More Classified Hillary Clinton Emails Released

Is this the conservative fogging to cloud the derps on Donalds' team?

Jared Kushner: Trump's son-in-law uses WhatsApp and personal email for official White House business

Seven members of Trump’s team have used unofficial communications tools

Ivanka Trump not preserving all official email

Steve Bannon, WH Staff Accused of Using Personal Email to Discuss Sending Sensitive Nuclear Technology to Saudi Arabia

You might not like me or my opinions, and you will not give stars (and I do not care) but you should NOT neglect to read about the misfits on Donalds' team!

a reply to: ManFromEurope

OUO a great topic in the making !!!!

copy & paste that right into a brand new thread !! 😆

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: Lumenari

my point is that if she broke a law, then both links in the opening post would have stated it to be so.

if she broke a law then she should be held accountable for it.
but after a senate committee hearing and hours of testimony, she was found not guilty of wrong doing.
did i miss something here?
a link to where she was found guilty of a crime would be nice.

Senate hearing does not indict people, or determine whether someone is guilty or innocent. They are done for facts finding only and so what you are saying is if they didn't find anything in the hearing then she is innocent on all account possible? I wounder if the FBI and 5 other alphabet agencies did a two year investigation if they come to the same conclusion as you.

You need to understand we are still at the facts finding point and new emails coming forward mean new facts, and if the new email contradicts what she said under oath then we have a problem. This is not to mention she has broken so many security laws that a E-2 in the military would be in Leavenworth for anyone of them, so there is a level of entitlement as she is in the entitled range to have this all over looked as a non-issue.

But as many here have said...as further facts come forward we will see... Hearings ask a lot of questions then they compare them to facts to see if they match up...that is where we are right now..

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: xuenchen

i looked at the link.
it did not say a law had been broken.
it did not say a crime had been committed.

so what is it that we are suppose to get from this article?

Where's the crime?

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

You might not like me or my opinions, and you will not give stars (and I do not care) but you should NOT neglect to read about the misfits on Donalds' team!

Everyone uses private emails, but I don't think just because you work in the white house ALL your emails are considered Government official or owned by the Government, so we are not talking about staff members here are we. Sec of State is one of the highest Governmental offices held and is under extremely tight restrictions as to communications just as the President is. Due to her level ANY communication within the capacity of her position is owned by the Government and will be recorded. Her use of a private server was to skirt the government's record-keeping to keep things private AND in doing so performed classified and highly sensitive communications with this unsecured private server, compromising the security of the United States.

Staffers are not under the same stick rules and they can use private emails as long as classified communications is not done and the emails are retrievable if asked. Very simple...

Hillary's use of Bleachbit and physically destroying phones once caught etc are rather egregious acts with any position not to mention we do know 100% she did classify communications over that server too, but once again we are talking about Sec of State!!! lol

It amazes me that people just do not see any of this as wrong and then say but what about Ivanka? Who does not hold a Government position high or otherwise and did not do classified communications and turned over all her emails.

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: xuenchen

i looked at the link.
it did not say a law had been broken.
it did not say a crime had been committed.

so what is it that we are suppose to get from this article?

Where's the crime?

For clarity, a more accurate phrase would be, "Emails containing classified information or topics". Since the privater server was not under govt control, there was no way for them to be reviewed and marked classified for their content. Had they been sent on a secured server, that would have happened.

Now, why would someone that has signed and been granted a security clearance (which involves knowing why and how to treat classified information under penalty of law) be conversing about classified topics or putting classified information into an unsecured communications channel A method which is strictly forbidden as part of that signed security clearance?

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Now, why would someone that has signed and been granted a security clearance (which involves knowing why and how to treat classified information under penalty of law) be conversing about classified topics or putting classified information into an unsecured communications channel A method which is strictly forbidden as part of that signed security clearance?

To set the record straight... Hillary did not personally set up this server, she didn't personally run it either. She most likely has the tech skills not much pass hitting the on button. So what we are talking about is staffers set it up and ran it for her private use. This means there was a team of people that all knew the rules on classified and knew in doing this they would be skirting the government's record-keeping system. She had the people around her to tell her it was wrong to do, but it seems the whole team was on board with her breaking many laws in this actions.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
[trimmed and highlighted]

For clarity, a more accurate phrase would be, "Emails containing classified information or topics". Since the privater server was not under govt control, there was no way for them to be reviewed and marked classified for their content. Had they been sent on a secured server, that would have happened.

Now, why would someone that has signed and been granted a security clearance (which involves knowing why and how to treat classified information under penalty of law) be conversing about classified topics or putting classified information into an unsecured communications channel A method which is strictly forbidden as part of that signed security clearance?

"Controlled" Espionage 😎

"Selective" logins 😎

It was a clever plan to help downgrade the U.S. 😎

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Whataboutism deflections noted.

a reply to: Xtrozero

While what you say is true, she is the ultimately responsible party for any and all actions undertaken at her behest. Whilst individuals are responsible for their own actions which violate the law (Hoteham & Cooper setting up the domain and email addresses, Pagliano maintaining the server, etc.), Hillary was the head of the State Department and each use of the system to transmit information deemed to have been classified was a violation of the law.

She never requested to have the server approved, whether she set it up or not does not matter one bit to the fact that she used it knowing she was in violation of the law. Whether or not she remembers signing the SCINDA does not change the fact that her signature is on the document which holds her liable to protecting any and all classified information that falls under her authority or comes under her departmental authority.

The only reason she was given a pass was because the Department of Justice told the FBI investigators that it did not matter what was found, no prosecution would take place. Comey's statement merely told us that what she did was wrong, but because it was Hillary, they weren't going to hold her responsible.

So let me get this straight...

Hillary used a private server to send and receive classified information to foreign powers, which is against the law, and she signed a document stating she was aware of that, then lied under oath stating she didn't remembered signing it.

Then, the ex-FBI director James Phony, did not recommend her to be charged on that because, in his words, "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" against her.

This only a few days after Bill Clinton met with the AG Loretta Lynch in a private meeting in an airport.

All of these stated above are facts proven over and over again and yet people can't connect the dots because of their extreme BIAS, and now you looney leftists are saying she did nothing wrong and that we shouldn't look at her e-mails in the first place?

Man, it's getting hard to keep up with the TDS. Far-leftists on ATS are starting to support breaking the laws as long as it goes against the Trump agenda.

a reply to: Lumenari

No no no, they want to see where she was accused, tried and convicted.

They don't want to hear about how everyone is ignoring it...

you know, unlike others who are accused, tried and convicted of crimes from highschool before they even get to a court or a hearing...

originally posted by: Steveogold
a reply to: Lumenari

sorry just asking is this what is called double jeopardy

It's called double jeopardy because you already know the answer, but play along like you didn't now, for the money.

a reply to: gallop

So, because the then-head of the FBI was complicit with her felonies and did not recommend her any charges we should just forget about it and move on?

Nop, I don’t think so. Good thing you are not in charge of these investigations. Judicial Watch is bringing this subject again into light and this time there’s no corrupt James Phoney to cover it.

Get used to it already and save yourself some headaches’ pills.

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: Lumenari

my point is that if she broke a law, then both links in the opening post would have stated it to be so.

if she broke a law then she should be held accountable for it.
but after a senate committee hearing and hours of testimony, she was found not guilty of wrong doing.
did i miss something here?
a link to where she was found guilty of a crime would be nice.

If you read an article about a murder do you wait to be told in the article whether a law was broken?
Lying to Congress under oath and passing classified documents to unsecured servers is against the law.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical


While what you say is true, she is the ultimately responsible party for any and all actions undertaken at her behest. Whilst individuals are responsible for their own actions which violate the law (Hoteham & Cooper setting up the domain and email addresses, Pagliano maintaining the server, etc.), Hillary was the head of the State Department and each use of the system to transmit information deemed to have been classified was a violation of the law.

She is 100% responsible for it all and others might be responsible for parts, but my main point is there is no way she or her team would be ignorant to Government and classified procedures and restrictions. This was not a "my bad"

The only reason she was given a pass was because the Department of Justice told the FBI investigators that it did not matter what was found, no prosecution would take place. Comey's statement merely told us that what she did was wrong, but because it was Hillary, they weren't going to hold her responsible.

True and slight changing of the narrative moved it away from the criminal side of the investigation, very slick....

originally posted by: vinifalou
So let me get this straight...

Hillary used a private server to send and receive classified information to foreign powers, which is against the law, and she signed a document stating she was aware of that, then lied under oath stating she didn't remembered signing it.

Then, the ex-FBI director James Phony, did not recommend her to be charged on that because, in his words, "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" against her.

This only a few days after Bill Clinton met with the AG Loretta Lynch in a private meeting in an airport.

All of these stated above are facts proven over and over again and yet people can't connect the dots because of their extreme BIAS, and now you looney leftists are saying she did nothing wrong and that we shouldn't look at her e-mails in the first place?

Man, it's getting hard to keep up with the TDS. Far-leftists on ATS are starting to support breaking the laws as long as it goes against the Trump agenda.

You forgot the part where they destroyed evidence.... How much wrong does that woman need to do before it is wrong...lol

a reply to: xuenchen

Hi Xuenchen,

Please consider the magnitude of Hillary's de-facto espionage against the United States in light of other infamous prosecuted spies over the years. All Hillary voters will flame me for posting this, but consider the facts and consider the "Hillary defense" where Hillary isn't even a suspect even though the magnitude of damage far out weighs that done by all incarcerated spies. Hillary is added to the bottom of this list:


Aldrich Ames --- Convicted of spying for the Soviet Union and Russia 1994 Life without parole

David Sheldon Boone --- Sold secret documents to the Soviet Union Sentenced to 24 Years and 4 Months

James Hall III --- Sold eavesdropping and code secrets to East Germany and the Soviet Union from 1983 to 1988 40-year sentence

Robert Hanssen --- Spied for Soviet Union against the United States --- Life sentence (without parole)

Ana Montes --- Espionage for Cuba 25-year prison term followed by five years probation

Harold James Nicholson --- twice-convicted spy for Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service 23 years 7-month sentence

Stewart Nozette --- Attempted espionage and fraud against the United States 13-year sentence

Ronald Pelton --- Sold secret documents to the Soviet Union. Life sentence (Released November 24, 2015)

Earl Edwin Pitts --- Pleaded guilty to conspiring and attempting to commit espionage 27-year sentence

Jonathan Pollard --- Passed classified information to Israel Life sentence

George Trofimoff --- Convicted for spying for the Soviet Union Life sentence

John Anthony Walker --- Convicted of spying for the Soviet Union from 1968 to 1985 Life sentence

Hillary Clinton --- Compromised over 72,000 classified documents that are now believed to be in the hands of the Peoples' Liberation Army --- Hillary is above the law, immune to arrest.

a reply to: Lumenari

In September 2, 2010, email exchange marked classified, longtime Clinton confidante Lanny Davis tells Secretary Clinton that he could serve as a private channel for her to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu...

Sheesh. Is everyone in government beholden to Netanyahu? It sure seems like it.

a reply to: Lumenari

Has this lying POS been dragged off by the Feds at 4am yet?

If not, then why the hell not?

Nobody else on this planet could blatantly and intentionally violate their SCINDA without consequence. Especially for so many damn code words! Lets see, SI is COMINT I believe (intercepted communications), G is what? Gamma? SI-Gamma? TK is Talent Keyhole which I think is image intelligence from satellites and HCS is for human intelligence sources AKA extremely sensitive compartments that she carelessly exposed to America's enemies by storing/transmitting/handling SCI from somewhere other than a SCIF

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: Lumenari

my point is that if she broke a law, then both links in the opening post would have stated it to be so.

if she broke a law then she should be held accountable for it.
but after a senate committee hearing and hours of testimony, she was found not guilty of wrong doing.
did i miss something here?
a link to where she was found guilty of a crime would be nice.

Senate hearing does not indict people, or determine whether someone is guilty or innocent. They are done for facts finding only and so what you are saying is if they didn't find anything in the hearing then she is innocent on all account possible? I wounder if the FBI and 5 other alphabet agencies did a two year investigation if they come to the same conclusion as you.

You need to understand we are still at the facts finding point and new emails coming forward mean new facts, and if the new email contradicts what she said under oath then we have a problem. This is not to mention she has broken so many security laws that a E-2 in the military would be in Leavenworth for anyone of them, so there is a level of entitlement as she is in the entitled range to have this all over looked as a non-issue.

But as many here have said...as further facts come forward we will see... Hearings ask a lot of questions then they compare them to facts to see if they match up...that is where we are right now..

thank you,
your response was well thought through.