Hillary Clinton’s emails contained highly classified intelligence – top inspector

[Publicus]

It is also rumored IG McCullough was affiliated with an extremely conservative Boy Scout Troop at age 11 whose Troop Leader was a Republican Town Council Member.

Following is the transcript of the Senate nomination hearing of IG McCullough.

Read it and make up your own minds. You can't trust most of the BS being uploaded on this forum.

https://fas.org/irp/congress/2011_hr/mccullough.pdf

The link in my post, reinserted here, is to the Senate nomination hearing of McCullough to be Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, which is the post he currently holds and for which he's being criticised by the HR Clinton campaign.

My link includes the attached documents, to include the Pre-Hearing Questionaire, not much in which was presented or discussed at the rah-rah hearing.

http://waatp.com/gat...ple_id=13938255

Strange what you say about McCullough's Boy Scout experience cause I had the same kind of thing happen to me. Difference is however I survived it.

Overcame it.

Rightwing scout masters.

Bob Gates is working on that now btw.

[NeverSure]

I thought this topic was about Hillary being a LOSER but I just realized it's actually about a LOSER's emails.

I'll bet after all of this that President Trump won't use a private email server.

Cheers.

[Publicus]

In an earlier post, somebody made this rather questionable claim:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nobody in the USA knows who this Intelligence Community Inspector General is, this guy I. Charles McCullough III. I'd Googled him a long time ago and only came up with a guy who's been in government and politics yet with nothing specific or identified in his bios or profiles, to include the official one especially.

It could seem Irving Charles McCullough III has made his political self and his appointments to government positions to be as anonymous as possible. One can also suspect we'll be hearing more about his background beyond the fact he was nominated to this position by President Obama (in 2011)."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I decided to take it upon myself to find out who this Inspector General really is and what his qualifications are.

Bear with me:

1. I. Charles McCullough, III was appointed by President Obama and confirmed by the Democrat controlled Senate as the first Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG) on November 7, 2011.

2. His immediate position prior to this appointment was as the Deputy Inspector General at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

3. He came to that position after serving as a member of the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service for eight years as the Assistant Inspector General for Investigations at the National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) Office of Inspector General (OIG).

4. Prior to joining the NSA/CSS OIG, Mr. McCullough served as the Senior Counsel for Law Enforcement and Intelligence in the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

5. Before joining the Treasury Department, he had a ten-year career in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), where he served as a Special Agent, Supervisory Special Agent, Associate Division Counsel, and Special Assistant United States Attorney.

6. IG McCullough holds a Juris Doctor degree from the Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University. He also holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Kentucky.

In addition to these accomplishments, Mr. McCullough has been able to accomplish something neither of the last two Democrat Presidents have been able to accomplish.

He is still licensed to practice law in his home state.

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/leadership/inspector-general

Did read all the razzmatazz long ago dude. All the awesomely impressive pulp is very easy to locate and even easier to get dazzled by.

The documents in connection with the Senate confirmation hearing and all its cheerleading are not quite so easy to track down and to plow through line by line.

A little hard work and persistence never killed anybody. Conversely, reading and then promoting the self-peddling razzle dazzle of a government career man is both glib and mundane.

[Publicus]

This has nothing to do with being a Liberal or Republican or any other preferences. In any state of law she is (will be) a criminal.

Before she was entrusted with any state secrets — indeed, on her first full day as secretary of state — Clinton received instruction from FBI agents on how to safeguard them; and she signed an oath swearing to comply with the laws commanding the safekeeping of these secrets. She was warned that the failure to safeguard secrets — known as espionage — would most likely result in aggressive prosecution.

...

The evidence of Clinton’s negligence is overwhelming. The FBI now has more than 1,300 protected emails that she received on her insecure server and sent to others — some to their insecure servers. These emails contained confidential, secret or top-secret information, the negligent exposure of which is a criminal act.

Full article: Two Smoking Guns

And why is she still on the campaign trail and not in jail??

The MSM and journalists & editors are about 85% registered Democrats. If Hillary were a Republican, this story would lead the nightly network news almost every night. It would be all over the front pages of major newspapers across the country and she wouldn't be running for office, she'd be running from jail.

Think I'm exaggerating? There is a long list of minor scandals featuring Republicans that the media doesn't let go of until the person resigns (caught tapping your foot in an airport bathroom? Resign!) But a major scandal with a Democrat at the center most often gets buried until people forget about it (caught running a brothel out of your Senatorial flat or dancing naked in a fountain? Rape a woman? Fail to pay your taxes? Nothing to see, move on). There's a long list, but you'll have to Google yourself because it is a lot to write just to have removed for being too far off topic.

The MSM and journalists & editors are about 85% registered Democrats.

Let's at least try to be a teensy bit realistic.

Think I'm exaggerating?

[Pakboong]

Classified, secret classified, double secret classified, what???

we can never know...as they are super double secret!!!

and they can never show us they are harmless, because that would violate something....

i'm not too worried about this.......

it's not like some joker can build a bomb based off these emails...

and......(shhhhh).......this was a CIA ploy to send off bad information!!!!!!

you sheep will never learn!!!!

SCI is a special category above Top Secret. SAP or a "special access program" is limited to very few with a specific "need to know." Any individual with a compelling business reason could be "read on" Some reasons for a SAP would be like defending and/or prosecuting Johnathan Pollard in court. Because of national security issues, the Judge, defense team and prosecution team would have to be given one time special access. A couple of folks will show up from Ft Meade and read each individual on to the situation that causes the trial to be Special. They are bound to death not to disclose the information unless of course, it is officially declassified.

The problem here is democracy. I prefer it to any other kind but "we the people" are equally responsible. Her true colors were not even hidden from public view. We allowed her to get where she is and we didn't put up much of a fight.

[mopar71]

What difference does it make?

I wonder how HRC will redecorate the Oval Office.

No, I don't care about emails or Benghazi.

I care about having a democrat in charge of the upcoming supreme court picks, etc.

Btw - how's that Bush nominee Chief Justice Roberts working out for you?

[chuckd]

The very well qualified IG had to obtain SAP access to merely look at the email.

An email that Hillary and her cadre of female aides were bouncing all over the world on an uncleared and unauthorized contractor, hired and paid for by Hillary personally.

This whole thing stinks to high Heaven. Anybody that can make a silk purse out of this sow's ear is truly living in la-la land.

[mopar71]

And NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, PBS, CNBC and Univision, to name only a few, live in the pocket of the DNC.

What's your point?

Refusing to follow Fox in broadcasting salacious, invented scandals and howls of fake derision does not make them "in the pocket of the DNC".

It simply makes them sensible broadcasters.

"Sensible" isn't the word for it...

Bias by the Minute: Tallying the Network News Agenda in 2015

Early last year, the Media Research Center set up a new project to keep tabs on all stories on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts, categorizing each item by its topic and total airtime. Thanks to that effort, we can now precisely analyze the agenda and bias of the Big Three networks — what they covered, and what they failed to cover, in 2015.

"the manhunt for the two escaped prisoners in upstate New York (2 hours, 58 minutes); -

That's almost an hour longer than all of these stories COMBINED...

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mike-ciandella/2016/01/13/bias-minute-tallying-network-news-agenda-2015?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_campaign=b-bias-byminute

Surely, any rational human being would look at those numbers and have to think maybe, just maybe something was wrong?

Or maybe this explains why liberals don't think any of these are important...because they only hear about it from right wingers they disagree with on Internet forums. I mean, if it were important they would be on the nightly news, right?

[mopar71]

This has nothing to do with being a Liberal or Republican or any other preferences. In any state of law she is (will be) a criminal.

Before she was entrusted with any state secrets — indeed, on her first full day as secretary of state — Clinton received instruction from FBI agents on how to safeguard them; and she signed an oath swearing to comply with the laws commanding the safekeeping of these secrets. She was warned that the failure to safeguard secrets — known as espionage — would most likely result in aggressive prosecution.

...

The evidence of Clinton’s negligence is overwhelming. The FBI now has more than 1,300 protected emails that she received on her insecure server and sent to others — some to their insecure servers. These emails contained confidential, secret or top-secret information, the negligent exposure of which is a criminal act.

Full article: Two Smoking Guns

And why is she still on the campaign trail and not in jail??

The MSM and journalists & editors are about 85% registered Democrats. If Hillary were a Republican, this story would lead the nightly network news almost every night. It would be all over the front pages of major newspapers across the country and she wouldn't be running for office, she'd be running from jail.

Think I'm exaggerating? There is a long list of minor scandals featuring Republicans that the media doesn't let go of until the person resigns (caught tapping your foot in an airport bathroom? Resign!) But a major scandal with a Democrat at the center most often gets buried until people forget about it (caught running a brothel out of your Senatorial flat or dancing naked in a fountain? Rape a woman? Fail to pay your taxes? Nothing to see, move on). There's a long list, but you'll have to Google yourself because it is a lot to write just to have removed for being too far off topic.

The MSM and journalists & editors are about 85% registered Democrats.

Let's at least try to be a teensy bit realistic.

Think I'm exaggerating?

OK, my mistake was writing "registered Democrats" when it should have been "liberals who are either Democrats, sympathetic to Democrats or dislike Republicans and conservatives enough to let their bias regularly show". Saying they are not liberals who favor the Democratic party is like saying Fox's Bill O'Reilly is not conservative and does not favor the Republicans. Like other journalists, he'll deny it but it is pretty clear where he stands.

[Andreas2]

<nested quotes>

Andrew Napolitano is a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey and a staunch defender of individual liberties ("rightwing"?????). He opposes collectivists, be they "rightwing" or "leftwing".

Please elaborate a little bit about your findings that make him an "extreme far out rightwing <fill in whatever you want>".

Please show the readers (or at least to me) something that makes him unqualified for his analysis above. Where does he in this analysis exaggerate or even report wrong information or conclusions, in your opinion?

If he should be correct with his analysis in this specific case (use of a private email server of HRC during her time as Secretary of State), where else then was he wrong in your opinion? Or where did he show his "extreme far out rightwing fringes", whatever that is?

The opinions stated in the post are interesting but they are mostly amusing.

For instance, Napolitano is a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey. A state superior court is not the state supreme court. It is a notch above only a county district court which is the lowest level of the state courts.

So which governor of New Jersey appointed the Faux legal beagle Andrew Napolitano to his judgeship? I dunno but the burden of information is on you as to whether Nappy was appointed by a Democrat or a Republican. In a state such as New Jersey, a state judgeship costs an arm and a leg in addition to kissing the don's ring, so how much did Nappy have to cough up to get to wear the black robe and sit on a bench.

How much is Nappy paid by Roger Ailes to spout the Republican rightwhinge line. Nap truly believes it all so I must say he's a lucky guy to be able to be paid for speaking his political opinions, as rightwhinge as they are. So in my choosing to respond in certain ways to your inquiries, the guy can be summarised as a rightwhinger by the fact he spouts the stuff regularly and consistently on Faux.

If that in itself is not enough evidence or proof positive, then you'd need to listen to him more often and regularly. You see, the more you agree with him, the more rightwhinge he is and the more far out rightwhinge you are.

I appreciate your replies, into which you invest time and effort, I guess. At least I do.

One thing up front: If I don't agree with someone's ideas or opinions, it doesn't matter if this person is a left-, right-, no- or double-winger.

Unfortunately I have the strong impression that you try to hijack my posts, or the writer's article I quoted, into an ideological corner, for whatever reason - consciously or unconsciously.

By doing this, you don't need to argue or invalidate the content of the posts, you just use Guilt by Association.

I learnt about The Judge long before the Democrats took over the White House and he always analysed and pointed to crimes, independently by whom they were committed. Obviously, he is still doing this.

Your post:

• "The opinions stated in the post are interesting but they are mostly amusing."

  If this refers to The Judge's article, then where and why? Otherwise, if it refers to my opinion, then you're welcome.

• "For instance, Napolitano is a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey."

  Thank you for confirming his credentials.

• "A state superior court is not the state supreme court. It is a notch above only a county district court which is the lowest level of the state courts."

  I didn't know that. Thank you for this additional information. I mean this seriously.

• "So which governor of New Jersey appointed the Faux legal beagle Andrew Napolitano to his judgeship? I dunno but the burden of information is on you..."

  Why and why? Why is the burden on me and much more important and relevant, why does it matter to you in the first place?

  Just to make sure, the topic of our posts is still about the content of the article I quoted, yes?

• "How much is Nappy paid by Roger Ailes to spout the Republican rightwhinge line."

  Again, you caught me, I first had to look up who Roger Ailes is. But again, why does it matter to you in the first place, how much Mr. Ailes pays?

  Just to make sure, again, the topic of our posts is still about the content of the article I quoted, yes?

• "... the guy [Andrew Napolitano] can be summarised as a rightwhinger by the fact he spouts the stuff regularly and consistently on Faux [Fox news]"... "If that in itself is not enough evidence or proof positive, then you'd need to listen to him more often and regularly."

  Your chain of evidence is convincing and a textbook example for Guilt by Association. You never refer to the article itself, where - in your opinion - The Judge makes a mistake or refers to something that is not true - Or why his opinion should be wrong. At least, and I'm thankful for that, you didn't pick sentences from the article out of context as "proof", to disguise your method.

Conclusion: I think you are sincere but be careful to not use this method too often, then as soon as people realise, that your contributions in a discussion are mere accusations instead of arguments, they could start losing interest in what you have to say - Even if it might be true or interesting in some regard.

EDIT: Typo corrected.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Andreas2

[Chicog]

And NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, PBS, CNBC and Univision, to name only a few, live in the pocket of the DNC.

What's your point?

Refusing to follow Fox in broadcasting salacious, invented scandals and howls of fake derision does not make them "in the pocket of the DNC".

It simply makes them sensible broadcasters.

"Sensible" isn't the word for it...

Bias by the Minute: Tallying the Network News Agenda in 2015

Early last year, the Media Research Center set up a new project to keep tabs on all stories on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts, categorizing each item by its topic and total airtime. Thanks to that effort, we can now precisely analyze the agenda and bias of the Big Three networks — what they covered, and what they failed to cover, in 2015.

"the manhunt for the two escaped prisoners in upstate New York (2 hours, 58 minutes); -

That's almost an hour longer than all of these stories COMBINED...

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mike-ciandella/2016/01/13/bias-minute-tallying-network-news-agenda-2015?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_campaign=b-bias-byminute

Surely, any rational human being would look at those numbers and have to think maybe, just maybe something was wrong?

Or maybe this explains why liberals don't think any of these are important...because they only hear about it from right wingers they disagree with on Internet forums. I mean, if it were important they would be on the nightly news, right?

Why?

They're all Fox-invented BS.

I watch Fox News in the vain hope that they actually have news items on the above, but it is almost always invented, partisan crap.

I don't blame anyone else for not reporting it, it is not news.

It's entertainment for Trump fans.

This morning Kelly spent the whole programming talking about a MOVIE about Benghazi, which apparently has not "captured the public's imagination" the way they wanted it to because it perpetuates the lies about "stand down" orders and so on.

It's actually quite cringeworthy to watch them try and pass this rubbish off as "reporting".

They seem to rotate the same old tired men and bimbos to slap each other on the back and tut a lot.

[Publicus]

 

<nested quotes>

Andrew Napolitano is a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey and a staunch defender of individual liberties ("rightwing"?????). He opposes collectivists, be they "rightwing" or "leftwing".

Please elaborate a little bit about your findings that make him an "extreme far out rightwing <fill in whatever you want>".

Please show the readers (or at least to me) something that makes him unqualified for his analysis above. Where does he in this analysis exaggerate or even report wrong information or conclusions, in your opinion?

If he should be correct with his analysis in this specific case (use of a private email server of HRC during her time as Secretary of State), where else then was he wrong in your opinion? Or where did he show his "extreme far out rightwing fringes", whatever that is?

The opinions stated in the post are interesting but they are mostly amusing.

For instance, Napolitano is a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey. A state superior court is not the state supreme court. It is a notch above only a county district court which is the lowest level of the state courts.

So which governor of New Jersey appointed the Faux legal beagle Andrew Napolitano to his judgeship? I dunno but the burden of information is on you as to whether Nappy was appointed by a Democrat or a Republican. In a state such as New Jersey, a state judgeship costs an arm and a leg in addition to kissing the don's ring, so how much did Nappy have to cough up to get to wear the black robe and sit on a bench.

How much is Nappy paid by Roger Ailes to spout the Republican rightwhinge line. Nap truly believes it all so I must say he's a lucky guy to be able to be paid for speaking his political opinions, as rightwhinge as they are. So in my choosing to respond in certain ways to your inquiries, the guy can be summarised as a rightwhinger by the fact he spouts the stuff regularly and consistently on Faux.

If that in itself is not enough evidence or proof positive, then you'd need to listen to him more often and regularly. You see, the more you agree with him, the more rightwhinge he is and the more far out rightwhinge you are.

I appreciate your replies, into which you invest time and effort, I guess. At least I do.

One thing up front: If I don't agree with someone's ideas or opinions, it doesn't matter if this person is a left-, right-, no- or double-winger.

Unfortunately I have the strong impression that you try to hijack my posts, or the writer's article I quoted, into an ideological corner, for whatever reason - consciously or unconsciously.

By doing this, you don't need to argue or invalidate the content of the posts, you just use Guilt by Association.

I learnt about The Judge long before the Democrats took over the White House and he always analysed and pointed to crimes, independently by whom they were committed. Obviously, he is still doing this.

Your post:

• "The opinions stated in the post are interesting but they are mostly amusing."

  If this refers to The Judge's article, then where and why? Otherwise, if it refers to my opinion, then you're welcome.

• "For instance, Napolitano is a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey."

  Thank you for confirming his credentials.

• "A state superior court is not the state supreme court. It is a notch above only a county district court which is the lowest level of the state courts."

  I didn't know that. Thank you for this additional information. I mean this seriously.

• "So which governor of New Jersey appointed the Faux legal beagle Andrew Napolitano to his judgeship? I dunno but the burden of information is on you..."

  Why and why? Why is the burden on me and much more important and relevant, why does it matter to you in the first place?

  Just to make sure, the topic of our posts is still about the content of the article I quoted, yes?

• "How much is Nappy paid by Roger Ailes to spout the Republican rightwhinge line."

  Again, you caught me, I first had to look up who Roger Ailes is. But again, why does it matter to you in the first place, how much Mr. Ailes pays?

  Just to make sure, again, the topic of our posts is still about the content of the article I quoted, yes?

• "... the guy [Andrew Napolitano] can be summarised as a rightwhinger by the fact he spouts the stuff regularly and consistently on Faux [Fox news]"... "If that in itself is not enough evidence or proof positive, then you'd need to listen to him more often and regularly."

  Your chain of evidence is convincing and a textbook example for Guilt by Association. You never refer to the article itself, where - in your opinion - The Judge makes a mistake or refers to something that is not true - Or why his opinion should be wrong. At least, and I'm thankful for that, you didn't pick sentences from the article out of context as "proof", to disguise your method.

Conclusion: I think you are sincere but be careful to not use this method too often, then as soon as people realise, that your contributions in a discussion are mere accusations instead of arguments, they could start losing interest in what you have to say - Even if it might be true or interesting in some regard.

EDIT: Typo corrected.

The request then the insistence on complying with the request are excessive and unnecessary; undesirable.

Suffice to say, Andrew Napolitano on Faux network is a rightwinger until and unless proved otherwise. It is simply self-evident, as one can immediately determine by reading his linked article of rash conclusions and vacuous presumptions, all of which and more are politically motivated.

Napolitano for instance is not critical of the Republican House Benghazi witch hunt, or of the tea party shutdown of the government.

Napolitano is a self-described discipile of Hayek and the Austrian school of doomsday economics which wants the usd destroyed and "pure" capitalism restored, as if there ever were such a thing as "true" or "pure" capitalism. Hayek and his followers to include Napolitano want the usd destroyed as the global reserve currency and as the global currency of trade. The United States of America.

That you have critiques of my posts is fine as this is a general interest world news forum open to the general public. That you have requirements and demands you believe other posters must meet to satisfy you is your issue.

Napolitano's views taken as a whole strongly suggest to me he is a global-scale fascist. His views on HR Clinton and US matters of national security have no meaning whatsoever to me and to others as well.

[Andaman Al]

This has nothing to do with being a Liberal or Republican or any other preferences. In any state of law she is (will be) a criminal.

Before she was entrusted with any state secrets — indeed, on her first full day as secretary of state — Clinton received instruction from FBI agents on how to safeguard them; and she signed an oath swearing to comply with the laws commanding the safekeeping of these secrets. She was warned that the failure to safeguard secrets — known as espionage — would most likely result in aggressive prosecution.

...

The evidence of Clinton’s negligence is overwhelming. The FBI now has more than 1,300 protected emails that she received on her insecure server and sent to others — some to their insecure servers. These emails contained confidential, secret or top-secret information, the negligent exposure of which is a criminal act.

Full article: Two Smoking Guns

And why is she still on the campaign trail and not in jail??

Why is she not in jail. Maybe she didn't commit a crime? Is that possible?

I don't know.

Maybe she (still) has very strong political connections? Maybe these connections are (still) stronger than the ones of Gen. David Petraeus, Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden ever were?

At least I haven't read anywhere - Except from Mrs. Clinton - that everything done regarding the use of her private email server during her time as Secretary of State was A-ok.

So let's see how this whole mess evolves .

EDIT: If you read the article to the link in my initial post, you would see that:

"There are now more than 100 FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton. Her denial that she is at the core of their work is political claptrap with no connection to reality. It is inconceivable that the FBI would send such vast resources in the present dangerous era on a wild-goose chase."

Wow! That is more effort than went into investigating 9/11. In fact hasn't more money been spent already investigating Hilary than was spent on the 9/11 investigation. Wonder why the worlds biggest crime scene was never treated as such.

For a country involved in too many black flag ops to mention and many other nefarious goings on on a global basis, I would say getting a lying, cheating President who does care one iota whether they follow rules and regulations or not, the USA are pretty much assured to get what they need. HRC or Trump, same same but different.

[Publicus]

This has nothing to do with being a Liberal or Republican or any other preferences. In any state of law she is (will be) a criminal.

Before she was entrusted with any state secrets — indeed, on her first full day as secretary of state — Clinton received instruction from FBI agents on how to safeguard them; and she signed an oath swearing to comply with the laws commanding the safekeeping of these secrets. She was warned that the failure to safeguard secrets — known as espionage — would most likely result in aggressive prosecution.

...

The evidence of Clinton’s negligence is overwhelming. The FBI now has more than 1,300 protected emails that she received on her insecure server and sent to others — some to their insecure servers. These emails contained confidential, secret or top-secret information, the negligent exposure of which is a criminal act.

Full article: Two Smoking Guns

This has nothing to do with being a Liberal or Republican or any other preferences.

The post fools no one other than the poster himself to think he can pass himself off as neutral.

Andrew Napolitano linked in the post and writing at a rightwhinge website besides is a recidivist rightwhinger of the first order as is his principal employer Faux and Roger Alles.

In any state of law she is (will be) a criminal.

So says he who pretends ever so transparently to be unconnected to ideology or politics.

The guy who links and quotes de judge Andrew Napolitano who is "senior legal advisor" to Faux Network.

Both are simply a joke prima facie, i.e., on the face of it.