Hillary Clinton + Sid Blumenthal + classified information = trouble

originally posted by: randomthoughts12
a reply to: introvert

Seems pretty clear to me that this information was classified but maybe I missed something to. Also how as to other agencies can determine they were originally classified. I am hoping you are just riding the line of the rules or the law like the patriots lol. If you think this lady is not beyond crooked then you had to much of her kool-aid and pizza! I would like to think that people are arguing for the technicalities of the law and not for her. I wonder how many IT correctors are on ATS on her pay roll sometimes for sure!

Some information is deemed classified when originated....its been that way for a long long time

The information that can be deemed classified when it originated is specified in the Executive Order 13526:

Section 1.1. Classification Standards. (a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;

(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;

(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories. Information shall not be considered for classification unless its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security in accordance with section 1.2 of this order, and it pertains to one or more of the following:

(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;

(b) foreign government information;

(c) intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;

(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;

(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;

(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;

(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security; or

(h) the development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction.


The government will present its case that some of these emails were deemed classified went sent, or originally classified. Hillary will argue that they are over classified, or were classified at some point after everything left her possession. That is why this will at least be recommended for Indictment... there is really no way around it at this point.

And do not forget Section 1.1. Classification Standards:

(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security. That clause will play a huge role in this.

I hope this is not considered too far off topic, but I have a couple of questions:

1.) Why did Clinton have a private email server to conduct government business in the first place? How is that considered an okay thing to do?

2.) Do you think her private email server was more secure than a state-department classified server, or less secure?

3.) Why does the guy who set it up, who has been given immunity to testify, still refuse to testify?

a reply to: schuyler

1.) Why did Clinton have a private email server to conduct government business in the first place? How is that considered an okay thing to do?

Good question. I don't know. But it was legal to do and not unheard of, though I believe they may have changed that policy since.

2.) Do you think her private email server was more secure than a state-department classified server, or less secure?

Don't know that either. We have to wait and see what the investigators tell us.

3.) Why does the guy who set it up, who has been given immunity to testify, still refuse to testify?

He has cooperated fully with investigators. He only refused to testify in front of a congressional hearing. Which is a smart move because they learned from the Benghazi hearings that this would be nothing more than a witch hunt.

originally posted by: schuyler
I hope this is not considered too far off topic, but I have a couple of questions:

1.) Why did Clinton have a private email server to conduct government business in the first place? How is that considered an okay thing to do?


2.) Do you think her private email server was more secure than a state-department classified server, or less secure?

3.) Why does the guy who set it up, who has been given immunity to testify, still refuse to testify?

1.) Why did Clinton have a private email server to conduct government business in the first place? How is that considered an okay thing to do?

Apparently, it was for personal convenience and a desire to have total control over what information that she had to release.

2.) Do you think her private email server was more secure than a state-department classified server, or less secure?

Absolutely not secure.... they were using a Blackberry Enterprise server for email... there were over 20 accounts on that server, each one tethered to a Blackberry someone was walking around with that is extremely unsecure.... walking around with them in foreign countries to be exact. Extremely high chance everything was compromised early on and stayed like that for years.

3.) Why does the guy who set it up, who has been given immunity to testify, still refuse to testify?

That's a good question... my guess, and it is a guess, is that the FBI has advised him against testifying until their investigation is completed.

Just as the email snafu should be coming to a head, there is starting to be a lot of talk of releasing 11 pages that were censored from the 9/11 report. I wonder if the 9/11 release will be used in part to cover up the Clinton Email & Foundation crimes?

You know the scenario headline 9/11 and the Saudis, then have hidden in the obscure corners of the news a one paragraph story the DOJ will not indict HRC.

Lets hope I am wrong!

at reply to: schuyler

It makes absolutely no sense to route your communications through private servers when they had everything taken care of already for free.

The only thing I can come up with is that she was allowing the information's to be bought and "seen" by prying eyes.

She should be charged under some kind of espionage violation.

It was careless and obviously there is more to this story than what meets the eyes.

I hope Trump has some info for us.

There's no way we can trust this woman in the presidency.

a reply to: introvert


Talk about intellectually dishonest...

1.) Why did Clinton have a private email server to conduct government business in the first place? How is that considered an okay thing to do?

"Good question. I don't know. But it was legal to do and not unheard of, though I believe they may have changed that policy since."



Name one single government official who used their own personal private email server to conduct all their official government business...

Name one, you can't because she is forging her own frontier here........ not unheard of my butt... sheesh

a reply to: introvert

Any person in a position of trust, ie, holding a clearance, should easily be able to recognize whether information is sensitive or secret by it's content -- Whether it is marked or not!!!!!! To discuss matters of national security with an uncleared person over open channels is absolutely stupid. This person was the Secretary of State and now wants to be Commander in Chief of the United States.

originally posted by: schuyler
I hope this is not considered too far off topic, but I have a couple of questions:

1.) Why did Clinton have a private email server to conduct government business in the first place? How is that considered an okay thing to do?

2.) Do you think her private email server was more secure than a state-department classified server, or less secure?

3.) Why does the guy who set it up, who has been given immunity to testify, still refuse to testify?

All good questions...the answer to #2 is that, NO,...Crooked Hillary's private server stashed in her basement and then in the bathroom closet of some condo, would NOT be more secure than the government's.

a reply to: RickinVa

Name one, you can't because she is forging her own frontier here........ not unheard of my butt... sheesh

As you wish.

The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government.

Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million emails may have been lost.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.
[5] The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: IAMTAT

There's more to the story than were being told.

a reply to: introvert


Blow more smoke...


Hillary Clinton is the only person who has ever used a privately owned server to conduct their official government business. it was unheard of until she did it.



You are comparing apples to oranges and you know it.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: IAMTAT

There's more to the story than were being told.

With Crooked Hillary, that's par for the course.

It's pretty much how she hired a private stenographer to record her half hour $250K speeches to bankers, never allowing them to be videoed to keep complete control and ownership. The woman is a completely corrupt and paranoid control freak, who maintains TOTAL non-transparency in every crooked aspect of her crooked dealings.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert


Blow more smoke...


Hillary Clinton is the only person who has ever used a privately owned server to conduct their official government business.



You are comparing apples to oranges and you know it.

I just gave you proof.

The Bush admin used a private domain to conduct official government business on a private server owned by the RNC.

The House Oversight committee in an interim staff report, released on June 18, 2007:[20]

At least eighty-eight Republican National Committee email accounts were granted to senior Bush administration officials, not "just a handful" as previously reported by the White House spokesperson Dana Perino in March 2007. Her estimate was later revised to "about fifty." Officials with accounts included: Karl Rove, the President’s senior advisor; Andrew Card, the former White House Chief of Staff; Ken Mehlman, the former White House Director of Political Affairs; and many other officials in the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Communications, and the Office of the Vice President.

The RNC has 140,216 emails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these emails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official ".gov" email accounts. Other users of RNC email accounts include former Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 emails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 emails). These email accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.

Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC email accounts, the RNC has preserved no emails for 51 officials.

There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC email accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records.

The evidence obtained by the Committee indicates that White House officials used their RNC email accounts in a manner that circumvented these requirements. At this point in the investigation, it is not possible to determine precisely how many presidential records may have been destroyed by the RNC. Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC email accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing emails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive.

Care to comment, or are we going to argue about the choice in fruit?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert


Blow more smoke...


Hillary Clinton is the only person who has ever used a privately owned server to conduct their official government business.



You are comparing apples to oranges and you know it.

I just gave you proof.

The Bush admin used a private domain to conduct official government business on a private server owned by the RNC.

The House Oversight committee in an interim staff report, released on June 18, 2007:[20]

At least eighty-eight Republican National Committee email accounts were granted to senior Bush administration officials, not "just a handful" as previously reported by the White House spokesperson Dana Perino in March 2007. Her estimate was later revised to "about fifty." Officials with accounts included: Karl Rove, the President’s senior advisor; Andrew Card, the former White House Chief of Staff; Ken Mehlman, the former White House Director of Political Affairs; and many other officials in the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Communications, and the Office of the Vice President.

The RNC has 140,216 emails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these emails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official ".gov" email accounts. Other users of RNC email accounts include former Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 emails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 emails). These email accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.

Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC email accounts, the RNC has preserved no emails for 51 officials.

There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC email accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records.

The evidence obtained by the Committee indicates that White House officials used their RNC email accounts in a manner that circumvented these requirements. At this point in the investigation, it is not possible to determine precisely how many presidential records may have been destroyed by the RNC. Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC email accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing emails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive.

Care to comment, or are we going to argue about the choice in fruit?

Blow more smoke dude..... no one ever used their own personal email server to conduct official government business...

You attempts to drive the discussion away from the fact the Hillary used her own server by bringing up the fact that numerous government officials used a personal email account is a lame attempt to avoid the fact the Hillary used her own personal server.

Everybody knows some government officials used commercial email accounts from time to time. You are not making a valid point.

Hillary got caught using her own personal unclassified server with classified information on it.. sucks to be her.

Continue to disrupt and change the topic direction,,,, right from the ole playbook.

Sure you do not want to talk about the 17 Classified emails and Sidney Blumenthal... which is what this topic is about?

Or do you feel you can invalidate the fact that a Clinton Foundation employee who had no government clearance was emailing classified information to the Secretary of State and she in turn passed that information on to State Department employees in an efffort to sway their judgement by simply mentioning... ooh looky they used a commercial email and not a .gov email?

That is what this thread is a about.... not Bush using some RNC server.... quit blowing smoke.

a reply to: RickinVa

Blow more smoke dude..... no one ever used their own personal email account to conduct official government business...

What? Many people have have used private email accounts to communicate.

Hillary Rodham Clinton was not the first senior government leader to conduct official business on personal e-mail, a practice that — while discouraged — apparently became widespread enough that Congress tightened rules on its use late last year.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Everybody knows some government officials used commercial email accounts from time to time. You are not making a valid point.

Now you contradict your earlier statement?

Continue to disrupt and change the topic direction,,,, right from the ole playbook.

You asked me to provide an example in which a private server was used by someone to conduct official business. I provided that, per your request, and now I am changing the topic?



Sure. But I hope you realize that I just gave you a case as precedence and it doesn't appear that anyone went to jail.

a reply to: introvert

Damn he got you.

Server not account if you don't know the difference than stop the discussion.

The shills are getting paid more money I've been noticing it a lot more lately.

a reply to: introvert

"You asked me to provide an example in which a private server"

No I did not...I asked you to provide proof of any government official who used their OWN private server to conduct their official business, not someone elses.... that is what I asked.... and you answered by blowing smoke.


Would you care to discuss the fact that a Clinton Foundation employee who had no government clearance was emailing classified information to the Secretary of State and she in turn passed that information on to State Department employees in an effort to sway their judgement.

Anybody else who used a non government email account or what ever, has the same excuse that Hillary doesn't have....

Wasn't my server.... I didn't know that was on there, it wasn't my server.... what classified email? That wasn't my server......

The point is Hillary can't blame anybody else but her.... it was her personal property under her direct control.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: introvert

Damn he got you.

Server not account if you don't know the difference than stop the discussion.

The shills are getting paid more money I've been noticing it a lot more lately.

I provided proof of them using a private server.

The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government.