Hillary sent 'marked classified' info to nonsecure Abedin email account

As WND reported Sept. 8, Clinton forwarded an Aug. 8, 2009, email – clearly marked “Classified” – to a personal, nonsecure email address registered to aide Abedin, [email protected]. Abedin then forwarded the message to another personal, nonsecure account, [email protected]. In sworn testimony before Congress, however, Clinton declared, “There was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received.”

WND also reported two-thirds of Abedin’s released emails were forwarded to personal addresses she controlled and Clinton’s State Department chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, may have received classified information through personal email accounts.

In WND’s report of the marked classified email, Greg Davis, a U.S. Army veteran with more than 30 years experience as a military intelligence officer, told WND the handling of the message is “an obvious violation of national security regulations regarding the handling of classified information for which people normally go to prison.”

The email containing marked classified information previously was released by the State Department, but it was unknown until the Judicial Watch released that Clinton forwarded the exchange to Abedin’s nonsecure, personal Yahoo account.

LINK TO SMOKING GUN

The classified email in above thread is enclosed within link. Actually more than one email.

IMO this should break CLINTON'S neck.....and Huma? Well ...... she is going to jail..... and her pervert husband.

a reply to: DeathSlayer
WND isn't allowed as a source on ATS.

Do you have a legit source?

Upon further review I am now not sure about WND not being allowed. Maybe I confused it with BIN

Need a list of banned sources.

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: DeathSlayer
WND isn't allowed as a source on ATS.

Do you have a more legit source?

Can you show me exactly where at ATS where it states WND CANNOT be used as a news source?

WND article says that the info came from Judicial Watch.
If that helps.
It may be a place to start looking, anyway.

a reply to: butcherguy

Thanks for your insight!

I think the truth matters no matter where the info comes from. We all want the truth however what is the truth?

The media?

Sorry I needed a good laugh......

Have a great day!

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: DeathSlayer
WND isn't allowed as a source on ATS.

Do you have a legit source?

Better?

www.judicialwatch.org...

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
a reply to: butcherguy

Thanks for your insight!

I think the truth matters no matter where the info comes from. We all want the truth however what is the truth?

The media?

Sorry I needed a good laugh......

Have a great day!

I agree we all just want the truth.

And maybe I am wrong about WND, and it is just BIN that's banned.
A list of banned sources would be nice.

a reply to: greyhat
Thanks.

originally posted by: greyhat

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: DeathSlayer
WND isn't allowed as a source on ATS.

Do you have a legit source?

Better?

www.judicialwatch.org...

The email in your link was marked "Classified" 4 years after it was sent.

According to the news there are no email to or from Clinton in this.
Only stuff Huma sent to the state dept.
So how does this affect Hillary again? Other than optics that is?
And we have plenty of time to improve those before election day.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

You guys don't want the truth.

You want something to hang her with.

You're not getting it with this.

a reply to: Sillyolme
I don't want a President who's closest confidant can't handle e-mails (along with her boss and other co-workers) and has been linked to anti-women publications New York Times Article

I think this is one train they need to run off the rails!!!!!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
According to the news there are no email to or from Clinton in this.
Only stuff Huma sent to the state dept.
So how does this affect Hillary again? Other than optics that is?
And we have plenty of time to improve those before election day.

If this is true then the FBI would not reopen the Hillary email investigation against HILLARY and the FBI would go against Huma but that is not the case... HILLARY is being investigated and not HUMA, though Huma will be going to jail with Hillary....

The email chain..... will make Hillary ....HUMA'S new cellmate.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: greyhat

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: DeathSlayer
WND isn't allowed as a source on ATS.

Do you have a legit source?

Better?

www.judicialwatch.org...

The email in your link was marked "Classified" 4 years after it was sent.

The one that I read says that it was classified on 10-30-3015.... a bit tough to accomplish, so I will assume that it was classified in 2015.
Whichever it is, the declassify date is important. It is scheduled to be declassified in 2024.... meaning that it was classified information when it was generated..... 15 years before 2024. July 15th of 2024.... exactly 15 years after the date it was generated.... 7-15-2009.
This subject has been covered numerous times in these email related threads.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
According to the news there are no email to or from Clinton in this.
Only stuff Huma sent to the state dept.
So how does this affect Hillary again? Other than optics that is?
And we have plenty of time to improve those before election day.

Judicial Watch released that Clinton forwarded the exchange to Abedin’s nonsecure, personal Yahoo account. Read more at www.wnd.com...

Guess that debunks your "according to the news" analysis?

That shows Hillary did send classified info.
Now what about all those responses Hillary gave? I am pretty sure on more than one occasion she has denied what this email proves.
Perjury?Obstruction?
Charges galore.....

originally posted by: windword

The email in your link was marked "Classified" 4 years after it was sent.

Looks for me as if it was classified on July 15, 2009.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DeathSlayer

You guys don't want the truth.

You want something to hang her with.

You're not getting it with this.

She's already dangling with one sock off.

originally posted by: butcherguy
WND article says that the info came from Judicial Watch.
If that helps.
It may be a place to start looking, anyway.

Sadly, Judicial Watch isn't all that reliable either.

a reply to: greyhat

Confidential doesn't always mean the same thing as classified.