Hillary Faces National Security Establishment ‘Uprising’ Over Emails

a reply to: Metallicus

um...apparently not. On either side.

originally posted by: BarefootInWinter
I'm guessing here...but shouldn't somebody in an IT department have the job of setting up email for any new employees? "Madame Secretary, choose a password with letters, numbers, and a special character with at least one upper case letter." Then she is like, "No thanks I'm already using [email protected]." So IT guy tells his boss, boss realizes this is not standard, questions arise, Hillary is told to use official email, the end. Why didn't that happen?

Better yet, why did NONE of the people she emailed ask ONE of the 50,000 times they got an email "Why are you not sending this classified stuff via official email?" I would have.

I hate Hillary. I really do...but so many other people dropped some giant balls (ha, giant balls...) in all this.

Maybe all that came up, but I don't recall it...

And....
Hillary never reported that a person was emailing her information about Libya that was classified... Including humint data that could have or may have compromised that humint asset.
Especially when we know that that person's email account was hacked..... that person being Sidney Blumenthal. The fact that he was hacked is how the general public found out about Hillary's personal email server.
She should have reported him immediately when she received the emails from him that contained classified information.

a reply to: butcherguy


This is a different issue then her personal sever. This is bringing a private BB into a secured Govt area. I currently work in a government building where you are not even allowed to bring your own phone for many reasons – photographing sensitive documents or top-secret systems, using your phone to eavesdrop on meetings, etc.

Not saying she was right with the personal server – just say that this seems like another issue – one where she asked permission and was told “no.”

Maybe why she did not ask about the personal server.

originally posted by: olbe66
a reply to: butcherguy


This is a different issue then her personal sever. This is bringing a private BB into a secured Govt area. I currently work in a government building where you are not even allowed to bring your own phone for many reasons – photographing sensitive documents or top-secret systems, using your phone to eavesdrop on meetings, etc.

Not saying she was right with the personal server – just say that this seems like another issue – one where she asked permission and was told “no.”

Maybe why she did not ask about the personal server.

Obama communicated with Hillary via email and he was sending/receiving to and from her private email address. He is also on record after the story broke as saying that he found out that she was using her personal email for State Department business 'the same way everyone else did, on the news'.
It was known by many.

US EXCLUSIVE: Clinton Aides Resisted State Department Suggestion That Clinton Use State.gov Account Photo of Chuck Ross Chuck Ross Reporter 3:25 PM 01/18/2016 Bombshell emails from the State Department show that a top official at the agency suggested to Hillary Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin, in August 2011 that the then-secretary of state begin using a government email account to protect against unexpected outages of her private email server. But as the emails show, Abedin pushed back on the suggestion, telling the official, Stephen D. Mull, then the executive secretary of the State Department, that a State-issued Blackberry equipped with a state.gov email address “doesn’t make a lot of sense.” Besides showing that Clinton’s top aides were against the idea of her using a state.gov email account, the emails show for the first time that top State Department officials were aware of Clinton’s private email server arrangement. Read more: dailycaller.com...

They were warned at the time.
She has no effing excuses.

a reply to: butcherguy

Obama communicated with Hillary via email and he was sending/receiving to and from her private email address. He is also on record after the story broke as saying that he found out that she was using her personal email for State Department business 'the same way everyone else did, on the news'.
It was known by many.

Obama knew. He's lying. That may explain why he didn't want to appoint a permanent IG for the State Dept. during Hillary's entire tenure.

If I were the intelligence divisions of the USA, I would be so angry about all of this, I would go to the ends of the earth to get to the bottom of it and if Loretta Lynch doesn't want to do her job, she would get investigated too at some point, in some way.

Quite honestly (and it is my opinion...not a known fact, yet) I would be looking at an espionage ring. That may sound over the top to some, but for those that have done a great deal of research on this, it doesn't seem too farfetched. However, it is a 21st century method and would be very hard to prove.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xuenchen

When ?

That's what I want to know. Every week you repost at least one article about Hillary Clinton's emails from DailyCaller, WND or the like and it's always about some impending something or another that never happens.

Does it concern you that she broke the law by having her own private unsecured server in use for classified emails and is getting away with it so far?

Does it concern you that one week she says for the record she is moderate then the next progressive (at a mostly moderate then a mostly progressive meeting respectively)?

Does it concern you that she takes massive donations from Wall-Street and Corporate America?

Does it concern you that she was one of the biggest pushers to get the TPP through and NOW she opposes it now that the citizens are expressing their disdain en mass?

Does it concern you that she is not concerned about us and that she is a huge pile of lying dog $#!T ?

there was no "law", period...by the way, the republicans have accused both Clintons of murder...remember Vince Foster??......this is par for the course that has been going on for 3 decades....maybe if the republicans as a whole, wouldn't keep "crying wolf" every time some media loon right-winger makes a stupid, statement, they would have some credibility.

a reply to: jimmyx

No. She very likely broke the law.

At issue are four sections of the "law. period.": the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) regulations and Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code.

In short:

The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.

FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."

The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."

Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

Now just stick your head in the sand and go back to sleep.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: jimmyx

No. She very likely broke the law.

At issue are four sections of the "law. period.": the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) regulations and Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code.

In short:

The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.

FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."

The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."

Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

Now just stick your head in the sand and go back to sleep.

and yet, there is no proof that Hillary did any of the things that you listed...which is standard operating procedure for republicans.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

When she gave a thumbdrive containing the emails to her attorneys for 'safekeeping', that easily crosses the line.

a reply to: jimmyx

Wow you must be the judge in the case! We have been waiting for you to rule on that!

Case closed!

I have a question for you. Why are you lumping ALL Republicans into one category?

Has anybody really sat down and contemplated life with Hillary ..... ?

The thought makes me numb, dumbfounded.....accompanied by a feeling of Doom. America scarcely has a functioning government as it is.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: RadioRobert

I see people try to say this a lot.

It doesn't matter whether or not the material is marked with a classification. It's the content that makes it classified not a word stamped at the top.

The mishandling of classified information whether marked or not is a federal crime punishable by up to life in prison.

Hmmm.... You're apparently not one of them I presume. The establishment, that is. Too big to fail. It's on both sides of the so called aisle.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well wait for it. It looks like the FBI is going to question her meaning they are almost done with the preliminary investigation. If there was NO WRONG DOING they would have taken far less and wouldnt be bothering a presidential candidate during her run.....

Looks bad for Hillary

a reply to: theantediluvian It wont ever happen, Loretta Lynch already said that Hillary will not be facing any criminal charges basically no matter what she does.

a reply to: jimmyx The republicans and "right wingers" are not the FBI. The FBI is investigating this , not Ted Cruz and John Katschit.