Posted on 01/22/2016 3:45:40 PM PST by Kaslin
In movies, documents have a large, red stamp at the top: Classified. The stamped documents - which have been replaced by e-mails, phones, or thumb drives - have to be protected from the bad guys at all costs. Too bad Hillary Clinton doesn't understand what every American moviegoer over age five knows instinctively.
The Intelligence Community's inspector general Charles McCullough III recently reported that at "least several dozen of the emails sent and received by Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state contained classified material, including intelligence material classified at the highest levels."
The e-mails varied in their levels of classification: "classified," "secret," "top secret/SAP" (or "special access programâ) which includes the highest and most protected national security information.
This is big news.
Clinton has always maintained that none of the emails she sent or received were marked classified. But, as David French wrote, "every single federal employee who handles classified information — from the secretary of state to administrative assistants and Army sergeants — is required to protect both 'marked and unmarked' classified information." Classified information made its way into these "unmarked emails" which couldâve been intercepted by foreign intelligence agencies since she sent them from her private, unsecured server on a private, unsecured smartphone.
Even though Sen. Bernie Sanders said that Americans were "sick and tired" of hearing about her "damn emails," this issue will not go away.
Not for lack of trying.
Charles Cooke described her comical dishonesty on display at her press conference. He wrote,
"As is now clear, Hillary possesses almost none of Bill's remarkable personal virtues. She's not warm or spontaneous or alluring or quick. She has no discernible political instincts. She doesn't even seem to enjoy the human contact on which successful public servants thrive. But boy can she fib with the best of them. From start to precipitous finish, her performance was pure Clintonian evasion. 'What I did,' she argued carefully — after trying a quick ânothing to do with me' for good measure — 'was legally permitted, number one, first and foremost, okay?' 'Number two,' she offered, 'they've already concluded more than 1,200 of the e-mails I gave them have nothing to do with the work, and I said make them public.' 'I know,' she concluded emphatically, that 'there's a certain level of, you know, sort of anxiety or interest in this, but the facts are the facts.'"
Move along. There's nothing to see here.
But then, the Washington Beacon published a non-disclosure agreement that Hillary Clinton signed back in 2009 the day after she took the position of Secretary of State which shows she knew "negligent handling" of classified data could cause her to face criminal penalties. The document which she signed read:
"I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of SCI by me may constitute violations of United States criminal laws… nothing in the agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation."
In other words, this is concrete proof that she knew what her actions were illegal. But, we didn't need proof.
If the Secretary of State didn't know what the basic law was regarding national security, it doesn't bid well for her competency as President. Not that she'll necessarily make it to the Oval Office. This Democratic front-runner is facing an ever expanding FBI investigation, which will invariably heat up with these new revelations. She could even be indicted before any votes are cast.
In the movies, the secret documents are stolen, but the good guys eventually show up before too much damage is done. But in real life, the "good guys" sometimes act like "bad guys."
Let's hope that truth and justice will be re-established before the lights go down on this nation.
Can you imagine if an email turned up where she was discussing the movements of Seal Team 6 ?
Right before they were wiped out...
Question is, should he American people stand for her NOT being indicted?
Very good take on the timing. Worth a bump.
Uh, “the American people...”
the way the case is turning, if they present the actual evidence to the judge, they’ll have to kill him
the men in trouble are david kendell who has this super secret stuff and is totally unauthorized
then there is Bubba. All he had to do to read the stuff was set up hillary’s account on his outlook and he was back in the game. bubba too is guilty
Re: Clinton has always maintained that none of the emails she sent or
received were marked classified
What I don’t get is this: If she performed her job responsibilities using
her personal server, then how could she do her job if she couldn’t
receive and send classified mail through her personal server? I assume she didn’t want to have to go into the office. But if she had everything going through her home server instead of the the government one, what happened to the important classified mail she was supposed to receive and send? If she needed to send important classified information, how did she proceed from her house? Ask a lackey to drive to the office and send it for her? I probably am missing something.
But will the controversial Loretta Lynch do it? She refused to indict Lois Lerner in spite of overwhelming evidence.
“No, she won’t be indicted. The American people wouldn’t
stand for it.”
Correction: The Progressive scu*bags in the electorate would not stand for it.
IMHO
My ex was cleared for Top Secret Crypto. I don't think they use that one any more, but maybe they do.
What does OCD mean?
Once Hillary noticed that she had received a classified email on her unclassified system, she should have immediately reported it to the special security officer. If she didn’t recognize any of the classified items as being classified, then she should never hold a position of trust (government security term).
Her server setup opened up the whole federal government database to any enterprising hacker. Each of our enemies has a copy of our total federal database. Isn't that treason that she knowingly and willfully set this up knowing full well it would be hacked? Or was that her cover to sell secrets to foreign governments.
Lots of possibilities and permutations - all need to be investigated. I hear 150 FBI agents are working full bore on this.
I mean you could go on and on. . . and she's going to walk? Boggles the mind. I hope Trump indicts her. It will take into next year anyway to figure out all the laws broken and each one of the indictable offenses.
If something doesn't happen, we are no longer a nation of laws and it will be time to water the tree of liberty. This is that serious.
NA na na na
na na na na
Hey, Hey, Hey,
Give her the chair!
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
I don’t think she will be indited either.
But I think what will happen is that there will be an under the able deal or plea bargain of some type where several staffers see jail time. PIAPS would then withdraw from the the democratic ticket and the Clinton Foundation would be shut down with the understanding that she will not publish or speak about her “experience” or profit from them in any way.
That is about the best I think we can hope for. I don’t think PIAPS is long for this world so I am not sure how much prison scares her
Depends on how much he hates her relative to Sanders.
I think she’ll skate, but with an end of term pardon. Probably a quid pro quo of some sort.
Her political career is about to end courtesy of one Mr. B. Sanders in the mean time.
Good point. And a distinct possibility. I personally think, though, that Bernie will have it pretty well sewn up by then.
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.