In other words, you don't know--and you're creating a defense for Hillary out of thin air. The truth is nothing like what you're making it out to be

rickyp wrote:Fate

In other words, you don't know--and you're creating a defense for Hillary out of thin air. The truth is nothing like what you're making it out to be

:

Yes Fate. Your quote shows who set up the server... I've said exactly that ...
Now: Who let him?
What arm of Homeland security allowed this guy to operate in this fashion and set up a potentially risky private server?

Why do you have all these security organizations if they won't do their jobs?

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Fate

In other words, you don't know--and you're creating a defense for Hillary out of thin air. The truth is nothing like what you're making it out to be

:

Yes Fate. Your quote shows who set up the server... I've said exactly that ...
Now: Who let him?
What arm of Homeland security allowed this guy to operate in this fashion and set up a potentially risky private server?

Why do you have all these security organizations if they won't do their jobs?

Oh my.

bbauska wrote:So let me get this straight...

If someone does something wrong, say robbing a bank; and the police do not stop the criminal act, it is the police who are in the wrong? Is the bank robber culpable at all? That is if the bank robber knows that robbing banks is an illegal act.

It makes it much worse if the bank robber is responsible to know that robbing banks is illegal due to his/her job position held.

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:So let me get this straight...

If someone does something wrong, say robbing a bank; and the police do not stop the criminal act, it is the police who are in the wrong? Is the bank robber culpable at all? That is if the bank robber knows that robbing banks is an illegal act.

It makes it much worse if the bank robber is responsible to know that robbing banks is illegal due to his/her job position held.

So, is rickyp responsible for not understanding self-parody?

If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

[COOPER: 1) Yes, this story has been playing out for months. The reason is that the State Department is only releasing a limited number of emails on a monthly basis. Hillary should be happy that this story routinely only lasts a day or two after the release of the latest batch, and then falls to the back burner for 3 weeks. 2) Clinton’s team is desperately clinging to this ‘no classified markings’ defense, which means absolutely nothing. Intent or motive is not applicable when your negligence caused classified material to be spilled. And even if it was, the existence of the server in the first place is all you need. When unmarked classified material is inadvertently spilled on an agency system, there is a protocol for recovering it. Plus, Secretary Clinton SOLICITED classified material to her “personal email” such as the July 25, 2010 email to her Middle East Envoy George Mitchell requesting a readout of his conversation with the Foreign Minister of Italy on the day Wikileaks dumped 1000s of documents online about our military strategy in the Middle East. That conversation is almost certainly classified at conception, as she would know, and it later was. 3) She is asking for emails to be released that have been deemed Top Secret or above. This transparently empty request means nothing. As Federalist and Hot Air contributor Gabriel Malor points out: “if someone at State were to release the emails that Clinton is calling on them to release, that person would go to jail.”]

Moreover, classified information so pervades the thousands of pages of e-mails communicated through and stored on Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured, homebrew server system that the court-ordered disclosure process has ground to a halt. Remember, Mrs. Clinton reviewed her e-mails before finally surrendering them to the State Department, and she initially insisted there was no classified information in them. Now, it turns out they were so threaded with classified information that the State Department and intelligence agencies have fallen hopelessly behind the court’s disclosure schedule: The task of reviewing the e-mails and redacting the portions whose publication could harm national security has proved much more complicated than anticipated. Thousands of remaining e-mails, and any embarrassing lapses they contain, will be withheld from voters until well into primary season. So egregious have the scandal’s latest developments been that a critical State Department admission from last week has received almost no coverage: Eighteen e-mails between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama have been identified, and the government is refusing to disclose them. The administration’s rationale is remarkable: Releasing them, the White House and State Department say, would compromise “the president’s ability to receive unvarnished advice and counsel” from top government officials. Think about what this means. Not only is it obvious that President Obama knew Mrs. Clinton was conducting government business over her private e-mail account, the exchanges the president engaged in with his secretary of state over this unsecured system clearly involved sensitive issues of policy. Clinton was being asked for “advice and counsel” — not about her recommendations for the best country clubs in Martha’s Vineyard, but about matters that the White House judges too sensitive to reveal. That explanation got me to thinking about General David Petraeus. Recall that the Obama Justice Department prosecuted Petraeus for mishandling classified information. His offense involved conduct narrower in scope than Mrs. Clinton’s systematic transmission and storage of classified information on her private system. What is the relevance of Petraeus’s case? Well, in order to outline the factual basis for his guilty plea, the Justice Department filed a document describing the information involved. In the main, it was the classified contents of the general’s journals. Among the most significant of this information, according to the prosecutors, were notes of “defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS’s discussions with the President of the United States of America.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... il-problem

I believe some, if not all, of the communications between Obama and Clinton should be classified. To classify them now, however, would imply wrongdoing on both their parts since they knew they were communicating via private, unsecured e-mail. Essentially, Obama is invoking executive privilege because the effect of doing so — viz., non-disclosure of the e-mails — is the same as the effect of classifying them would be . . . but without the embarrassment that classifying them would entail. Of course, Petraeus did not get executive-privilege treatment. His communications with Obama were deemed classified and he was prosecuted for failing to safeguard them.

To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama. From these facts and circumstances, we must deduce that it is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information. He discussed sensitive matters on a non-government, non-secure e-mail system that could easily be penetrated by foreign governments (among other rogue actors). By doing so, he left an electronic- and paper-trail that was outside the government’s tightly secured repositories for classified information. He also personally indulged, and thus implicitly endorsed, Clinton’s use of private e-mail to do government business.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... il-problem

freeman3 wrote:Oh my gosh. If the world only knew what George Mitchell's read on the Italian Foreign Minister was several years ago what that would do to our national security...

freeman3 wrote:Where's the email discussing Treadstone or Blackbriar, that's what I want to know...

freeman3 wrote:Where's the email discussing Treadstone or Blackbriar, that's what I want to know...

freeman3 wrote:Where's the email discussing Treadstone or Blackbriar, that's what I want to know...I'm sure it will be released soon.