Judicial Watch: Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin avoided using secure lines of communication on purpo

Well that's another doozy for sure. Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin apparently didn't like using secure lines of communications because they weren't tech savy enough to figure out how to use them properly. Are you #ing kidding me? Both of these numbnuts used non-secure lines of communication and they blatantly disregarded every security protcol in place just because they were to stupid to find out how things worked and they got really frustrated. Wow.

New emails released by conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch not only shows more pay-to-play, mishandling of classified information and influence peddling, but Hillary and Huma actually complaining about secured lines of communication and ultimately circumventing them out of frustration.

In one email, Hillary actually said she gave up trying to communicate over a secure line and just ‘talked in code unsecure’. Wonderful.

Hillary admits that after attempting to make calls over a secure channel, she just ‘talked in code’ after being unable to connect over a secure line…

In more exchanges, Huma complains about secure lines and had an email sent over a secure line because ‘she couldn’t read the PDF’.

Full story here.

This should come as a surprise to no one.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
This should come as a surprise to no one.

The fact that nobody was alerted by this worries me greatly. How is that not considered a security risk/breach?

a reply to: Perfectenemy

So POTUS may have had some kind of input into his kids public statement which is not illegal, but the former democratic candidate for POTUS while secretary of state lies about turning over government documents, mishandling classified information, sending classified information illegally with no legal repercussions?

No double standard here at all.....and they wonder why we are fed up with career politicians and bureaucrats.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

Stupidity is no excuse for criminal activity...never has been.

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: Perfectenemy

Stupidity is no excuse for criminal activity...never has been.

James Comey disagrees with you lol.

Clinton and cronies should be in prison.

Or they did it to, you know, start this whole narrative that has been chugging along for 2 years now without any end in sight.

Let's keep focusing on Clinton from so long ago while right now, this is going on.

www.cnn.com...

Tom Bossert, the official White House Homeland Security Adviser got suckered by a prankster into giving him his personal email.

Shouldn't we focus on the corrupt one that won.

Rather than the corrupt one that didn't?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

losing means not facing your crimes?

interesting concept....

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Make your own thread than because this is about Hillary Clinton. Highjacking threads is not cool btw.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

yeah last summer was sooooo long ago......

are you upset someone gave out their email address? really?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Let's keep focusing on Clinton from so long ago while right now, this is going on.

www.cnn.com...

Tom Bossert, the official White House Homeland Security Adviser got suckered by a prankster into giving him his personal email.

You are right in respect to some of these people needing a crash course in national/personal information security.
But what Clinton and her goons did was off the charts criminal wise.
Purposely circumventing national security procedures for personal gain is a crime. Period.
I don't think they should get life in prison but to get off scot-free is a travesty.
The fact that her Leftist supporters don't care about it, is a travesty as well.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

It is, but it's Hillary, soooo...

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

losing means not facing your crimes?

interesting concept....

Being part of the elite means not facing your crimes.

I don't like it, but it's the truth.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

so hillary should not face her crimes because she lost???

we should focus on any elected officials that use their office to commit crimes, shouldnt we?

What does JW mean in the headline?

Sorry, Judicial Watch. Got it. Even after reading the article once, I didn't get it. LOL More coffee?

a reply to: Perfectenemy

Read entire link.If true this is very scary stuff.Nice find.To think that woman had a shot at being president is mind boggling.s&f

So she talked in code? I thought her emails were just taken out of context…

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

so hillary should not face her crimes because she lost???

we should focus on any elected officials that use their office to commit crimes, shouldnt we?

The fact she was a nominee means that there won't be justice.

There's mountains of evidence showing her illegal activities.
Even if it's proved she ordered Seth's "robbery" their won't be justice.

The people in charge don't have to follow the same laws as everyone else.
They absolutely should...

But they don't.