Clinton Emailed Classified Information AFTER Leaving State Dept.

I'm no legal expert or government wonk...but this seems illegal to me.
Wouldn't it be a breach of security to have an EX-Secretary of State sending classified information AFTER leaving her position?

Hillary Clinton continued sending classified information even after leaving the State Department, The Post has exclusively learned.

On May 28, 2013, months after stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton sent an email to a group of diplomats and top aides about the “123 Deal” with the United Arab Emirates.

But the email, which was obtained by the Republican National Committee through a Freedom of Information Act request, has been heavily redacted upon its release by the State Department because it contains classified information.

The markings on the email state it will be declassified on May 28, 2033, and that information in the note is being redacted because it contains “information regarding foreign governors” and because it contains “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”

The email from Clinton was sent from the email account — hrod17@clintonemail.com — associated with her private email server system.
The email’s recipients were Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, diplomat Jeffrey Feltman, policy aide Jake Sullivan, diplomat Kurt Campbell, State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills, and Huma Abedin.

The “123 Deal” was a 2009 agreement between the United Arab Emirates and US on materials and technological sharing for nuclear energy production.

nypost.com...

a reply to: IAMTAT

I hope you keep posting these after she wins and keep this running joke going. Its as if the right just *knew* they'd get her with this, and they havent, and they cant take it.

Another day, another pointless Hillary email thread.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I'm no legal expert or government wonk...but this seems illegal to me.

The thread should have ended right here.

Sadly, it didn't.

a reply to: bknapple32

So you choose not to specifically address the topic?
Too bad.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Oh, I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics that are coming from the Hillary supporters to rationalize the fact that she did this.

Come on folks, Correct the Record for us!

a reply to: IAMTAT

It's not uncommon for people who were involved in a project to touch base even after it is no longer in their hands. She may have been clarifying points made verbally during negotiations in response to a query, for example. No crime in that.

Oh, I see.
They are using the 'Oh there's nothing to this!' excuse.

I'll say it again....
SHE COULD EAT A PUPPY ON LIVE TV AND IT WOULD BE OK WITH THESE PEOPLE.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Wow, just wow. I mean if they don't press charges on this incredibly flagrant shirker of national security, than I'm not sure what to say. This is reprehensible on so many levels, for Christ's sake put this woman in jail, and actually run the story in the mainstream media, that sits in her lap.

I know Obama will pardon her, but I honestly think one of the reasons this crap isnt being enforced is because Obama is involved in some of these chains so he too is culpable, and you know "plausible deniability" and all that rubbish, keeps us from truly digging further into this quagmire.

a reply to: bknapple32

If it's pointless why do you have a need to comment on it?

We need these kinda threads, in order to show our future generations that there were people who fought for the truth. If we are not allowed to get justice for what she has done now, it does not mean we can't get our justice later on. So, yeah, everyone here needs to discuss her crimes, so that people do not forget what she has done.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I'm no legal expert or government wonk...but this seems illegal to me.

The thread should have ended right here.

Sadly, it didn't.

Why do you say that?
Are YOU a legal expert or government wonk? If so...I'd love to hear your actual thoughts on the specifics of this thread.
But thanks for contributing absolutely nothing so far.

a reply to: DJW001

um. unsecured server?

Back on topic...it's hard to know anything with emails still manifesting and most of it being redacted. If it's not a big deal then why waste the time of blacking them out. It's a big deal. If she is elected she's going to be indicted is how I see it. There is too much to ignore and it keeps growing.

a reply to: butcherguy

I see. They are using the 'Oh there's nothing to this!' excuse

It is up to you to explain what is wrong with it.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I'm no legal expert or government wonk...but this seems illegal to me.

The thread should have ended right here.

Sadly, it didn't.

Why do you say that?
Are YOU a legal expert or government wonk? If so...I'd love to hear your actual thoughts on the specifics of this thread.
But thanks for contributing absolutely nothing so far.

You're welcome; I contributed exactly as much as you have with yet another Clinton-bashing thread - nothing.

Here's the first question a logical person would have asked: was the information CLASSIFIED when Mrs. Clinton sent it?

a reply to: Nikola014

We need these kinda threads, in order to show our future generations that there were people who fought for the truth.

Thank you, I do what I can.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I'm no legal expert or government wonk...but this seems illegal to me.

The thread should have ended right here.

Sadly, it didn't.

Why do you say that?
Are YOU a legal expert or government wonk? If so...I'd love to hear your actual thoughts on the specifics of this thread.
But thanks for contributing absolutely nothing so far.

You're welcome; I contributed exactly as much as you have with yet another Clinton-bashing thread - nothing.

Here's the first question a logical person would have asked: was the information CLASSIFIED when Mrs. Clinton sent it?

Do you have some proof that it wasn't?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Here's the first question a logical person would have asked: was the information CLASSIFIED when Mrs. Clinton sent it?

Don't forget: was the recipient authorized to receive it?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: butcherguy

I see. They are using the 'Oh there's nothing to this!' excuse

It is up to you to explain what is wrong with it.

It has already been covered.

Classified material.

Unprotected server.

Common citizen that has no business sending it.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I'm no legal expert or government wonk...but this seems illegal to me.

The thread should have ended right here.

Sadly, it didn't.

Why do you say that?
Are YOU a legal expert or government wonk? If so...I'd love to hear your actual thoughts on the specifics of this thread.
But thanks for contributing absolutely nothing so far.

You're welcome; I contributed exactly as much as you have with yet another Clinton-bashing thread - nothing.

Here's the first question a logical person would have asked: was the information CLASSIFIED when Mrs. Clinton sent it?

Do you have some proof that it wasn't?

I'm not the one making "the claim" Butch.

Keep muddying the water.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Comey stated she should have known how to handle classified info and she either didn't know how to or didn't care. It is one or the other.
It is another example of something she should have been charged with as "anyone doing the same would face consequences". However this is not while at state so would this move from "disciplinary action" to something more serious?


Bottom line to me is if anyone but hillary had done it they would be in jail or exile.