Clinton email explanation not credible

[Harte]

Her defenders are just grasping for straws at this point.

You know Alan Colmes the liberal talking head that has a radio program and appears on cable TV?

He was confronted with this latest revelation, and spouted something like:

"Even if this is true, exactly what harm was done? Point out who was hurt by this. The New York Times even published these so-called secrets."

Unbelievable. And her campaign again said the whole thing was a republican conspiracy. Yeah, sure, the IG, FBI, et al. are all in on this?

Hillary for prison 2016!

I hope you're paraphrasing.

I'm certain that Colmes, a not unreasonable man, wasn't confronted with the presence of SAP material on her server.

Has the Times published those secrets?

Harte

[.ZZ.]

I hope you're paraphrasing.

I'm certain that Colmes, a not unreasonable man, wasn't confronted with the presence of SAP material on her server.

Has the Times published those secrets?

Harte

Yes, I'm paraphrasing to the best of my memory, but that is what he said even with the SAP news. I am looking for a link now. It was on FNC today.

Edited January 21, 2016 by ZZ430

[F3SS]

Colmes is a dyed in the wool liberal who doesn't stray from the talking points. If Hillary says it's no big deal then Colmes reiterates that it's no big deal.

[.ZZ.]

I hope you're paraphrasing.

I'm certain that Colmes, a not unreasonable man, wasn't confronted with the presence of SAP material on her server.

Has the Times published those secrets?

Harte

______________________________________________________________________________________

@AlanColmes " Not terribly concerned on HRC email," "Show me where the damage is"

He tweeted this similar statement, but this was all I could find. I don't do twitter....

Also the NYT publishing "these emails already." came out of left field in regards to the SAP story.

Edited January 21, 2016 by ZZ430

[Dredimus]

See... the whole thing with Colmes is taking place all over... IT doesn't matter what damage was done... its the fact that she broke the damn law. I work in the industry... I hold a very high level clearance and I have for YEARS. If I had done 1/4 of what she has I would be in jail already.

[Jack Skellington]

Hillary Clinton email scandal death clock....

100 hours and counting.

Right after the Iowa vote-- she's out.

[Harte]

We'll see.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=279021&st=135&p=5521394entry5521394

Harte

[Big Jim]

In his noblest, most condescending tone, Obama will announce that he will not let the Justice Department interfere with the election by indicting Clinton.

[F3SS]

I hope not. I really don't know where to put my money on this one.

[Harte]

There would be no difference, politically.

If Obama has to pardon her, she'll still be unelectable, She just won't spend time in prison.

Harte

[Merc14]

Apparently she never assigned an Inspectyor General while at State. Unbelievable. This former IG says all will plea bargained down http://nypost.com/2016/01/31/this-was-all-planned-former-ig-says-hillary-state-dept-are-lying/

[+DieChecker]

Apparently she never assigned an Inspectyor General while at State. Unbelievable. This former IG says all will plea bargained down http://nypost.com/20...dept-are-lying/

And an accepted plea bargain does imply guilt, right? Whatever she plea bargains down to will be a conviction.

I bet she tries to stretch it out till after the Nov Election. She should just drop out now and force Biden to step in.

Edited February 6, 2016 by DieChecker

[Merc14]

And an accepted plea bargain does imply guilt, right? Whatever she plea bargains down to will be a conviction.

I bet she tries to stretch it out till after the Nov Election. She should just drop out now and force Biden to step in.

I guess it will all come down to how long until the FBI presents their evidence to the Attorney General and then how long until she decides what course of action the fed will take. The whisper sites say that the FBI is taking longer because of the alleged corruption that has been discovered in the emails. She should end up with two separate sets of charges, one set for mishandling classifed material & possibly espionage and a second set for corruption while holding a federal office.

[+OverSword]

This from Judge Napolitano:

Judge Andrew Napolitano reported this morning on the latest batch of emails to be released from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private server.

Nearly 50,000 pages have now been released and the final batch is expected to be released today.

In the latest release, portions of 88 documents were deemed to be classified at the "confidential" level, the lowest classification category.

Napolitano said the latest batch of emails include information on drone strikes and that Clinton, as secretary, should have known a classified document when she saw it.

"'Classified' is Hollywood term, not a legal term. The legal term is confidential, secret or top-secret. So when she says, 'I didn't send or receive anything marked classified,' it is technically true. The answer is nothing is marked classified," he said.

The judge noted that former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden recently called it "certain" that the Russians hacked into Clinton's unsecured server.

Bill Hemmer asked why there has been no indictment against Clinton, as the FBI investigation drags on. The judge answered that there is a "growing perception" that the likely Democratic presidential nominee is receiving "special treatment" from the Obama administration.

"Attorney General Lynch will need to determine when and how that evidence is going to make its way to a grand jury. If it does, Mrs. Clinton will be indicted. If it doesn't, she won't be, but the attorney general will have one hell of an explanation to make."

Watch more of the judge's analysis above,

Edit to add the video is well worth watching.

Edited February 29, 2016 by OverSword

[Big Jim]

This from Judge Napolitano:

Judge Andrew Napolitano reported this morning on the latest batch of emails to be released from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private server.

Nearly 50,000 pages have now been released and the final batch is expected to be released today.

In the latest release, portions of 88 documents were deemed to be classified at the "confidential" level, the lowest classification category.

Napolitano said the latest batch of emails include information on drone strikes and that Clinton, as secretary, should have known a classified document when she saw it.

"'Classified' is Hollywood term, not a legal term. The legal term is confidential, secret or top-secret. So when she says, 'I didn't send or receive anything marked classified,' it is technically true. The answer is nothing is marked classified," he said.

The judge noted that former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden recently called it "certain" that the Russians hacked into Clinton's unsecured server.

Bill Hemmer asked why there has been no indictment against Clinton, as the FBI investigation drags on. The judge answered that there is a "growing perception" that the likely Democratic presidential nominee is receiving "special treatment" from the Obama administration.

"Attorney General Lynch will need to determine when and how that evidence is going to make its way to a grand jury. If it does, Mrs. Clinton will be indicted. If it doesn't, she won't be, but the attorney general will have one hell of an explanation to make."

Watch more of the judge's analysis above,

Edit to add the video is well worth watching.

It makes me wonder if she is just splitting hairs, as in Bill's "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is", or if she is so incompetent that after several years on the job she still doesn't know the proper terminology for the things she's responsible for.

[Merc14]

Just to add to what Oversword posted, Secret and Top Secret can be broken into several other categories. The info she was purported to have in her email was Top Secret SAP (Special Access program) and SCI (Special Compartmentalized Information). Both of these types require that the person be "read-in" to the program and sign some very heavy duty papers with equally heavy duty punishment for mishandling it. If she was read-in then she is in trouble for mishandling the information, if she wasn't read in then how in the hell did she get her hands on it? Who inside the program was disseminating that information on unsecured email? One possibility is the FBI is looking for that inside person so they can be prosecuted.

I have little doubt that the Obama administration will act solely in their best interests politically here. They care nothing about national security or even the democrat party, they care only about their legacy at this point. If indicting Hillary hurts his legacy then there will be no indictment and no further discovery of how badly damaged our national interests were (remember, Obama, Jarrett and Michelle care not one bit about that). If indicting Hillary enhances Obama's legacy then she will be indicted. The case may never get to court but the indictment will be issued.

One wild card I have read about is Loretta Lynch herself. While radically leftist, she supposedly does respect the law (I haven't seen that at all since she entered office) and may go where the evidence leads her but I am not buying it. Also, the director of the FBI is reputed to be a by the book, to hell with politics guy who wouldn't hesitate to present his case to America is Obama tries to bury it but that is a tall hill to climb, especially with the MSM against you the whole way.

It makes me wonder if she is just splitting hairs, as in Bill's "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is", or if she is so incompetent that after several years on the job she still doesn't know the proper terminology for the things she's responsible for.

She is most definitely splitting hairs Jim and she damn well knows it. The fact is that the material does NOT have to be labeled as classified for her to have broken the law. The game she is playing is that the info she was emailing around was discussed in the NY Times, in other words the NYT was talking about drone strikes so her emails weren't classified. This is BS for four reasons:

1. Leaks have stated that the information on her was word for word identical, or close to it,to the verbiage on the classified traffic. In other words someone typed the verbiage into an unclassified email as taken directly from the original.

2. Just because something is discussed in the NYT doesn't declassify it as her info likely contained HUMINT (human intelligence) and targeting info.

3. A person read-in to a SAP program is supposed to recognize the data when he or she sees it. If in doubt, contact the classification source and ask.

4. Just because a story is correct doesn't mean you are allowed to comment on it. That is seen as corroborating the leaked info thereby providing intel to our enemies.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Merc14

[Yamato]

Everyone's splitting hairs because hairs is all this nonsense is.

We'd rather just read the state dept emails on drone strikes ourselves, if we're going to invent kool aid pretenses about national security while plowing hopelessly through 55,000 emails as if our safety and security are in jeopardy by how the bureau is categorizing them.

Since there are so many other better things to attack her on, it's a great service to her to keep focusing on emails instead. Nice work folks, way to get her elected. As lame as the GOP has been with Donald Trump is the same inherent lameness we have here against Hillary Clinton.

At the end of the day this is nothing but a political charade. She'll get special treatment from the White House alright, she'll get pardoned if that's what it takes. And this quest to nowhere is going to be nothing more than the political animal it is, either way. Sure it might cost her some votes, and that is the only true purpose of this.

The way to prevent all these "problems" from happening again is to just change State Dept email policy. John Kerry must be handling his emails a lot better than Hillary Clinton but we wouldn't know, because the GOP doesn't care about the country (John Kerry isn't running for President anymore), they care about taking the White House back from the other party so they can spend money and kill people, too.

Well would ya look at that?

John Kerry also uses private email to conduct State Department business.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/09/30/john-kerry-sometimes-uses-private-mail-account-for-state-department-business-official-says/DmZz3PBxGgoUtOlREsuLhL/story.html

So since it's occasional maybe he has less than 88 felonies on his record? Keep whining that she doesn't know the correct terminology, it will keep proving you don't even disagree with her on anything of actual substance. Her foreign policy was a blueprint copy of Jeb Bush's. Now that the credibility of Bush has been beaten to a bloody pulp, Hillary Clinton is the best chance for victory (higher ratings) Fox News Channel has left.

[Merc14]

Do Bernie's chances of being the nominee radically increase is Hillary is indicted? Not likely according to this article (a long but interesting read) http://www.washingto...article/2584119

I want to make sure that people who read what yamato posts understand that what he is saying is not factually correct (it never is with him). This is NOT a political attack on Hillary Clinton, it is a criminal investigation being conducted by the FBI into a possible breach or national security. The FBI will present their evidence to the Attorney General of a democrat president who will then decide if she is going to refer the case to the Grand Jury for a possible criminal indictment. There is nothing political here, it is a criminal investigation.

The FBI's findings have not yet been presented to the AG and other than the FBI announcing that they are conducting a criminal investigation of the matter all we have so far is speculation and leaks. If the FBI does recommend the prosecution seek and indictment and the Obama administration/AG decide to not do so then this will become political. but that is not the case as of now. Other investigations that may or may not be politically motivated may use the FBI's findings in their analyses but the FBI is not involved with those committees, they deal strictly with criminal matters.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Merc14

[+OverSword]

It makes me wonder if she is just splitting hairs, as in Bill's "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is", or if she is so incompetent that after several years on the job she still doesn't know the proper terminology for the things she's responsible for.

She knows damn well what she's doing. She's speaking lawyerese like the deceitful little power mad sociopath that she is.

[Yamato]

She does know what she's doing, Marco. It's the GOP that doesn't know what the **** it's doing.

Show me the email I'm supposed to be outraged at. Any of you email people, and you know who you are, show me what the **** the problem is now.

[Michelle]

She does know what she's doing, Marco. It's the GOP that doesn't know what the **** it's doing.

Show me the email I'm supposed to be outraged at. Any of you email people, and you know who you are, show me what the **** the problem is now.

What part of "Top Secret" do you not understand?

[+OverSword]

She does know what she's doing, Marco. It's the GOP that doesn't know what the **** it's doing.

Show me the email I'm supposed to be outraged at. Any of you email people, and you know who you are, show me what the **** the problem is now.

Get real Yamato. You're just being a troll.

She had secrets of the highest level on the personal email server that a former CIA said it was a certainty that it was hacked by China & Russia. I have no reason to doubt this is true considering the extensive cyber warfare we all know is going on these days.

[Yamato]

What part of "Top Secret" do you not understand?

The politically convenient part you are so desperate to protect. You email people would give Edward Snowden the death penalty the way you rage about these emails.

If Hillary Clinton maintained perfect email hygiene at all times, whatever that means, it wouldn't make any difference in what kind of a Presidential candidate she is. She would still suck 99.99999999% as badly as she does. So keep raging about 0.000000000001% of what makes this person unfit to be President and you'll ensure her victory in November.

[Michelle]

The politically convenient part you are so desperate to protect. You email people would give Edward Snowden the death penalty the way you rage about these emails.

If Hillary Clinton maintained perfect email hygiene at all times, whatever that means, it wouldn't make any difference in what kind of a Presidential candidate she is. She would still suck 99.99999999% as badly as she does. So keep raging about 0.000000000001% of what makes this person unfit to be President and you'll ensure her victory in November.

Yeah, as the evidence shows, I'm really raging against her by saying i won't vote for her.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Michelle

[Yamato]

Get real Yamato. You're just being a troll.

She had secrets of the highest level on the personal email server that a former CIA said it was a certainty that it was hacked by China & Russia. I have no reason to doubt this is true considering the extensive cyber warfare we all know is going on these days.

I am real. Super Tuesday is tomorrow and this 52-page partisan clown show has gone nowhere.

I asked for a real email and I get ad hominem instead because maybe you don't have one. Considering the cyber warfare we all know is going on, it's a fair bet a private server is more secure than the public one.

What secrets on the highest level? What former CIA said it was a certainty? If you're going to rely on the Pentagon getting attacked 100,000 times a day, why are those servers any better, why are those potential breaches any less important? If you think this problem begins and ends with Hillary Clinton, you don't understand the problem and you have zero chance of solving it.