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: 14347
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 # 77.
#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.
Then it will be the fault of some secretary or clerk that retyped it and handed it to her without telling her. NOTHING is EVER going to be her fault.
Not if Hillary or your commie Hero Sanders wins. Trump on the other hand and Hillary is off to jail.
ROFLMAO! Will that be before or after he asks for the money back that he donated to her earlier election campaigns? Will it also mean that he won't invite her to any more parties?
Before. Because he isn't going to ask for the money back. It was chump change.
Yeah, a couple of grand here,a couple of grand there,it's almost like it never happened,right?
I'm not a rich guy. But a couple of grand doesn't seem like that much to me. It must be like a nickel or penny to Trump. I understand as a business man of his magnitude. You have to play the political game or you will not be able to do business. So he gave them some chump change. It doesn't bother me in the least. Now if Jeb, or Graham, or Cruz gave her money. There would be hell to pay. Because there giving would be for different reasons. That is how I see it. I suspect that is how millions of others see it. Am I a bit hypocritical on this? Maybe but I don't think so. I'm telling you this so you can understand my thinking and perhaps lots of others. Trump is going to be able to get away with stuff others in the field wouldn't. And that is ok with me. Because I and others can see that he isn't a typical politican. He is there to solve serious problems with our debt, border etc. I won't agree with everything he does. But I respect him. He isn't going to get tied up in the kinds of debates you and I have about gay marriage or abortion. He may not be as against those as I am. But that is ok because unlike a Hillary or typical politican that isn't his main focus. He will be a good President. And like Reagan I expect you to come around. You're just so cynical from your experinces with being lied to for so may years. So your cynicism is to be expected. Hope that helps you understand where I and I think many others are coming from.
It's not,and I am sure that just like everyone else he found a way around election laws and donated more. If there is one thing that Trump loves as much as himself,it is money. He is not going to give a dime to anyone unless he thinks he will benefit from it. Good to see you don't care about him contributing to the Clinton,Kennedy,and NYC manorial campaigns,though.
So when we are losing money to China in trade. And to Mexico in trade. Trump will see we are losing money and it is no benefit to us. Sounds awesome. Thank for making me like Trump even more. :) You're telling us he will get rid of NAFTA and have better trade deals with China, Japan etc. Awesome.
No,I am telling you he will never be elected,and even if he is,he won't have the authority to any of that on his own and nobody in either the DNC or the RNC is going to back him if he tries.
You and the other kooks keep bitching about how evil both the RNC and DNC is... and now you're bragging about how they won't play nice with Trump. Seems like anything the RNC & DNC hates, you should endorse. You are more confused that Bruce Jenner.
Ha ha... let the libtards boil in anger. No more socialist Dems, no more weak filthy RINO's. Now they gotta a real problem... A RICH INDEPENDENT THAT CANT BE BOUGHT.
#78. To: GrandIsland (#77)
Is Rand still your first choice? He seems to have disappeared. He is fighting to defund planned parenthood, which is good in my view.
Sorry, Charlie - Of this, $612,083 are to candidates or parties identifiable either as Republican or Democratic. Of that amount, $320,300 of that have been to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates; $291,783 to Republican committees and candidates. That’s 52% of his giving to identifiable political giving to Democrats. Perhaps more illuminating: In 2010, he made $102,200 in political donations, $83,400 were to Republicans, including a $50,000 check in October to American Crossroads, a PAC cofounded by Karl Rove. Before 2010, when we could infer he was less serious about running for the Republican nomination, 59% of his political donations were to Democrats (again, setting aside donations not identifiable with either party). Who are his favorites? On the left side of the aisle: $20,350 to Charles Rangel, the Harlem-based Congressman $9,900 to Chuck Schumer $9,400 to Harry Reid $9,000 to various Kennedys, mainly Ted. $5,500 to John Kerry On the right side of the aisle: $13,200 to John McCain (excluding any McCain affiliated PACs) $8,300 Arlen Specter, former Republican Senator who eventually turned Democratic to salvage his career. $9,500 to Mark Foley, the disgraced former Florida politician $8,250 to south Jersey Congressman Frank LoBiondo $6,500 to Sue Kelly, a former congressperson from upstate New York. Of the $131,950 donations to organizations not identified as affiliated with a party by OpenSecrets and non-affiliated candidates: $4,800 went to Charlie Crist, the former Florida governor who ran for Senate as an independent. $1,000 to independent candidate Joe Lieberman (who also received Trump donations when a Democrat) $50,000 went to the Trump NY Delegate Committee in 1999, presumably in connection with the effort to draw a political convention to New York City. See the data yourself at OpenSecrets.org Trump certainly appears to be drawing unusual backers. As I previously reported, a left-leaning PAC that previously backed Obama, John Kerry and Howard Dean is mulling back a candidate Trump. GrandIsland - you have too much tyme on your hands ... why not go out and be that street crossing guard that you once were? You were best at that sort of thing.
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.
#41. To: TooConservative (#23)
A SoS has classification rights over documents they write, but they can't reclassify a classified Pentagon or CIA document on a whim.
#43. To: sneakypete (#41)
NOTHING is EVER going to be her fault.
#51. To: A K A Stone (#43)
Trump on the other hand and Hillary is off to jail.
#54. To: sneakypete (#51)
Will that be before or after he asks for the money back that he donated to her earlier election campaigns?
#61. To: A K A Stone (#54)
Before. Because he isn't going to ask for the money back. It was chump change.
#64. To: sneakypete (#61)
Yeah, a couple of grand here,a couple of grand there,it's almost like it never happened,right?
#66. To: A K A Stone (#64)
'm not a rich guy. But a couple of grand doesn't seem like that much to me.
#68. To: sneakypete (#66)
If there is one thing that Trump loves as much as himself,it is money. He is not going to give a dime to anyone unless he thinks he will benefit from it.
#71. To: A K A Stone (#68)
You're telling us he will get rid of NAFTA and have better trade deals with China, Japan etc.
#74. To: sneakypete (#71)
he will never be elected,and even if he is,he won't have the authority to any of that on his own and nobody in either the DNC or the RNC is going to back him if he tries.
#76. To: GrandIsland (#74)
#77. To: A K A Stone (#76)
Replies to Comment # 77.
#80. To: GrandIsland (#77)
No more socialist Dems, no more weak filthy RINO's. Now they gotta a real problem... A RICH INDEPENDENT THAT CANT BE BOUGHT.
According to electoral cycle donations via OpenSecrets.org which I examined this morning, Trump has donated a net $744,033 to political candidates and committees since 1989 (the extent of the online database).
End Trace Mode for Comment # 77.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]