Some of Hillary's E-Mails are so above top secret, law makers are not allowed access...

a reply to: nwtrucker

You see, the problem isn't so much that Hillary is a corrupt lying criminal - everyone already knows this.

The PROBLEM is that her supporters simply don't care.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
One can see the direction this is going. Hillary looks done. Finished. At least as far as electability goes.

Doubtless, Obama will sign off a broad number of pardons to all involved in his administration's activities before he leaves office. So one can basically forget any significant prosecutions of higher ups in the next administration, no matter which side 'wins'.

www.foxnews.com...

Add Presidential pardons to the list of things that need to go.....

You somehow 1) KNOW people will be convicted of crimes and 2) KNOW Obama will pardon all of them. That is a pretty far fetched scenario.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: nwtrucker

You see, the problem isn't so much that Hillary is a corrupt lying criminal - everyone already knows this.

The PROBLEM is that her supporters simply don't care.

I don't support her. I am just not taking the email thing or Benghazi at the face value the Conservative press gives us.

I am fairly certain there are too many skeletons in the closet, but those two issues I am not concerned about.



Cartoons will not make me be become concerned.

a reply to: reldra

Sure the "Conservative" press amplifies.

But the investigation releases are coming from the Inspector General.

He was appointed by Obama.

Too many people are confusing the real thing with the controlled opposition from the Clinton Campaign.

The classified info in the emails has been confirmed by a government agency at the Executive level, not just wild speculation.

originally posted by: coop039
Nothing will happen. In fact, Id wager she will be the next president.

You just made me throw up a little bit.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The articles I read mention dozens emails and SAP violations,


Can you link the Times article, so I may sate my curiosity?

thanks AD

“This is the same interagency dispute that has been playing out for months, and it does not change the fact that these emails were not classified at the time they were sent or received,” Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said.

“It appears that this may still revolve around a State Department employee forwarding a published news article about the drone program,” he said. “If so, it would further reinforce how absurd it is to suggest that Secretary Clinton did anything wrong.”

NY Times

"How a New York Times public article that goes around the world could be in any way viewed as classified, or the fact that it would be sent to other people off of the New York Times site, I think, is one of the difficulties that people have in understanding what this is about," Clinton said.

The emails were likely retroactively classified, she said.
"But even if they have retroactive concerns and doubts, that doesn't change the fact that these were not marked classified at the time they were sent or received."

The Hill

Well, better starting auditing every single American's email habits, especially our soldiers and everyone that works for the Feds. They all should be required to hand over their google email, yahoo! email, and whatever other personal email passwords to the government so we can all be sure none of them have read and shared any articles like that New York Times article in their private life, from private computers. . .

a reply to: reldra

Really? The list of people getting Presidential pardons is long and not exclusive to either party.

It's traditional. Whether you'll agree or not, the perception is Obama has and does, at the least, stretch the envelope, Constitutionally speaking. If there's any chance of collateral damage to his 'legacy' via prosecution of others, it's a safe bet Presidential pardons will be forthcoming, to suggest that it is far fetched is .....far fetched....

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I was hoping to find a more definitive answer to the contents of the emails in question. What I got was left with the same questions I have had all along. Did forwarded articles really contains SAP material, or is someone lying?

Clinton said the emails that are being referred to contained a forward of a New York Times article on a classified drone program. "How a New York Times public article that goes around the world could be in any way viewed as classified, or the fact that it would be sent to other people off of the New York Times site, I think, is one of the difficulties that people have in understanding what this is about," Clinton said. The emails were likely retroactively classified, she said.

source

So she says she is in the clear, not what I was really looking for.

I guess we wait and see if the people ever get a straight story on Clinton's emails, server and their legality.

Sadly everything I have read about this over the last two days, is lacking two things, the details and facts.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: reldra

Sure the "Conservative" press amplifies.

But the investigation releases are coming from the Inspector General.

He was appointed by Obama.

Too many people are confusing the real thing with the controlled opposition from the Clinton Campaign.

The classified info in the emails has been confirmed by a government agency at the Executive level, not just wild speculation.

The entire press has amplified. Of course the Conservative press did. I am not looking at any releases from the Clinton Campaign.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: reldra

Really? The list of people getting Presidential pardons is long and not exclusive to either party.

It's traditional. Whether you'll agree or not, the perception is Obama has and does, at the least, stretch the envelope, Constitutionally speaking. If there's any chance of collateral damage to his 'legacy' via prosecution of others, it's a safe bet Presidential pardons will be forthcoming, to suggest that it is far fetched is .....far fetched....

Yes, really. You are trying to predict the future. Unless you have some sort of website that proves you predicted the future in the past, yes REALLY.

I don;t think he has stretched anything. In comparison to other presidents, absolutely not. Where is this PERCEPTION? Is this your psychic thing again?

a reply to: reldra

Hmm. Have you considered that if a President doesn't issue 'pardons', his own sins might not be forgiven by the next sitting President?

I 'predict' the democrats will continue dumping on Trump. I 'predict' the republicans continue dumping on Hillary. Damn, my 'crystal ball' is good......

Or they so discriminating and horrifying that they must hide it to prevent people lose in it for good.

Here's a simple choice:
1.) Did the Intelligence IG, who already had a TS/SCI clearance, need to obtain limited SAP clearance just to be able to read a New York Times article clipping?
...or..
2.) Is Hillary herself, desperately deflecting by highlighting some innocuous element of a much larger-scale and wider-ranging intelligence abuse case?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Some strange things in that National Public(relations) Radio story.

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element,” McCullough said in a letter to Congress. “These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels.”


A spokesman for Clinton said earlier Wednesday that an inspector general who reported finding highly classified emails on the former secretary of State's server was colluding with Republicans in attempts to attack the White House hopeful.

So we have an Obama Executive Branch agency Inspector General (McCullough) appointed by Obama saying something in an official capacity, *and* we have the Clinton Campaign saying it's a Republican conspiracy !!!

I submit NPR is colluding with DNC Chair DebbieWS !!!!

Sure looks like it.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The articles I read mention dozens emails and SAP violations,


Can you link the Times article, so I may sate my curiosity?

thanks AD

“This is the same interagency dispute that has been playing out for months, and it does not change the fact that these emails were not classified at the time they were sent or received,” Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said.

“It appears that this may still revolve around a State Department employee forwarding a published news article about the drone program,” he said. “If so, it would further reinforce how absurd it is to suggest that Secretary Clinton did anything wrong.”

NY Times

"How a New York Times public article that goes around the world could be in any way viewed as classified, or the fact that it would be sent to other people off of the New York Times site, I think, is one of the difficulties that people have in understanding what this is about," Clinton said.

The emails were likely retroactively classified, she said.
"But even if they have retroactive concerns and doubts, that doesn't change the fact that these were not marked classified at the time they were sent or received."

The Hill

Well, better starting auditing every single American's email habits, especially our soldiers and everyone that works for the Feds. They all should be required to hand over their google email, yahoo! email, and whatever other personal email passwords to the government so we can all be sure none of them have read and shared any articles like that New York Times article in their private life, from private computers. . .

no, no, no you have got the wrong concept here. She received work emails on a personal server not that she just has a personal email account. The general who did this with his mistress actually never sent the information and i will explain how he did it. They knew each others passwords so they would write a letter and save it to drafts then access each others emails and read the draft. Funny thing is the drafts never actually got sent and they used i think google not a government issued email system. Hilary on the other hand had government issued emails on her personal server! And as others have stated if the emails are not an issue why cant the public see them in their entirety! Any blacked out text is an admission of guilt. Also I wonder if her server had anything to do with the Chinese hack that got a lot federal employees personal information stolen! If that happened she is screwed!

a reply to: xuenchen

Obama has no reason to protect Clinton now that he's done. He can throw Hillary under the bus if he wants by appointing an IG that is on board with pushing a GOP agenda.

*shrug*

I don't see the problem you're seeing.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: xuenchen

Obama has no reason to protect Clinton now that he's done. He can throw Hillary under the bus if he wants by appointing an IG that is on board with pushing a GOP agenda.

*shrug*

I don't see the problem you're seeing.

Isn't it possible that the IG is actually pursuing his nonpartisan job in a nonpartisan manner?

As for Obama, given his druthers, wouldn't he rather protect the Democratic front-runner (regardless of personal feelings towards her)...in order to protect his perceived accomplishments from being undone by a Republican Presidential successor?

a reply to: IAMTAT

Obama ran against Hilary and her buddy Debbie W. Schultz of the DNC, he knows how they play.

Many feel, Hilary's continued attacks on Obama, after he won the Dem nomination, were leverage to gain Hillary the secretary of state appointment.

So Barry might just sink Hillary, I think it's noteworthy he has not endorsed her.

Hillary is a saint.
I do not understand why everyone has to gang up on her.
She was just emailing stories that she saw in the newspaper.
We shouldn't even have an election. She deserves the Presidency so much.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: xuenchen

Obama has no reason to protect Clinton now that he's done. He can throw Hillary under the bus if he wants by appointing an IG that is on board with pushing a GOP agenda.

*shrug*

I don't see the problem you're seeing.

But McCullough was named IG in Nov 2011.