Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

22 Clinton Emails Deemed Too Classified to Be Made Public
The New York Times ^ | January 29, 2016 | Steven Lee Meyers

Posted on 02/01/2016 6:25:14 AM PST by ManHunter

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: USCG SimTech

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.


21 posted on 02/01/2016 7:40:56 AM PST by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: chud
I know the Clintons always get away with everything, but the evidence is just overwhelming.

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.

22 posted on 02/01/2016 7:44:06 AM PST by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s, you weren't really there....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ManHunter

But ABC came out this morning and said Clinton broke no laws.


23 posted on 02/01/2016 7:44:47 AM PST by samtheman (Elect Trump, Build Wall. End Censorship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount
Yes, who-ever put the information into an email for Clinton would have to have a clearance. Actually, you would need to be cleared Top Secret, "read into" the special access program, and have a "need to know" in order for anyone else in the special access program to release the information to you.

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.

24 posted on 02/01/2016 8:22:11 AM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ManHunter
citing the longstanding practice of preserving presidential communications for future release

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.

25 posted on 02/01/2016 8:37:51 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kidd

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?


26 posted on 02/01/2016 8:41:41 AM PST by ManHunter (You can run, but you'll only die tired... Army snipers: Reach out and touch someone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

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


27 posted on 02/01/2016 9:04:23 AM PST by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson, 1824)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps

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.


28 posted on 02/01/2016 9:15:40 AM PST by COUNTrecount (Race Baiting...... "It's What's For Breakfast")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
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.

Wow. I thought I had all of the layers of tinfoil I needed. There are few conspiracies that I won't consider.

29 posted on 02/01/2016 9:15:51 AM PST by DungeonMaster (the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
The thing that puzzles me about the scandal is that the NYT broke the news. The NYT is normally in bed with the Clintons, right?

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.

30 posted on 02/01/2016 9:38:47 AM PST by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson, 1824)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
The thing that puzzles me about the scandal is that the NYT broke the news. The NYT is normally in bed with the Clintons, right? 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.

31 posted on 02/01/2016 10:38:33 AM PST by DungeonMaster (the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson