I just need to understand something -- here is PROOF that Clinton knowingly sent classified material

[FourScore]

on an open server. It is a major crime to "remove the identiying heading and send nonsecure." And Hillary backers are okay with this? The republicans are already planning an impeachment if she should even get elected (which I don't think she can with all of this trickling out like it is. Or if the indictment comes before Nov.)


From: Hillary Clinton
To: Jake Sullivan
Date: 2011-06-15 20:21
Subject:


UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05787519 Date: 01/07/2016

RELEASE IN PART
B5,B6

From: H <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 8:21 AM
To: 'sullivanjj@ state.gov'

Subject: Re B5


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

From: Sullivan, Jacob J [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 08:17 AM
To: H
Subject: Re: B5


They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it.

From: Sullivan, Jacob J
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 08:00 AM
To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: B5

?!!! Checking

From: H [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 07:52 AM

To: Sullivan, Jacob J
Subject: Re: B5

I didn't get the TPs yet.

From: Sullivan, Jacob 3 [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 05:51 PM

To: H
Subject: Fw: B5

You'll get tps this eve. They're coming together.

From: Spence, Matthew J. [mailto: B6
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 04L PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob 3
Subject: B5

[tonyt53]

1. Desperation appears once all hope has faded. This is desperation. The FBI won't act on it.

[FourScore]

3. No. I want a democrat to win in Nov. Hillary can't win. I'm a realist. And I have worked

abroad with classified information. THIS IS REALLY BAD!!

[TomJulie]

5. I'm confident she can and...

will win as long Sanders doesn't go traitorous on us and runs on an Independent.

[bobbobbins01]

7. Ironic use of the word traitor

Considering the candidate you support is the one threatening national security.

[TomJulie]

36. Didn't Say...

I didn't say Bernie was a traitor but if he tries a 3rd party run he will split the party which would almost guarantee a Trump win. Bernie is bound to know that. I'm just hoping Bernie will concede his loss gracefully.

[think]

10. Welcome to DU....

[TomJulie]

41. Thank You!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Welcome to DU and don't let the BBs intimidate you.

Stronger together!

[TomJulie]

37. Thank you!

Thank you, my friend.

[frylock]

43. ..

[asuhornets]

8. ...

[CorkySt.Clair]

12. "I want a Democrat to win in November"

*But only if it's Bernie Sanders.

[think]

4. Your incessant empty rhetoric isn't an answer but thanks for playing.

[MisterP]

2. the worst part is, we knew this in JANUARY! it was on CBS! CNN! NYT!

[thesquanderer]

6. Question remains, does this prove classified info was sent in an unsecure manner?

For example, maybe the headers--who it came from and who it was going to--was the classified part, and with those removed, it was no longer classified.

Or maybe, after Hillary sent this direction, it was never followed. Maybe they got the secure fax working after all.

For this to be a "smoking gun," more info would seem to be needed.

[grasswire]

26. the "headers"....fer god's sake...

...are the classified markings that protect it as a secret.

She instructed to cut off the classified markings and send it plain and unprotected.

[thesquanderer]

30. I read "heading" as "headers," sorry...

and "headers" can mean different things. But the point remains that this doc is vague enough that it's hard to be certain something illegal did occur. But I doubt the investigators overlooked it.

I just google'd for what Hillary's explanation for this was...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/01/10/hillary-clinton-says-nonpaper-email-a-nonissue/
and
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/265367-clinton-defends-telling-aid-to-send-data-through-nonsecure-channel

It's a bit lame, really... basially, she trusted Jake Sullivan to automatically strip out any info that was classified, if there was any. And in the end, it seems that no such "nonpaper" version was ever actually sent. So even assuming that the doc in question included classified info, is it a crime to *ask* that it be sent, if it is never actually sent?

[grasswire]

32. is that it?

She is asking, in that email, for the classification MARKINGS to be stripped.

[randome]

33. No. She isn't. She is asking for headers to be stripped.

Most electronic communications have headers describing the content.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[thesquanderer]

35. Here's what one of the links said about that, in case you didn't read it

The State Department release does not make clear what the contents of the email were or whether the information was classified. Clinton contends that she trusted Sullivan to respond appropriately.

“The important point here is that I had great confidence because I worked with Jake Sullivan for years,” Clinton said. “He is the most meticulous, careful person you could possibly do business with, and he knew exactly what was and wasn’t appropriate.”

Like I said, it's pretty lame... basically just saying that, if there was anything classified in the doc, she would automatically trust Sullivan to identify it and act accordingly. Which sounds pretty ridiculous. If it's not classified, why does she need to ask him to strip it? If it is classified, how could any "underling" have the authority to send it--in all or in part--via an unsecure method? It's not like anyone can just look at a classified doc and decide for himself, this line is okay, this line isn't. Not unless that person, himself, has the authority to classify and declassify things.

Though maybe she'd just come back and say, "see? that's why it was never sent, he did his job." Which actually sounds like he protected her from her own bad judgment.

But since no one has confirmed this document definitely included classified info, at least from the public perspective, it's still a gray area.

[NWCorona]

9. What's that B6 part tho?

[YouDig]

11. She's Secretary of State. She has the authority to classify and declassify things.

And she also has the authority to make the judgement of whether it is worth declassifying and transmitting insecurely versus waiting for the secure fax system to come back up.

[HooptieWagon]

16. That is simply not true. Nt

[YouDig]

19. Yes, it is. You do get that people in government are the ones that classify things, right?

It's not like classification comes down from god.

[HooptieWagon]

20. SoS does not unilaterally classify and declassify.

Nor anyone else. That was the gist of the case against Scooter Libby et al. You should do a little research before pulling shit out of your rear to post.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declassification

[YouDig]

24. You mean Secretary of State Libby? I don't remember him being SoS.

[leveymg]

40. Libby claimed to acting w/authority of Cheney. VP has greater declassification power

Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:28 AM - Edit history (1)

than does SOS.

[grasswire]

27. no. talking point. nt

[NWCorona]

13. There's also the emails in the early release that had the headers removed.

[AzDar]

14. K & R

[yodermon]

15. if that classified info originated within the State Dept., then Clinton had declassification

authority.

[HooptieWagon]

17. That is not true. Nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. There is, however, a specific process.

A one-line email response ain't that process.

[yodermon]

31. That will be her cover, though.

Deleting emails/obstruction will be worse charges IMO.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Boo

[AtomicKitten]

22. Hillary lied about all of it and the OIG nailed her on it.

[pdsimdars]

23. They found emails on her server from various departments

The text was the same as a classified message from the NSA (as an example) but it was on Hillary's server. Same as other messages with the exact same text as was on other security agencies, but were on Hillary's server.

[Darb]

42. And she BCC'd Putin ta boot.

Really, who gives a flying fuck?

[floppyboo]

44. And who really cared about a cigar or blue dress?

I certainly didn't, but it's what was made of it, and dragged on infuckingfinitely until they found a juicy bone - a lie - which also, wasn't a big deal in my mind - easily explained away as human nature - but it was made under oath - and the rest is history.

This wasn't about a cigar or a dress, but about bringing someone down for something they screwed up on proving.

Maybe this is why so much staff time and money has been spent on this? I can't imagine that they couldn't have dealt with the email server issue alone more speedily. And the timing really sucks. No one - at least here - wants tRump.

[Darb]

45. Teabaggers.

Not anyone with a brain. You should slog that blue dress shit too. Maybe that will give you what you want. What is that anyway?

[floppyboo]

47. I don't understand. Slog the blue dress thing? Me? or teabaggers?

What I want is this to all magically go away. But sometime, maybe puberty, some of the magic disappeared, and I'm left with this sometimes shitty reality.

You see, and I think you agree, the blue dress did give 'them' what they wanted. Why can't Hillary just come clean and then this whole thing could go away? Don't tell me she hasn't lied. She hasn't lied under oath, so that's good, but this doesn't have to be a replay, and its not the Repubs going after her just yet. Its the Dems. And next, a supposedly independent FBI.

I want to pretend this isn't happening. Really, I do.

[Dem2]

28. Oh, you again

Your turn to dump an email story here?

[pugetres]

29. She also knowingly received classified information

from Sidney Blumenthal, a man who did not have any clearance at all. She encouraged him to share this classified information.

She never once went to the FBI or CIA to notify them of leaks in the CIA and the State Dept. She shielded illegal activity.

[Cicada]

34. They figured out the problem, message was sent in secured manner

This message was Not sent in an unsecured manner.

If I say - if traffic slows you then speed on clear stretches - but traffic ends up minor and you drive 55 the whole way - are you guilty of speeding? A republican would say GUILTY - but I say not guilty.

[LuvLoogie]

38. This was discussed months ago. The only difference is

the press now gas a photo copy of the email exchange.

[IdaBriggs]

39. Welcome to the "OMG" side of the pool.

We are currently awaiting word from the FBI if rules apply to everyone, or everyone-but-Hillary.

There are many decent folk who understand her crime; there are many more who choose to be willfully ignorant.

In the meantime, watch your blood pressure - her lying becomes so transparent once you start looking for it, it becomes painful.

Yes, she really is that bad - an embarrassment to the people who serve with honor.

And they tell us she's a Democrat. I don't believe them.

[NCTraveler]

46. I'm good.

I have yet to really be bothered by it. I'm not alone in that.

If anything I'm fucking flabbergasted at how many have already been read and there just isn't much negative. Some have bothered me but not too much. Tell me Trump or Sanders would stand under similar scrutiny. What has happened here has me further in her corner.