SMOKING GUN? Hillary e-mail Instructs Aide To Transmit Classified Data Without Markings

Lest anyone need anymore evidence that Hillary Clinton is as crooked as the day is long...new email evidence has Hillary Clinton telling an aide to strip classification markings from memorandum before sending.

Has the State Department released a smoking gun in the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal? In a thread from June 2011, Hillary exchanges e-mails with Jake Sullivan, then her deputy chief of staff and now her campaign foreign-policy adviser, in which she impatiently waits for a set of talking points. When Sullivan tells her that the source is having trouble with the secure fax, Hillary then orders Sullivan to have the data stripped of its markings and sent through a non-secure channel.

That should be game, set, and match, yes?

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” That’s an order to violate the laws handling classified material. There is no other way to read that demand. Regardless of whether or not Sullivan complied, this demolishes Hillary’s claim to be ignorant of marking issues, as well as strongly suggests that the other thousand-plus instances where this did occur likely came under her direction.

[snip]

However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means.

In response to Clinton’s request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.” Clinton responds “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

hotair.com...

Good Find S & F!

I've noticed Hillary's backers "CNN" are quiet on this one. I would like a less bias source, so I will hold out on my comments until then.

a reply to: IAMTAT

There are so many smoking guns around that wretched woman that you could consider it an arsenal.

I am trying to remember what it is that they were originally looking to prove with the E-mail thing.

If that wasn't one of the things they were looking for in the investigation it will get dropped.

star and flag.

link to state dept release:

foia.state.gov...


It is the real deal... this has to be game over. It's going to be great to see how she tries to dismiss this one.

Directly telling someone to break the law..........priceless!!

Pop the popcorn folks.... criminal charges should be coming soon.

Here's what ticks me off about this. If it was you, me or anybody else, we would be in jail, awaiting the outcome of the investigation. I've had a security clearance, I know the procedures for handling classified information. Thankfully it was before the internet or e-mail.

In 1985 there was a guy in another squadron, who forgot his jacket at the Navy Exchange cafeteria. The jacket was turned over to Base Security who also operated the lost and found. When they got the jacket, they emptied the pockets to log what was there. In one of the pockets they found a Flight Schedule for his squadron. Flight schedules are considered "Confidential" the lowest form of classification at that time. I've thrown one in my flight bag, forgot about it, took it home, found it and threw it in the trash. I've written grocery lists on the back of them. It might have been that the Navy was still recovering from the Walker scandal, but, the guy ended up with a reduction in rank, three months restriction, three months at half-pay and loss of his clearance. Because his job required a clearance, he was administratively discharged from the Navy.

This guy was clobbered over one document in the "Confidential" section. Hilary has hundreds if not thousands of e-mails containing information at the highest levels of classification and she's running for President?

originally posted by: RickinVa


Pop the popcorn folks.... criminal charges should be coming soon.

Probably not...

The sad thing is, even if the FBI recommended an indictment for her actions, Loretta Lynch still wouldn't charge her.

And keep in mind, if a GOP candidate did this and the AG was a Republican, it would be the same outcome - no charges.

The system, and the general population, is screwed either way...

a reply to: JIMC5499

I have close family that work in the bowels of the pentagon and I have also worked in agencies with a secret clearance. There is not only an awareness that one develops for all the small things that become second nature (i.e. locking up the office / cabinets / safe when taking a pee or lunch break, or putting CAC card in one's front pocket outside of a secured area), but an appreciation and respect for what can be communicated or talked about in person or on the phone.

My family member would for example just mention, "I can meet you for happy hour after my meeting in Virginia"... and I had an idea of what metro stop to meet them at, based on where the shuttle from up the parkway would usually drop them off. Granted they are a much higher GS than I, but the point is even as a lowly Contracting Officer things like confidentiality and data security were / are at the forefront of everything one does that works in a clearance environment.

The fact that Hillary, as a cabinet member, head of State, etc. handled things the way she did shows not only criminal behavior, but blatant elitism. Regardless of how this pans out, how could anyone support her as a President??

The indictment still has to make it past Loretta Lynch. It will be interesting to see Obama try to stall this.

a reply to: JIMC5499

If the UCMJ applied to government employees they would be locking up a lot of people.

a reply to: IAMTAT

If Hillary never gets indicted, then it'll show the true partisan nature of our country. Laws don't matter if it's one of your own breaking them.

Wouldn't it be nice to hear just one MSM reporter ask her about this?

I won't hold my breath.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Lest anyone need anymore evidence that Hillary Clinton is as crooked as the day is long...new email evidence has Hillary Clinton telling an aide to strip classification markings from memorandum before sending.

Has the State Department released a smoking gun in the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal? In a thread from June 2011, Hillary exchanges e-mails with Jake Sullivan, then her deputy chief of staff and now her campaign foreign-policy adviser, in which she impatiently waits for a set of talking points. When Sullivan tells her that the source is having trouble with the secure fax, Hillary then orders Sullivan to have the data stripped of its markings and sent through a non-secure channel.

That should be game, set, and match, yes?

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” That’s an order to violate the laws handling classified material. There is no other way to read that demand. Regardless of whether or not Sullivan complied, this demolishes Hillary’s claim to be ignorant of marking issues, as well as strongly suggests that the other thousand-plus instances where this did occur likely came under her direction.


Fox News also noticed the e-mail this morning, although they don’t yet have a copy of it linked:

However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means.

In response to Clinton’s request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.” Clinton responds “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

Ironically, an email thread from four months earlier shows Clinton saying she was “surprised” that a diplomatic oficer named John Godfrey used a personal email account to send a memo on Libya policy after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi.

Did those talking points get illegally transmitted on Hillary’s order? If so, then Sullivan may find himself in legal trouble, too. Paragraph (g) makes it clear that “each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.”

This explains why more than a thousand pieces of classified information have found their way into Hillary’s unauthorized and unsecured e-mail system — and why the markings have been stripped from them. Hillary herself apparently ordered the Code Red, so to speak.

hotair.com...

I must be the only one who doesn't understand why people are making a big deal about this whole e-mail thing. Seems quite desperate to keep repeating this over and over, have they no other political ammo?

Quick, sweep it under the rug!

You didn't see anything.

Now back to the crucifixion of Mr. Huxtable! (and not Billy Clinton)

originally posted by: butcherguy
Wouldn't it be nice to hear just one MSM reporter ask her about this?

I won't hold my breath.

And if they did, then what?.. What will it solve?

a reply to: theySeeme

A couple questions. Have you ever held a security clearance? How familiar are you with federal law regarding security clearances / classified information?

For me personally this isn't political ammo. I'm not a democrat or republican, but I have personally seen people get fired / lose clearances for much less than what she did.

I am a fed employee and have family that are fed employees. There are plenty of people that bash us, but what Hillary did is emblematic of the real problem with feds - lack of accountability among management. If heads of departments aren't held accountable for breaking federal law (or even giving the appearance of breaking federal law - which is considered breaking the public trust) then what kind of message does that send to the rest of the federal employees?

Now back to the crucifixion of Mr. Huxtable!

A serial rapist - yes they should. While "they" are at it, how about getting the bribe takers also.

a reply to: IAMTAT

I am not an expert in internet or political protocol, but this sounds like a good ol' fashioned paper shredding.

I don't know how old Hilliary is but should she be wise enough to know that if you don't put a padlock on your filing cabinet anyone can access it-the same rules applies online.

It's a monumental screw up and maybe someone should send her a copy of 'internet for dummies.' Most of the public can protect themselves to a certain extent but we are not rich or a prospective president and you'd think that a woman surrounded by a swarm of people telling her how to act and talk at least one would have some kind of acumen or initiative to say 'that's not the best idea.'

But then again maybe these private correspondences were meant to be private as they may be dubious in nature...

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: butcherguy
Wouldn't it be nice to hear just one MSM reporter ask her about this?

I won't hold my breath.

And if they did, then what?.. What will it solve?

Citizens in an uproar might tend to force charges against her criminal butt.

a reply to: roadgravel

While "they" are at it, how about getting the bribe takers also.

.... which brings us right back to Killary via the "Foundation."