Wasn't she a republican when she was younger ? Before she got into politics?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How classified information should be handled is pretty concrete, but how it becomes classified in the first place is quite subjective. With this specific case, when it became classified is being completely misreported given the current information.

While I'm sure we should (and now do) have laws to prevent this kind of behavior, I still haven't seen any real evidence that undermines her argument of convenience or that laws were broken.

We'll see if the FBI determines this a little or big issue...

The fact they are investigating makes it a big issue.
This is serious stuff that affects our national security.

My wife worked under top secret clearance. If anyone forgot to
lock a cabinet or desk overnight there would be a big red put sticker put on it.
You got fired immediately if you accumulated 3 stickers, and that was a low level position.

Hillary should be fired just for keeping women's pants suits in style. :hihi:

People can die when stuff is leaked like this. Our foreign policy suffers greatly when the other people can read the mail (literally) of the Secretary of State. Maybe Obama is really as smart as you seem to think he is but his efforts were undermined by the beyond negligent handling of secure information and perhaps worse, intent, because his Secretary of State could not keep sensitive effing data on secure networks. Instead she served it on a porcelain platter for the countries that seek (successfully in many ways) to undermine your hero of the people.

I am not a Guvmint Intelligence type though I read a little open source and have known a spook or three (seriously). I am , professionally, an IT person that supports smaller IT and if what HALF has been reported in fairly reliable news sources is legit. She effed up. Big Time.

It is not subjective. It is concrete. It is clearly defined.

http://20committee.com/2015/08/12/th...llarys-emails/

Yes, we will: http://www.npr.org/2015/08/19/432908...m_term=nprnews

Of course. The FBI doesn't pick people at trandom to investigate. If the FBI (who works for Obama, not the Koch Brothers) is investigating her server, it's because there is some evidence to suggest that laws were broken.

Interesting piece puts things in perspective

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hi...rticle/2570680

So it was just used for making copies of e-mails, she shouldn't have had on her personal server in the first place, so she could give them to other people to open up on their non-government secured networks.....Brilliant.

I guess that's no big deal then....maybe she should just put'em up on instagram then.

she's toast........and draft Biden is the response?...gotta hand it to the dems.....while the repubs are sorting things out with their field of many, they don't have anyone running that is as dishonest as Hillary, as dumb as Biden or as distant from America's founding principles as Bernie

Trump, while successful, is a clown. But I think there are soime great talents in that field, and Ben Carson impresses me more and more every time he open his mouth.

What should happen once information is classified is clearly defined but the process as to how it gets there is quite subjective.

The other little item lost on everyone also seems to be that the state.gov email address she "should" have been using isn't supposed to have "classified" information on it either.

Compare this to the gwb43.com debacle and Clinton doesn't even come close...

Only time will tell after the FBI investigation is complete.

Wasn't the server supposed to be in Chapaqua where Hillary felt "comfortable"
because secret service guarded the property there, but ended up in a bathroom in Jersey?

Seeing you like Business Insider (fluff pieces mostly) I link the article from there:

No it's not.....

ALL government networks carry a classification level.....any data....ANY data generated on that network carries that classification until it is authorized to be downgraded to a lower level.

And even if she used her .gov email and transmitted or stored classified data on it, that would be a spill and would generate an automatic investigation.....

And just because documents don't carry a classification of Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret doesn't mean it doesn't fall under other categories that need special attention.

Categories like Unclass but Sensitive, FOUO (For Official Use Only), or NOFORN (No Foreign Nationals).....are all types of documents that may not carry a Classification but still need to be treated appropriately.....

At the very least she is guilty of gross negligence for by-passing government systems/safeguards......if they find out that she knowingly moved classified documents from government systems to Unclass systems, she should be doing time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wonder if Bill is secretly hoping that she does time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:kewl:

If ANYONE else, any mere mortal, had done this, they would already be locked up with an investigation well underway.

The fact that politicians can skirt the same rules that bind the rest of us is absurd and is another indication on how far we have fallen from the path the founding fathers intended.

We the people for the people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Amazing how quickly they forget as soon as they get into office.
I'm sure the Founding Fathers felt it was an honor to serve the people.
I still feel each candidate should only be allowed to spend the same amount
of $ to run for office and shorter term limits applied.
It will never happen as they would have to initiate the change.

Think about it, most of these Congressmen are lawyers capable of making
mega bucks a year but choose to work for less than $200, 000 a year.

IMHO it certainly isn't because they want to SERVE the People. :doh:

That article does absolutely nothing to change what I stated....

It goes kinda like this.


http://youtu.be/CkTBf7HW_rg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If all government networks carry a classification level, yet there was no hard rule against using private email, that would suggest the default classification at state.gov was pretty low, if existent at all.

So if there wasn't a hard rule on using private email, and the state.gov servers aren't supposed to have classified information on them anyway, I don't see where the argument is that she broke any laws. It's a totally different scenario than Petraeus.

Remember that Clinton isn't even the subject of the DOJ investigation and I believe none of the information was sent or received with a classified status.

Sure, it wasn't wise for a variety of reasons but I'm not sure they were doing it to hide anything. If that was the case you'd have a totally clandestine account.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...825-story.html

"“It’s common” that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information."

Interesting that this Jeffrey Smith frequently quoted in you article was several times an adviser to The Clintons

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015...email-scandal/

2 emails that should have been top secret out of over 6,000 doesn't a "systematic effort" make.

Additionally, isn't the outrage over these stats pretty moot without a baseline to compare them against? How common is this?

Its not "If".....they do.....anywhere from "Top Secret" to "Unclassified" , Every network as to be certified to a certain level.....this is what type of information that is certified to be present on that network

She can use private e-mail....there is no Rule against it....but there are plenty of rules a responsible government official must adhere to when transmitting government docs....and putting any classified/unclassified sensitive information on them is a no-no

Again, there are hard rules on what types of documents can be on an unclassed network...if state.gov mail server is on an unclassed network, then she can't have them on that server either

We'll find out when they are done with the investigation, won't we?

Of course she wasn't doing it to hide anything...that's obvious....it was all hanging out there for every hacker in the world to look at...the problem is she should have taken the safeguards to HIDE EVERYTHING....that's the problem

Two emails out of 6K is not the sample pool being discussed. TWO emails out of FORTY in the sample reviewed by the Intelligence Community Inspector General had top secret / compartmentalized information.

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites...n%20server.pdf


Yes - she was at best, sacrificing security for convenience, at worst she was blatantly and willfully defying the rules and logic on handling government information to prevent future investigations against her. Meanwhile, she made it easier for other governments to read the email of the Secretary of State.

The State Department has already released over 6000 emails and another 6000 today I believe which a few hundred of are being referred to other agencies for further review.

The Inspector General decided to take no further action on the two they felt should be top secret and many have even argued the information in them is pretty benign.

Considering we know that state.gov has already been hacked I'm not sure it really means all that much. It's a wake up call to harden everything...

Your right Spence, what better way to wake up to the Dangers then to make an example of a High Profile person like Hillary. Put her in the clink and throw away the key. :)

There's no evidence yet she did anything illegal. Why would you throw her in the clink?

If there are bigger issues our government needs to address then that's a systems problem.