Hillary's email scandal will never go away

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

An email was found by the State Department wherein Hillary told an aide to scrub the classified heading off of sensitive information so it could be sent unsecured.

That is a fact.

Is it? Do you have evidence?
EDIT: I just saw your link to the Daily Mail, and while she did instruct the staffer to strip the heading off, I fail to see this as evidence of the information in the document being sensitive. In any event, she headed the Department of State. Which information was safe to send over an unsecured line was ultimately her decision.

Lash wrote:

She.is.guilty. (Translation for Clinton fans: She exists in a state of having committed a crime.)

Is she? What law did she break?

2 Replies

@Thomas,

You would be correct, Thomas, in that the officer in charge of the Dept of State can lawfully do wtf they please if the US were a dictatorship. Since she hasn't yet assumed that role, she is not above the law.

That being the case, the law she broke follows: unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials. Of course, knowing our crafty heroine, that's probably the tip of the iceberg.

Here's the statute: Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be guilty of this offense.
_______________________________________

This is a very bad girl who does not look good in orange.

2 Replies

@Lash,

If using opinion as fact was illegal several on this site would lookmgood in orange.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Of course, knowing our crafty heroine, that's probably the tip of the iceberg.

Here's the statute: Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be guilty of this offense.

Thank you for citing chapter and verse for me. I took the liberty of highlighting two important words in the statute that you may have overlooked. How did Hillary Clinton lack authority? She was the United States secretary of state. As head of the State Department, how did she not have authority to classify or declassify its documents?

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Here's Obama's Executive Order on classified information.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

The Secretary of State is not specifically referenced as having authority to declassify documents.

The following opens the door to Clinton having the authority to declassify the information in the e-mail, but if anyone outside the State Department was the originator of the classification status, my reading is that she wouldn't have the authority.

Quote:

(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:

(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority;

(2) the originator's current successor in function, if that individual has original classification authority;

(3) a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority; or

(4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official of the originating agency.

I have to think that the information is question was not rendered classified by State since Clinton's campaign and the current State Dept, which seems to be operating as her advocate in all this, would have immediately raised the argument you've introduced. To my knowledge, they have not.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Which would prover her argument that it wasn't classified at the time it was sent is correct.

1 Reply

Now not only is the GOP and IG part of a vast conspiracy to damage Clinton, the intelligence community is after her as well. I'm amazed her supporters continue to buy this nonsense. If and when she is indicted, we will learn from her campaign that the AG and the White House are among the conspirators as well.

I'm sure this is of no consequence to her loyal supporters, but the rest of us should keep in mind that these problems are surfacing from the e-mail she didn't destroy. One can only imagine what the 30,000 or so that she destroyed contained. I know, they were all about weddings, babies and yoga mats.

With new revelations coming with each batch of e-mail released, and additional batches yet to come (once State gets over the devastating effects of the recent DC snow storm) this scandal is not, despite Ms Clinton's hopes and prayers, going away anytime soon. Nor should it until all the facts are known. Instead of her ridiculous demand that classified e-mails be released to the public she should be demanding State release the rest of her e-mail tomorrow.

As for the ridiculous demand, it's as transparent as glass. The government isn't going to release classified documents just to help Clinton's campaign. Even if "over classification" has been involved with some, it stretches credulity to the breaking point to suggest that this is the case with all of them. Clinton knows they won't be released, but she gets to keep bluffing and insinuating that they all were "over-classified."

This could all have been avoided by Clinton if she had simply followed proper procedure. Her explanation for why she did not has been proven false and involved lies that her supporters shrug off. Anyone with any sense knows that a key reason was the fear that if she did not exert sole control over her e-mail, some might be leaked. Even if we accept that this fear could reasonably exist, even if none of her e-mail contained evidence of impropriety, it's still not a legal justification.

Evidence of shady actions by the Clinton Foundation and the likely sale of access to the Sec of State, if not actual political favors, suggest that her e-mail could easily have contained incriminating evidence, and guess what? By illegally controlling all of her e-mail she got to destroy 30,000 of them before releasing the rest to the government that should have had them all along.

There are three elements involved here

1) Clinton's paranoia
2) Clinton's shady dealings
3) A history of always being able to worm her way out of tight spots

It's easy to imagine Clinton taking the risk of keeping her government e-mail on a private server because she was convinced that she could destroy any that were clearly a problem and follow the Clinton playbook on how to avoid accountability, if others popped up.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

According to Blatham, it's all about Vince Foster or some bullshit like that.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

New revelations? I see no new revelations. I see a lot of spin put on old revelations.

State has a time frame under which they are supposed to release the emails. Hillary has called for their release several months ago. A judge has ordered State to release them. State has had issues keeping to that time line in editing the emails before release. All emails were supposed to be released by Jan 29. I guess I haven't seen any news report telling us if the Jan 29 release is all of them or not.

Quote:

the fear that if she did not exert sole control over her e-mail, some might be leaked.

That's a silly argument since any email sent to or from anyone using a government computer would be out of her control and subject to what you claim she was trying to prevent.

Quote:

By illegally controlling all of her e-mail she got to destroy 30,000 of them before releasing the rest to the government that should have had them all along.

Federal laws say each person is supposed to decide for themselves which ones are personal and which ones need to be saved. While you may not trust Hillary, that isn't evidence of a crime. Members of the Bush administration made the same determination and it was OK when they did it just as it is when Hillary did it. What wasn't OK was when the Bush administration conducted official business on RNC mail servers and deleted all the emails that were supposed to be saved under Federal rules. They didn't sort them by personal and government but just deleted all of them.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

No! She's not dictator....yet.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Yeah.. Poor Hillary Clinton. Her life ruined by that one crazy conspiracy theory.

Lame assed apologists.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

2 things on that email chain...

First is that the fax was talking points which we can assume are supposed to be released to the media anyway so unlikely that it was information that was classified.

Second is that the State Department has already said that the item in question ended up being securely faxed after all. Is she guilty of a crime if she told someone to do something and they never did it?

1 Reply

I've gotta say, this email stuff is completely meaningless to me. I'll vote for Hillary without any concerns over 22 emails or whether or not she used a different email server.

I mean, was something dangerous leaked? Was the email server hacked? If the net-net out of all this is just that people don't trust Clinton and that she's a self-serving liar....well, that's true of every person running for president and all politicians in our government.

No news here...at least for me.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Which would prover her argument that it wasn't classified at the time it was sent is correct.

How do you figure that? Any e-mail generated by a State employee could easily contain information that was classified by the CIA, the NSA, the DOD, the White House etc. If someone has a sufficient security clearance, they get to deal with classified information. That they do doesn't mean they classified the information.

0 Replies

Can someone tell me, worse case scenario, what is it that Hillary is guilty of, vis-a-vis these emails? Do they think she shared state secrets with an enemy? What is it?

3 Replies

@snood,

Here, snood:

Quote:

Hillary Clinton email controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi

A controversy arose in March 2015, when it became publicly known that Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used her family's private email server for her official email communications while United States Secretary of State, rather than utilizing official State Department email accounts maintained on Federal government servers. Some experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that her use of private messaging system software, and a private server, and the deletion of nearly 32,000 emails that she deemed private, violated State Department protocols and procedures, and Federal laws and regulations governing recordkeeping requirements. An FBI probe was initiated regarding how classified information was handled on the Clinton server. The controversy occurred against the backdrop of Clinton's 2016 presidential election campaign and hearings held by the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

Can someone tell me, worse case scenario, what is it that Hillary is guilty of, vis-a-vis these emails? Do they think she shared state secrets with an enemy? What is it?

You're in the military aren't you? Shouldn't you know the answer to your question? It's not a matter of "did she", it's a matter of "could have".

Worse case scenario... classified data from the US State Dept was hacked from her private email server. It's classified so we won't be able to find out what it was but the State Dept handles all of our foreign diplomatic missions. Who knows what it could have been.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

She violated record keeping requirements. The horror. Seriously?

3 Replies

@snood,

At worst, she's guilty of a policy and record retention violation. One that I understand many ranking government officials throughout the years have also done.

This is a policy and record retention violation. That's all there is too it. At my job it would warrant an official policy change and better standard and protocols for ensuring that it doesn't happen again. Nothing more.

1 Reply

@snood,

Exactly.

This is precisely why no one cares about her emails.

1 Reply

Hillary's email scandal will never go away

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know