Pleading the 5th means guilty period...nothing to hide YYYYY plead the 5th....taking the 5th means that your answer might incriminate you....:)

Why is it the only part ofThe Constitution libs believe in is the 5th ammendment, seems like all else is up for negotiation...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think they should review Hillary's Top Secret Clearance to determine, even
now , if she would be eligible to keep it, let alone qualified to run for President.

You both have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this reminds me of one of those snobby obama remarks about being a "Constitutional law professor" and therefor know more about the law etc. than others... but in fact, constantly he proves that he knows almost nothing about the Constitution or the law and is rather, well practiced in various ways and rhetoric to undermine the law and Constitution, deceive and make a lotta chit up :laugha:

Please enlighten us ,Spence. My understanding of TSC is if you are going to work
in a national security position your complete background is personally checked by interviews with the FBI. When I was dating my wife the FBI came to my house and even interviewed my parents as well as myself and many from her job etc. in order for her to get TSC,

There is a "need to know" in order to receive or send classified information.
This is non negotionable, you are dealing with National Security. What could be
more important then to safeguard it. If any one does not lock their office files
overnight they get 3 chances, then lose their TSC and get's fired immediately.
Nothing can leave the workplace.

So you mean Hillary using her own unsecured server for sending and receiving
classified and TSC information should be allowed to keep her TSC ?
No need to goggle the law, common sense says she broke it by using her own
unsecured server, deleted 1000's of e mails when she was found out and refused to turn it over until she was forced to by the FBI.
Spence, you are dealing with our national security upheld by a top government official, and liar to boot. She either had her own reasons to do what she did or she was stupid for not knowing the most important law she was working under.

Time will tell.

OK, the inspector general's office is commenting here about two emails that were not only classified, biut were classified as top secret.

"the overall classification of those two emails remains unchanged. Both emails were classified when they were created and remain classified now."

This seems to contradict Hilary's statement that she received no emails that were classified at the time she received them. Unless the classification was changed at the State Department, which I think would be a crime, since only the Agency that developed the information can change the classification, and neither of these 2 were developed by State.

I'd be curious to know what The Dad Fisherman thinks, since (1) he seems to know a lot about this, and (2) he isn't blinded by either side's ideology.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt1

My remark was in context of pleading the 5th an admission of guilt.

Spence if UUUUUUUU ever in front of a jury and going to plead the 5th UUUUU best speak up and ask if Flyrod is in the jury.......GUILTY....GUILTY......LOL....:)

first question I would want to know is how did it "Jump" Networks? A TS network isn't simply connected/or has the ability to send e-mails to a non-secure network. That usually means that someone had to transfer the docs on purpose. That's a HUGE No-No....

I would also think that someone who has access at the Originating Agency would have to be the one to initiate it. its not like someone with no access can just "Go Get It"

You would think this would broaden the Investigation to the Originating Organization.....follow the trail

Or it may have never jumped networks.

A big factor with this entire topic is how different agencies collect and classify information. Let's say the State Department and CIA gather the same info at the same time. CIA thinks it should be classified and State doesn't. CIA uses classified network and State doesn't. Years later it's reviewed and the CIA says it was classified. State doesn't agree.

The article doesn't say that anyone is claiming that State simultaneously came up with the same info, and chose not to classify it.

From the article..."In both emails, the State Department did not generate the intelligence, and therefore did not have classification authority"

Hilary is sticking to her claim that it's all about differing, subjective classification between different agencies. Well, if State generated the same info and chose not to classify it, then Hilary should be vindicated. If State in fact did independently generate the same information and chose not to classify it, that should be very sinmple to determine. But the quote I just pulled from the article, seems to contradict that assertion.

Let's find out!

^ it all comes down to this, just too many now invested in her being elected. Honestly she is really the Dems only hope, even if Biden decides to run its an uphill battle with all of his buffoonery. Then he will pick Chief E. Warren and blow the whole thing anyway!

Biden will absolutely pick Apache Chief if he gets the nomination, he would need her to energize the radical left wing faction of the party.

So on what planet does information on North Koreas Nuclear Capabilities not carry any classification level....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

LMAO. Right, yoga classes, Chelsea's wedding plans, North Korea's nuclear capabilities, you know, the usual personal stuff.

Spenceworld:eek5: