Hillary Clinton's scandals explained briefly

[LivingWordUnity]

You know, it soooo sad, soooooooooo sad, what USA is turning into these days... You know, years ago I had this very rosy illusion, USA is free country, complete independance and freedom of press and TV, etc. Well, you understand. The American ideals. It looks like, today, they are dead. Or close to be dead. Isn't it sad? Why nobody seems to mind very much in USA? Like, America changed forever. It became opposite from what it once was. Must be made great again, or else...?

It's like Russia and the United States traded places. In the United States, one political party now controls the presidency, mainstream media, and all of government.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

It's like Russia and the United States traded places. In the United States, one political party now controls the presidency, mainstream media, and all of government.

Irony of life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In Russian, there is a saying for this situation (maybe there is a similar saying in English) which goes smth like this: "what they fought against, they became"...

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Irony of life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In Russian, there is a saying for this situation (maybe there is a similar saying in English) which goes smth like this: "what they fought against, they became"...

It happened because the communists infiltrated the United States government.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

It happened because the communists infiltrated the United States government.

Well, I don't see much communism on practice in USA. In good old USSR where I lived close to half my life, it was quite different. Free housing, free education and healthcare, no private property except for very limited categories of items, factory workers and farmers as highest paid people in society etc etc. USA not near that. Maybe in heads they're communists, but in practice - very very very capitalist but ugly form of it kind of totalitarian or smth. Almost like slavery for all popuation, you know. Or maybe I exagarate.

 

[redleghunter]

I will now pull my foot out of my mouth, it appears that are entirely correct. HRC was using a server on her own private domain (clintonemail.com) without any sort of government connection. Thanks for the correction redleghunter.

You are an honest and fair man Mr. Belk. No problem. I figured you came in late to the party.

 

[[serious]]

The email address would indicate it was not from a government source. Every non-DOD or non .gov email I receive has in the subject line that the email is not from a DOD source.

Oh, THAT'S what you meant by raises all sorts of red flags. it's actually a bit more complicated than "does the sender/reply address have a .mil or .gov" as both of those can be spoofed. For example, a recent legit email from OPM.gov came in with that warning.

I suppose if that is what you are talking about, I could ask what action you took when one of your colleagues sent you an email from their Gmail account.

Anyway, that would still only make him aware of the email address, not the details of the server.

As explained above DOD and Fed.gov sites indicate when an email and/or attachment/link is from a non-government source. Unless of course the President, as I mentioned earlier, had his own webmail account not going through WH communications. If that is the case, as the NYTs points out he may have used a pseudonym( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/politics/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0) to communicate directly with HRC using an unofficial email address.

I imagine most people have a non work email address.

Yes of course I do too. However, the correspondence in question was not government email to private Clinton server. If it was there would be no need for the clarification. The President's press sec could have easily said "The President gets emails from various sources outside the government often." But that was not the response, and the NYTs article leaves that open with mentioning the FBI investigation discovered the President used a pseudonym to communicate with HRC.

Or he could say, "Yeah, I knew about the email address, but not the details of the server setup"

No it is not unusual for personal emails to be exchanged between people in and outside of government. It is unusual to conduct official business at that higher level of government using private unsecure means. It's illegal to use such means to avoid disclosure of official business.

Not being in higher levels of government, I wouldn't know. What I do know is that GW Bush maintained a commercial email address on RNC servers, So did Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Jeb Bush, Sarah Palin, and Chris Christie. So if it's now normal to never ever use private email, it's a pretty new religion.

 

[redleghunter]

Oh, THAT'S what you meant by raises all sorts of red flags. it's actually a bit more complicated than "does the sender/reply address have a .mil or .gov" as both of those can be spoofed. For example, a recent legit email from OPM.gov came in with that warning.

I suppose if that is what you are talking about, I could ask what action you took when one of your colleagues sent you an email from their Gmail account.

Anyway, that would still only make him aware of the email address, not the details of the server. I imagine most people have a non work email address. Or he could say, "Yeah, I knew about the email address, but not the details of the server setup" Not being in higher levels of government, I wouldn't know. What I do know is that GW Bush maintained a commercial email address on RNC servers, So did Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Jeb Bush, Sarah Palin, and Chris Christie. So if it's now normal to never ever use private email, it's a pretty new religion.

Perhaps when you view the Wikileaks excerpts I posted earlier there will be more clarity.

This has nothing to do with government officials having private email addresses to share recipes and the gossip of the day.

This is about circumventing government approved systems conducting government business. Huge no no.

If I were to use a non DoD approved means to transmit test results or unit readiness reports and found out, I would lose my job. HRC went way beyond my example above.

 

[[serious]]

Perhaps when you view the Wikileaks excerpts I posted earlier there will be more clarity.

This has nothing to do with government officials having private email addresses to share recipes and the gossip of the day.

This is about circumventing government approved systems conducting government business. Huge no no.

If I were to use a non DoD approved means to transmit test results or unit readiness reports and found out, I would lose my job. HRC went way beyond my example above.

All materials are required to be handled according to their classification level. No emails on Clinton's server had proper classification markings. 4 emails had confidential paragraph markers.

I'm unaware of any accusations that any classified information at any level was sent from the server.

 

[redleghunter]

All materials are required to be handled according to their classification level. No emails on Clinton's server had proper classification markings. 4 emails had confidential paragraph markers.

I'm unaware of any accusations that any classified information at any level was sent from the server.

You bring up an entirely different issue. What I presented here via wikileaks links was the Sec State circumventing the use of the Dept State communications protocols. Thus conducting official correspondence avoiding potential FOIA requests. That is obstruction.

Now you bring up classified material HRC and handlers improperly and knowingly transmitted over unofficial and unsecured means.

In the report from FBI director James Comey:

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.
[......]
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

Much more:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

 

[[serious]]

You bring up an entirely different issue. What I presented here via wikileaks links was the Sec State circumventing the use of the Dept State communications protocols. Thus conducting official correspondence avoiding potential FOIA requests. That is obstruction.

Now you bring up classified material HRC and handlers improperly and knowingly transmitted over unofficial and unsecured means.

In the report from FBI director James Comey:

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.
[......]
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

Much more:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Let's try this, what specific law was broken?

This thread is supposed to be about brief explanations of her supposed scandals.

 

[Armoured]

So.... Obama lied? Should we not vote for him? I'm trying to figure out what the serious implications are.

You forget that, as liberals are a single homogeneous hive mind, the words and actions of any can be used against all.

 

[KCfromNC]

It happened because the communists infiltrated the United States government.

McCarthy was right all along? Come on, this sort of nonsense has been dead a buried longer than most of us have been alive.

 

[redleghunter]

Let's try this, what specific law was broken?

This thread is supposed to be about brief explanations of her supposed scandals.

She committed a felony but was not indicted. There's the brief explanation.

Here is a source which may surprise you, confirms she committed a felony. From the Daily Kos last year before she was the nominee. I take it the DK was Bernie friendly last year.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has committed a felony. That is apparent from the facts and in the plain-language of the federal statute that prohibits "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). This offense carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment.


It's called a prima facie case: clear on the basis of known facts.


It's up to prosecutorial discretion by the US Attorney as to what charges may be filed and when. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton is clearly chargeable for violation of federal law. As of right now, the matter is under FBI investigation. This isn't just about violation of Departmental policy.

More:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...e-federal-laws-violated-by-the-private-server

Summary:

Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material

18 U.S.C. § 1924

Class: A Misdemeanor

Possible Penalty: Imprisonment for 1 year and/or $100,000 fine

Text: “Knowingly removing materials containing classified information of the United States with the intent to retain said info at an unauthorized location without the authority to do so”

Gathering, Transmitting Or Losing Defense Information

18 U.S.C. § 793

Class: Felony

Possible Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years and/or $250,000 fine

Text: “Allowing [by means of gross negligence] any document relating to the national defense to be removed from its proper place of custody or destroyed –or- willfully retaining unauthorized documents relating to national defense and failing to deliver them to the United States employee entitled to receive them –or- failure to report that unauthorized documents relating to national defense were removed from their proper place of custody or destroyed”

 

[wing2000]

It happened because the communists infiltrated the United States government.

I knew it, Rubert Murdoch is a Communist! He's just pretending to be a capitalists until he owns every last liberal rag in the country.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

McCarthy was right all along? Come on, this sort of nonsense has been dead a buried longer than most of us have been alive.

Everyone knows it's the Illuminati, not the Communists, that have infiltrated the government.

 

[redleghunter]

Everyone knows it's the Illuminati, not the Communists, that have infiltrated the government.

You give too much credit to the Illuminati. Whatever happened to the theory of the reptilian shape shifting aliens?

 

[redleghunter]

Latest Wikileaks drop:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34437
Re: HRC avail

From:nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com
To: jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com
Date: 2015-05-22 16:18
Subject: Re: HRC avail

My arm?

On May 22, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Jennifer Palmieri wrote:

She did great.

Body language was very good, relaxed and not at all defensive.

The clip MSNBC is using most is her saying that she hopes the release of other emails are expedited.

Gowdy is focused on how her Benghazi emails are self-selected by her and therefore paint on an incomplete picture. He is not focused on the classified email, which is great.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34437

 

[redleghunter]

And for the previous Bernie Sanders supporters....more info on how the Clinton campaign handled him:

WikiLeaks: Clinton Team Leaked Creepshot of Bernie Sanders in His Swimming Suit

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...pshot-of-bernie-sanders-in-his-swimming-suit/

 

[LivingWordUnity]

What I do know is that GW Bush maintained a commercial email address on RNC servers, So did Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Jeb Bush, Sarah Palin, and Chris Christie. So if it's now normal to never ever use private email, it's a pretty new religion.

Hillary’s Flimsy ‘Colin Powell’ Excuse Won’t Save Her from Email Scandal

One of the main arguments Hillary Clinton and her supporters are using to dispute a damning new State Department Inspector General report on her use of a private email server for official business when Clinton was Secretary of State is claiming the report indicates Colin Powell essentially did the same thing when he headed the State Department.

Although this argument has become a Democratic talking point, it is false and extremely unfair to former Secretary Powell.

The IG report makes clear there is no comparison between Clinton’s and Powell’s email practices. Powell did use personal email for some official business, but not nearly to the extent Clinton did nor did he use a private server. Although a handful of Powell’s emails were found to be classified at a low level, according to a May 27, 2016 New York Times article, 2,028 of the Clinton’s work-related emails were classified “confidential” and 65 were classified “secret.” 22 other Clinton emails were classified “top secret” or higher and are so sensitive that they will not be released even in redacted form. More
.​

 

[[serious]]

18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f).

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
[/QUOTE]

Part e requires unauthorized access and the willful transmittal of the document to another person with unauthorized access.

Part f doesn't translate well to email as sending an email doesn't remove, steal, abstract, or destroy anything. The "gross negligence" part of it is almost never used even for physical documents which can be so removed.

18 U.S.C. § 1924

Class: A Misdemeanor

Possible Penalty: Imprisonment for 1 year and/or $100,000 fine

Text: “Knowingly removing materials containing classified information of the United States with the intent to retain said info at an unauthorized location without the authority to do so”

Again, we would have to establish intent here. We also run up against the "removing" bit not really applying well to email in qhich thengs aren't actually removed.

18 U.S.C. § 793

Class: Felony

Possible Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years and/or $250,000 fine

Text: “Allowing [by means of gross negligence] any document relating to the national defense to be removed from its proper place of custody or destroyed –or- willfully retaining unauthorized documents relating to national defense and failing to deliver them to the United States employee entitled to receive them –or- failure to report that unauthorized documents relating to national defense were removed from their proper place of custody or destroyed”

This one is just a duplicate of the first.