Have Hillary's chickens come home to roost?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

She is the friggin Secretary of State....pretty much every e-mail she sends is of a sensitive nature......even if it is an RSVP for lunch, it shows the movement of a top US official and should be, at the very least treated as unclassified but sensitive.

Sorry, but she is an idiot for having a non-secure e-mail server.....don't care who thinks otherwise.

Full Stop. All correct.

Originally Posted by PaulS

i agree it was stupid - but from what I read there were no classified or top secret emails that where sent. I'm waiting for the OP to come back and maybe provide a link to article he read.

Almost everything was secret, as for specific items, at least two in the released emails were reclassified is "TOP SECRET" and if the linked article is to be, well beyond top secret

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nati...e30714762.html

The inspector general for the Intelligence Community notified senior members of Congress that two of four classified emails discovered on the server Clinton maintained at her New York home contained material deemed to be in one of the highest security classifications - more sensitive than previously known.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nati...#storylink=cpy

That would indicate 2 emails - of a small pool of emails according to CNN - are above TOP SECRET which would indicate compartmentalized classified information that might include things like satellite imagery or stuff NOFORN (no foreign nationals).

So, this is a small set of emails from the small set released by the State Department, of the less than half of emails HC gave to State, after deleting more than half of the files.

This is big and it has been said so for some time but nobody wants to care. The fact that the server was not properly secured means that the potential exists for thousands of emails were possible classified. Anyone else would go to a long time of making little rocks out of big rocks.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

This is big and it has been said so for some time but nobody wants to care. The fact that the server was not properly secured means that the potential exists for thousands of emails were possible classified. Anyone else would go to a long time of making little rocks out of big rocks.

"nobody wants to care"

Her numbers are tanking, and the Maoist Bernie Sanders is ahead of her in NH. I wouldn't say nobody cares. Not as many as should care. Her ratings for trustworthy are low, but it's unfathomable that they aren't precisely 0...or 1, counting Spence.

"Anyone else would go to a long time of making little rocks out of big rocks"

I think it's established that her recent predecessors did the same thing. But as I stated, I think (could be wrong!) that it's now illegal to do what she did, whereas before it was stupid but legal. But the laws don't apply to the Clintons, never have.

I would love, love, love to know what Biden's team is thinking. How can he not run? The DNC cannot let Sanders get the nomination, and he has all the momentum right now.

I love it. Grabs popcorn.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnR

So, this is a small set of emails from the small set released by the State Department, of the less than half of emails HC gave to State, after deleting more than half of the files.

This is big and it has been said so for some time but nobody wants to care. The fact that the server was not properly secured means that the potential exists for thousands of emails were possible classified. Anyone else would go to a long time of making little rocks out of big rocks.

I would venture to say that 99% of the e-mails on that server were, at the very least, Unclassified/FOUO (For Official Use Only). Which means only for people with a "Need to Know"

Don't think Chinese Hackers fall into that category.....

[scottw]

just think about the kinds of things that other candidates have been run out of contention for...that this woman is even a marginal thought as a potential US President is laughable and frightening, she's a disaster ....what's the "state of the dem's"?? this disaster, a socialist dinosaur, biden and chaffee(dumb and dumber)....not crazy about most of the GOP but they sure look great next to the dem's line up of losers

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

not crazy about most of the GOP but they sure look great next to the dem's line up of losers

Have you given Ben Carson a look? I don't think he has a prayer, but my God, the guy is impressive. He went to Harlem yesterday, and told people in Harlem (talk about going into the belly of the beast) and told them that it's not white republicans who are to blame for their problems, but rather the liberal policy "of not showing us respect, not treating us like equals, but patting us on the head and treating us like pets. That's what happens when they don't respect you, but take care of you, so that in turn, you will take care of them". Heroically, he likened liberal policies to Lyndon Johnson's famous statement "if we give these n's free stuff, they'll vote for us for 200 years". He also said that the only solution is to embrace the only values that matter, family and faith.

Brave, and very intellectually honest.

[justplugit]

I always liked him. A bright guy who seems very honest and trustworthy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I always liked him. A bright guy who seems very honest and trustworthy.

He gave a great answer on his abortion position very recently. He said that he worked most of hi scareer as a pediatric neurosurgeon, an dthat he couldn't count ho wmany times he and his team fought all night long, giving everything they had, to save critical babies, sometimes who were still in the womb. So he said that no one should be shocked that he's not in favor of killing babies for convenience.

I thought it was a fair, honest answer.

He just comes across as a decent, honest, thoughtful man.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I always liked him. A bright guy who seems very honest and trustworthy.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

He gave a great answer on his abortion position very recently. He said that he worked most of hi scareer as a pediatric neurosurgeon, an dthat he couldn't count ho wmany times he and his team fought all night long, giving everything they had, to save critical babies, sometimes who were still in the womb. So he said that no one should be shocked that he's not in favor of killing babies for convenience.

I thought it was a fair, honest answer.

He just comes across as a decent, honest, thoughtful man.

So neither of you have any problems with his research on tissue from aborted fetus'?