Posted on 12/21/2016 5:14:49 AM PST by rktman
Is it a crime if the POTUS gave her permission? He obviously knew about it. He probably has his own communications outside government channels just as other presidents have had.
Then every day when she is placed in her cell for the night, one of the deplorables will win the right to SLAM THE DOOR. And give her a piece of our minds.
The damage to her ego far out weighs the 1000 cuts.
BA
For later
I realized this morning I actually don’t know the source of the information on HRCs private email server. I know the NY Times was the first to publish on the topic but how did they find out about it? With the recent stories about it being a disgusted DNC staff person who leaked all the emails to Wikileaks, I am curious to know who tipped off the NY Times. Anyone here know?
Strong work but there appears to be a minor translation error. It should be false exculpatory statements which are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, not faults exculpatory.
HISTORICAL Bttt!
Confidential: "Confidential is applied to information that reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security if disclosed to unauthorized sources."
Secret: "Secret is applied to information that reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security if disclosed to unauthorized sources."
Top Secret: "Top Secret is applied to information that reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security if disclosed to unauthorized sources."
That phrase; "exceptionally grave damage" lets us know that information at the Top Secret level was found on Clinton's personal, un-official, un-secured email server.
Beat me to it by a long shot. I need to read these threads earlier. :)
No problem. I’m glad you posted the full definitions. I’ve had those drilled into my brain for so long when I hear those trigger words, I automatically know what they signify and don’t go into it much further. Thanks.
Will she be punished?
She is a liar, a fraud and a traitor.
That -- and the fact that HRC testified that she NEVER CLASSIFIED anything she sent across the world -- and that her private e-mail system bypassed all classification authorities and safeguards inside the State Department.
I never sent nor received any material that was marked classified."
Hillary Rodham Clinton
~~~~~~~~~~~
It was released: https://youtu.be/YTKLHUI-duc before the election.
Too bad it wasn't more widely disseminated...
"Clinton has emphatically stated that she handled classified e-mail “on a wholly separate system” than her personal system(s)."
~~~~~~~~~~~
Not so, Ray76. What HRC was saying was that her personal e-mail system was totally separate from State Department Systems. (Gotta learn how to parse "Clintonese"...)
Exactly like her "I never sent..." statement, this was a blatant admission of guilt (presented as exculpatory) -- because her personal system totally bypassed DoS systems. Therefore, it was "totally separate". (And, also, totally criminal.)
Watch my video again...
I, TXnMA, guarantee it.
The exact quote is “I communicated about classified material on a wholly separate system.” She clearly was referring to her personal system. Both FBI and DoS determined that she did not have a DoS e-mail address. If she did not have a DoS address and did not use her personal system, then what system did she use?
Her condescending comments are embedded in this short video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E3V3bGsZew&feature=youtu.be
I think your video is very likely correct. I also think Clinton very directly lied straight to the face of the vet at the “Commander in Chief” forum, and by extension to everyone.
Asking her to explain what system she was referring to will cause your scenario to be validated. Either that or a previously undisclosed server will be revealed, which I think is exceedingly unlikely.
1) “I communicated about classified material on a wholly separate system.”
2) "I never sent nor received any material that was marked classified."
Both cannot be true. Which is the lie?
I think that’s it exactly. It’s the chink in her armor. It’s a lose-lose question for her.
She casually and emphatically lies in order to “win” any given exchange, but her statements are contradictory.
These points need to be pressed. They can not both be true.
Weasel wording at it’s finest.
The DCI is in a bind. The NYTIMES and WaPo ran with the story that the CIA leaked to them that the Russians hacked the election.
If the spooks never briefed such info to the congressional oversight committees then they either get spanked or have to publicly admit that it was just Fake News.
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.