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.
The issue with your post is that the source is not Judicial Watch, or any other watchdog group, but the Intelligence Community Inspector General, a Government agency investigating the matter.
Here is the full, non-redacted text of the article.
Several references to the IC/IG, and "Government agencies", not a mention of a watchdog group as a source
That's what I thought, too. It was a intelligence agency inspector not some partisan group that found and reported this. The NYT may very well have excerpted material from a "watchdog" group because that would give them an excuse for memory-holing the story later. Eat your cake and have it, as it were.
I still don't see how the State Department cannot be investigating Mrs. Clinton's conduct. She was the Secretary of State after all. She was responsible for not only policy but for enforcing and obeying the Agency's rules. If she violated them the State Department should be leading the investigation instead of impeding it.
And yet, you cant find a single source to back up your "common knowledge" argument ???
Look, I am not into the deflection game. This is a fact, and is well known to anyone that has ever had a clearance, and worked with classified information. Only accredited government systems, with security classifications up to the level of the data in question can be used to store or transmit classified data. These are closed systems, with absolutely no links to outside networks, or the wider internet. There is no personal, non-government server that would ever be allowed to store classified government data. This would require a direct connection between a secure government network and her personal network which is prohibited by network architecture standards. It is a violation of Federal law to store classified data on unapproved equipment/networks, to "spill" classified data from a classified network to an unclassified network, or to improperly store, or transmit classified data outside of approved networks/devices.
Data is classified based on content, and certain data, some of which has been found among her released emails, is automatically considered classified, regardless of the presence of markings. This is based on a number of things, such as the source of the data, or the nature of the data. It doesn't matter if the data was marked as classified at the time, or if the classifications were removed by her staff. The data remains classified.
This is clear cut, black and white. There is no gray area. Federal law is very clear, and she is in violation. GEN Petraeus was fired from his CIA position, and fined $100K for much less than what's occurred thus far with Clinton. You can obfuscate, excuse, deflect, and ignore facts, but it doesn't make her or her staff any less guilty.
That's what I thought, too. It was a intelligence agency inspector not some partisan group that found and reported this. The NYT may very well have excerpted material from a "watchdog" group because that would give them an excuse for memory-holing the story later. Eat your cake and have it, as it were.
I still don't see how the State Department cannot be investigating Mrs. Clinton's conduct. She was the Secretary of State after all. She was responsible for not only policy but for enforcing and obeying the Agency's rules. If she violated them the State Department should be leading the investigation instead of impeding it.
" If she violated them the State Department should be leading the investigation"
" instead of impeding it."
To me, it is like have the wolf guarding the hen house.
The DNC won't let him get the nomination, because the mainstream Dems know his policies would wreck the economy. When they finally come to the realization that Hillary clearly violated national security protocols, and the law, they will dump her and either as Biden to reconsider or maybe even Lerch aka John Kerry.
I think they left that too late. Could either even get on the ballot in all the states at this late stage?
Her response has been that the "above top secret" information was a link to a news story that was covering the topic in question. If so...this is not exactly earth shattering.
I see her pattern to deflect like her husband (what does "is" mean). So, this jives with what was said by one of her supporting talking heads on CNN yesterday in which he said in effect that those so called top secret emails are up for interpretation whether they are in fact really top secret or not, although they are classified as top secret.
I see her pattern to deflect like her husband (what does "is" mean). So, this jives with what was said by one of her supporting talking heads on CNN yesterday in which he said in effect that those so called top secret emails are up for interpretation whether they are in fact really top secret or not, although they are classified as top secret.
Me too. I find it hard to believe an intelligence agency inspector general would describe a link as a case of above top secret content. Unless the link were to an above top secret document or such.
This whole thing from the minute she revealed the personal server, to erasing a bunch of e-mails, to the State Department controlling which e-mails to release and when to release them is just such an embarrassingly in character judgement lapse for Mrs. Clinton that even if she is not prosecuted for anything, it removes beyond the pale any assertion of her fitness for the most powerful position in the world.
From the moment she appeared on the national scene she has done nothing but cover herself with shame (if she even knows the word), doubt and ineptitude. There is not one thing she has attempted that has succeeded.
Someone very powerful must have a lot at stake in her career and have so much invested in her that dropping her now is impossible.
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.
