IG says Hillary FAILED
 

Hillary Clinton failed to report several hacking attempts: IG - Washington Times

"The 83-page report, obtained by The Washington Times, is devastating in its evaluation of Mrs. Clinton’s behavior, saying it can find no record of her getting approval from either security or legal staffers for her unique arrangement. The report also undercuts many of her campaign’s explanations for her use of the system, dismisses comparisons to her predecessors’ email use, and points to repeated hacking attempts that she failed to report."

Can't wait to see the FBI investigation report. Of course, I am not living under the delusion that the AG will prosecute. Obama's AG.

There could be similar reports by 10 different independent Federal Agencies and the current AG will just yawn and ignore them all .
After all this is a " Clinton " we are speaking of and they are " Special " one of our " Betters " .

I hope this country hasn't sunk that low.

"While political opponents of Hillary Clinton are sure to misrepresent this report for their own partisan purposes, in reality, the Inspector General documents just how consistent her email practices were with those of other secretaries and senior officials at the State Department who also used personal email," said Brian Fallon, Clinton's national press secretary. "Contrary to the false theories advanced for some time now, the report notes that her use of personal email was known to officials within the Department during her tenure, and that there is no evidence of any successful breach of the Secretary's server." Clinton Email Report Changes Few Minds | US News

Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha !!! :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1 rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

When they do get to the bottom of this will it be like Watergate?

Hillary-gate !

Your correct. :BigApplause:

So, pretty much everyone in high level positions are breaking security laws?

Get rid of all of them.

That's a nice cover up, but anyone with personal knowledge of the job and procedures, knows that they are blowing smoke. NO ONE HAD PERSONAL EMAIL SERVERS, and no one transmitted sensitive or classified information over the unsecure Internet. I know of the equipment that the SecState uses when they travel, and it is NOT the Internet. I have set up communications for Rice and Powell when they visited in several countries. I even traveled to other countries TDY to assist in setting up their secure/encrypted systems. I have personally met and assisted Powell with his secure system and Powell is/was very tech savy. He was responsible for bringing our systems up to 21st century standards.

So, when they try to tell you that these other VIPs used the Internet, they are blowing smoke. Yes, they used it for non-sensitive business. They used the same system, called the OPENNET that the local hires and uncleared Americans use when they work for the State Dept. Classified information is not transmitted on the same communication system as non-sensitive information and has to be physically moved via a disk or thumbdrive from one system to the other system in order to transmit it. The disk or drive used in the secure system is not even allowed to be interchanged with the two systems. This violation had to be done purposely and planned. This is not just a matter of deleting emails from the unclassified system without authorization. This is blatant misuse of they system, putting American national security at risk.

For Hillary to compare herself with other decent Secstates is despicable to put it politely, and dishonest. Hillary Clinton jeopardized our national security, regardless of her motivation. And she has no excuse because like everyone else hired by the State Dept. she was given training in our communications and she signed the documentation saying so.

If Hillary suggests that she was ignorant, why in the world would anyone want her in charge of our country?

Was "her use of personal email was known to officials within the Department during her tenure"?

Was her use of a personal email server known to officials within the Department during her tenure?

????????????? What officials are you speaking of, her boss...Obummer? She knew what she was doing was against regulations and probably the law, but did it anyway. Any simpleton knows that you have classification levels for a reason and they are meant to be safeguarded. She is a nasty scumbag that should be charged with treason. The bad part of this is that she made her employees accomplices.

You will need to ask Brian Fallon, Clinton's national press secretary. I was quoting him. It's hard to follow along if you don't read the articles that are linked in the thread.

You were not clear. I read the article before there were any replies, but did not see why you repeated the line twice in your post.

I didn't repeat the line twice.

Was "her use of personal email was known to officials within the Department during her tenure"?

Was her use of a personal email server known to officials within the Department during her tenure?

The first line is a quote. " "
The second line is my question about her server.

Why would that matter? If she knows the law and the regs, and she deliberately or negligently ignores this, does she have an excuse if she can claim "well they knew I was doing it" ?

No one is going to admit that they knew she was breaking federal law, by making themselves complicit in her wrong doing.

Why is there no discussion regarding the individuals who sent post-classified emails to her. Could it be they are not running for the Democratic nomination and there is no political gain to be had?

Concerning this issue I believe whatever any Progressive might post on this site .

Me too.

Me 3 ! I ALWAYS believe 100% of whatever the Dem Party , the NY Times , CBS , NBC and ABC have to say about any and all issues .

Her's all you really need:
go ahead and take a look at the rankings.

1) Fox News: 260
2) Wall Street Journal: 383
3) The Drudge Report: 748
4) New York Post: 888
5) WorldNetDaily: 2,692
6) Newsmax: 3,264
7) Free Republic: 3,988
8) The Washington Times: 4,717
9) TownHall: 5,986
10) The Rush Limbaugh Show: 7,624
11) Real Clear Politics: 7,957
12) National Review: 10,346
13) Hot Air: 11,517
14) Michelle Malkin: 12,871
15) Glenn Beck: 13,153
16) Human Events Online: 17,538
17) The Heritage Foundation: 20,746
18) Newsbusters: 21,452
19) Lew Rockwell: 24,677
20) The Weekly Standard: 25,565
21) News With Views: 27,352
22) Sean Hannity: 28,086
23) Pajamas Media 28,969
24) The Ludwig von Mises Institute: 29,116
25) Atlas Shrugs: 29,548
26) The American Thinker: 29,980
27) Cybercast News Service: 32,348
28) Neal Boortz: 32,857
29) Reason: 33,254
30) Lucianne: 34,135
31) Ann Coulter 36,864
32) The Cato Journal: 39,187
33) Daily Paul: 41,465
34) The Volokh Conspiracy: 42,021
35) Bill O’Reilly: 42,533
36) Redstate: 42,655
37) Conservapedia: 43,866
38) Power Line: 44,542
39) Jewish World Review: 44,765
40) Front Page Magazine: 48,645
41) Daniel Pipes: 49,692
42) Little Green Footballs: 49,844
43) Campaign for Liberty: 50,638
44) The American Spectator: 52,377
45) Commentary: 55,447
46) GOPUSA: 58,771
47) James Lileks’: 60,536
48) Right Wing News: 63,097
49) Wizbang: 63,427
50) Day by Day: 63,455
51) Moonbattery: 67,850
52) Life News: 69,493
53) Vdare: 70,866
54) Debbie Schlussel: 73,543
55) Republican National Committee: 73,599
56) Lifesitenews: 73,823
57) Dick Morris: 77,187
58) Blackfive: 83,031
59) Outside the Beltway: 83,455
60) American Conservative: 90,579

I have always found #41 Mr. Daniel Pipes to be an excellent resource of true and accurate reporting and insight . More people should embrace his thoughts .

me too

Me Three ! He is 100% unbiased and insightful .:highfive:

The point is that she was the Secstate and broke the law. What her minions did was also against the law, even though she ordered them to break the law. What will make or break her is whether or not they can protect Obama from the fall out since he was also privy to her "classified" emails. They may clear her just to keep Obama from being complicit.

I think they need to prove malicious intent.

" They " do not have to prove that there was anything " malicious " . It is sufficient to find impropriety by demonstrating an " intent " to bend or break the rules . IE a " work around " the system is not permitted no matter the intent .

As a person that formerly worked with ALL communications, classified and unclassified for the State Dept. I can tell you that you are totally correct. There is no "malicious" required at all. The mere fact that classified information was transmitted on an unsecured system, whether marked or not, was a felony. And I would say that there is "implied" intent when you have to physically take that classified information out of a secured area to put it into a work station that is open to the Internet.

Hillary also knew that all ambassador travel itineraries were classified and she put it on the Internet.
Hillary also knew that using a cell phone or blackberry, etc in a secure area is breaking the law too. And she was witnessed doing that on several occasions.

I can only guess at why she has not been charged. And my guess would be that they are trying to cover the POTUS.

I wonder if the Director of the FBI will resign if the AG fails to indict her .

A reporter is not a subject matter expert. A liberal rag is not credible to give an unbiased opinion.

NO MALICE is required to have broken the law. But, she did have intent as evidence is in her emails to her minions, instructing them to remover classification marking before sending them to her. Even then, intent would not be necessary. The fact that classified information was removed from a secure network and distributed via a non-secure network is evidence of a broken law.

WP suggests that a hacker that plead guilty of hacking into her system/server didn't really do it, is ludicrous.

But, you liberals keep believing in republican conspiracies and UFOs and misuse your privilege to vote by voting for another radical, criminal in this case. Also a liar and a thief, as well as a tax fraud.

ALL the D and R politicians are liars, thieves, and tax evaders.

And you probably are also. If you are going to generalize, don't forget to be inclusive.

With party control of 99% of ALL fed gov. Agencies the cover up and systematic erasing of electronic trail has be going on for couple years. This happened first with clintons and her AIDS having 9 months or more to erase files from the server probably with help from the server.

This IMO why she when around fed gov. Secure record keeping sites securing her business from history record keeping and have the ability to remove it.

As far as Obama link? This has been erased the first 9 months before she had to turn over her server for hearings. Any other business or agency under suspension information would of been seized immediately. Not giving the suspected criminal 9 months to doctor or easy files.

Now, this next guestions are will the democratic controlled federal agencies have guts to go after there next head pulpit? IMO I doubt it, that's why it's being dragged out to hide and cover up the evidence. Department heads will be sacrificed as before with no crimes charged and will probably be promoted!

No, and I'm also not trying to control people and take their money.

Progressive Handbook Rule Number 3 :

When the debate becomes too close to the truth then generalize and change the argument . :a040:

"Not all progressives are liberal

Progressivism is a problem-solving method. Historians generally date Progressive Era as 1890-1920, but the progressive method did not end with that date. The progressive method is not an ideology but a pragmatic search for solutions that work, grounded in a healthy skepticism. Thus, for example, Prohibition was a progressive project and was based on the social science of that era, but “The Great Experiment” of Prohibition failed in practice and progressives also worked for its repeal. The 20th century can reasonably be summarized as the rise and spread of the progressive method."

would you agree?

off topic but you have the expertise

How did Snowden have access to top secrets? As a system admin? Are there thousands of system admins working as contractors? Is the security on par with 2015 technology or more like 2000 technology?

President Wilson a former college professor at Princeton was an enthusiastic " Progressive ". And as were many Progressives in his day he was a strong proponent of " Human Eugenics " a philosophy and junk science which held that most races were inferior to the Caucasian Race .

His followers and supporters embraced him and his belief system just as firmly and blindly as those who are promoting Hillary do today .

Today, self-styled progressives are wont, with considerable abandon, to label as racists those who object to their attempts at social engineering. They would do well to rein in their rhetorical excesses and curb their enthusiasm for the administrative state — for the Progressives of yesteryear, on whom they model themselves, really were racists in the precise and proper sense of the term, and in formulating public policy they were true to their principles.

Read more at: | National Review

The labels people put on others are so confusing and misleading. Why bother at all?