APNewsBreak: Gov't finds 'top secret' info in Clinton emails

[chuckd]

Would anybody like a little information on a Hillary super pac named by somebody in an earlier post. The super pac is called..."Correct the Record".

This is from the Washington Post based on an article in the NY Times. Attack the source if you wish but it is not Fox News.

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

How a super PAC plans to coordinate directly with Hillary Clinton’s campaign

Hillary Clinton’s campaign plans to work in tight conjunction with an independent rapid-response group financed by unlimited donations, another novel form of political outsourcing that has emerged as a dominant practice in the 2016 presidential race.

On Tuesday, Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton rapid-response operation, announced it was splitting off from its parent American Bridge and will work in coordination with the Clinton campaign as a stand-alone super PAC. The group’s move was first reported by the New York Times.

That befuddled many campaign finance experts, who noted that super PACs, by definition, are political committees that solely do independent expenditures, which cannot be coordinated with a candidate or political party. Several said the relationship between the campaign and the super PAC would test the legal limits.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/12/how-a-super-pac-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/

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

More recent news about Correct the Record.

Hillary Clinton campaign chairman tells super PAC to 'chill out'

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has made clear it is moving into a new phase of the race, where it will take a far more aggressive posture toward Bernie Sanders – but some in the Clinton camp may be getting overeager.

A super PAC run by top Clinton surrogate David Brock will begin airing advertisements questioning the physical fitness of the 74-year-old Vermont liberal, Politico reported. Brock directs the Correct the Record super PAC and sits on the board of Priorities USA, which is raising tens of millions of dollars to support Clinton.

Brock is a self-described hit man. He is a former journalist who helped lead the right wing’s attacks on Hillary and Bill Clinton in the 1990s, later regretted it, and re-emerged as a staunch Clinton loyalist who now focuses on attacking their opponents (usually, though, the conservative ones) and raising money for Hillary Clinton.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-hillary-clinton-super-pac-20160117-story.html

[Chicog]

It seems attack ads are now the accepted way to conduct campaigns.

Fox must be making a mint out of it, seems to be mostly pro and anti Rubio, and anti Cruz.

[Ulysses G.]

It has been mostly anti-Rubio for weeks and largely coming from Jeb Bush. It is amazing how few ads he has directed towards the front runners after they have ruined his campaign. I figure he knows he is going to lose and a lot of it is spite towards Rubio for daring to run against his mentor.

[Publicus]

Two questions in my mind

one , HRC says they were not classified as top secret when she emailed them, but were later on classified. If that's true then she did not commit a crime.

Second, why did she need a private server? A government one was available to her at no cost, yet she chose to spend cash and time to create and maintain one, Why?

If some one can address these two questions I would appreciate itI can only answer the first question.

As a classifying authority she had the knowledge and training to know what is classified and what is not classified. And let's not forget that mysterious form SF-312 which said she was in violation of transmitting any information, WHETHER MARKED OR UNMARKED.

This is no defense, even though she thinks it is.

To be quite frank, my guess is the SF-312 originally signed by Hillary has long disappeared and is back in her personal possession. That's the Clinton way. I expect Kerry or some minion of his to come out soon and announce the State Department has been unable to locate a signed copy of SF-312.

As far as the second part of your question, see the first part above.

That's the Clinton way. Laws and rules only apply to the commoners. Wannabe political dynasties are not chained by such triviliaties.

I expect Kerry or some minion of his to come out soon and announce the State Department has been unable to locate a signed copy of SF-312.

Speculation and cynical wish.

Right wing speculation and incurably cynical wish. (Cheerfully so apparently. Compulsively so in fact.)

One or maybe two people on the planet are talking about the US Government Form SF-312.

When I worked for the feds everything I signed went into my personnel file which is in the sole possession of the US Government. I could get copies (in addition to copies I was formally issued) but not original documents.

People on the right should be as concerned about US Congress professional staff which are not required to obtain a security clearance or to sign any nondisclosure document to include the SF-312. Neither are Members of the US House or the US Senate required or obligated in law or in the Constitution to obtain a security clearance or to sign anything in respect of nondisclosure.

Neither are professional employees of the US Judiciary required to obtain a security clearance or sign a nondisclosure security document.

Congressional Rules and Security Clearance Procedures

House members and staff must take a self-imposed secrecy oath, while the Senate does not. Once a congressional or judicial staff member are “read in,” he/she should receive training on how to properly protect classified information.

They also receive a clarification of the consequences when he/she does not properly protect classified information.

These “Very Special” people then, must and usually do comply with rules very similar to the ones ‘regular people’ [executive branch employees] must abide by. Whether the consequences of their failure to protect the information are the same, well, that’s a very different story.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS20748.pdf

No professional staff employee of the US Congress, i.e., the US House of Representatives or the US Senate are required to have any security clearance or sign any nondisclosure document. This includes of course staff personnel of either party (or no party) of the committees, respectively, on intelligence, armed services, foreign affairs, homeland security and so on right on through to the Committee on Agriculture.

Same same in respect of employees of the Judiciary to include the Supreme Court.

Consequently, there are at any given time hundreds if not a thousand people working as US Congress staff in particular running around with their heads full of Top Secret information and knowledge. The Toppest of Secrets included, so to speak.

No one to include the elected Members of Congress themselves know in fact or for real how they handle it or what they say or do with it all. The IG of the IC hasn't any clue either. Neither does the FBI. To include the emails of Congress professional staff. Or their pillow talk. Or in their private or public travels abroad.

Anyone interested in national security rather than politics might find himself discussing these matters as a priority.

[Publicus]

Two questions in my mind

one , HRC says they were not classified as top secret when she emailed them, but were later on classified. If that's true then she did not commit a crime.

Second, why did she need a private server? A government one was available to her at no cost, yet she chose to spend cash and time to create and maintain one, Why?

If some one can address these two questions I would appreciate itI can only answer the first question.

As a classifying authority she had the knowledge and training to know what is classified and what is not classified. And let's not forget that mysterious form SF-312 which said she was in violation of transmitting any information, WHETHER MARKED OR UNMARKED.

This is no defense, even though she thinks it is.

To be quite frank, my guess is the SF-312 originally signed by Hillary has long disappeared and is back in her personal possession. That's the Clinton way. I expect Kerry or some minion of his to come out soon and announce the State Department has been unable to locate a signed copy of SF-312.

As far as the second part of your question, see the first part above.

That's the Clinton way. Laws and rules only apply to the commoners. Wannabe political dynasties are not chained by such triviliaties.

I expect Kerry or some minion of his to come out soon and announce the State Department has been unable to locate a signed copy of SF-312.

Speculation and cynical wish.

Right wing speculation and incurably cynical wish. (Cheerfully so apparently. Compulsively so in fact.)

One or maybe two people on the planet are talking about the US Government Form SF-312.

When I worked for the feds everything I signed went into my personnel file which is in the sole possession of the US Government. I could get copies (in addition to copies I was formally issued) but not original documents.

People on the right should be as concerned about US Congress professional staff which are not required to obtain a security clearance or to sign any nondisclosure document to include the SF-312. Neither are Members of the US House or the US Senate required or obligated in law or in the Constitution to obtain a security clearance or to sign anything in respect of nondisclosure.

Neither are professional employees of the US Judiciary required to obtain a security clearance or sign a nondisclosure security document.

Congressional Rules and Security Clearance Procedures

House members and staff must take a self-imposed secrecy oath, while the Senate does not. Once a congressional or judicial staff member are “read in,” he/she should receive training on how to properly protect classified information.

They also receive a clarification of the consequences when he/she does not properly protect classified information.

These “Very Special” people then, must and usually do comply with rules very similar to the ones ‘regular people’ [executive branch employees] must abide by. Whether the consequences of their failure to protect the information are the same, well, that’s a very different story.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS20748.pdf

No professional staff employee of the US Congress, i.e., the US House of Representatives or the US Senate are required to have any security clearance or sign any nondisclosure document. This includes of course staff personnel of either party (or no party) of the committees, respectively, on intelligence, armed services, foreign affairs, homeland security and so on right on through to the Committee on Agriculture.

Same same in respect of employees of the Judiciary to include the Supreme Court.

Consequently, there are at any given time hundreds if not a thousand people working as US Congress staff in particular running around with their heads full of Top Secret information and knowledge. The Toppest of Secrets included, so to speak.

No one to include the elected Members of Congress themselves know in fact or for real how they handle it or what they say or do with it all. The IG of the IC hasn't any clue either. Neither does the FBI. To include the emails of Congress professional staff. Or their pillow talk. Or in their private or public travels abroad.

Anyone interested in national security rather than politics might find himself discussing these matters as a priority either or also.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Publicus

[Ulysses G.]

Thanks for all the trivia on who is not required to sign a security agreement. However, Hillary WAS required to sign one and she has violated it in numerous ways. She needs to be charged criminally for doing so.

[Publicus]

As Secretary of State she had specific powers to classify, or not, any document within the State Department. This specific power was duly provided to her by the State Department Security section along with a tutorial on the application of these powers when she assumed office in 2009.

Unless she slept trough the instructional sessions, she was deemed to be competent.

Check out this post from earlier: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/890824-apnewsbreak-govt-finds-top-secret-info-in-clinton-emails/page-2#entry10369656

That must be quite a difference from the Department of Defense. I wouldn't expect the Secretary of Defence to be able to determine the classification of each document, even if he has the authority to decree it.

The following link will take you to Obama's Executive Order 13526 labeled "Original Classification Authority"

This EO specifies which officials are able to classify government data to either a "Secret" or "Top Secret" level.

As a Classifying Authority she would have received extensive training and briefings on what should be considered classified materials and what might not be.

She can certainly be blamed for being incompetent but that won't hold up in a court of law.

Both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense are so designated.

<<snip>>

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-original-classification-authority

She can certainly be blamed for being incompetent but that won't hold up in a court of law.

HR Clinton is not in a court of law. We'll advise the rightwhingenutosphere on the matter from here on out.

Reality is as follows;

There is no grand jury. There isn't any prosecutor, regular or special. There are some FOIA filings active in two federal courts and that is all.

HR Clinton does of course have an attorney, however, he is not a defense attorney. Nor is there a sort of dream team of defense attorneys.

HR Clinton is charged with nothing. Neither is HR Clinton being investigated by FBI. The only people involved in pursuing HR Clinton are the right wing and their mass of well funded media.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

Two questions in my mind

one , HRC says they were not classified as top secret when she emailed them, but were later on classified. If that's true then she did not commit a crime.

Second, why did she need a private server? A government one was available to her at no cost, yet she chose to spend cash and time to create and maintain one, Why?

If some one can address these two questions I would appreciate it

Did anyone address your questions?

1. There is a term "Born classified". That means that something is classified on its face the moment it comes into existence. The training that people who handle classified material receive covers well what that would be. It doesn't have to be marked "classified" to be classified if it falls within the parameters. This is where Hillary is blowing smoke by claiming things weren't marked "classified".

2. She didn't need a private server and only the Devil himself knows why she had one. It would be handy to have only if you wanted control of evidence against you emails that others could find later. Perhaps others can think of another reason since the State Department would have been happy to handle it all for her.

[Publicus]

Would anybody like a little information on a Hillary super pac named by somebody in an earlier post. The super pac is called..."Correct the Record".

This is from the Washington Post based on an article in the NY Times. Attack the source if you wish but it is not Fox News.

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

How a super PAC plans to coordinate directly with Hillary Clinton’s campaign

Hillary Clinton’s campaign plans to work in tight conjunction with an independent rapid-response group financed by unlimited donations, another novel form of political outsourcing that has emerged as a dominant practice in the 2016 presidential race.

On Tuesday, Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton rapid-response operation, announced it was splitting off from its parent American Bridge and will work in coordination with the Clinton campaign as a stand-alone super PAC. The group’s move was first reported by the New York Times.

That befuddled many campaign finance experts, who noted that super PACs, by definition, are political committees that solely do independent expenditures, which cannot be coordinated with a candidate or political party. Several said the relationship between the campaign and the super PAC would test the legal limits.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/12/how-a-super-pac-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/

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

More recent news about Correct the Record.

Hillary Clinton campaign chairman tells super PAC to 'chill out'

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has made clear it is moving into a new phase of the race, where it will take a far more aggressive posture toward Bernie Sanders – but some in the Clinton camp may be getting overeager.

A super PAC run by top Clinton surrogate David Brock will begin airing advertisements questioning the physical fitness of the 74-year-old Vermont liberal, Politico reported. Brock directs the Correct the Record super PAC and sits on the board of Priorities USA, which is raising tens of millions of dollars to support Clinton.

Brock is a self-described hit man. He is a former journalist who helped lead the right wing’s attacks on Hillary and Bill Clinton in the 1990s, later regretted it, and re-emerged as a staunch Clinton loyalist who now focuses on attacking their opponents (usually, though, the conservative ones) and raising money for Hillary Clinton.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-hillary-clinton-super-pac-20160117-story.html

The right can thank the five Republican justices on the Supreme Court for Citizens United that opened the gates of hell on the financing of campaigns led by the Republican party.

In the meanwhile, here are some facts about Correct The Record...

One group official compared its activities to what happens when the National Republican Senatorial Committee puts out a press release in favor of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. That kind of supportive communication doesn’t count as an in-kind contribution that would run the group into dangerous territory.

“This is actually very clear cut and the FEC has repeatedly dismissed allegations regarding coordination of Internet communications,” said the group’s communications director, Adrienne Watson. “Republicans are trying to confuse the issue to create a story where none exists. As always, we’re happy to correct the record.”

But Republicans are highly unlikely to file complaints for fear of inviting more scrutiny into their own practices, acknowledged Republicans and Democrats alike.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-backers-defend-link-to-pac-118014#ixzz3ytaTU7EF

Creating Correct The Record was necessitated by the vast right wing conspicuously. Burns Strider btw runs Correct The Record, which which is a Rapid Response organisation. This now corrects the record that the right keeps trying full time to put backwards upside down and inside out.

Hillary Clinton has the same right as anyone and everyone to defend herself. Especially when it comes to politics and the far out radical rightwhingenutosphere.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Publicus

[chuckd]

Some food for thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqYefKMNGe4

[Richard W]

As Secretary of State she had specific powers to classify, or not, any document within the State Department. This specific power was duly provided to her by the State Department Security section along with a tutorial on the application of these powers when she assumed office in 2009.

Unless she slept trough the instructional sessions, she was deemed to be competent.

Check out this post from earlier: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/890824-apnewsbreak-govt-finds-top-secret-info-in-clinton-emails/page-2#entry10369656

That must be quite a difference from the Department of Defense. I wouldn't expect the Secretary of Defence to be able to determine the classification of each document, even if he has the authority to decree it.

The following link will take you to Obama's Executive Order 13526 labeled "Original Classification Authority"

This EO specifies which officials are able to classify government data to either a "Secret" or "Top Secret" level.

<snip>

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-original-classification-authority

I would expect most of the routine difficult classification decisions to be made in accordance with Section 2.1(a) of the order:

Sec. 2.1. Use of Derivative Classification. (a) Persons who reproduce, extract, or summarize classified information, or who apply classification markings derived from source material or as directed by a classification guide, need not possess original classification authority.

In other words, the system does not rely on the Secretary of State to routinely make the classification decisions on individual items. She should normally just be approving classification policy and, after taking advice, making exceptions. It should not be beyond the wit of Americans to devise a classification guide to cover most material 'born TOP SECRET'.

[Richard W]

Some food for thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqYefKMNGe4

Now what may be culpable negligence is assuming that material was UNCLASSIFIED just because it was unmarked. Note the implication that she expected classified material to be marked as such before she saw it.

[chuckd]

Richard:

What you are letting slide is she was where the buck stopped in the State Department for four years.

Certainly she did not make routine decisions as to what was classified and what wasn't. I never claimed she did.

My position and, hopefully, the position of the grand jury, is that as an approving authority she had the knowledge and the responsibility to know what was classified or not regardless of whether it was marked or not.

I am dead certain, in my own feeble mind, that she knew what was classified and what was not. She very simply thought she would get away with having her own personal server and she would never hear of it after leaving office.

Now the only thing she has is a defense about the markings and the alleged bias of the IG that inspected her. She screwed the pooch this time and it is going to be difficult for the Clinton political machine to dig her out.

She is barely beating a 73 year old socialist in Iowa now. It's a long road ahead for her.

Edited February 2, 2016 by chuckd

[NeverSure]

She still hasn't won. it's tied for delegates with 90% of the votes counted.

[NeverSure]

Remember, this isn't winner take all. Hillary and Sanders look likely to split the delegates. Cruz got 8 and Trump got 7 and Rubio got 6. There were 3 more scattered out.

[lostboy]

Richard:

What you are letting slide is she was where the buck stopped in the State Department for four years.

Certainly she did not make routine decisions as to what was classified and what wasn't. I never claimed she did.

My position and, hopefully, the position of the grand jury, is that as an approving authority she had the knowledge and the responsibility to know what was classified or not regardless of whether it was marked or not.

I am dead certain, in my own feeble mind, that she knew what was classified and what was not. She very simply thought she would get away with having her own personal server and she would never hear of it after leaving office.

Now the only thing she has is a defense about the markings and the alleged bias of the IG that inspected her. She screwed the pooch this time and it is going to be difficult for the Clinton political machine to dig her out.

She is barely beating a 73 year old socialist in Iowa now. It's a long road ahead for her.

Perhaps you can enlighten us further by informing us exactly what Grand Jury you are talking about. I cannot find any reference to any Grand Jury. Are you privy to special information?

The grand tradition of the Right. A serial adulterer leads a lynch mob to try and impeach HRC's husband for some meaningless sex act and the Security State wastes energy and resources on compiling a list of regulations, guidelines and administrative procedures that HRC is supposed to have breached. The Patriots continue to bring glory to the Land of the Free.

[chuckd]

Richard:

What you are letting slide is she was where the buck stopped in the State Department for four years.

Certainly she did not make routine decisions as to what was classified and what wasn't. I never claimed she did.

My position and, hopefully, the position of the grand jury, is that as an approving authority she had the knowledge and the responsibility to know what was classified or not regardless of whether it was marked or not.

I am dead certain, in my own feeble mind, that she knew what was classified and what was not. She very simply thought she would get away with having her own personal server and she would never hear of it after leaving office.

Now the only thing she has is a defense about the markings and the alleged bias of the IG that inspected her. She screwed the pooch this time and it is going to be difficult for the Clinton political machine to dig her out.

She is barely beating a 73 year old socialist in Iowa now. It's a long road ahead for her.

Perhaps you can enlighten us further by informing us exactly what Grand Jury you are talking about. I cannot find any reference to any Grand Jury. Are you privy to special information?

The grand tradition of the Right. A serial adulterer leads a lynch mob to try and impeach HRC's husband for some meaningless sex act and the Security State wastes energy and resources on compiling a list of regulations, guidelines and administrative procedures that HRC is supposed to have breached. The Patriots continue to bring glory to the Land of the Free.

Keep your TV tuned to Fox News. You will be the first to know.

You're still an Aussie, right?

[lostboy]

Richard:

What you are letting slide is she was where the buck stopped in the State Department for four years.

Certainly she did not make routine decisions as to what was classified and what wasn't. I never claimed she did.

My position and, hopefully, the position of the grand jury, is that as an approving authority she had the knowledge and the responsibility to know what was classified or not regardless of whether it was marked or not.

I am dead certain, in my own feeble mind, that she knew what was classified and what was not. She very simply thought she would get away with having her own personal server and she would never hear of it after leaving office.

Now the only thing she has is a defense about the markings and the alleged bias of the IG that inspected her. She screwed the pooch this time and it is going to be difficult for the Clinton political machine to dig her out.

She is barely beating a 73 year old socialist in Iowa now. It's a long road ahead for her.

Perhaps you can enlighten us further by informing us exactly what Grand Jury you are talking about. I cannot find any reference to any Grand Jury. Are you privy to special information?

The grand tradition of the Right. A serial adulterer leads a lynch mob to try and impeach HRC's husband for some meaningless sex act and the Security State wastes energy and resources on compiling a list of regulations, guidelines and administrative procedures that HRC is supposed to have breached. The Patriots continue to bring glory to the Land of the Free.

Keep your TV tuned to Fox News. You will be the first to know.

You're still an Aussie, right?

Don't get Fox News at home. Do enjoy watching it when I travel. Very energetic. So I take it that this Grand Jury is just a fantasy? I think old men's fantasies are a dime a dozen in this place. So prosaic.

My apologies. I didn't realise this thread was for natural born Americans. I guess Ted Cruz and I will have to find other threads to post on.

[CharlieH]

Post removed.

No personal comments please, discuss/debate the topic NOT the poster.

Thank you.

[Chicog]

I didn't realise this thread was for natural born Americans.

You're OK, it isn't, even if certain posters wish that it was.

[Steely Dan]

Did I read correctly that some of the classified e-mails contained the names of active intelligence agents?

[Chicog]

Did I read correctly that some of the classified e-mails contained the names of active intelligence agents?

Was it from an "unnamed source"?

I thought leaking the names of intelligence agents was a Republican thing, I must admit.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Chicog

[beechguy]

Did I read correctly that some of the classified e-mails contained the names of active intelligence agents?

Was it from an "unnamed source"?

I thought leaking the names of intelligence agents was a Republican thing, I must admit.

I doubt the the Republicans have a monopoly on that, but I would pass on an Embassy assignment under a Clinton.

[Chicog]

Did I read correctly that some of the classified e-mails contained the names of active intelligence agents?

Was it from an "unnamed source"?

I thought leaking the names of intelligence agents was a Republican thing, I must admit.

I doubt the the Republicans have a monopoly on that, but I would pass on an Embassy assignment under a Clinton.

It's funny how Republicans have selective memory when it comes to such things.

I would suggest that you look into Valerie Plame, who's name wasn't stored on a server but deliberately leaked. The Republican White House official responsible was convicted on four counts, but then pardoned by his own President... very convenient.

No prizes for guessing which President that was. Actually known for being a bit of a fibber himself.

[beechguy]

Did I read correctly that some of the classified e-mails contained the names of active intelligence agents?

Was it from an "unnamed source"?

I thought leaking the names of intelligence agents was a Republican thing, I must admit.

I doubt the the Republicans have a monopoly on that, but I would pass on an Embassy assignment under a Clinton.

It's funny how Republicans have selective memory when it comes to such things.

I would suggest that you look into Valerie Plame, who's name wasn't stored on a server but deliberately leaked. The Republican White House official responsible was convicted on four counts, but then pardoned by his own President... very convenient.

No prizes for guessing which President that was. Actually known for being a bit of a fibber himself.

And you don't think the same type of thing has gone on in the State Department, or administrations under the Clinton's?

No prizes for which President had two of his Embassies blown up the same day. Perhaps Hillary learned her foreign policy skills from him.

[Richard W]

Did I read correctly that some of the classified e-mails contained the names of active intelligence agents?

Now that should have been something to ring the alarm bells over the true classification of the emails - assuming that the emails actually implied that they were active intelligence agents. Or was she supposed to know the names of all active intelligence agents anyway?

There actually a dangerous exhortation that information should be treated in accordance with its protective marking. Perhaps Americans work to it. (The danger is that the true classification may be much higher than the visible classification.)

[Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere]

So, proof positive she lied.

Fine her, jail her, then forget the "clinton's", these are not the kinds of people I would want running anything or setting an example.

the

During the time the information was not classified... You should read the whole story.

[Tatsujin]

So, proof positive she lied.

Fine her, jail her, then forget the "clinton's", these are not the kinds of people I would want running anything or setting an example.

the

During the time the information was not classified... You should read the whole story.

It might not have been "marked" explicitly as classified, but you're not going to try to tell me that (with her years of experience in politics at the highest levels) she didn't know what was and was not sensitive material, regardless of how it was actually classified at the time? She even admitted that she made a mistake.

[chuckd]

Did I read correctly that some of the classified e-mails contained the names of active intelligence agents?

Was it from an "unnamed source"?

I thought leaking the names of intelligence agents was a Republican thing, I must admit.

I doubt the the Republicans have a monopoly on that, but I would pass on an Embassy assignment under a Clinton.

It's funny how Republicans have selective memory when it comes to such things.

I would suggest that you look into Valerie Plame, who's name wasn't stored on a server but deliberately leaked. The Republican White House official responsible was convicted on four counts, but then pardoned by his own President... very convenient.

No prizes for guessing which President that was. Actually known for being a bit of a fibber himself.

No White House official outed Valerie Plame to journalist Robert Novak.

A State Department employee named Richard Armitage outed her name to Novak, who published it.

Scooter Libby was NOT convicted for any outing. Libby was indicted on five counts relating to the later investigation into the Plame affair. Two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements to federal investigators, and one count of obstruction of justice.

Libby was convicted, fined $250,000 and sentenced to 30 months in federal prison.

President Bush commuted his prison sentence of 30 months but left all other sentencing in place. He DID NOT issue a pardon.

I think we all know who the fibber is in this case.

[chuckd]

So, proof positive she lied.

Fine her, jail her, then forget the "clinton's", these are not the kinds of people I would want running anything or setting an example.

the

During the time the information was not classified... You should read the whole story.

Hillary was the only employee of the State Department that had the authority to classify anything up to the Top Secret level.

She knew what was classified and what was not.

She also didn't want her email traffic to be subject to FOIA requests so elected to use a personal server in spite of being provided a state.gov account..

Nobody else is responsible but Hillary for her current problems.

End of story