Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes and if in the course of events a SoS receives information to do his job from another agency who controls the level of classification or the decision to disclose.
If one actually thinks about it for most state matters the State Dept controls. And it has to be that way.
The DoD--specifically, the DIA--develops the regulations in the Executive Department for the physical protection of various levels of classified information. I'm not sure how legally bound the SecState is by DIA regulations. That might not even be a matter of law, it might be a matter of Executive internal disciplinary action.
First, she has not even officially been accused of anything.
Second, as I recall, the Republican-led investigation of Benghazi - because that's what this relates to - cleared her.
Third, I don't know where you're from, but in America we have this thing called "presumption of innocence."
Cleared her? Then why is it on-going? Why doesn't she just answer the questions?
Questions unanswered:
Why was the US flag the only foreign flag left in Benghazi? All other countries had left - it was that dangerous.
Why was Chris Stevens there?
Why was his request for security turned down?
Why was Susan Rice sent to talk on FIVE different Sunday Morning shows?
Where did Rice's cover story of the spontaneous demonstration originate?
And now-----------WHY did the Secretary of State use her own private server when a secure one had been provided? And WHY are there NO RECORDS of her sending or receiving any emails while her embassy was under attack?
She has to be found guilty of something before you can even contemplate sending her to jail. to date she has been charged with nothing and the whole thing seems like another desparate straw man accusation as the right grasps at any straw to try to bring down their main opposition.
The right should bring something substantive to the race for the white house rather than make themselves look even sillier with these idiotic and desperate accusations.
And Obama pretty much laid a nuclear bomb on everything that was good in America including disgracing our veterans by closing all the national parks and memorials out of spite during the government shutdown.
It was the republican majority that voted to shut down the government as an act of spite when President Obama wouldnt repeal his ACA.
Cleared her? Then why is it on-going? Why doesn't she just answer the questions?
Questions unanswered:
Why was the US flag the only foreign flag left in Benghazi? All other countries had left - it was that dangerous.
Why was Chris Stevens there?
Why was his request for security turned down?
Why was Susan Rice sent to talk on FIVE different Sunday Morning shows?
Where did Rice's cover story of the spontaneous demonstration originate?
And now-----------WHY did the Secretary of State use her own private server when a secure one had been provided? And WHY are there NO RECORDS of her sending or receiving any emails while her embassy was under attack?
Your statement that she has not been officially accused of anything is ludicrous. She has been officially accused: She has been sent a subpoena. But she lied about that, too. Hillary Clinton accused of making false claim over Benghazi emails - Telegraph
If ya don't lie in the first place, ya won't hafta lie in the second place.
The answer to those questions have been obvious since the beginning of the Benghazi affair.
The flag was there because a spook operation was underway.
Stevens was there because he chose to be and was a spook among other things.
Security request was not considered appropriate by the state dept security people. The CIA did what they chose to do. The two CIA hires killed were security people manning a machine gun.
The cover story was to cover the spook operation. Like Eisenhower swore there was no Gary Powers.
Clinton is correct that she had not been subpoenaed when the server was scrubbed. A later subpoena ddoes not apply to aqn earlier action.
Hmm, I take back my "you were on a roll" comment. You don't get off the hook for storing classified data on your personally-owned computer just by "taking every effort" to comply with some guidelines. I guess, unless you're a member of the ruling class.
Like her, or not, Hilary is no dummy. She was First Lady for two terms and has practically been in or near the White House ever since; then there was the time she spent as Bill's wife during over a decade of him being the Governor of Arkansas and including during his quick stint as Attorney General of Arkansas in between. I am pretty sure Hilary knows how it all works and is way more familiar with the consequences than you and I.
As of this point in time what is, or was, on her computer is all speculation by any of us.
And yes, making every effort to comply with policy is what it is all about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumline
Security though obscurity is a false hope; it's the ostrich analogy in the info sec world.
Does not matter. The "info sec world" are not who would/are going to prosecute her. In reality, she most likely hired a cybersecurity specialists to set it all up and run it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumline
LMFAO, this just gets better and better. So ignorance is now an excuse?? As I mentioned previously, there are many kinds of information which are always classified. If any of those were at any time on her server and she didn't report it, then she and the sender/recipient should both go down for it.
Ignorance, no, and you know I never wrote that it was an excuse for anything. As I wrote above, Hilary is not stupid and she definitely knows how to play this game better than any of us. The "Clinton's" have been under attack since Bill's time in office. The GOP has only been barking at Obama this whole time; with Bill they actually bit a few times and Hilary has been in the GOPs crosshairs for many years now--she is perhaps the most "disliked" Dem. by the GOP. Despite the Lewinsky thing, Hilary pretty much trusts no one but Bill in the realm of politics. Do you not think that she would not watch her step knowing that the GOP is going to look under ever grain of sand for dirt on her? That is not to say that she may not have done anything implicitly immoral or illegal but if you don't think that she had a back up plan, or a side plan, than I don't know what to tell you.
My guess would be that is why she moved her server's back up from the server itself to Google.
By the way; I am not a Hilary supporter nor a Democrat. I have my own opinions on this matter but I am posting here just to offer a different perspective from all of the vitriol that typically infests these types of threads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumline
I will concede that it's unlikely that Hillary will face any repercussions, which sort of means you were right, above, but for the wrong reason.
Of course I am only writing from my own opinions based on what I know of the situation and of Hilary in general. To each their own but since you mention that my reasoning is false, enlighten me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumline
Bad analogy. Clinton was not a regular ol citizen, she received all the briefings and signed all the paperwork agreeing to properly store and handle classified information. The assertion being made by the other poster is comparing Clinton to another cleared person who operated as she allegedly did.
Of course Clinton is not a regular citizen, and has not been one for at least the last 40 years. My understanding of "average joe's" in similar situations is that the punishment ranges from being fired, to fully prosecuted depending on the nature of the breach, to simply being fired. When you prosecute someone, the nature of the breach tends to come to light, and as of course, could be an embarrassment to which-ever organization the former employee was a member of.
Now, are we talking about politicians here, or just your typical Fed employee with clearance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumline
LOL WUT??
The poster wrote that s/he despises people like Hilary then finished the post by declaring a wish to be in her same shoes for immoral purposes. So yeah, LOL WUT???
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumline
Do you even read the drivel you post? Seriously???
No. I have my assistant post on my behalf while I am away and I don't ask questions.
On second thought, instead of "more" security clearances I should have wrote "privy to information that even the SOS does not have access to considering the CIA runs their own clandestine operations and the Secretary of State is now more-or-less just the Department of Foreign Affairs these days since they shifted away from the domestic part of "State" years ago".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess, unless you're a member of the ruling class.