Cummings; classified emails found on personal accounts of Rice & Powell OOPS!

Actually nobody has yet provded any evidence that Hillary released classified information. Information that somehow became classifed six years later is just a joke. does anybody actually believe that it took six years for the information to become important. Can anyone spell politics.

 

Proven? Really? Then post something other than your opinion that says I'm wrong

 

What are you talking about it wasn't sent? She was having a conversation with Blumenthal who had no security clearance. He got Hacked and then the hacker hacked Hillary.

Moreover Blumenthal was the one to produce emails she never turned over to the State Dept. Thus validating she lied when she said she gave all her emails to State. Except for the 30k she deleted.

 

eM eM See, of the steamy brown land, says "to check with an attorney" in reply to my request for a direct confirmation it is a criminal case from the FBI.

That's his reply -- so, knowing he is a fan of Dershowitz, I show him three articles by him saying

Dershowitz: No 'Realistic Possibility' of Hillary Charges in Email Scandal | Newsmax

Alan Dershowitz: Clinton 'in the Clear' With Private Email Use | Newsmax

Alan Dershowitz: Clinton May Not Be Legally Liable for Server | Newsmax

- from Newsmax no less.

Nope. Doesn't count. (He thinks that FOIA court case where the FBI confirmed what we all know is some sort of indictment of the criminality of the case - it isn't.)

Here's another attorney - who will likely be dismissed. Because: something, something. Emailghazzzii!

JEFFREY TOOBIN, COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORKER: I think it's a huge political problem. I don't think it's a big legal problem. I don't think the FBI is going to wind up charging her with a crime. You know, it is only a crime if you knowingly distribute classified information. And from everything we've been able to see — and we don't know all the facts — there is nothing with a classified stamp on it that she ever just handed out inappropriately.

There is information that, retroactively, has been declared classified, but that's — that's a very different thing."

"it's a huge political problem," but added, "I don't think it's a big legal problem. I don't think the FBI is going to wind up charging her with a crime."[h=1]CNN's Toobin: Hillary's E-Mail Scandal Not A 'Big Legal Problem'[/h]

 

That's Right......it shouldn't have been that difficult with knowing I seek out those of the easy peasy, first. Like Hillary and her supporters and defenders. Saving the best for last.

 

What I want the the State Department, the FBI, the White House, the Justice Department -- ANYBODY -- to tell us is whether or not Hillary Clinton's email server/computer/anything that received or transmitted classified information was properly sited inside a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). If not, then bring the handcuffs and read her her rights. A violation regarding the siting of any such server/computer is a serious breach of the law governing the handling of classified information -- especially above-top-secret information!

Anybody else posting in this thread ever held a security clearance? Then you know what I'm talking about....

 

Dude. The median net worth for the average American is not half a million dollars. Even your own links say that - which you seem to have a difficult time sorting through.

And if you seriously still think that's the case, does Romney's 47% know about this?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=443082&p=1065841632#post1065841632

 

From your link: (emphasis mine)

"To give an idea of how insecure these communications could be, Powell’s personal email is an AOL account, and he used it on a laptop when he communicated with foreign officials and ambassadors, unless the information qualified for a SCIF. ..."

Gee... d'ya think classified information qualifies for a SCIF...? . Better get Joe ready while you still can....

 

Here is the problem. That actual data is for mean family wealth not indivdual net worth. Financial samurai appears to have confused mean family net worth with Average individual net worth. The actual numbers from the original source is median family net worth is $81,200 and mean family net worth is $534,600.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf

 

Yep, and Bernie meets the mean family average, which would include his wife.

 

You asked if "whether or not Hillary Clinton's email server/computer/anything that received or transmitted classified information was properly sited inside a SCIF"

Read the follow up post (#425). Or how about clicking the link provided?

 

Another lawyer weighs in...

Dan Abrams -- worth a read - it address some of the statutes some RW people have tossed out saying she might be guilty of, specifically US §1924 and §793.

No, Hillary Did Not Commit A Crime. . . At Least Based On What We Know Today

"Apart from fierce partisans making a case for a litany of crimes she should face and certain defenders summarily dismissing all allegations of wrongdoing, there has been little sober, legal analysis of the issues...."

<snip>
The Law
"Based on what we know today, there are likely two primary laws at the heart of the probe and two or three others that might be considered investigative fallout. Partisans alleging that Clinton may have violated as many as 15 crimes, are either exaggerating or simply seeking to overstate the gravity for effect.

1) The first and most discussed statute has been 18 U.S.C.A. § 1924(a), and it&#8217;s a misdemeanor:

<snip>...So proving that she &#8220;knowingly&#8221; removed &#8220;classified information&#8221; &#8220;without authority&#8221; at the time seems far-fetched based on what we know today."

He goes on to dispute those seeing the §793 application, addressing the "gross negligence" language.

CLICK:

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/no-...a-crime-at-least-based-on-what-we-know-today/

 

Read post #436 and understand what the family mean is

 

She maintained ONE email account and that as on her private non SCI server in a non SCIF. She directed ALL email including classified be sent to that server. She had been schooled in the propoer handling of classified information and the penalties involved in the mishandling of that information. she was offered secure email accounts including a special SCI account through which she could receive classified information, like Powell and Rice had, and she refused to use them because the emails would be then archived out of her control. That is gross negligence and it was done so with intent that classified information be sent there. She also sent TOP SECRET information from that server to aids who did not have clearance to recieve in on their unsecure emails accounts.

AND her using a private account was against a DIRECT ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT, Mr. Abrams is flat out wrong.

"Here, if it is determined that by &#8220;gross negligence&#8221; she permitted information &#8220;relating to the national defense&#8221; (as opposed to the more formal &#8220;classified&#8221; definition) &#8220;to be removed from its proper place of custody&#8221;, then she could be facing up to 10 years behind bars."

Yes she did, and she did it to cover up her own activities and avoid oversight, she did not even have a state.gov and purposely declined to use a Blackberry the State Department offered her that would enable the secure transmission and storage of classified information. Her IT guy who set up her server and maintained it has already plead the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination so he does not have to give truthful testimony about that server.

"&#8220;Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after &#8216;leakers,&#8217; but not bunglers.&#8221;"

No it is not hard to find, Pertreus for one, and it wasn't just "unwise" handling, she was specifically schooled in how it should have been handled, violated a Presidential order to not use private accounts, and purposely set up the private server to avoid oversight knowing that she would be receiving classified information on it. And now we know she was sending that information, causing it to be transmitted, to aids who did not have the clearances to receive it.

Felonies.

 

Flat out wrong, storing that information in a non SCIF is a felony and it doesn't have to be "stamped". Petreous was charged with just have his own personal notebook, which contained classified information, in his desk drawer at home. And guess what, the notebook was not "stamped" classified, it had no markings on it saying it was classified.

And of course we learned today she sent such information to aids who did not have the clearance nor the accounts to receive it on non-secured email accounts.

 

Actually, the information protected by NISP (classified) isn't allowed to be released so there's no way to say she did or did not unless you are the investigating body. Judging by the nature of the documents that were classified between 1 year and 4 years later, I'll wait until the investigation ends (that is continuing to provide more and more evidence that she is in fact guilty).

I'll let the blind sheep continue to sweat over her even if she shot a child in a crowded mall- she'd be defended by her flock.

Pathetic, yet not a surprise.

 

I stopped right there. You are wrong.

As usual.


As I posted earlier -- pay attention:

"Start with this: Powell and Rice, like all modern secretaries of state, each had at least two email accounts&#8212;one personal and the other for communications designated as highly classified at the time of their creation.

For classified information, both of them&#8212;and their aides with appropriate clearance&#8212;had a sensitive compartmented information facility, or what is known in intelligence circles as a SCIF.

Most senior officials who deal with classified information have a SCIF in their offices and their homes.

These are not just extra offices with a special lock. Each SCIF is constructed following complex rules imposed by the intelligence and defense communities. Restrictions imposed on the builders are designed to ensure that no unauthorized personnel can get into the room, and the SCIF cannot be accessed by hacking or electronic eavesdropping.

A group called the technical surveillance countermeasures team (TSCM) investigates the area or activity to check that all communications are protected from outside surveillance and cannot be intercepted.


Most permanent SCIFs have physical and technical security, called TEMPEST. The facility is guarded and in operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week; any official on the SCIF staff must have the highest security clearance.

There is supposed to be sufficient personnel continuously present to observe the primary, secondary and emergency exit doors of the SCIF. Each SCIF must apply fundamental red-black separation to prevent the inadvertent transmission of classified data over telephone lines, power lines or signal lines.

I could keep going for thousands and thousands of words explaining the security measures used for SCIFs. And all of this&#8212;all of this&#8212;is designed to protect the confidentiality of emails and communications determined to be classified at the time of transmission...
<snip>

In addition to the classified email system used in SCIFs, there are personal email accounts. Prior to 2013, these could be accounts inside the relatively unsecure State Department system or private email accounts. If they are private&#8212;running through a commercial or personal server&#8212;they have to follow some rules set up in the Federal Register.

There are no guards, no red-black procedures, no construction rules, no special rooms, no TEMPEST, no TSCM. And most important: Until 2013, there was no rule against using them. In fact, the rules specifically allowed for them. Check out the relevant section in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Chapter XII, Subchapter B, section 1236.22b) for the rules regarding the use of personal email accounts by any State Department official.


To give an idea of how insecure these communications could be, Powell&#8217;s personal email is an AOL account, and he used it on a laptop when he communicated with foreign officials and ambassadors, unless the information qualified for a SCIF. (Clinton sent only one email to a foreign dignitary through her personal account, and her communications with ambassadors were, for the most part, by phone.)


So did Powell and the aides to Rice violate rules governing classified information, since the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) staff has recently determined that some of their years-old personal emails contain top-secret material? No. The rules regarding the handling of classified information apply to communications designated as secret at that time.

If documents that aren&#8217;t deemed classified and aren&#8217;t handled through a SCIF when they are created or initially transmitted are later, in retrospect, deemed secret, the classification is new&#8212;and however the record was handled in the past is irrelevant.


There is also an enormous difference between a secretary of state sending an email to someone inside the department and that same email being released to the general public. Put simply, as anyone who has filed a request for a document under the FOIA knows, not every email or other item can be handed out, even if it was not originally deemed to be so confidential that it required SCIF procedures.

The determination of what State Department documents can be publicly released is handled by the FOIA staff, both in the State Department and, when deemed appropriate, by officials with the same duties in the intelligence community. In fact, the entire issue right now regarding the emails of every secretary of state concerns which ones can be released under the FOIA.

People outraged by the (false) belief that Powell and Rice&#8217;s aides broke the law are creating a fantasy world where every official email, no matter its content, must go through a SCIF just in case the FOIA staff eventually determines, sometime in the future and applying different standards, that the information in the email should not be released to the public under an FOIA request out of classification concerns.

Given the cumbersome procedures of using a SCIF, that would mean the secretary of state would have to spend a lot of time sitting inside a locked box and sending emails not yet designated as containing secret information, solely to avoid the partisan gnashing of teeth that could potentially occur if someday the FOIA staff were to retroactively decide they should not be released to the public out of classification concerns.


Which brings us to the next most important issue here: classification. Members of Congress should&#8212;and probably do&#8212;know this, but the public apparently doesn&#8217;t. Just because the FOIA staff decides a document is top secret doesn&#8217;t mean it contains information of any import. (It&#8217;s widely known that, even on the creation of a document, the government over-classifies information, meaning communications are deemed secret that don&#8217;t need to be, but that&#8217;s another issue.)

The FOIA staff is supposed to be extra-cautious when releasing a document to the public and err on the side of caution. As I mentioned in a previous column, that is why anyone wanting to obtain a document should file multiple FOIA requests for the information&#8212;one staffer might deem something secret that another staffer releases without concern. In fact, if someone were to submit an FOIA request for every email in the State Department that has been sent over a system without the extreme protections reserved for information determined top secret on creation, there is no doubt that the FOIA staff would call many of the emails classified and refuse the request.


Plus, both Powell and Rice had the authority, granted by President George W. Bush through executive order, to classify and declassify any document created by the State Department. So if either of them had received an email from another agency containing information that had not gone through a SCIF, he or she could have independently declared that it did not need to be secret and sent it along to anyone they chose.
In other words, just because the FOIA staff years later labeled emails sent from Powell and Rice&#8217;s aides as classified does not mean those records contain some crown jewels of critical intelligence. In fact, usually they are quite benign. I have seen emails called &#8220;top secret&#8221; that contained nothing more than a forwarded news article that had been published. (The Associated Press has reported that one of Clinton&#8217;s &#8220;secret&#8221; emails contains an AP article.)"



Read the rest

http://www.newsweek.com/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton

 

Wrong again, bubba.

So wrong. So often.

"As part of the plea agreement, Mr. Petraeus admitted that he gave his lover, Paula Broadwell, who was writing a biography about him, black notebooks that contained sensitive information about official meetings, war strategy and intelligence capabilities, as well as the names of covert officers.

According to court documents, he discussed the black books during an interview that Ms. Broadwell taped with Mr. Petraeus while she was working on the biography, telling her, &#8220;They are highly classified, some of them.&#8221;

Three weeks later, he gave her the notebooks."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/david-petraeus-to-be-sentenced-in-leak-investigation.html?_r=0

"Unlike Petraeus, Clinton did not "knowingly" store or share classified information in violation of the law."


Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton committed no crime

 

No I'm not wrong, she declined an normal .gov address and a secure email address directing ALL her email communication be directed to her private non-SCI server in an non-SCIF location.

As usual I am correct.

The rest of your article merely lays to rest the canard that Powell and Rice did the same thing, they did not as I have correctly pointed out and mitigate NOTHING about what Clinton was doing and did.

THE SHOCKING TRUTH: COLIN POWELL&#8217;S EMAILS DON&#8217;T MATTER

 

That was one of the charges, his merely having that information in his home in his desk was another. And the notebook was NOT marked classified. The information in it was classified. And we know Clinton did knowingly have classified information sent to her unsecured server, that she stored it there and even sent it to people who did not have proper clearance to receive it. She refused to use the secured email address the State department urged her to use.

"The criminal complaint, filed Tuesday in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina’s Charlotte Division, charges Petraeus with unauthorized removal and retention of classified material.
...................Those binders, known was "black books," were seized by the FBI in a search of Petraeus' home.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nor-charge-in-plea-agreement-over-claims.html

He then gave to his biographer, who had clearance, but again they were not properly stored.

But according to some since they were not "marked classified" there should have been no charges.

 

Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong <---you.

 

Well its not just Hillary that he has to defend.....but also her inept and incompetent aides who have been trying to give cover.

Now Hillary has to worry about who's names she will be putting out there. That worry will come from those people.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=443886&p=1065843450#post1065843450

 

Maybe it would be easier to just list the people who didn't mess up their emails somehow. Just name those 2 or 3 people and we can get back to debating the really important stuff, like why Trump is orange.

 

It will be easier to go after Clinton and her people still inside State now. Especially with the State Dept knowing they are now under investigation too.

Can't be so eager to jump up and defend Hillary knowing they may have to take the fall for her.