Hillary Campaign Admits Her Missing Emails Are National Security Issue

a reply to: windword

Thanks for proving my point. You sent a screenshot of liberal media headlines all making false claims.

"But if it is Russia, it's really bad for a different reason. Because it shows how little respect they have for our country when they would hack into a major party and get everything. But it would be interesting to see -- I will tell you this, Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens. That will be next."

This is what Trump actually said. Trump never urges / asks Russia to hack the FBI or our Government. In fact, he says it 'shows little respect they have for our country if they would hack into a major party'...

Next time you want to make a claim, maybe go a little further than spewing liberal headlines completely out of context.

Liberals are looking more desperate by the hour.

a reply to: TheBulk

YAWN

The March 4 ABC News article reported that "a final memorandum" issued by "[t]he State Department's internal investigation arm" found that former secretaries of state "handled classified material on unclassified email systems."

The State Department found that emails handled on private email accounts associated with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice contain "information classified at the Secret or Confidential levels.'" Former Secretary Powell responded that those identified emails were not marked "'Confidential at the time and they were sent as unclassified,'" seemingly underscoring Secretary Clinton's defense that "the State Department is classifying documents too aggressively" (emphasis added):

The State Department's internal investigation arm issued a final memorandum today on the email practices of past and current secretaries of state, and it said definitively that past secretaries handled classified material on unclassified email systems.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: TheBulk

Attack the message, not the source.

The sources have a clear motivation to lie and spin the news for it's left wing readers who want their biases confirmed.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: TheBulk

YAWN

The March 4 ABC News article reported that "a final memorandum" issued by "[t]he State Department's internal investigation arm" found that former secretaries of state "handled classified material on unclassified email systems."

The State Department found that emails handled on private email accounts associated with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice contain "information classified at the Secret or Confidential levels.'" Former Secretary Powell responded that those identified emails were not marked "'Confidential at the time and they were sent as unclassified,'" seemingly underscoring Secretary Clinton's defense that "the State Department is classifying documents too aggressively" (emphasis added):

The State Department's internal investigation arm issued a final memorandum today on the email practices of past and current secretaries of state, and it said definitively that past secretaries handled classified material on unclassified email systems.

Again, from a website that was founded (in part) by Hilary Clinton. This claim was DEBUNKED by the FBI in that video I posted. This is one of her lies.

Why is no one asking the lawyers what specific search words were used to sort through and separate the emails? To me, it does seem suspicious that (c) in paragraphs were not caught. One has to wonder if any actual classified information was retrieved off her servers that those were destroyed. She only used those servers for all her correspondence. I would have to believe that as SOS, she received and sent classified information.

30,000 emails were destroyed? All about yoga and wedding stuff? I don't think so!

a reply to: CynConcepts

30,000 emails were destroyed?

But not unaccounted for. The FBI retrieved all the emails that were deleted from the Clinton server.

They were not able to tell what information was deleted from auxiliary devices, Ipads, Andriods, Iphones, etc., that Hillary and her family were also using. The information from those devices were stored in the first round of lawyers' devices, who then wiped them clean after they finished their reports.

Most likely, those were all of a personal nature. 30,000 is just a guess that someone came up with that stuck. No ones knows what they don't know, and the FBI has said that they don't know.

a reply to: TheBulk

This claim was DEBUNKED by the FBI in that video I posted. This is one of her lies.

Are you calling Colin Powel a liar?

Former Secretary Powell responded that those identified emails were not marked "'Confidential at the time and they were sent as unclassified,'"

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: TheBulk

This claim was DEBUNKED by the FBI in that video I posted. This is one of her lies.

Are you calling Colin Powel a liar?

Former Secretary Powell responded that those identified emails were not marked "'Confidential at the time and they were sent as unclassified,'"

Im saying Hillary was proven to be lying about the emails being classified later. Comey refuted that.

a reply to: TheBulk

Comey refuted that.

No he didn't.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: CynConcepts

30,000 emails were destroyed?

But not unaccounted for. The FBI retrieved all the emails that were deleted from the Clinton server.

They were not able to tell what information was deleted from auxiliary devices, Ipads, Andriods, Iphones, etc., that Hillary and her family were also using. The information from those devices were stored in the first round of lawyers' devices, who then wiped them clean after they finished their reports.

Most likely, those were all of a personal nature. 30,000 is just a guess that someone came up with that stuck. No ones knows what they don't know, and the FBI has said that they don't know.

That still does not answer my question. Is it attorney privilege not to disclose what search words were used to separate the emails? What words were used? I would have to believe any legitimate search would have used 'classified' 'confidential' etc...etc.., right? Or we're the search terms all related to only 'personal' words accumulatively? I am just very curious as how this process of separating was actually completed. Aren't you?

Edit add: for clarity, I am referring to where Comey stated in the hearings that the attorneys were instructed to destroy the servers and all seperate emails by Hillary. FBI were not able to recover those due to the destruction of the hardware.
Also, wasn't it stated during the hearings that their were over 60,000 messages sorted by the attorneys office? I am assuming the 30,000 is just an estimate based on what was received and discovered vs...the original amount provided to the FBI.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: TheBulk

Comey refuted that.

No he didn't.

I can't believe how dense you are. I even posted a video where you are refuted in the first 10 seconds of the video!

" In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received." - James Comey

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: CynConcepts

30,000 emails were destroyed?

But not unaccounted for. The FBI retrieved all the emails that were deleted from the Clinton server.

They were not able to tell what information was deleted from auxiliary devices, Ipads, Andriods, Iphones, etc., that Hillary and her family were also using. The information from those devices were stored in the first round of lawyers' devices, who then wiped them clean after they finished their reports.

Most likely, those were all of a personal nature. 30,000 is just a guess that someone came up with that stuck. No ones knows what they don't know, and the FBI has said that they don't know.

That still does not answer my question. Is it attorney privilege not to disclose what search words were used to separate the emails? What words were used? I would have to believe any legitimate search would have used 'classified' 'confidential' etc...etc.., right? Or we're the search terms all related to only 'personal' words accumulatively? I am just very curious as how this process of separating was actually completed. Aren't you?

Not so much. That's above my pay grade.

I'm sure that the FBI, etal, has a greater inside knowledge to the issues and words that would pop up, than I would. Personally, I have no doubt, if the server was as they say, unsecured for awhile, that the FBI, CIA, NSA and any other alphabet agencies have spied on the Clintons, and THAT is why there are questions as to who else MAY HAVE...but I'll bet those alphabet agencies were monitoring that too, by design! (Hehe, my cynical and conspiratorial nature)

a reply to: TheBulk

" In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received." - James Comey

Yeah, I understand that. But, that doesn't mean that the information was stamped or labeled "Classified". The people passing the information at the time were passing information that the FBI deemed "Classified" during their investigation. They aren't claiming that Hillary emailed document labeled at the time "CLASSIFIED".

That is what Colin Powel was protesting too, and what Hillary Clinton was claiming that happened. The FBI confirms that to be the case, by saying there was "no intent" and that it was sloppy and negligent....or whatever words Comey used, but not criminal. If Hillary would have emailed obviously labeled"CLASSIFIED" documents, that would have been intentional, therefore criminal.

a reply to: introvert

You mean her illegal server? She's mad, and you are too apparently, that someone might take advantage of her illegal activity? Also, she's supposed to be a National Security expert? The FBI basically called her inept regarding such matters. Thirdly, Trump was obviously making an insulting joke and never suggested anyone hack anything. He basically said, "if you have them, you should release them." So, not the same thing. The idea of a Trump presidency is worrisome, but equally troubling are people like Hillary and yourself.

a reply to: neveroddoreven99

Even if it was meant as a joke, it was stupid for him to make that sort of joke.

And I couldn't care less about your personal attacks.

a reply to: neveroddoreven99

Trump was obviously making an insulting joke and never suggested anyone hack anything.

I guess he also, obviously, making an insulting joke about Mexicans, Muslims, not honoring our NATO Treaty and his enormous wealth!