Hillary May Be Charged Within 60 Days

[Jhhnn]

Seriously? I'm sorry that your news sources shield that information from you. I run across reports from legal experts on a regular basis getting into detail regarding the laws she's broken. This information is not hard to find.

Drudge Report, right?

 

[Vic]

Charged with what, exactly?

The heinous crime of not being a conservative Republican.

 

[dainthomas]

I very much hope that she is. We, as a nation, very much need to start holding the political class responsible for their actions. She signed the document as required that stated how classified information was to be treated and along with that signed acknowledging that she had been briefed on same. She then went on to haphazardly and with little concern deal with information and then lied repeatedly stating that she hadn't. That briefly sums it up. 1200 documents is the last count I saw IIRC and I believe there are more documents unreleased at this point.

She has broken the law and on a serious level. She needs to be charged and tried for that. We either decide the law applies to us all or we continue the move towards the law applies to us only if we agree with the law.

I do find it interesting to see how societies move towards their downfall. History shows us nations and civilizations that have collapsed and it's sometimes difficult to comprehend how a people could have allowed it to happen. But when you're right in the midst of it, it becomes clear. Public sentiment is manipulated by people that have gained enormous power. If we are a nation of laws, what Hillary Clinton has done should not be up for argument. But is is up for argument with a large percentage of the population willing to ignore her unlawful behavior. She has attained a position of great power and because of that she can influence the sentiments of a nation.

She needs to be charged to restore faith in our system.

Hillary Clinton needs to go to prison for not complying with established email management procedures. Or civilization will collapse.

No hyperbole there.

 

[wetech]

May need some explaining here.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/

But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means.

Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."

Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

There is no way to know whether the talking points themselves contained classified information. Typically, talking points are used for unclassified purposes (e.g. speaking with the media). But in some cases, the information contained in such memos may still be sensitive -- especially if the report originates from intelligence agencies.

Don't know if the material was actually classified, but the fact that it was first attempted to send via secure channels definitely looks fishy.

 

[MongGrel]

Most of what I have seen has stated "almost" everything involved was formerly classified and had been declassified at the time.

Every thing is being sifted for any possible slip up, what else is new.

I'm sure there are worse things going on a corporate basis as we speak.

 

[hal2kilo]

This is really nothing new. From my experience with dealing with classified information and all that entails is that the biggest leaks always come from the top. I don't care what organization. Usually when some admiral wants to brag about something.

 

[Jhhnn]

May need some explaining here.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/


Don't know if the material was actually classified, but the fact that it was first attempted to send via secure channels definitely looks fishy.

Everything looks fishy when you're desperate to catch one.

 

[wetech]

Everything looks fishy when you're desperate to catch one.

"If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

Are you really saying that this statement doesn't warrant a second look?

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

"If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

Are you really saying that this statement doesn't warrant a second look?

This statement warrants piss and shit....

Not every paragraph in a classified document is marked as such. I work in an environment where I have access to classified information and have on several occasions removed (unclassified) information from a SCIF that was previously harvested out of a classified document. It's called sanitizing and it sounds to me as if that was what she instructed her aide to do with whatever it was.... turn into nonpaper? Don't know what that means, but the intent could well be interpreted as "Sanitize it and send it!"

Past that, who knows what was actually sent or even if anything was sent at all...
This is just more mental masturbation. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Jhhnn]

"If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

Are you really saying that this statement doesn't warrant a second look?

I'm saying that we don't have what it takes to properly evaluate but we can always insinuate.

 

[wetech]

This statement warrants piss and shit....

Not every paragraph in a classified document is marked as such. I work in an environment where I have access to classified information and have on several occasions removed (unclassified) information from a SCIF that was previously harvested out of a classified document. It's called sanitizing and it sounds to me as if that was what she instructed her aide to do with whatever it was.... turn into nonpaper? Don't know what that means, but the intent could well be interpreted as "Sanitize it and send it!"

Past that, who knows what was actually sent or even if anything was sent at all...
This is just more mental masturbation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Without knowing what the requested document was, your statement also amounts to "piss and shit". What I'm saying is find the document that was requested, see what it contained and what was done with it.

Turn into non-paper sounds like a tech-savy Clinton's way of saying, don't fax the hardcopy, email me a scanned version.

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

What I'm saying is find the document that was requested, see what it contained and what was done with it.

Umm.. yeah, my point exactly. Instead, the witch-hunters with pitchforks and torches in hand are calling this a "smoking gun" without so much as a modicum of supporting evidence.

Until you have positively ID'd said original document...
...And until you have what was actually faxed, scanned, or otherwise transmitted...
...And until you have validated that whatever was transmitted did in fact contain classified information obtained from a classified marked section of the parent document OR which makes an association of information where such association is in and of itself classifed...
...And you establish that actionable spillage did in fact occur as a direct result of her "turn into nonpaper with no identifying heading and send nonsecure" statement...

...you have piss and shit.

 

[fskimospy]

Without knowing what the requested document was, your statement also amounts to "piss and shit". What I'm saying is find the document that was requested, see what it contained and what was done with it.

Turn into non-paper sounds like a tech-savy Clinton's way of saying, don't fax the hardcopy, email me a scanned version.

Non-papers are broad statements without attribution that allow governments to float ideas that might be unpopular or difficult to bring up if a country had to take official ownership of them. That's why she wanted the headings removed I imagine.

It's not possible to know what was in it of course, but it would be very odd to put classified information in such a document I would think.

http://esharp.eu/jargon#non-paper

 

[Moonbeam]

I predict that within the next 60 days, Hillary will be charged by any number of brain defective wild boors and buffoonlows. When the chips are down and pig poops are all around, (snort) the shit's bound to hit the fan.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Whatever happened to all the stink about the Clinton's Fake Charity?

There are plenty of real reasons to dislike Hillary, so it seems odd that they pick the ones that are imaginary. I guess, the media doesn't want to talk about the real issues.

 

[Moonbeam]

Keep telling them ad nauseam that they have a brain defect? This isn't working?

It's not the telling that's the problem, it's the inability to hear that is. Start listening please,

 

[Bowfinger]

Non-papers are broad statements without attribution that allow governments to float ideas that might be unpopular or difficult to bring up if a country had to take official ownership of them. That's why she wanted the headings removed I imagine. ...

According to the Wikipedia entry, removing such identifiers is typical for non-papers:

Aide-mémoire

In international relations, an aide-mémoire is a proposed agreement or negotiating text circulated informally among delegations for discussion without committing the originating delegation's country to the contents. It has no identified source, title, or attribution and no standing in the relationship involved. Such a text is also referred to as a non-paper in many international organizations ...
​

Given that context, Clinton's comment seems even more mundane. Of course, all we have is speculation without having the actual document.

 

[Jaskalas]

Email Suggests Hillary Broke Law...
Instructed aide to remove classification marking from information, a federal offense...
AT LEAST 1,340 emails now contain classified material...

^ Just another day in Washington.

 

[ivwshane]

Email Suggests Hillary Broke Law...
Instructed aide to remove classification marking from information, a federal offense...
AT LEAST 1,340 emails now contain classified material...

^ Just another day in Washington.

It must be that lame stream media at work again that's why you can only post shit sources, right?

Or is this another case of you being too stupid to realize this "new" information is repeating old information and you take their speculation as fact because that's just how fucking dumb you people are?

 

[Jaskalas]

You think it's defensible by attacking the messenger. That's hilarious and desperate. I feel sorry for you.

 

[ivwshane]

You think it's defensible by attacking the messenger. That's hilarious and desperate. I feel sorry for you.

We already know the source is full of shit and has been debunked as pure speculation and yet you continue pushing it. So who else is to blame but the idiot who keeps repeating bullshit?

I'm sorry you are an idiot. If I don't point it out to you then who will? You should be thanking me.

 

[Bowfinger]

You think it's defensible by attacking the messenger. That's hilarious and desperate. I feel sorry for you.

If you'd stop letting professional liars do your thinking for you, you wouldn't be attacked so much. This has already been discussed in recent posts, including mine immediately before yours. It appears likely to be nothing, no matter how breathlessly the nutter media claims they have their smoking gun ... again. Time will tell.

 

[Jhhnn]

We already know the source is full of shit and has been debunked as pure speculation and yet you continue pushing it. So who else is to blame but the idiot who keeps repeating bullshit?

I'm sorry you are an idiot. If I don't point it out to you then who will? You should be thanking me.

The will to believe is strong in that one. The professional con men of the right wing propaganda machine recognize him & others like him as easy marks.

 

[feralkid]

Seriously? I'm sorry that your news sources shield that information from you. I run across reports from legal experts on a regular basis getting into detail regarding the laws she's broken. This information is not hard to find.

Then link it; you make claims, then refuse to back it up.

Do you know what "legal experts" call what you are doing?

 

[ivwshane]

Then link it; you make claims, then refuse to back it up.

Do you know what "legal experts" call what you are doing?

Awaits boomerangs typical response of, "I don't really care, this issue doesn't mean much to me and I only post to get a response out of people".