Posted on 02/01/2016 6:25:14 AM PST by ManHunter
The State Department on Friday said for the first time that “top secret†material had been sent through Hillary Clinton’s private computer server, and that it would not make public 22 of her emails because they contained highly classified information.
The department announced that 18 emails exchanged between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would also be withheld, citing the longstanding practice of preserving presidential communications for future release. The department’s spokesman, John Kirby, said that exchanges did not involve classified information.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
They didn’t have to be copied. One of her aids could read them then paraphrase them in an email to Clinton. And I’d bet that is what she meant when she ordered it done.
I'm not being sarcastic here, but you are missing something big.
The US is a third world banana republic with (for the time being) higher living standards. The rule of law began to be dismantled in Slick Willie's first term. There is no rule of law now. I mean that to be taken literally. The law is what those in power want it to be at any given moment. The "law" is written by unelected bureaucrats appointed by lawless members of the executive branch. American citizens are fined, jailed and property confiscated based on these "laws" that were never passed by a legally elected legislature.
These unconstitutional "laws" are being upheld by judicial hacks and cronies appointed for life by the lawless executive branch and confirmed by collaborators in the US congress pretending to be an "opposition party".
We have reached the point where Obama and his DOJ no longer even feel the need to put forth some mealy mouthed excuse when they violate or refuse to enforce the law. They just do & and dare the rest of us to do something about it.
That's why it is very easy to see why she will not be indicted or convicted or punished.
But ABC came out this morning and said Clinton broke no laws.
As someone else pointed out, the copy may not have been electronic. Copying from a system rated to handle secret level or above to removable media always involves automated audit trails, paperwork, authorizations, reviews, etc. However, as another poster noted, someone could make note of pertinent details and then paraphrase the information in a non-secure system. This is an intentional violation. There is no "talking around" or obfuscating classified.
That may be one way Clinton is trying to skate out of this: by claiming that she personally never copied classified to her system. BS. Doesn't fly. Two problems with that for the Clinton criminal enterprise.
One, there are security classification guidelines that outline what kinds of information is considered classified. Anyone working with a program is given access to the guidelines and expected to familiarize themselves with it. For example, if you were working with submarine designs, maintenance, etc. the guidelines would probably admonish you that performance specifications (eg. top speed, maximum depth, endurance, etc.) are classified. You don't have to know the actual numbers to know that if you see this data, marked or not it should be considered classified. Clinton and her staff should have known better. Ignorance of the SCG is no excuse.
Two, if anything, such a tactic (claiming she didn't know and it wasn't marked) would merely make her that much more unfit to be Commander in Chief. The Sec. State, Commander in Chief, and a relatively few others in government service have what is called "original classification authority." That is, they are entrusted to have the good judgement to look at information, any information, and deem it classified. Everyone else has "derivative classification authority." They mark/handle information as classified because it came from a source that marked it as classified, or it meets the criteria in the SCG. Clinton claiming she didn't know is an admission she lacks the good judgement to know what is classified or not. Such an admission should be an immediate disqualification from any further consideration for a position of trust - ie. President.
Hogwash. They are under orders to release the emails. If they are of a sensitive nature, find a third party to review them for relevance.
Remember, this release is all related to Benghazi. Communications between Clinton and Obama are central to the issue. The State department doesn't get to decide what is releasable.
Oh, I agree with you completely on principle! But who is going to force their hand? Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, the Obama inJustice Department, the Supreme Court?
In his new video “The Clinton Chronicles 2015,” Larry Nichols, the former Clinton guy who did the original video in 1994, says the whole email scandal—broke by the New York Times, after all!—was done for the calculated purpose of making her out to be an underdog. After she rises above this adversity, she’ll win the presidency.
Or something like that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS7uSmG-R34
Thank you so much for your very detailed response, I appreciate it.
Making sense of the Clintonspeak obscurification requires wading boots, a shovel, and suspension of rational thought.
Thanks again.
Wow. I thought I had all of the layers of tinfoil I needed. There are few conspiracies that I won't consider.
If this isn't all leading up to eventual exoneration and another 60 Minutes catapult interview a la 1992, it means they're actually out to get her. (NYT doesn't break news of this sort without a motive.) And if that's the case, who are they for, Bernie? I hope so. But, no way. It's gotta be someone else.
My paranoid self was listening to Limbaugh saying how this was all going to end. Long story short, not guilty move on. To me it almost seemed like Limbaugh himself was softening up the Right for the eventual Clinton acquittal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.