Hillary Faces National Security Establishment ‘Uprising’ Over Emails

Neat article citing some comments from Judicial Watch about the Hillary investigations.

JD has been on her tail for a long time, winning some key cases in court that actually got the bulk of the emails released to the public.

JD is saying the national security bureaucracies might be itching for indictments in the matter.

Seems many in the "agencies" are scrambling to get her prosecuted.

Interesting read, and it looks like an election issue will soon come to light.


Hillary Faces National Security Establishment ‘Uprising’ Over Emails

Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is facing an “uprising” in the national security establishment prompted by long-standing anger about her cavalier handling of classified materials and government secrets.

As Clinton’s case progresses, it appears the probe is being directed by intelligence and national security law enforcement authorities rather than civilian agencies subject to political influence, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation.

There are currently at least four national security investigations, including those by the FBI, Department of Justice, and the inspectors general for the Department of State and the Intelligence Community.

When ?

a reply to: xuenchen

When ?

That's what I want to know. Every week you repost at least one article about Hillary Clinton's emails from DailyCaller, WND or the like and it's always about some impending something or another that never happens.

a reply to: xuenchen

Oh come on!

She is just the target of right wing conspiracy theorist nut jobs!

What is wrong with you guys? She is a good person. She doesnt lie, she just miss-speaks sometimes. She wants what is best for our country and all those right wing nut jobs do is screw it up by framing her with email scandles and such.

She doesnt really make behind-the-door deals with corporate America or Wall-Street thats just more conspiracy stuff. Of course Wall-Street donates a lot of money to her, its because they too want what is best for the American people, and so does corporate America.

And that Benghazi thing? Oh there weren't even any lives lost there remember? so at this point what difference does it make? Who cares?

She is only fickle because thats what people want in a president. We need someone that can adapt and pander to everyone.


Those right wing conspiracy theorist nut jobs are just a bunch of CRAZY'S!

a reply to: xuenchen

From your link:

In 2009, for example, the National Security Agency (NSA) rebuffed Clinton’s request to use an unsecured BlackBerry for her emails while she was in “Mahogany Row,” the highly secured offices used by all secretaries of state. The suite is secured as a “Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility,” or SCIF, which allows occupants to receive and review the nation’s most important national security secrets.

Clinton wanted to be allowed to use her BlackBerry while handling sensitive materials in the SCIF, according to emails released Wednesday by Judicial Watch. She also sought for her aides to have the same privilege. The emails were obtained via the FOIA.

In a Feb. 8, 2009, email, Donald Reid, Clinton’s senior coordinator for security infrastructure in the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, dourly reported Clinton and Cheryl Mills, her chief of staff, were “dedicated BB (Blackberry) addicts.” He also said Clinton didn’t use her official government desktop computer because she was “hooked” on BlackBerrys during her 2008 presidential campaign.

The NSA’s response in an Information Assurance Directive told Clinton to “shut up,” according to the emails. Clinton and her aides were subsequently forbidden from using their BlackBerrys in the SCIF office.



Read more: dailycaller.com...

The info comes from released emails... not just the musings of a Daily Caller writer.
It shows us that that are rules about dealing with the kind of information that a Secretary of State is privy to. It also shows that Hillary doesn't believe that she has to obey the rules.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xuenchen

When ?

That's what I want to know. Every week you repost at least one article about Hillary Clinton's emails from DailyCaller, WND or the like and it's always about some impending something or another that never happens.

Does it concern you that she broke the law by having her own private unsecured server in use for classified emails and is getting away with it so far?

Does it concern you that one week she says for the record she is moderate then the next progressive (at a mostly moderate then a mostly progressive meeting respectively)?

Does it concern you that she takes massive donations from Wall-Street and Corporate America?

Does it concern you that she was one of the biggest pushers to get the TPP through and NOW she opposes it now that the citizens are expressing their disdain en mass?

Does it concern you that she is not concerned about us and that she is a huge pile of lying dog $#!T ?

But they weren't actually MARKED classified. Especially the ones she had them delete the headers for before disseminating them for political points.


I still think she's too big to fail. They won't want to throw a monkey-wrench in the election as she's the prime candidate for the DNC, which is too bad. Someone lower on the totem pole would have had their head roll already for having stuff on a private unsecured server.

a reply to: RadioRobert

I see people try to say this a lot.

It doesn't matter whether or not the material is marked with a classification. It's the content that makes it classified not a word stamped at the top.

The mishandling of classified information whether marked or not is a federal crime punishable by up to life in prison.

originally posted by: watchitburn

The mishandling of classified information whether marked or not is a federal crime punishable by up to life in prison.

I know. It's a little semantic game they're playing, and it's working as far as the general populace is concerned. Like I said, somebody else's head would have rolled already. Maybe they'll pick a fall guy/gal.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xuenchen

When ?

That's what I want to know. Every week you repost at least one article about Hillary Clinton's emails from DailyCaller, WND or the like and it's always about some impending something or another that never happens.

Does it concern you that she broke the law by having her own private unsecured server in use for classified emails and is getting away with it so far?

Does it concern you that one week she says for the record she is moderate then the next progressive (at a mostly moderate then a mostly progressive meeting respectively)?

Does it concern you that she takes massive donations from Wall-Street and Corporate America?

Does it concern you that she was one of the biggest pushers to get the TPP through and NOW she opposes it now that the citizens are expressing their disdain en mass?

Does it concern you that she is not concerned about us and that she is a huge pile of lying dog $#!T ?

Repeating for significance...

That's a better pounding than even I am famous for!

originally posted by: Granite

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xuenchen

When ?

That's what I want to know. Every week you repost at least one article about Hillary Clinton's emails from DailyCaller, WND or the like and it's always about some impending something or another that never happens.

Does it concern you that she broke the law by having her own private unsecured server in use for classified emails and is getting away with it so far?

Does it concern you that one week she says for the record she is moderate then the next progressive (at a mostly moderate then a mostly progressive meeting respectively)?

Does it concern you that she takes massive donations from Wall-Street and Corporate America?

Does it concern you that she was one of the biggest pushers to get the TPP through and NOW she opposes it now that the citizens are expressing their disdain en mass?

Does it concern you that she is not concerned about us and that she is a huge pile of lying dog $#!T ?

Repeating for significance...

That's a better pounding than even I am famous for!

How was that significant? Only one thing mentioned in that little emotional rant was on topic. On top of that, it is incorrect. Her server was perfectly legal.

originally posted by: introvertHer server was perfectly legal.

That's like coming home with classified information that I hand-copied onto printer paper and leaving it in a briefcase on my kitchen table. There's nothing illegal about having a briefcase -- and nothing was marked classified when I stuffed in my briefcase!

I should expect no problems!

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Granite

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xuenchen

When ?

That's what I want to know. Every week you repost at least one article about Hillary Clinton's emails from DailyCaller, WND or the like and it's always about some impending something or another that never happens.

Does it concern you that she broke the law by having her own private unsecured server in use for classified emails and is getting away with it so far?

Does it concern you that one week she says for the record she is moderate then the next progressive (at a mostly moderate then a mostly progressive meeting respectively)?

Does it concern you that she takes massive donations from Wall-Street and Corporate America?

Does it concern you that she was one of the biggest pushers to get the TPP through and NOW she opposes it now that the citizens are expressing their disdain en mass?

Does it concern you that she is not concerned about us and that she is a huge pile of lying dog $#!T ?

Repeating for significance...

That's a better pounding than even I am famous for!

How was that significant? Only one thing mentioned in that little emotional rant was on topic. On top of that, it is incorrect. Her server was perfectly legal.

It ""shood" the poster away when they never shoo...

Jump'n Jack Flash

Discovery Plan to Federal Court in Clinton Email Matter

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today filed a plan for “narrowly tailored discovery” into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email matter with a federal court. Judicial Watch’s discovery plan seeks the testimony of eight current and former State Department officials, including top State Department official Patrick Kennedy, former State IT employee Bryan Pagliano, and Clinton’s two top aides at the State Department: Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin. Judicial Watch’s plan says that “based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary” but would only occur with permission by the Court.

During a court hearing on February 23, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch’s motion for discovery into whether the State Department and Clinton deliberately thwarted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for six years. The discovery arises in a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton. The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

It's 3am Hillary !!!

a reply to: theantediluvian

Patience, grasshopper....

I still can't believe HC is still in this running, after Benghazi, after 30 yrs of sticking her fingers into the American Pie for her own personal gain. I'm pretty sure over half of what she's done is illegal... But i suppose there are those who would just toss their arms up into the air and shout 'WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE'?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Granite

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xuenchen

When ?

That's what I want to know. Every week you repost at least one article about Hillary Clinton's emails from DailyCaller, WND or the like and it's always about some impending something or another that never happens.

Does it concern you that she broke the law by having her own private unsecured server in use for classified emails and is getting away with it so far?

Does it concern you that one week she says for the record she is moderate then the next progressive (at a mostly moderate then a mostly progressive meeting respectively)?

Does it concern you that she takes massive donations from Wall-Street and Corporate America?

Does it concern you that she was one of the biggest pushers to get the TPP through and NOW she opposes it now that the citizens are expressing their disdain en mass?

Does it concern you that she is not concerned about us and that she is a huge pile of lying dog $#!T ?

Repeating for significance...

That's a better pounding than even I am famous for!

How was that significant? Only one thing mentioned in that little emotional rant was on topic. On top of that, it is incorrect. Her server was perfectly legal.

SERVER was legal TH E MAILS ON IT WERE NOT.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Au Contraire,

You know since your reading this, it is on
the "news". Ever heard of Judicial Watch?

Bet you have....

yeah there wouldn't be an FBI investigation if she hadn't done something wrong. Loretta lynch says she wont do anything no matter what they find.

I'm guessing here...but shouldn't somebody in an IT department have the job of setting up email for any new employees? "Madame Secretary, choose a password with letters, numbers, and a special character with at least one upper case letter." Then she is like, "No thanks I'm already using [email protected]." So IT guy tells his boss, boss realizes this is not standard, questions arise, Hillary is told to use official email, the end. Why didn't that happen?

Better yet, why did NONE of the people she emailed ask ONE of the 50,000 times they got an email "Why are you not sending this classified stuff via official email?" I would have.

I hate Hillary. I really do...but so many other people dropped some giant balls (ha, giant balls...) in all this.

Maybe all that came up, but I don't recall it...

a reply to: xuenchen

Let's say for the sake of argument that Hilary didn't do anything specifically illegal regarding the emails , Benghazi, Whitewater e.g. all...is she really the right person to run for President with her terrible sense of judgement? Is there really no one better in a country of 350 million people to run?