United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account
Source:
CNBC
URL Source: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/crim ... ary-clintons-use-of-email.html
Published: Jul 24, 2015
Author: Michael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo
Post Date: 2015-07-24 13:54:29 by redleghunter
Ping List: *2016 The Likely Suspects* Subscribe to *2016 The Likely Suspects*
Keywords: None
Views: 13575
Comments: 111
WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday. The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton's private account contained "hundreds of potentially classified emails." The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management. It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them. But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account. The initial revelation has been an issue in the early stages of her presidential campaign. Poster Comment: 
Subscribe to *2016 The Likely Suspects*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 50.
#3. To: redleghunter (#0)
Right. The sender sent information which was not yet officially classified. Hillary Clinton received information which had not yet been officially classified. As head of the State Department, did she have a duty to recognize the intelligence reports as highly classified and classify them, and give them the required protection? As the information was clearly compromised, should it have been so reported? It would not seem to help if Sidney Blumenthal were to be considered to have acted in some official State Department capacity and to have sufficient clearance and access authorization. It would only make him responsible to have protected it in the first place. Hillary's server clearly contained intelligence reports with Top Secret information. The Agency head is responsible for the protection of classified information within her agency.
True,and BY DEFINITION anything she did not classify was not classified information. Remember when that shithead Jim-mah Carter exposed Top Secret Code Word intelligence about the Stealth fighters and bombers ready to come online in order to try to pump up is re-election chances and absolutely nothing happened to him for doing so despite the FACT that anyone below him doing that would have received life in prison? It wasn't classified if the president says it wasn't classified. Same thing is going to happen here. She didn't classify it so it wasn't classified. Can't we just MOVE ON?
If it came from info classified by other lawful classifiers, her opinion of its classification is irrelevant. A SoS has classification rights over documents they write, but they can't reclassify a classified Pentagon or CIA document on a whim. There is an audit trail of who classifies info and everyone it is transmitted to and each individual has the responsibility to safeguard any classified material. They are not arbitrarily allowed to reclassify documents they have received. Declassification follows other rather strict protocols, as when old government documents from DoE or Pentagon or State get declassified years or decades later. So I think you are overestimating Hitlery's authority to reclassify anything that came into her hands as SoS.
Of course you are correct. I noticed that poster was incorrect too. Didn't want to rub his nose in it at this time though.
Thats a pretty arrogant post on your part; you didn't even notify the poster you were discussing.
Accidents happen Buckeroo. After all you were born.
I was planned at the beginning of tyme. What is your excuse?
That is true. But your parents still had an accident. I'm happy that you are here Buck. You're a unique individual.
What are you doing Stone? Drivin goff some of our best posters again? What did you do, today? Go to Sunday school and learn "HELL and DAMNATION" once again?
I've said nothing about Grandisland. I was talking about you.
I was referring to your angst about "sneakypete" ... you seem to think he characterizes the word "evil."
I attack all fag lovers that are for Bernie Sanders. Do you agree with your bestest bud Pete, that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate and is a conservative? Do you agree with your good friend Pete that people who support Traditional marriage (marriage) are bigots and discriminate against faggots?
And yet another lie about me on the same thread. Guess what,Bucko? There are plenty of people who support traditional marriages that aren't obsessed with homosexuals as you are,and that have the odd notion that homosexuals have the same rights as every other citizen. And there is no THINK that drones like you discriminate against faggots. You do,and you think doing so makes you holier. I have no problem with that. You,like everyone else in a free country,are free to think anything you want to think. What you are NOT allowed to do is pass laws that discriminate against others that disagree with your superstitious beliefs. After all,nobody died and made YOu God.
#52. To: sneakypete (#50)
You said I and others were bigots and anti American because we didn't support you and the faggots trying to redefint marriage. It isn't a lie. You said that. So you're lying.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIt is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.
#20. To: nolu chan (#3)
The Agency head is responsible for the protection of classified information within her agency.
#23. To: sneakypete (#20)
Same thing is going to happen here. She didn't classify it so it wasn't classified.
#24. To: TooConservative (#23)
If it came from info classified by other lawful classifiers, her opinion of its classification is irrelevant.
#26. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#24)
I noticed that poster was incorrect too. Didn't want to rub his nose in it at this time though.
#28. To: buckeroo (#26)
#29. To: A K A Stone (#28)
#31. To: buckeroo (#29)
I was planned at the beginning of tyme.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#31)
#34. To: buckeroo (#33)
Drivin goff some of our best posters again?
#35. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#34)
#36. To: buckeroo (#35)
#50. To: A K A Stone (#36)
Do you agree with your good friend Pete that people who support Traditional marriage (marriage) are bigots and discriminate against faggots?
Replies to Comment # 50. Do you agree with your good friend Pete that people who support Traditional marriage (marriage) are bigots and discriminate against faggots? And yet another lie about me on the same thread.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 50.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]