Despite the determination of investigators at the State Department and intelligence agencies that Hillary Clinton did use her personal email system to handle confirmed classified information (and potentially compromised “hundreds of classified emails”), Clinton dismissed such allegations and assured the public that it is “pretty clear” that there was no classified information on her personal email system — a system that she used rather than the secure State Department system.
Clinton portrayed the recent bombshell report of the allegations of the Inspector General as simply some bureaucratic infighting: “What I think you’re seeing here is a very typical kind of discussion, to some extent disagreement among various parts of the government, over what should or should not be publicly released.” (Notably, the State Department itself confirmed specific classified emails on the system).
I think that it is much more than that, though the Obama Administration has been quick to downplay any suggestion of a criminal investigation and has stressed that the letter from the Inspector General was not technically a criminal referral.
Again, Clinton is stressing that she did not send or receive any material marked classified. I have previously discussed why that explanation is less than compelling, particularly for anyone who has handled sensitive or classified material. As I discussed earlier, virtually anything coming out of the office of the Secretary of State would be considered classified as a matter of course. I have had a TS/SCI clearance since Reagan due to my national security work and have lived under the restrictions imposed on email and other systems. The defense is that this material was not technically classified at the time that it was sent. Thus it was not “classified” information. The problem is that it was not reviewed and classified because it was kept out of the State Department system. Moreover, most high-level communications are treated as classified and only individually marked as classified when there is a request for disclosure. You do not generate material as the Secretary of State and assume that it is unclassified. You are supposed to assume and treat it as presumptively classified. Otherwise, there would be massive exposure of classified material and willful blindness as to the implications of the actions of persons disregarding precautions. For example, there is not a person standing next to the President with a classification stamp in the Oval Office. However, those communications are deemed as presumptively classified and are not disclosed absent review. Under the same logic, the President could use a personal email system because his text messages by definition are not marked as classified. This is the whole reason that Clinton and others were told to use the protected email system run by the State Department. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to secure such systems.
Clinton portrayed the dispute as entirely removed from her controversial decision to use a personal server — a move that gave her total control of the server and ultimately allowed her staff to delete thousands of emails before turning over emails to the State Department: “They can fight over it or argue over it. That’s up to them. I can tell you what the facts are.”
Clinton continues to struggle with her spin that she wanted to use her own server to avoid multiple devices (which has been widely ridiculed) as well as her insistence that she never received a subpoena. Her repeatedly claim that she was never subject to a subpoena has been described as false by media like CNN after it was disclosed that she had indeed been given a subpoena for the emails.
I would be surprised if the Administration opened a criminal investigation into the matter given the treatment of other high-ranking officials in such cases by the Justice Department in the past. However, to kill any investigation after this letter would be viewed as unusual and biased by many in the intelligence area. First and foremost, Clinton may have to yield to long-standing demands for access to this server. For the moment, she is clearly maintaining the original position that there was no problem so long as her communications were not marked as classified at the time — a rather preposterous suggestion since no one sits next to a Secretary of State and stamps every line as classified in communications. The use of private server obviously placed these communications at greater risk of interception, which is the whole reason we have spent hundreds of millions on the secure system for communications. I do not see how Clinton will be able to maintain her conduct as justified or responsible in the face of the overwhelming view of experts as well as prior internal memoranda on the subject.
Chelsie:
I know that you want to come visit over here in the middle east. But the bathrooms in the embassy here are disgusting.
Mom,
sent by my Hillaryemail
I recommend John Fund’s July 10, 2015 article on Trump. I think Fund’s assessment of Trump’s game plan, and games, is accurate.
Paul C. Schulte….Trump’s managerial experience includes numerous business bankruptcies. I don’t think that’s a viable option for solving the massive U.S. debt.
I don’t think his poll numbers matter much at this point; I don’t see him lasting very long among the 16 Republican contenders.
Trump had given glowing appraisals of Hillary Clinton as late as 2012….this was after most of her stint as Sec. of State, and formerly as a Senator.
I think think Trump will wipe out early on, then do a Ross Perot to throw the race to Hillary.
Tom Nash – Trump is smart. Each of his projects is it own entity. So when it goes bankrupt, it can without hurting him. Frankly, 1 in 3 new businesses in the US goes bankrupt. He is not going to beat those odds.
Look at that group of men in the background presiding over the Professor Turley blog.
Those are the unique and historical figures who gave Americans the restricted-vote republic in 1789.
They were reasonable, reverent men who were taught and followed the law.
They wrote the founding documents deliberately and with a purpose.
They wrote them to stand.
stevegroen:
“Don’t knock the VA healthcare system until you’ve tried it. I’m glad I’m eligible. I think it’s excellent compared to what’s going on in the private marketplace where you get two minutes with your primary physician and re-routed to specialists who aren’t covered under your plan, admission fees at hospitals not covered under your plan, ad nauseum.”
Actually, I don’t base my opinion based on a single person’s experience. I base it off of the undisputed fraud and negligence that resulted in the deaths of veterans, and the VA hiding thousands upon thousands of patient records in an attempt to improve their turnaround time on paper. Plus there was that study that discovered that 1 private practice cardiologist did the work of 8 VA cardiologists. There’s just no getting around that, regardless of if you find a hundred stories of people who had a great time getting a cold treated.
The other problem is what is a veteran to do if the best specialist in his disease is outside of the VA network? That’s the trouble with restrictive, closed networks.
I agree with you that it’s terrible that you only get a few minutes with your doctor. That is exactly why I opposed Obamacare giving doctors a 30% pay cut. In order to keep the doors open, they have to use a factory high throughput model that gets you in and out the door as soon as possible. In fact, one of my new doctors started charging a surcharge in order to accept insurance, so that she could spend as much time with her patients as she thought medically necessary. Otherwise, she said she would have to do what so many other doctors are doing – either don’t accept Obamacare or follow the factory model that everyone hates. So, of course, this is yet another way that Obamacare drives up the cost of health care and lowers quality of care.
Most people oppose restrictive doctor networks, such as is found in the VA system, HMOs, and EPOs. They want MORE choice, not less. There are those who will say that if everyone went single payor, no one would be out of network, but that is making the assumption that doctors could afford what the government paid them. Since the first response to Obamacare was a huge percentage of doctors simply not participating that gives me pause.
How did we get into this circus and end up having the inmates take over the asylum?
Why don’t we have a comment from the Founders on this subject?
OK. The year is 1789. Ben Franklin said, we gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.” By republic, Franklin was referring to representative government elected by a restricted vote. The criteria applied were age 21, European, male, with 50 lbs Sterling or 50 acres.
“…a republic, if you can keep it.”
It’s a nation, not a candy store.
There must be a rational way to run a country based on freedom of the individual, not collectivism from a different country and a different ideology.
It makes no sense for foreigners to outvote Americans. That is an unconstitutional strategy employed by radical extremist democrats. Import foreign “refugees,” “asylum” seekers and illegal aliens to manipulate the American elections through voter fraud. For most it’s safe to go home now and the rest shall be deported per the law.
The Founders gave Americans FREEDOM not “FREE STUFF.”
If we could pass the 18th amendment we could pass the 21st.
If Lincoln, Obama and the Extreme Court can act outside of the Constitution, so can Americans.
If we could change from the Founders’ restricted-vote republic, we can change back.
PS, Paul C. Schulte…I think there was a time when “my candidate is a less disgusting alternative” would not be the best endorsement.
But times do change, so Hillary gets the nomination.
Paul C. Schulte….If you look at the objective commentary by Isaac a few comments back, you will find that Hillary is disgusting, but less disgusting than the 16 Republican candidates, and, I assume, less disgusting than any of her 3 Democratic opponents for the nomination.
That mentality, and the “IT’S TIME FOR HILLARY” mantra, will likely guarantee her nomination.
I think the Rep. field is wide open…..if Trump plays spoiler and does a Perot (and I think that is likely), then Hillary wins.
Tom Nash – if the Republicans quit screwing around and take Trump seriously, Trump will stay in the race and take his lumps like a man. However, he has more managerial experience than all of them put to together, except Carly. 3 of the Republicans have better numbers than Hillary. And Trump has better numbers than everyone.
@Patriot
Sooo, once again you quote somebody else without saying what specific information is either false or materially altered. FWIW, Reed Hayes also does not state what specific information is either false, or materially altered. Once again, you do not provide a general definition of “forgery.” That is very quack-like behavior. To throw around legal terms and charges without any specifics. Without even defining the term. One might as well say that you are committing forgery, because the image of your name that appears on this thread, “Patriot (@musicman27103)” , does not appear in any phone book, and does not appear to be a real name! OHHH, look, FORGERY! Except that argument would flop if I tried to get into specifics of exactly what you did that was criminal. The same way the Birther argument flops when you try to get into specifics.
Do you really enjoy being a legal quack??? Aren’t you just a little bit ashamed of yourself? I say this as a person who can’t stand Obama, and wishes the Birthers were right about this. But they aren’t. And definitions of forgery don’t change because of my whims. The Birthers have exactly precisely one piece of decent evidence, and that one piece is simply far outweighed by the weight of the other evidence, and the fact that no other documentation of a birth outside the United States has been uncovered in nearly eight years.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Barak:
The embassy in Nairobi has some birth certificate which has your name and your dad’s name on it. I thought you ought to know.
Hillary.
on my cell phone
Yes Isaac, you do see what you want to see.
Reed Hayes, a document examiner who has served as expert witness for Seattle law firm Perkins Coie, the very same firm that flew an attorney from Honolulu to Washington D.C. to personally deliver two paper copies to the White House, states that Obama’s birth certificate is “entirely fabricated.”
Reed Hayes, eh? See right here on wordpress: https://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/did-reed-hayes-violate-the-nade-code-of-ethics/
I do love the official photo JT uses for Hillary. It says to me, “Hello, my name is Hillary, and I’m a perky phony.
“Ya see what you want to see.” Indeed!
@Patriot
I didn’t ask what somebody else thought about it. They aren’t here. YOU are. Can YOU, personally please explain which piece of evidence contained upon the birth certificate has been proven false or materially altered? Is it his name? His birth weight? His father’s name? Which of the 40+ pieces of information is false or misleading?
Can YOU personally even define the general elements of a forgery claim? If YOU personally can not answer the above questions, or even define “forgery” then you have simply allowed yourself to become a silly puppet of a bunch of silly internet legal quacks. Is that something that you wish to be?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
In the end, there are two choices. A Republican President with the present mix in Congress and the Senate would be disastrous, worse than Hillary as President. Line up all the choices and compare and contrast their disgusting aspects and their value and Hillary still works better than a Republican and any Republican who has declared.
Hillary has exhibited some deplorable moments. Name one candidate, Republican or Democrat who has not. Bush was Hispanic for a while. Trump is, well, Trump. Walker is a complete idiot and extremely dangerous. The list goes on.
This may be predominantly a right wing blog, however, even right wing nuts should be able to step back a bit and take in the complete picture. Ya see what ya want to see.
Douglas Vogt’s Evidence of Obama Fraud and Forgery
http://www.vectorpub.com/pdf/Notice_of_Commision_of_Felony_13cv1880_Affidavit.pdf
Many Years of Investigation
Orly Taitz’s Table of Evidence regarding Obama’s Forgery and Fraud of Identification
http://www.BuenaVistaMall.com/Table-of-evidence-of-forgery-fraud-and-fabrication-in-Obamas-IDs1.pdf
Obama’s Birth Certificate is a Fake
“What was presented to the American people is nothing”
The Following is a Presentation on the Fraudulent Identity Documents of Barack Hussein Obama AKA Barry Soetoro
Presented by: Mike Zullo, Lead Investigator of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse
https://youtu.be/PwDqXFCy0Bo
Paul C. Schulte…..I don’t think Hillary’s trust issues will cost her the nomination.
Brilliant, incisive, analytical voters who spout phrases like “it’s all sausage making” or “it’s time for Hillary” don’t care that she can’t be trusted.
They will carry her to the nomination. Trump may help her into the White House by forming a third party.
Tom Nash – the ‘vagina voters’ want a woman. However, she is not the only woman in the race. Carly is knocking them off, but not really getting the press. She would kill Hillary in a debate. She actually answers questions.