ADVERTISEMENT

IG reports says that Hillary's Server contained material beyond Top Secret.

I have seen nothing from this Justice Dept which leads me to believe they would prosecute the Dem front runner.

Hard to believe the Dems would nominate her in a two person primary.
 
Oh, I very much doubt that they would prosecute her. And she knows that, which makes the statement that no one is too big to go to jail that much more laughable. And basically she means everyone else.
 
Reach? Everyone who has dealt with classified info knows that people typically get charged with a crime for much less. If you believe that the rich and powerful should live under the same laws as the rest of us(cry about the 1 percent some more) then you should be rooting for a prosecution.
 
eastcane said:
Nice reach guys.
Click to expand...

Blind partisanship knows no bounds. I often wonder why so many areas of our country is in such bad shape yet no one seems to care. Then I come to this board and it all makes sense.
 
eastcane said:
Nice reach guys.
Click to expand...

Uh, this isn't just a Fox story. CNN, CBS, and even the Liberal's best friend NBC are reporting it. Hillary's computer buddy and her lawyer don't have clearances, but even if they did they wouldn't be allowed to see this level. She fought to keep her server's existence secret. Now if I drive falling down drunk and don't have a wreck, I am still subject to prosecution...ask General Petraeus about letting out secrets. If our enemies saw this they aren't going to come forward and say they did. We will never know.

There is no excuse for what she did. Then there was the story about not needing to carry two phones...of course that stuff shouldn't be on her phone anyway. She isn't even a good lair.

But to top it all of by saying "no one is too big to go to jail." There are reasons she lost to Obama when she was the favorite and reasons why Bernie is gaining steam and Biden is kicking himself for not running.
 
As Joe Friday would say, "Just the facts, man, just the facts."
 
eastcane said:
You guys have anything else?
Click to expand...
LOL

sheep_herd_looking_at_camer.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe
"Do you have anything else besides smoking gun evidence that she committed a crime?"

Nope, that's all we have, man
 
  • Like
Reactions: jesterondirt
I'm going to give this article from Politco the same credence you would give if I quoted an article from Fox News.

The article doesn't bother to give the name of the former aide. It does give the name of a Clinton spokesman. There is no evidence nor was anything sworn to.

A former aide to George Washington told me "The old guy got senile and sent everything back to London."

The aide said none were classified but I don't believe him anyway.
 
The problem isn't the occasional use of a personal email address. The problem receiving and transmitting sensitive intelligence over this medium then giving access of the same to unsupervised personnel in an unsecured location while lying about the content and use.

Criminal at the worst. Very poor judgment with sensitive intelligence at the best. Either way it's not something you want somebody who wants to lead this country to have done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: URedskin54
TUMe said:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-server-classified-ig-report/index.html

Including some on "special access programs," which are above "top secret."

I believe the old term was "Eyes Only."

But that was on her personal server in violation of regulations and laws. Does she really believe that no one is to big too go to jail?
Click to expand...
That all depends on a number of things, and it is too soon to rush to judgement. Technically, there is no such thing as "Above Top Secret", but I am guessing this deals with SCI data or something like that, which the media often reports this way.

It is the policy of my employer, and I believe the US Government as a whole, to not acknowledge any classified data that may be in the wild. That is, if you came up to me and told me, "Hey, I heard a recent news story about <classified bit of data>, have you heard it?", I would expressly NOT be allowed to say "Hey, that information is classified", whether it was true or not.

The same would be true if someone (accidentally or not) sent me an email containing classified information that was supposed to be on my classified email account (Note: her email account in question was unclassified, so even if she had used government servers, having classified info on it is a big No-No.). As policy, I absolutely should not respond to the sender with "Wow, you just sent me classified info over an unsecure channel!" The proper response is to quietly report it to security and not draw any other undue attention to it.

The same applies to information that was not initially classified, but later became classified. If I publish a paper or send an email that is unclassified, but some information later becomes classified, the proper response is not to try and go back and delete all references, as this is likely impossible if it has been published, and will just draw extra attention.

So it depends. Did she initiate the communication? Was it classified at the time it was sent? Did someone else send it to her? If so, did she recognize it as classified and report it? All of these things matter a lot, and I don't have nearly enough information to make that call.

None of this means I think it was a good idea for her to use a home server. That was dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
Clong83a said:
Did she initiate the communication? Was it classified at the time it was sent? Did someone else send it to her? If so, did she recognize it as classified and report it? All of these things matter a lot, and I don't have nearly enough information to make that call.
Click to expand...
These were back and forth communications, and it doesn't really matter who initiated it. Yes, it was classified at the time, and she didn't report it. These are the problems. If she received classified info on her personal email, then reported it and did nothing further...there wouldn't be a problem.

Even the lowest rung federal workers have to do sensitive material training once per year. She is required to take it as well. So for this to happen at this level is extremely alarming.
 
"Technically, there is no such thing as "Above Top Secret", but I am guessing this deals with SCI data or something like that, which the media often reports this way."

For civilians. For example, civilians with a Top Secret Clearance probably do not have access to the code to launch a nuclear attack. I'm sure that wasn't in these emails. This is where need to know comes in and it is truly above top secret and compartmentalized. The same is almost surely the case with the names and locations of operatives.

But these emails were available to be seen, first by her home brew computer staff and later by her attorney, or at least, in the procession of her attorney. The clear example is General Petreaus and the woman he shared information with. She had a clearance, but it was still improper to share somethings with her.

In fact, it is very hard to believe that there is not something "above top secret." The very existence would be above Top Secret.
 
Last edited:
ITS Staff said:
These were back and forth communications, and it doesn't really matter who initiated it. Yes, it was classified at the time, and she didn't report it. These are the problems. If she received classified info on her personal email, then reported it and did nothing further...there wouldn't be a problem.

Even the lowest rung federal workers have to do sensitive material training once per year. She is required to take it as well. So for this to happen at this level is extremely alarming.
Click to expand...
You seem to have access to much more reliable information regarding the details of her email exchanges than I do. If all that is true, she did indeed mess up. I am not defending her, just giving a couple of plausible explanations for why someone in her position may very well have classified info in her unclassified email. I'll reserve judgement for now. If she messed up, then so be it.

Filing a open security report that says "Hey, I think I have classified info in my inbox" is also a huge no-no. Any such security report would necessarily be classified itself.

And yes, it does matter who initiated a classified conversation in the open. IF it wasn't her, then her job at that point is to contact security, in secret, and follow their instructions. That may or may not include deleting the email, or even responding to the email in question while trying to change the subject. Not saying she's innocent, just saying I doubt we yet have all the facts. And if the emails are indeed SCI, I highly doubt you've read them to know for sure what she said or if she tried to deflect and change the subject.

TUMe said:
"Technically, there is no such thing as "Above Top Secret", but I am guessing this deals with SCI data or something like that, which the media often reports this way."

For civilians. For example, civilians with a Top Secret Clearance probably do not have access to the code to launch a nuclear attack. I'm sure that wasn't in these emails. This is where need to know comes in and it is truly above top secret and compartmentalized. The same is almost surely the case with the names and locations of operatives.

But these emails were available to be seen, first by her home brew computer staff and later by her attorney, or at least, in the procession of her attorney. The clear example is General Petreaus and the woman he shared information with. She had a clearance, but it was still improper to share somethings with her.

In fact, it is very hard to believe that there is not something "above top secret." The very existence would be above Top Secret.
Click to expand...

Just nitpicking, but ALL classified information is need-to-know only, even just 'regular' secret. SCI stands for Secret Compartmentalized Information, which is basically the type of stuff you are talking about. You need a TS clearance with an SCI approval (take an extra polygraph), and, as always, a 'need-to-know'. I imagine launch codes and undercover agent identities are only 'need to know' for a very very small handful of people, which would make them illegal to share with someone who has a TS/SCI, but has no need to know, as you point out. It doesn't change the fact that you don't need anything other than TS/SCI and a need to know. In any case, I don't want to distract from the main point.
 
I agree with you Clong, my point is that take for instance the mission to get Bin Laden, facts around Benghazi [in realtime], or how we would reply to a certain set of provications, would be a smaller compartment. The information that the President, the Secretary of State, and Joint Chiefs would have would be an extremely small compartment. 99.9 percent of people with top secret clearance would not and should not be in that group.

Whether that is called "beyong top secret" or Top Secret limited to a small group is a matter of semantics. The Secretary of State would be in a very small group receiving some information and is responsible to protect that information.
 
TUMe said:
I agree with you Clong, my point is that take for instance the mission to get Bin Laden, facts around Benghazi [in realtime], or how we would reply to a certain set of provications, would be a smaller compartment. The information that the President, the Secretary of State, and Joint Chiefs would have would be an extremely small compartment. 99.9 percent of people with top secret clearance would not and should not be in that group.

Whether that is called "beyong top secret" or Top Secret limited to a small group is a matter of semantics. The Secretary of State would be in a very small group receiving some information and is responsible to protect that information.
Click to expand...
Agreed on all points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe
Lol if they've broken a law, prosecute. We know Hillary broke the law
 
Last edited:
So why is the FBI investigating HRC? Surely BHO didn't sick them on her.

The answer is that they contained information that was Top Secret Plus. The next time a policeman stops you for doing 80 in a 60 mile an hour zone tell him you saw someone doing 70.

Why did Hillary apologize? Why did she try like hell to avoid turning information over and wipe her server? In Hillary fashion she first said she did nothing wrong, then apologized, then a few months later said she did nothing wrong and Politco says everyone does it.

Why is the current State Department refusing to release some that it says are just too sensitive to be released. She turned it over to her lawyer though. Either he read all of the those emails himself or he had staff help. Did everyone of his staff have Top Secret clearances and permission to see Secret Compartmentalized Information? Did the people who dealt with her personal server have the clearances to see this stuff.

Why are there laws against failure to closely secure classified information?

Are those laws less important than Hillary's convenience? Why didn't someone tell her that you can have more than one email account on a computer or cell phone? If you have two email accounts you don't need to carry two phones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L

Classified material found on Weiner's laptop....how is no one being charged?

Replies
19
Views
444
Crossfire
lawpoke87
L
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back