Posted on 08/31/2015 8:40:31 PM PDT by Nachum
The State Department released more than 7,000 of Hillary Clinton’s work-related emails Monday, the fourth and largest such release to date of the former secretary of state’s correspondence.
The emails, most of which date from December 2009 to December 2010, include approximately 150 containing information that was upgraded to “confidential” status, the lowest category for classified information. That brings the total number of Clinton emails retroactively determined to contain classified information to more than 210.
That is in addition to four emails that the Intelligence Community inspector general determined contained information that was classified at the time that it traversed Clinton’s private email server.
Monday’s release is the third since a federal judge ordered the State Department to release Clinton’s emails once a month on a graduated schedule. While the agency fell behind on its production schedule following releases in June and July, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Monday afternoon that Monday’s release will compensate for the deficit. More than 25 percent of the more than 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to State in December have now been made public.
Here are the most intriguing Clinton emails from the latest release.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
High level staff and the Secretary herself, exasperated that they had to wait for something to be converted from the classified system
Treating the worker bees like functionaries and impediments to progress for the pressing matters to which they Secretary must attend.
This makes me wonder... (Rep Gowdy, are you lurking tonight?)
Who in ‘ops’ did the ‘conversion’?
How does one convert something from a classified system without declassifying the data?
Who authorised the conversion?
Who reviewed the converted data to ensure the information transmitted was either a) no longer classified or b) contained no classified data? I.e. who cleared the data for open transmission?
Who authorized declassification if declassification was required?
Next question...
How is someone in Abedin’s position, and someone of her age, allowed to get away with text speak in an official correspondence with a cabinet Secretary? R U Kdng Me?
Everybody involved in this makes every dictator in the recorded history of government combined look like they were running a lemonade stand.
Oh, are the e-mails in French?
Tranche Dubois is looking for an email marked “Desire.”
You lucky dog.
Always remember, these are the emails Hillary wanted/allowed us to see.
You have hit the nail on its head.
Not if you have a little ( D) next to your name.
Just ask ALL the MSM idiots
“All my life I’ve depended on the timidity of strangers.”
Hildebeest “Tranche Dubois de Cankles” Clinton
The ash trays are flying thick, fast and furious tonight....
I think it’s the author trying to sound impressive.
Hey lookit me, I know a few random words in another language.
The low information folks do not like to be confused with - well....information.
210 classified emails, otherwise known as spillage and anyone else caught dumping this much classified info onto an unclassified network would be in serious trouble. Where are the people with the simple courage to round this woman up and put her away? Why is she still out there joking about wiping off servers and running for president? I know, I know - she’s a friggin Clinton. Completely disgusting.
Probably Craig Livingstone handcuffed to the settee in her boudoir.
Never trust a woman to keep a secret.
If it’s “secret”; then it’s always “secret” .. not just when it’s convenient for Hillary.
NO MARKING IS REQUIRED TO JUDGE IF IT’S CLASSIFIED IN ANY WAY. WHICH MEANS HILLARY WAS SENDING AND RECEIVING ALL KINDS OF CLASSIFIED DATA FROM THE BEGINNING.
It's the INFORMATION in the email that makes it Classified, NOT the marking...
Keep stressing this for the low information voters.
Shouldn’t the pounds of makeup she uses to cover up that face every day be considered the “enhancement?”
In a Nov. 2, 2010 synopsis of the mid-term election, Blumenthal slammed Boehner as ineffectual and unpopular with the more conservative members of his party.
“They are repelled by his personal behavior,” Blumenthal wrote. “He is louche, alcoholic, lazy, and without any commitment to any principle.
“He is careworn and threadbare, banal and hollow, holding nobody’s enduring loyalty.”
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.