Is Hillary Hiding Something

[TuHolmes]

In fact, in looking at this thread, you actually believed Hillary did not have any classified intel on her home computer, because someone mistakenly said only 2 of them were not top secret.  Someone with a top secret security clearance would be a lot more knowledgeable and at least have a basic understanding of the different types of classified information. 

I said no such thing.

Find the quotes where I said she didn't have classified information?

[Dos Equis]

I said no such thing.

Find the quotes where I said she didn't have classified information?

Right here:

Oh I think something is coming out of the fact she had 999 (and counting) classified emails on her personal server. If not her, then one of her minions is likely going to be indicted IMO. 

But as I've said a number of times, I don't think this will prevent her from winning the nomination and likely the presidency.  Voters have shown an ability to ignore dishonesty and incompetence in favor of partisanship. 

So whose report is right?

The ones you're posting or the ones that say she didn't?

What report says she didn't have classified intel on her personal server? 

So she didn't have any classified emails?



The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top-secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.
After a review, intelligence agencies concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets, the source said. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an ongoing FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email setup.
Story Continued Below

Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III made the claim that two of the emails contained top-secret information; the State Department publicly stated its disagreement and asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office to referee the dispute. Now, that disagreement has been resolved in State’s favor, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
However, after an initial version of this story was published Friday, a spokesman for Clapper indicated the issue had not been fully resolved. "ODNI has made no such determination and the review is ongoing," Clapper spokesman Brian Hale said. He declined to say if any changes had been made in recent days to the strict handling requirements for the disputed emails.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-no-highly-classified-215599#ixzz3qlB9a8uN

Did you actually read the link?  From the first line:

"The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top-secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO."

So, assuming their report is true, they are saying only two of the emails are not "top secret."  They don't address the hundreds (999) that are "secret."

Did you read?

it says that THE  2 emails.

Not THAT two emails.

Try reading past the first sentence.

Are you seriously suggesting that only two emails were designated top secret and that is the sum total of the classified intel on her personal server?  If so, you really need to read through this thread, including the last story I posted.  The total count is 999 that were classified secret.  Your story only deals with two emails that were classified top secret.  "Secret" and "top secret" are different classifications, but both are still "classified." 

I'm suggesting that the article I posted states that someone said that 2 of them were highly classified and that the statement was proven false.

Are you saying that you know for a fact that there basically 1000 classified emails on the server?

You questioned whether any of her emails were classified, based on a story saying only two were not top secret. 

I don't know anything for a fact, because I'm not involved in the investigation.  I just know what I've read, which says the count is up to 999. 

[TuHolmes]

Right here:

Where did I SAY she didn't?

Sounds like I was questioning the articles.

Which I was.

Only in your mind is a question a statement.

[Dos Equis]

Where did I SAY she didn't?

Sounds like I was questioning the articles.

Which I was.

Only in your mind is a question a statement.

You were questioning whether any of the emails on her computer were classified, based on a report that only two were (mistakenly) not deemed top secret.  Not exactly the kind of thing you would expect from someone with a top secret security clearance.    

[TuHolmes]

You were questioning whether any of the emails on her computer were classified, based on a report that only two were (mistakenly) not deemed top secret.  Not exactly the kind of thing you would expect from someone with a top secret security clearance.    

Yes. Questioning the articles based on the way they were written. Very simple.

What do you know of Top Secret anything?

Zero.

[Dos Equis]

Yes. Questioning the articles based on the way they were written. Very simple.

What do you know of Top Secret anything?

Zero.

You were questioning whether any of her emails were classified based on a specific designation of only two emails. 

I know a lot about a few things and nothing about a lot of things. 

I also know you certainly do not sound like someone who had a top security clearance.  But whatever.  Don't really care one way or the other. 

[TuHolmes]

You were questioning whether any of her emails were classified based on a specific designation of only two emails. 

I know a lot about a few things and nothing about a lot of things. 

I also know you certainly do not sound like someone who had a top security clearance.  But whatever.  Don't really care one way or the other. 

That is absolutely not what I questioned at all.

However you said one thing accurate. You know nothing about a lot of things and this is one of them.

Enjoy your ignorance.

[andreisdaman]

Because I know the basic facts.  Do you think it was wrong for her to run classified intel off her home computer? 

AS far as I know, yes I do....you see, unlike you, I give definitive answers..... ....but I have heard that its not illegal for people in gov't to have their own servers.....is this true?...I don't know

[andreisdaman]

I didn't say it was legal.

It is relevant because he asked if it was "wrong". Wrong doesn't equate to legality. Wrong is about morals.

I do not think it was "wrong", morally speaking, due what I mentioned previously.

This is my contention as well..I do feel something was sneaky about it...but was it against the law?..I just don't know at this point...which is why I'm hoping the FBI can explain all of this when the time comes

[Las Vegas]

This is my contention as well..I do feel something was sneaky about it...but was it against the law?..I just don't know at this point...which is why I'm hoping the FBI can explain all of this when the time comes

You referred to it as "idiotic" before, though.

[TuHolmes]

This is my contention as well..I do feel something was sneaky about it...but was it against the law?..I just don't know at this point...which is why I'm hoping the FBI can explain all of this when the time comes

As I stated in the beginning. There have been numerous laws added and changed.

I have always questioned as to whether it was against the law while she was secretary of state. It very well may have been, but it also may have not.

That's for courts to decide.

Did she use "poor judgement". I would say yes, but that doesn't equate to illegal or "wrong".

There is also the premise of doing what it took to "get the job done". You ask for forgiveness after the fact.

[Dos Equis]

AS far as I know, yes I do....you see, unlike you, I give definitive answers..... ....but I have heard that its not illegal for people in gov't to have their own servers.....is this true?...I don't know

So you think it was wrong and idiotic, but you are waiting for the FBI to tell you . . . what exactly? 

[andreisdaman]

You referred to it as "idiotic" before, though.

idiotic because it was something that someone in her position should have known better than to do..... and sneaky because it does feel like she was trying to hide something....however was it illegal???....I don't know..all I'm saying is lets let the FBI do their investigation and decide....

but the great pontificator has already said the law doesn't matter to him....that unless the FBI says she's guilty as he believes then she is still guilty

[Dos Equis]

idiotic because it was something that someone in her position should have known better than to do..... and sneaky because it does feel like she was trying to hide something....however was it illegal???....I don't know..all I'm saying is lets let the FBI do their investigation and decide....

but the great pontificator has already said the law doesn't matter to him....that unless the FBI says she's guilty as he believes then she is still guilty

Well if you're a simpleton, then yes that's the takeaway from my comments. 

If, on the other hand, you are the slightest bit analytical, you would read that I said whether she is actually guilty of a crime is something for the courts to decide. 

[andreisdaman]

Well if you're a simpleton, then yes that's the takeaway from my comments. 

If, on the other hand, you are the slightest bit analytical, you would read that I said whether she is actually guilty of a crime is something for the courts to decide. 

I asked.........."okay...so if the FBI says that Hillary did nothing wrong, will you accept that? ...yes or no"


your answer........."Absolutely not"

so the takeaway is that you are a partisan and don't care about whether she is guilty or not...she will always be guilty in  your eyes.  you don't care what the law says

[headhuntersix]

I'll except it if we find out that she didn't do anything wrong...not that she was not charged or that the FBI referred her for charges and the shitheads at the DOJ didn't want to prosecute. Huge difference and something we may never know. However with the leaks coming out it would appear the FBI is going to refer charges and that they are prepared for the fact that DOJ will not act.

[Dos Equis]

I asked.........."okay...so if the FBI says that Hillary did nothing wrong, will you accept that? ...yes or no"


your answer........."Absolutely not"

so the takeaway is that you are a partisan and don't care about whether she is guilty or not...she will always be guilty in  your eyes.  you don't care what the law says

1.  If we take what you say at face value, there is still absolutely nothing showing that I view this as a Democrat or Republican issue.  

2.  You apparently are not smart enough to distinguish between intrinsic right/wrong and actual guilt or innocence following a criminal proceeding.

3.  I specifically made a distinction between right/wrong and criminal guilt/innocence:

I know its difficult for Obamabots to deal with facts, but it's obvious that woman mishandled classified intel.  Whether she should be found "guilty" is something for the courts to decide, but anyone with half a brain, who isn't a hack, can look at we already know and conclude what she did was wrong.  

4.  You agreed that what she did was wrong and idiotic.  So, you actually agree with me, but are apparently not smart enough to realize you actually agree with me.  

[andreisdaman]

1.  If we take what you say at face value, there is still absolutely nothing showing that I view this as a Democrat or Republican issue.  

2.  You apparently are not smart enough to distinguish between intrinsic right/wrong and actual guilt or innocence following a criminal proceeding.

3.  I specifically made a distinction between right/wrong and criminal guilt/innocence:

4.  You agreed that what she did was wrong and idiotic.  So, you actually agree with me, but are apparently not smart enough to realize you actually agree with me.  

its very difficult to argue with someone who doesn't admit when they are wrong....and then distorts the argument when he is clearly wrong or caught saying something he claimed he didn't say.........again..very very unbecoming of a mod....lets just move on and pretend this didn't happen...you're good at that

[Dos Equis]

its very difficult to argue with someone who doesn't admit when they are wrong....and then distorts the argument when he is clearly wrong or caught saying something he claimed he didn't say.........again..very very unbecoming of a mod....lets just move on and pretend this didn't happen...you're good at that

I just gave you the quotes.  Like I said, Obamabots have trouble dealing with facts.   

[Dos Equis]

Getting closer to an indictment. 

Inspector General: Clinton emails had intel from most secretive, classified programs
By  Catherine Herridge,  Pamela Browne 
Published January 19, 2016
FoxNews.com

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton's emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government's most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers.

Fox News exclusively obtained the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified "several dozen" additional classified emails -- including specific intelligence known as "special access programs" (SAP). 

That indicates a level of classification beyond even “top secret,” the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate’s handling of the government’s closely held secrets.

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels,” said the IG letter to lawmakers with oversight of the intelligence community and State Department. “According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”

Intelligence from a "special access program,” or SAP, is even more sensitive than that designated as "top secret" – as were two emails identified last summer in a random sample pulled from Clinton's private server she used as secretary of state. Access to a SAP is restricted to those with a "need-to-know" because exposure of the intelligence would likely reveal the source, putting a method of intelligence collection -- or a human asset -- at risk. Currently, some 1,340 emails designated “classified” have been found on Clinton’s server, though the Democratic presidential candidate insists the information was not classified at the time.

“There is absolutely no way that one could not recognize SAP material,” a former senior law enforcement with decades of experience investigating violations of SAP procedures told Fox News. “It is the most sensitive of the sensitive.”
 
Executive Order 13526 -- called "Classified National Security Information" and signed Dec. 29, 2009 -- sets out the legal framework for establishing special access programs. The order says the programs can only be authorized by the president, "the Secretaries of State, Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, or the principal deputy of each."

The programs are created when "the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional,” and “the number of persons who ordinarily will have access will be reasonably small and commensurate with the objective of providing enhanced protection for the information involved," it states.

According to court documents, former CIA Director David Petraeus was prosecuted for sharing intelligence from special access programs with his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell. At the heart of his prosecution was a non-disclosure agreement where Petraeus agreed to protect these closely held government programs, with the understanding “unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention or negligent handling … could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation.” Clinton signed an identical non-disclosure agreement Jan. 22, 2009.

Fox News is told that the recent IG letter was sent to the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees and leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and State Department inspector general.

Representatives for the ODNI and intelligence community inspector general had no comment.

In a statement, State Department spokesman John Kirby said, “The State Department is focused on and committed to releasing former Secretary Clinton’s emails in a manner that protects sensitive information. No one takes this more seriously than we do.”

The intelligence community IG was responding in his message to a November letter from the Republican chairmen of the Senate intelligence and foreign relations committees that questioned the State Department email review process after it was wrongly reported the intelligence community was retreating from the “top secret” designation.

As Fox News first reported, those two emails were “top secret” when they hit the server, and it is now considered a settled matter.

The intelligence agencies now have their own reviewers embedded at the State Department as part of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process. The reviewers are identifying intelligence of a potentially classified nature, and referring it to the relevant intelligence agency for further review.

There is no formal appeals process for classification, and the agency that generates the intelligence has final say. The State Department only has control over the fraction of emails that pertain to their own intelligence.

While the State Department and Clinton campaign have said the emails in questions were “retroactively classified” or “upgraded” – to justify the more than 1,300 classified emails on her server – those terms are meaningless under federal law.

The former federal law enforcement official said the finding in the January IG letter represents a potential violation of USC 18 Section 793, “gross negligence” in the handling of secure information under the Espionage Act.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/inspector-general-clinton-emails-had-intel-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html?intcmp=hpbt1

[Dos Equis]

Judge Nap: Case Against Hillary Is 'Overwhelming, Damning and Grave'
Jan 20, 2016 // 9:34pm
As seen on The Kelly File
 
Gutfeld: 'What's Worse: Hill's Treatment of Emails or Bill's Treatment of Females?'

Judge Nap: New Revelations Make Hillary 'Prime Candidate for Prosecution'

'Worse Than What Snowden Did': Krauthammer on Latest in Hillary Email Investigation

In the wake of a bombshell report that her private email server contained the U.S. government's most highly classified intelligence, Hillary Clinton should lawyer up, Judge Andrew Napolitano said on "The Kelly File" tonight.

"Mrs. Clinton should be consulting very high-powered, national security criminal defense lawyers," Judge Napolitano said, explaining that lawyers with national security clearances would be able to see the evidence against her.

"The case against her is overwhelming, damning and, from her perspective, grave."

He explained that Clinton's claim that she never sent or received anything marked "classified" is merely a word game, because no intelligence is marked "classified."

"It is marked 'confidential,' 'secret,' 'top secret,'" Judge Napolitano said. "Under 'top secret,' there are four sub-markings, the most sensitive of which is this Select Access Privilege, which is what two dozen of her emails had on there."

He asserted that Clinton's negligent treatment of national security secrets and her failure to safeguard those secrets must be the basis of an indictment.

Watch more above.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/01/20/judge-napolitano-hillary-clinton-should-hire-high-powered-lawyers-email-investigation

[Dos Equis]

Fmr. US Attorney Mukasey Calls for Criminal Charges Against Hillary

Image: Fmr. US Attorney Mukasey Calls for Criminal Charges Against Hillary
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton with one of the mobile phones that have caused her campaign so much distress. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, Pool/File)
By Morgan Chilson
Friday, 22 Jan 2016

Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Friday called for criminal charges in Hillary Clinton's email investigation as more missives surfaced from her personal server that were highly classified. He joined two other federal prosecutors expecting such charges.

"The current news, reported in the Journal and elsewhere, is that her server contained information at the highest level of classification, known as SAP, or Special Access Program," Mukasey said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. "This is a level so high that even the inspector general for the intelligence community who reported the discovery did not initially have clearance to examine it."

Charges are justified, Mukasey said, pointing to Clinton's "contempt" for security measures and citing a Fox News report that showed other potential problems, including "the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed."

"Whatever the findings from that part of the probe, intelligence-community investigators believe it is nearly certain that Mrs. Clinton’s server was hacked, possibly by the Chinese or the Russians," Mukasey said. "This raises the distinct possibility that she would be subject to blackmail in connection with those transactions and whatever else was on that server by people with hostile intent against this country."

Two former U.S. attorneys have already predicted the FBI has developed a strong case in its email investigation that will result in criminal charges,

"I expect the FBI to conclude the investigation within 60 to 90 days and make a recommendation to the Justice Department, and I believe they will recommend a series of charges involving the classified information," Joseph diGenova, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia during Ronald Reagan's presidency, told the Washington Free Beacon.

Matthew Whitaker, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa in the George W. Bush administration agreed that the public evidence so far indicates "serious legal violations" have been uncovered by the FBI's look at whether classified information was mishandled by Clinton’s use of private email while she was Secretary of State.

Mukasey likened the situation to that of Gen. David Petraeus, who was charged with disclosing classified information, and he said he expects public officials will do their duty and follow the Clinton situation through to its proper closure, which means criminal charges.

In 2015, Petraeus was sentenced to two years of probation and received a $100,000 fine in connection with his case, CNN reported.

Online, many called for Clinton's indictment, but some also believed it will not happen.

"Let's hope there are some in DC be it the FBI or DOJ who feel it is their duty as Americans and brave enough to put an end to this travesty of a person Hillary, the biggest liar, pandering , power and money seeking politician I have ever seen," one person commented on the WSJ article. "She makes Nixon look like a person who only deserved a slap on the wrist."

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/michael-mukasey-hillary-clinton-email-criminal-charges/2016/01/22/id/710446/#ixzz3y06aPXv8

[Las Vegas]

Pretty ridiculous for them to have added that stupid, meaningless comment at the end.

[Dos Equis]

Going to be increasingly difficult for the MSM to ignore this.  Her entire defense is ridiculous.  It doesn't make a hill of beans difference whether items were "marked" classified.  And that "special access programs" info is no joke.  She is in deep kimchee. 

[Dos Equis]

EXCLUSIVE: Clinton email exposed intel from human spying
By Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne 
Published January 22, 2016 
FoxNews.com

At least one of the emails on Hillary Clinton's private server contained extremely sensitive information identified by an intelligence agency as "HCS-O," which is the code used for reporting on human intelligence sources in ongoing operations, according to two sources not authorized to speak on the record.

Both sources are familiar with the intelligence community inspector general’s January 14 letter to Congress, advising the Oversight committees that intelligence beyond Top Secret -- known as Special Access Program (SAP) -- was identified in the Clinton emails, as well the supporting documents from the affected agencies that owned the information and have final say on classification.

According to a December 2013 policy document released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence: This designation "is used to protect exceptionally fragile and unique IC (intelligence community) clandestine HUMINT operations and methods that are not intended for dissemination outside of the originating agency.”

It is not publicly known whether the information contained in the Clinton emails also revealed who the human source was, their nationality or affiliation.

Dan Maguire, former Special Operations strategic planner for Africom, told Fox News the disclosure of sensitive material impacts national security and exposes U.S. sources.

"There are people’s lives at stake. Certainly in an intel SAP, if you’re talking about sources and methods, there may be one person in the world that would have access to the type of information contained in that SAP,” he said.

It is not known what the impact was on the source, nor the findings of a damage assessment by the agency that controlled the source.

Separately, Fox News has learned that the so-called "spillage" of classified information is greater than the “several dozen” emails identified in the January 14 letter to Congress, which also acknowledged for the first time, that the Clinton emails contained intelligence beyond Top Secret, also known as Special Access Programs (SAPs).

The source said that the "several dozen" refers to the main or principal email thread identified by reviewers, not the number of times that classified information was forwarded, replied to or copied to people who did not have a “need-to-know” using unsecured communication channels -- in this case a personal server.  More than one Special Access Program was affected.

"It's pretty tough to have SAP program material out in the public domain. I mean, it's a huge foul if that occurs,” said Maguire, who retired after 46 years of service, and who was involved with Special Access Programs throughout his career.  Maguire says a damage assessment to the program is mandatory and immediate.

"It's a fairly laborious investigation. Once you know something was out to one person, that person sends it to 15, 15 send it to someone else -- so it's very difficult to ascertain where it all went but that's all part of the damage control aspect to get all the information back in the box."

The two declarations provided to the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence committees -- as well as the leadership of Senate Foreign Affairs with oversight for the State Department -- include the emails containing SAP intelligence, as well as supporting documents from the agency affected, showing how they reached the determination it came from one of its sources, and not from publicly available information.

When the inspector general’s letter was first reported by Fox News, Hillary Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said, “This is the same interagency dispute that has been playing out for months, and it does not change the fact that these emails were not classified at the time they were sent or received.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/22/exclusive-at-least-one-clinton-email-had-most-sensitive-designation-exposing-that-it-had-human-intelligence-source-reporting.html?intcmp=hpbt2