NSA Whistleblower: Agency Has All of Clinton’s Deleted Emails

Speaking as an analyst, Binney raised the possibility that the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s server was done not by Russia but by a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker concerned about Clinton’s compromise of national security secrets via her personal email use.

Binney was an architect of the NSA’s surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency.

Binney: “Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA. Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails.”

“So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now,” he stated of Clinton’s emails as well as DNC emails.

Source

The implications of this are just staggering. She deleted them, but evidently they can still have/get them.

This pushes this email conspiracy one step closer to being a fact.

They are not doing anything to Hillary because they don't want to. Not because they don't have the evidence.

a reply to: thesungod

They've had them all along- that's how the NSA works. They were gathering them as she sent them.

They're working for the shadow government, and will release only what they're told to release.

I've questioned the whole email/server thing from the start. Someone as important as the Secretary of State would surely be monitored by the NSA. The whole thing just seems too pathetic and careless to be true. This leads me to wonder if Hillary's emails weren't some type of "honey trap" to try to ensnare and compromise or destroy people unwilling to go along with the current POTUS and his policies.

In other words the hidden hand was at work long before the emails were even made public.

Binney: “Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA. Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails.”

“So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now,” he stated of Clinton’s emails as well as DNC emails.

That highlighted stuff ... uhh ... no.

Could that data be retrieved from there? I'm about 99% sure it could.
What would that take? A thing called a 'violation of law' by the POTUS.

Before Clinton is a SecState or a candidate for POTUS ... she's first a US citizen. The NSA might (and probably does) have the goods on her. What they don't have is the lawful right to do anything with that information (and neither do the FBI nor CIA) ... because of her status as a US citizen.

a reply to: thesungod

Must be the same reason they covered up for Obama, a person with a lot of skeletons is easy too control.

I'm ready to sacrifice this woman on the altar.

originally posted by: Snarl

Binney: “Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA. Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails.”

“So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now,” he stated of Clinton’s emails as well as DNC emails.

That highlighted stuff ... uhh ... no.

Could that data be retrieved from there? I'm about 99% sure it could.
What would that take? A thing called a 'violation of law' by the POTUS.

Before Clinton is a SecState or a candidate for POTUS ... she's first a US citizen. The NSA might (and probably does) have the goods on her. What they don't have is the lawful right to do anything with that information (and neither do the FBI nor CIA) ... because of her status as a US citizen.

Why bother being pragmatic and factual in replying? You'll sacrifice 'stars' and reasonable discourse with such a tactic. But maybe the imprinted seal on her birth certificate is a camera trick and she's not a citizen of the U.S.A, which makes her fair game?

OF COURSE the NSA has all the emails. The FBI director said so during his 4.5 hour long testimony 'thousands of them' that she categorized as 'personal' were indeed work related.

Hillary has set herself up to be easily blackmailed. Whether she walked into it knowingly or because she's a technological idiot, who knows?

Pertinent section begins at the 6:54 mark, but the whole thing is well worth watching; this is the meat of the entire Congressional testimony.

it must be nice THAT NOBODY has ANY concern over ANY republican e-mails??.....not even foreign governments or foreigners themselves

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
You'll sacrifice 'stars' and reasonable discourse with such a tactic.

I'll collect 'em all back when somebody comes up with the right questions.

LOL ... But, nobody ever asks.

How many of those emails are between her and Obama?

America cannot throw Hillary in jail for emails that break the law between her and Obama, unless you throw Obama in jail too.

Can you imagine the riots and race wars if Obama was sent to jail...
That's part of the reason to vote for Trump. PC correctness attitude has to go. If Obama broke the law, people will be saying it's because he's black not because he's guilty. Just like Mike Brown was a sweet innocent young man. Not because of his actions but because of his skin color. No one listens to MLK, judge people by their actions not the color of their skin

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Get out of my thread with your trolling of other members, please.

Thank you.

a reply to: jimmyx

I would love to see those also. If they are released expect similiar threads on that from me.

This is about corruption, not Hillary or Trump.

a reply to: Snarl

I don't think you are correct.

I don't think the Email Privacy Act has become law yet. Which means emails more than 6 months old can be read without a warrant.

I'm not sure it applies to Hillary's case, since she had a private server. It's not really about her being a private citizen, it's whether you are using a provider or if you have your own private server.

Also, the Email Privacy Act has sections added, that allow for government to read emails without a warrant in terror related cases.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Just thought I would add this little gem.

the National Archives and Records Administration requires all work-related emails to be properly preserved. Federal rules required Clinton to preserve work emails and turn them over before leaving office, but she did not turn over her emails until 21 months after she left office.

Was she allowed to use a private server?

No. As we wrote, the IG report said that it has been department policy since 2005 — four years before Clinton took office

www.factcheck.org...

a reply to: thinline

Yes, why is he never mentioned, they are going to protect him to the bitter end,

If the NSA does not have them the whole agency should be shutdown. Paying billions for this agency and they could not help during this or the IRS situation. All they are is a torch light point out and refuse to point them inward where it is needed the most.

If true, every single one should be released to the public in full.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Snarl

I don't think you are correct.

Yeah. I am.

The OP is about the NSA ... what the NSA has in storage ... and who can access that data.

Let me know when the laws governing the collection, sharing and use of Intelligence Information on US Citizens change.

Interesting that you included the word 'provider' in your reply. Provider of 'what' exactly? That's a rhetorical question, BTW.

-Cheers

a reply to: Snarl

Email privacy act is not law yet.

The lead sponsors of the companion Senate legislation, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2015 (S.356) are Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah.[4][16] Twenty-five other senators are cosponsors.[16] After the House passed its bill, Leahy and Lee called upon the Senate to "take up and pass this bipartisan, common-sense legislation without delay."[5]

The bill is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and it is unclear whether that committee's chairman—Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa—intended to act on the legislation.[4][5] In May 2016, however, Grassley expressed concern "about the details of this reform, and whether it is balanced to reflect issues raised by law enforcement."

Source

A while back, we noted a report showing that the “sneak-and-peek” provision of the Patriot Act that was alleged to be used only in national security and terrorism investigations has overwhelmingly been used in narcotics cases. Now the New York Times reports that National Security Agency data will be shared with other intelligence agencies like the FBI without first applying any screens for privacy. The ACLU of Massachusetts blog Privacy SOS explains why this is important:

What does this rule change mean for you? In short, domestic law enforcement officials now have access to huge troves of American communications, obtained without warrants, that they can use to put people in cages. FBI agents don’t need to have any “national security” related reason to plug your name, email address, phone number, or other “selector” into the NSA’s gargantuan data trove. They can simply poke around in your private information in the course of totally routine investigations. And if they find something that suggests, say, involvement in illegal drug activity, they can send that information to local or state police. That means information the NSA collects for purposes of so-called “national security” will be used by police to lock up ordinary Americans for routine crimes.

Source

They've already found loopholes to use the data.