just don't like political witch hunts.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Whatsreal

I still maintain she is playing word games as the term classified is not used. The 3 levels used are confidential, secret and top secret. I want the media to ask if she ever emailed any confidential, secret or top secret info.

...and her response will (as always) be: "I've said it a million times...I did not send or receive any emails marked 'Classified'!"

To say: "I did not send or receive any emails marked 'Top Secret'." would be a provable lie.

a reply to: RickinVa

I can't wait to see the FBI briefing...soon my preciousssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon.

I can't wait either. Either charge her with something or shut the # up.

What happens if she is not charged?

What if she is innocent?

Have you pondered those possibilities?

a reply to: IAMTAT

To say: "I did not send or receive any emails marked 'Top Secret'." would be a provable lie.

Ok, I'll bite.

Prove it.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IAMTAT

To say: "I did not send or receive any emails marked 'Top Secret'." would be a provable lie.

Ok, I'll bite.

Prove it.

I stopped taking your feigned ignorance seriously long ago.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IAMTAT

To say: "I did not send or receive any emails marked 'Top Secret'." would be a provable lie.

Ok, I'll bite.

Prove it.

I stopped taking your feigned ignorance seriously long ago.

So you can't prove it.

Got ya.

a reply to: introvert

* - 18 U.S. Code Chapter 37 - ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP
- 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (A Felony)
- 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

Not knowing if something has a classification is not an affirmative defense.

* - 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

* - 44 U.S. Code Chapter 31 - RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES
- § 3101 - Records management by agency heads; general duties
- § 3102 - Establishment of program of management
- § 3103 - Transfer of records to records centers
- § 3104 - Certifications and determinations on transferred records
- § 3105 - Safeguards
- § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records
- § 3107 - Authority of Comptroller General




Bombshell: In Email, Hillary Ordered Aide to Strip Classified Marking and Send Sensitive Material


Watchdog: Two National Security Laws Appear Broken in Clinton Email Scandal Hillary aides refused judge’s order on returning documents

Tell me what level of access do Clinton's aides have? SCI? Top Secret? Secret? Confidential?

a reply to: introvert

The emails on the server, so far, have either been retroactively classified or have not been specifically stated to have originated from Hillary herself.

The whole issue seems to be over your head.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That's nice and all, but the talking points memo was sent as is, not stripped of markings, and through proper channels.

So now you have to prove that Hillary's request in an of itself was a violation of US code, even though it was not carried-out.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

The emails on the server, so far, have either been retroactively classified or have not been specifically stated to have originated from Hillary herself.

The whole issue seems to be over your head.

Insults do not make proof.

You can assert and wish all you want, but you have to be able to prove guilt.

Can you do that, or are you making me the topic to cover for your, and other's, ignorance?