I'm not going to declare that the sky is falling until I see some evidence of it. I still say that Trump is not stupid enough to think that he can cross the whole Republican party without repercussions.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to know that our elected officials speak the whole truth. Mrs. Clinton seems to have acquired a reputation that is contrary to the whole truth.

Originally Posted by Guest

Self explanatory:

Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin job arrangement - POLITICO

Eventually some of the higher ups in the democratic party are going to say enough is enough. The woman is just not ethical. She needs to not represent the democratic party in general or her gender in specific.

Irrepairably damaged person and character.

Originally Posted by Guest

Wouldn't it be refreshing to know that our elected officials speak the whole truth. Mrs. Clinton seems to have acquired a reputation that is contrary to the whole truth.

Substitute "Lie" for the "truth" and you get a more accurate statement. She is more likely to speak the whole lie, well before telling a truth. It's not in her devious nature.

Well, more of Clintion's emails have been released/recovered. I read some of them, the ones posted and cleaned up. They were definitely, with no doubt marked with classifications, from Confidential to Secret/NOFORN which makes her a major felon if charged. Hard to believe that she hasn't been indicted yet. She has no valid excuse for those classified documents being on an unclassified system. Major violation, big time. If they don't jail her, then they will have to go back and release a lot of violators and reinstate those that were fired for less. She has violated a major national security mandate, and unless someone fabricated those documents, she should go to jail for a very long time.

Originally Posted by Guest

Well, more of Clintion's emails have been released/recovered. I read some of them, the ones posted and cleaned up. They were definitely, with no doubt marked with classifications, from Confidential to Secret/NOFORN which makes her a major felon if charged. Hard to believe that she hasn't been indicted yet. She has no valid excuse for those classified documents being on an unclassified system. Major violation, big time. If they don't jail her, then they will have to go back and release a lot of violators and reinstate those that were fired for less. She has violated a major national security mandate, and unless someone fabricated those documents, she should go to jail for a very long time.

Speaking from direct experience, when a person is granted a top level security clearance you undergo about an hour of initial training, with annual refreshers, and also have to sign a stack of very thorough and intimidating legal forms that are witnessed, signed, sealed etc. The forms basically say " if you fail to protect this highly classified info, you will be prosecuted and go to prison." Failure to protect is a felony(s) and violates various sections of the US Code.

While it's complicated by politics, her position and the Obama administration's inclination to legally pursue or not, the reality is ... Hillary is at major risk of criminal prosecution. She definitely needs a criminal attorneys services at this point.

On a related point, and in my opinion, there is zero doubt that the other major intel services (Russian, China, etc) have copies of everything because the information security (from the IT sense) on Hillary's server was amateur hour and a no brainer to defeat.

Originally Posted by Guest

Speaking from direct experience, when a person is granted a top level security clearance you undergo about an hour of initial training, with annual refreshers, and also have to sign a stack of very thorough and intimidating legal forms that are witnessed, signed, sealed etc. The forms basically say " if you fail to protect this highly classified info, you will be prosecuted and go to prison." Failure to protect is a felony(s) and violates various sections of the US Code.

While it's complicated by politics, her position and the Obama administration's inclination to legally pursue or not, the reality is ... Hillary is at major risk of criminal prosecution. She definitely needs a criminal attorneys services at this point.

On a related point, and in my opinion, there is zero doubt that the other major intel services (Russian, China, etc) have copies of everything because the information security (from the IT sense) on Hillary's server was amateur hour and a no brainer to defeat.

Being a retired Information Officer of the State Dept, I can validate what you said.

Originally Posted by Guest

Being a retired Information Officer of the State Dept, I can validate what you said.

To add to what you just posted, here's what the former Virginia Attorney General said about it ...
======

Since there has been much evasion and obfuscation about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email use, it seems appropriate to step back and simply review what we know in light of the law. It’s also instructive to compare Clinton’s situation to arguably the most famous case of our time related to the improper handling of classified materials, namely, the case of Gen. David Petraeus.

Instead of turning his journals — so-called “black books” — over to the Defense Department or CIA when he left either of those organizations, Petraeus kept them at his home — an unsecure location — and provided them to his paramour/biographer, Paula Broadwell, at another private residence. (None of the classified information in the black books was used in his biography.)

On April 23, Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924. Many in the intelligence community were outraged at the perceived “slap on the wrist” he received, at a time when the Justice Department was seeking very strong penalties against lesser officials for leaks to the media.

According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”

The Petraeus case meets those conditions. Does Clinton’s?

Clinton originally denied that any of her emails contained classified information, but soon abandoned that claim. So far, 150 emails containing classified information have been identified on her server, including two that included information determined to be Top Secret.

She then fell back on the claim that none of the emails in question was “marked classified” at the time she was dealing with them. The marking is not what makes the material classified; it’s the nature of the information itself. As secretary of state, Clinton knew this, and in fact she would have been re-briefed annually on this point as a condition of maintaining her clearance to access classified information.

Then there’s location. Clinton knowingly set up her email system to route 100 percent of her emails to and through her unsecured server (including keeping copies stored on the server). She knowingly removed such documents and materials from authorized locations (her authorized devices and secure government networks) to an unauthorized location (her server).

Two examples demonstrate this point.

When Clinton would draft an email based on classified information, she was drafting that email on an authorized Blackberry, iPad or computer. But when she hit “send,” that email was knowingly routed to her unsecured server — an unauthorized location — for both storage and transfer.

Additionally, when Clinton moved the server to Platte River Networks (a private company) in June 2013, and then again when she transferred the contents of the server to her private lawyers in 2014, the classified materials were in each instance again removed to another unsecured location.

Next we have the lack of proper authority to move or hold classified information somewhere, i.e., the “unauthorized location.”

While it’s possible for a private residence to be an “authorized” location, and it’s also possible for non-government servers and networks to be “authorized” to house and transfer classified materials, there are specific and stringent requirements to achieve such status. Simply being secretary of state didn’t allow Clinton to authorize herself to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials and information.

There is no known evidence that her arrangement to use the private email server in her home was undertaken with proper authority.

Finally, there’s the intent to “retain” the classified documents or materials at an unauthorized location.

The very purpose of Clinton’s server was to intentionally retain documents and materials — all emails and attachments — on the server in her house, including classified materials.

The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it.

It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn’t know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information.

Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad — or worse — of a legal situation than Petraeus faced.

Does this mean she’ll be charged? FBI Director James Comey has a long history of ignoring political pressure. So it’s likely that the FBI will recommend prosecution, and then it will be up to President Obama’s Justice Department to decide whether to proceed. Stay tuned.

Ken Cuccinelli is president of Senate Conservatives Fund and the former attorney general of Virginia

Originally Posted by Guest

To add to what you just posted, here's what the former Virginia Attorney General said about it ...
======

Since there has been much evasion and obfuscation about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email use, it seems appropriate to step back and simply review what we know in light of the law. It’s also instructive to compare Clinton’s situation to arguably the most famous case of our time related to the improper handling of classified materials, namely, the case of Gen. David Petraeus.

Instead of turning his journals — so-called “black books” — over to the Defense Department or CIA when he left either of those organizations, Petraeus kept them at his home — an unsecure location — and provided them to his paramour/biographer, Paula Broadwell, at another private residence. (None of the classified information in the black books was used in his biography.)

On April 23, Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924. Many in the intelligence community were outraged at the perceived “slap on the wrist” he received, at a time when the Justice Department was seeking very strong penalties against lesser officials for leaks to the media.

According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”

The Petraeus case meets those conditions. Does Clinton’s?

Clinton originally denied that any of her emails contained classified information, but soon abandoned that claim. So far, 150 emails containing classified information have been identified on her server, including two that included information determined to be Top Secret.

She then fell back on the claim that none of the emails in question was “marked classified” at the time she was dealing with them. The marking is not what makes the material classified; it’s the nature of the information itself. As secretary of state, Clinton knew this, and in fact she would have been re-briefed annually on this point as a condition of maintaining her clearance to access classified information.

Then there’s location. Clinton knowingly set up her email system to route 100 percent of her emails to and through her unsecured server (including keeping copies stored on the server). She knowingly removed such documents and materials from authorized locations (her authorized devices and secure government networks) to an unauthorized location (her server).

Two examples demonstrate this point.

When Clinton would draft an email based on classified information, she was drafting that email on an authorized Blackberry, iPad or computer. But when she hit “send,” that email was knowingly routed to her unsecured server — an unauthorized location — for both storage and transfer.

Additionally, when Clinton moved the server to Platte River Networks (a private company) in June 2013, and then again when she transferred the contents of the server to her private lawyers in 2014, the classified materials were in each instance again removed to another unsecured location.

Next we have the lack of proper authority to move or hold classified information somewhere, i.e., the “unauthorized location.”

While it’s possible for a private residence to be an “authorized” location, and it’s also possible for non-government servers and networks to be “authorized” to house and transfer classified materials, there are specific and stringent requirements to achieve such status. Simply being secretary of state didn’t allow Clinton to authorize herself to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials and information.

There is no known evidence that her arrangement to use the private email server in her home was undertaken with proper authority.

Finally, there’s the intent to “retain” the classified documents or materials at an unauthorized location.

The very purpose of Clinton’s server was to intentionally retain documents and materials — all emails and attachments — on the server in her house, including classified materials.

The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it.

It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn’t know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information.

Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad — or worse — of a legal situation than Petraeus faced.

Does this mean she’ll be charged? FBI Director James Comey has a long history of ignoring political pressure. So it’s likely that the FBI will recommend prosecution, and then it will be up to President Obama’s Justice Department to decide whether to proceed. Stay tuned.

Ken Cuccinelli is president of Senate Conservatives Fund and the former attorney general of Virginia

Good post, but we all know how D.C. works. Protect your own, unless they disown you. I wonder what the odds are that she will or won't be prosecuted. I wouldn't want to put my money down on a bet.

She is getting desperate though. She met with Obama and was quoted as saying "call off your f..ing dogs, Barack!"