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: 12678
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 # 98.
#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?
Once again you are lying about me,and I haven't even been back all day. I am NOT a "fag lover". Unlike you,I am a Bill of Rights lover. And I have never once said that Bernie Sanders is the "best candidate" and "a conservative". What I wrote was "Sanders is more conservative than any of the alleged Republicans currently running when it comes to American jobs. If you believe Trump is serious,you HAVE to believe that pro-wrasslin is not fixed. Trump is Randy "Macho Man" savage without the muscles.
Gay marriage isn't in the bill of rights. It was never mentioned by any founder. Ever. Freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof is. Do you like freedom of religion? Since you consider them cults. Let me rephrase in sneakyspeak. Do you support freedom of "cults" and the free exercise of "cults"?
Are you really THAT simple-minded? Where is heterosexual marriage mentioned in the Bill of Rights? Freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof is. Do you like freedom of religion? Since you consider them cults. Yes,even nutcases have a right to live their lives according to their beliefs,as long as they aren't infringing on the rights of others. Let me rephrase in sneakyspeak. Do you support freedom of "cults" and the free exercise of "cults"? Don't blame ME for designating your cult a cult,Bucko! It was the Catholic Church that first called all non-Catholic forms of Christianity cults,and since then all the Protestant cults have called competing Protestant relgigions cults,also. I didn't create that,I just repeated it to highlight you hypocrisy. But to answer your question,"YES,cults DO have as much right to practice their faith as anyone else in this country. If you needed my approval it wouldn't be a right,it would be a privilege. You just don't have the right to force others to share your views and values against their will,and you damn sure don't have the power to demand that government does it for you.
Are you really THAT simple-minded? Where is heterosexual marriage mentioned in the Bill of Rights? Then why do you say that you aren't a "fag lover" and say that you support the bill or rights and I don't? Implying that fag pretend marriage is in the bill of rigths. That is kind of deceptive and dishonest.
I have never ONCE said that homosexual marriage was in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights GUARANTEES ALL Americans they have the same rights as all other Americans. Including the right to marry who they wish if that person wants to marry them. If homosexuals don't have that right,neither do heterosexuals. Or even asexuals,who marry for companionship or to other personal reasons.
The Bill of Rights GUARANTEES ALL Americans they have the same rights as all other Americans. Including the right to marry who they wish Ok let me disect your sentence. You first say you "I have never ONCE said that homosexual marriage was in the Bill of Rights." Then you say"The Bill of Rights GUARANTEES ALL Americans they have the same rights as all other Americans. Including the right to marry who they wish" So it includes it but doesn't include it. You're talking out of both sides of your sperm receptor.
There is no longer any reason,if there ever was,for you and I to discuss this. Frankly,you are too stupid to understand reason because you live off of emotion and superstition. You are a groupie,and Trump is your Boy Band. You are due to take a big emotional hit when he finally drops out and you see what the payoff was.
I think he has staying power. I don't know for how long - I'll guess a year. Then he'll be buried on the political trail and add another billion to his wallet.
There are no replies to Comment # 98. End Trace Mode for Comment # 98.
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)
#46. To: A K A Stone, buckeroo (#36)
Do you agree with your bestest bud Pete, that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate and is a conservative?
#49. To: sneakypete (#46)
I am NOT a "fag lover". Unlike you,I am a Bill of Rights lover.
#57. To: A K A Stone (#49)
(Edited)
Gay marriage isn't in the bill of rights. It was never mentioned by any founder. Ever.
#60. To: sneakypete (#57)
(Edited)
Gay marriage isn't in the bill of rights. It was never mentioned by any founder. Ever.
#65. To: A K A Stone (#60)
Then why do you say that you aren't a "fag lover" and say that you support the bill or rights and I don't? Implying that fag pretend marriage is in the bill of rigths.
#67. To: sneakypete (#65)
I have never ONCE said that homosexual marriage was in the Bill of Rights.
#97. To: A K A Stone (#67)
(Edited)
So it includes it but doesn't include it. You're talking out of both sides of your sperm receptor.
#98. To: sneakypete (#97)
You are due to take a big emotional hit when he [Trump] finally drops out and you see what the payoff was.
Replies to Comment # 98.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]