Hillary Clinton's scandals explained briefly

[serious] said:

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.

Click to expand...

The statute does not include "intent." That's the point.

There's a lot of "willfully " involved in "intent." Those classified documents did not will themselves from approved secured system to an unauthorized unsecured system. HRC and her handlers knowingly extracted classified information from the secure network and knowingly moved it to an unsecure private system and knowingly transmitted the classified information over the unsecure private system. This is a violation of every statute I posted. The FBI decided not to prefer charges even though HRC and others broke the law.

redleghunter said:

The statute does not include "intent." That's the point.

There's a lot of "willfully " involved in "intent." Those classified documents did not will themselves from approved secured system to an unauthorized unsecured system. HRC and her handlers knowingly extracted classified information from the secure network and knowingly moved it to an unsecure private system and knowingly transmitted the classified information over the unsecure private system. This is a violation of every statute I posted. The FBI decided not to prefer charges even though HRC and others broke the law.

Click to expand...

I listened to the testimony and read the report and I didn't see anything about extracting classified information and placing it on a private system. I saw that some of the emails on the server were classified, but it seemed to be suggested that the information got there via emails sent not through some nefarious process of taking data and intentionally putting it somewhere.

LoAmmi said:

I listened to the testimony and read the report and I didn't see anything about extracting classified information and placing it on a private system. I saw that some of the emails on the server were classified, but it seemed to be suggested that the information got there via emails sent not through some nefarious process of taking data and intentionally putting it somewhere.

Click to expand...

If the classified material got to the unsecure private server, someone had to take it from a secure means to email it on another unsecure means to the private server.

You just can't sit at a secret protocol computer on a secret protocol server and send information to Gmail. Two different systems which do not touch.

Someone had to take the information from the secret and top secret systems (note not even secret and top secret systems touch) and place them on the unsecure networks. This information did not magically appear.

The FBI had to take each classified email and contact the originating source. Which means the original story of "they were not classified at the time" was a false statement from HRC. We know from the FBI investigation other than 4 documents all the classified labels were omitted in the emails. Which means someone copy and pasted classified information on an unsecure network without the labels purposely.

redleghunter said:

If the classified material got to the unsecure private server, someone had to take it from a secure means to email it on another unsecure means to the private server.

Click to expand...

Do you work in the industry? I do. Data spills happen. Sadly they happen on a regular basis and it usually isn't malicious.

LoAmmi said:

Do you work in the industry? I do. Data spills happen. Sadly they happen on a regular basis and it usually isn't malicious.

Click to expand...

I do. For close to 30 years.

A data spill usually occurs when, for example, a planner starts MDMP on NIPR collects the staff inputs and someone makes the mistake of disclosing classified information. Then the planner emails the entire OPORD with annexes to hundreds of email addresses with the classified information. Yeah takes days to sanitize.

Before the Manning incident spillage happened more often. Someone would mix unclass with classified on a thumb drive or disk and caused the spillage by accident or were lazy wanting to work at home.

However, I hope you don't think HRCs situation was some harmless spillage. It's ages past Manning and all classified systems save some admin and leaders have the USB ports and disk drives disabled.

Someone knowingly moved the classified material and KNEW the classification level, and consciously removed the markings before transmitting the classified information over an unsecure PRIVATE server. By removing the markings shows clear intent to ignore every security statute.

The FBI just decided they did not want the political heat of taking down a presidential candidate and did not prefer charges. Which means the FBI decided "some pigs are more equal than others." And as that wonderful novella from Orwell notes, the sheep just bleated out everything Napoleon fed them.

Now if interested we can get into the FBI 302s where FBI employees complained State Dept lawyers and HRCs lead counsel heavily influenced and in some cases led the investigation.

redleghunter said:

I do. For close to 30 years.

A data spill usually occurs when, for example, a planner starts MDMP on NIPR collects the staff inputs and someone makes the mistake of disclosing classified information. Then the planner emails the entire OPORD with annexes to hundreds of email addresses with the classified information. Yeah takes days to sanitize.

Click to expand...

Had an agency send us an email with classified data. That... that wasn't fun. The instructions for sanitizing Exchange servers didn't even cover 2010 and this was last year. We're moving to 2016 this year so I'll just be guessing if it happens again.

However, I hope you don't think HRCs situation was some harmless spillage. It's ages past Manning and all classified systems save some admin and leaders have the USB ports and disk drives disabled.

Click to expand...

Yeah. We have to go through some trouble to enable them in order to send out data.
On the contrary, the email situation is basically the thing that would cause me not to vote for her...

if she wasn't running against Donald Trump. I'd vote for a potted plant over Donald Trump. They both are horrible, but I think he'll be far worse.

Someone knowingly moved the classified material and KNEW the classification level, and consciously removed the markings before transmitting the classified information over an unsecure PRIVATE server. By removing the markings shows clear intent to ignore every security statute.

The FBI just decided they did not want the political heat of taking down a presidential candidate and did not prefer charges. Which means the FBI decided "some pigs are more equal than others." And as that wonderful novella from Orwell notes, the sheep just bleated out everything Napoleon fed them.

Now if interested we can get into the FBI 302s where FBI employees complained State Dept lawyers and HRCs lead counsel heavily influenced and in some cases led the investigation.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't see any evidence that suggests she is the one who did that. I'd want that person to be punished. In her case, I assume it'd be a loss of clearance and not being able to get a government job ever again. Getting elected President, however, pretty much overrides any of that stuff.

LoAmmi said:

Well, I don't see any evidence that suggests she is the one who did that. I'd want that person to be punished.

Click to expand...

She sent the emails. She no doubt entered a TS SCIF on occasion to discuss and review the material she eventually sent on her private server. I don't like HRC but she is no slouch.

What is interesting the FBI gave immunity to some of her underlings. Why give immunity if there were no laws broken? Why grant immunity to underlings unless you know they have the goods on the kingpin? Makes no sense.

What also does not make sense is why the FBI destroyed evidence after giving immunity.

Stinks.

redleghunter said:

She sent the emails. She no doubt entered a TS SCIF on occasion to discuss and review the material she eventually sent on her private server. I don't like HRC but she is no slouch.

What is interesting the FBI gave immunity to some of her underlings. Why give immunity if there were no laws broken? Why grant immunity to underlings unless you know they have the goods on the kingpin? Makes no sense.

What also does not make sense is why the FBI destroyed evidence after giving immunity.

Stinks.

Click to expand...

You'd grant immunity because the person could likely just invoke the Fifth to avoid questions. Immunity gives them a reason not to invoke it.

redleghunter said:

If the classified material got to the unsecure private server, someone had to take it from a secure means to email it on another unsecure means to the private server.

You just can't sit at a secret protocol computer on a secret protocol server and send information to Gmail. Two different systems which do not touch.

Someone had to take the information from the secret and top secret systems (note not even secret and top secret systems touch) and place them on the unsecure networks. This information did not magically appear.

The FBI had to take each classified email and contact the originating source. Which means the original story of "they were not classified at the time" was a false statement from HRC. We know from the FBI investigation other than 4 documents all the classified labels were omitted in the emails. Which means someone copy and pasted classified information on an unsecure network without the labels purposely.

Click to expand...

Nothing was marked secret.

redleghunter said:

She sent the emails. She no doubt entered a TS SCIF on occasion to discuss and review the material she eventually sent on her private server. I don't like HRC but she is no slouch.

What is interesting the FBI gave immunity to some of her underlings. Why give immunity if there were no laws broken? Why grant immunity to underlings unless you know they have the goods on the kingpin? Makes no sense.

What also does not make sense is why the FBI destroyed evidence after giving immunity.

Stinks.

Click to expand...

Correction, she received the emails

Edit: can't seem to find a source for whether they were outgoing or incoming. I seem to recall them being incoming messages, but can't confirm.

[serious] said:

Nothing was marked secret.

Click to expand...

Of course not. That's because the labels were removed or copied to another blank page.

No one in their right mind circumventing the law would properly mark a classified document they were knowingly transmitting on an unsecure private network. To do so would just invite suspicion.

Which means someone deliberately doctored the documents to avoid detection.

That is why Comey made it clear they knew what they were doing but somehow did not intend to do it...even though they did do it.

[serious] said:

Correction, she received the emails

Edit: can't seem to find a source for whether they were outgoing or incoming. I seem to recall them being incoming messages, but can't confirm.

Click to expand...

Sent and received. There were exchanges.

redleghunter said:

Of course not. That's because the labels were removed or copied to another blank page.

No one in their right mind circumventing the law would properly mark a classified document they were knowingly transmitting on an unsecure private network. To do so would just invite suspicion.

Which means someone deliberately doctored the documents to avoid detection.

That is why Comey made it clear they knew what they were doing but somehow did not intend to do it...even though they did do it.

Click to expand...

Source?

IMHO, many are and were involved in corruption (i.e. POTUS, FBI, DOJ, certainly Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and others). HRC wasn't prosecuted because many powerful figures would go down with her. Many felonies are involved. The Clinton Foundation opens another can of worms - many more felonies. They do have a swamp, and I'd like to see it drained.

[serious] said:

Source?

Click to expand...

The Comey source ? Posted that pages ago. But since your cat is pretty cool:

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

ToddNotTodd said:

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

Click to expand...

That's just a cover story used by the aliens to throw people off their trail.

redleghunter said:

The Comey source ? Posted that pages ago. But since your cat is pretty cool:

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

Click to expand...

I don't see anything about the following bits in that link:

Of course not. That's because the labels were removed or copied to another blank page.

No one in their right mind circumventing the law would properly mark a classified document they were knowingly transmitting on an unsecure private network. To do so would just invite suspicion.

Which means someone deliberately doctored the documents to avoid detection.

That is why Comey made it clear they knew what they were doing but somehow did not intend to do it...even though they did do it.

Click to expand...

I'll ask again, do you have a source for the bolded portions?

357magnum said:

IMHO, many are and were involved in corruption (i.e. POTUS, FBI, DOJ, certainly Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and others). HRC wasn't prosecuted because many powerful figures would go down with her. Many felonies are involved. The Clinton Foundation opens another can of worms - many more felonies. They do have a swamp, and I'd like to see it drained.

Click to expand...

The swamp of politics will not be drained until we (people) eliminate private campaign financing completely.

[serious] said:

I don't see anything about the following bits in that link:



I'll ask again, do you have a source for the bolded portions?

Click to expand...

Yes. How do documents which already have an originating source lose labels? Someone must remove them. No source necessary. Let's employ a bit of brain power.

Document "A" deemed by the originating source (DoD) resides on a Top Secret computer on a Top Secret server and marked Top Secret.

Document "A" is later found on an unsecure, private server (and computer) and no longer marked Top Secret.

Put another way:

There are three baskets. One with apples (TS), one with oranges (Secret) and one with plums (unclassified for official use only).

The farmer has rules for the baskets.

Rule 1: thou shalt not take apples and place them in any other basket.

Rule 2: thou shalt not take oranges and place them in the plumb baskets.

Rule 3: thouest may put plums in orange and apple baskets but never remove them thus again. They are now deemed oranges or apples and no longer plums.


Pretty simple other than the stipulation that plums, the lowest of the farmers fruit order, can go into higher level fruit baskets but once they do, they become converted to either apples or oranges never to go back to the plum basket.

Then one day the evil serpent entered the orchard of the farmer. The farm hands diligently at work noticed this intrusion but said 'what the hay, let's see what he has to say." The serpent said, "I have a fourth basket, may I get some apples, oranges and plums?"

The workers said "no that is forbidden." The serpent said "how so?"

The workers said "we are not to mix the fruit in the three baskets. Apples must stay in apple baskets, oranges in orange baskets and plums in plum baskets. We are allowed to put plums in orange or apple baskets but not take them out again.

The serpent replied. "Ok, here I have a fourth basket. Please put an assortment of the fruit from each basket in it."

The workers were baffled for a moment, then one said: "that would violate the rules the farmer gave us. It is not in our right to remove fruit to a basket that is not his own."

Another said "well the farmer never mentioned a fourth basket so it may be ok. Look the basket looks just like the three the farmer gave us. This serpent fellow seems to be a trusting type and is so polite."

The serpent knowing he had the one worker convinced then offered: "Truly I do not want you all to get into trouble and lose your job. Perhaps I have a solution. I am more after the oranges and apples, so let's peel the skins off the apples and oranges and they will cease to be apples and oranges."

The skeptical worker responded. "Even if we peel the skins, the contents of the fruit are still oranges for oranges and apples for apples. One with a discerning eye will know immediately."

The serpent then offered: "Look at the plumbs. It seems from your farmer's rules plums amount to little. If you peel the skins off the apples and oranges and then place some plums over them so no one will be the wiser. Doesn't your farmer have a rule a plum can become an orange and or an apple. Why not an apple or orange become a plum?"

Bewildered the workers did exactly what the serpent told them to do.

So, who lost more emails, Hillary or Dubya?

The George W.Bush White House "Lost" 22 Million Emails