State Dept. finds no ‘systemic’ classified violation in Hillary Clinton private-server emails

[racer254]

14 minutes ago, Rigid1 said:

4 years later the media is still trying to tell us she is clean as a whistle.. Like why even talk about her or the emails if there was never a problem??

LOL,  They try so hard. 

“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. Among psychologists something like this known as the "illusion of truth" effect.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth

[Anler]

Maybe she does plan on running...  

[Highmark]

3 minutes ago, Anler said:

Maybe she does plan on running...  

She wouldn't win the nomination. 

[Anler]

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

She wouldn't win the nomination. 

Have you seen the field? 

[DriftBusta]

1 hour ago, XCR1250 said:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
    President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
    Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
   
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
    Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
    Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
    Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

 

 

 

A few assholes seem to have missed those memos and now pretend they never happened.

[Highmark]

5 minutes ago, Anler said:

Have you seen the field? 

Yeah I realize that but there is enough dem's fed up with Hillary that she wouldn't win.   For starters she's not bat shit crazy leftist enough for them.   Don't get me wrong she would evolve to full on socialist quickly but many would see thru that.  I still think Warren will win the nomination however old Joe's support seems to be picking back up. 

[Anler]

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Yeah I realize that but there is enough dem's fed up with Hillary that she wouldn't win.   For starters she's not bat shit crazy leftist enough for them.   Don't get me wrong she would evolve to full on socialist quickly but many would see thru that.  I still think Warren will win the nomination however old Joe's support seems to be picking back up. 

I dont think many dems liked her before, that didnt stop her then...

 

[revkevsdi]

1 hour ago, XCR1250 said:

Bill Clinton in 1998:

I don't think we're pretending that we can get everything, so this is – I think – we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. What it means is that we know we can't get everything, but degrading is the right word

He degraded it to the point of not being able fo find any after Bush spent trillions, killed 100's of thousands of people.  

 

[Highmark]

5 minutes ago, Anler said:

I dont think many dems liked her before, that didnt stop her then...

 

I just hope she runs and wins the nomination.     

[Anler]

Just now, Highmark said:

I just hope she runs and wins the nomination.     

I dont think she has been fund raising and the Saudis arent giving the Clinton foundation tens of millions so probably not going to happen. But who knows, those super delegates could still pick her!  

[Highmark]

Just now, revkevsdi said:

He degraded it to the point of not being able fo find any after Bush spent trillions, killed 100's of thousands of people.  

 

[Highmark]

Just now, Anler said:

I dont think she has been fund raising and the Saudis arent giving the Clinton foundation tens of millions so probably not going to happen. But who knows, those super delegates could still pick her!  

Neither are the Russians and Ukrainians anymore.    

[revkevsdi]

55 minutes ago, Highmark said:

   Dude I own you on your own links all the time.   I did read the article and it says EXACTLY what I posted.   While they didn't think the violations were "systemic" there were violations with her server none the less.  Second paragraph. 

The three-year-long investigation by State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security concluded that 38 individuals committed a total of 91 security violations involving emails sent to or from Clinton’s private server.

Sure looks like total exoneration.  

[revkevsdi]

27 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

A few assholes seem to have missed those memos and now pretend they never happened.

How many of you assholes would have lost their shit if any of these politicians had questioned Bush's intel at a time of war? 

Talk show hosts who questioned the war lost their jobs, politicians surely would.

Assholes like you have forgotten all the things you lost your shit about during Obamas time in office yet ignore when Trump does it.

Plus you've lost your shit about 30,000 lost Clinton emails but not 22 million emails from Bush.  The Bush administration were in comtempt. Not Hillary.  

You tools pretend to be upset about possible breeches of security but not when Trump hands over intel to the Russians that endangered allied operatives.  

In short, you are hypocrites and morons.  

[XCR1250]

1 minute ago, revkevsdi said:

How many of you assholes would have lost their shit if any of these politicians had questioned Bush's intel at a time of war? 

Talk show hosts who questioned the war lost their jobs, politicians surely would.

Assholes like you have forgotten all the things you lost your shit about during Obamas time in office yet ignore when Trump does it.

Plus you've lost your shit about 30,000 lost Clinton emails but not 22 million emails from Bush.  The Bush administration were in comtempt. Not Hillary.  

You tools pretend to be upset about possible breeches of security but not when Trump hands over intel to the Russians that endangered allied operatives.  

In short, you are hypocrites and morons.  

Says someone not even from the USA..LOL

[Highmark]

1 minute ago, revkevsdi said:

Sure looks like total exoneration.  

Sure does.    It likely cost her the election but hey total exoneration.    

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail 

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

[revkevsdi]

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Sure does.    It likely cost her the election but hey total exoneration.    

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail 

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outragd-by-the-hillary-clinton-email-scandal-george-w-bushs-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-a7238321.html

Clinton's email habits look positively transparent when compared with the subpoena-dodging, email-hiding, private-server-using George W. Bush administration. Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House "lost" 22 million emails. This correspondence included millions of emails written during the darkest period in America's recent history, when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons.

 

Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server--its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails. "It's about as amazing a double standard as you can get," says Eric Boehlert, who works with the pro-Clinton group Media Matters. "If you look at the Bush emails, he was a sitting president, and 95 percent of his chief advisers' emails were on a private email system set up by the RNC. Imagine if for the last year and a half we had been talking about Hillary Clinton's emails set up on a private DNC server?"

[Zambroski]

49 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

He degraded it to the point of not being able fo find any after Bush spent trillions, killed 100's of thousands of people.  

 

Wut?  Holy shit!  I’d ask for a link or even some hint of factual truth here but, we all know where that leads from you....

Just put your brother on!  

2 hours ago, Mainecat said:

A 3 year investigation....2 under complete Republican control found zippo.

Wrong.  But,. O’Neal for your idiotic ass.

1 hour ago, Mainecat said:

At least she testified like a real American unlike those fuckin commie republicans who refuse.

Nobody can one up his own idiocy like you.  Holy shit.

1 hour ago, Rigid1 said:

4 years later the media is still trying to tell us she is clean as a whistle.. Like why even talk about her or the emails if there was never a problem??

That’s why I made he comment “she’s not the potus”. Everytime she was brought up, MC shit his pampers and spouted out that gem.  “LEAVE OUR HILLARY ALONE...SHE’S NOT THE POTUS!!”

...now here he is, bringing up Hillary.

 

[Skidooski]

1 hour ago, revkevsdi said:

How many of you assholes would have lost their shit if any of these politicians had questioned Bush's intel at a time of war? 

Talk show hosts who questioned the war lost their jobs, politicians surely would.

Assholes like you have forgotten all the things you lost your shit about during Obamas time in office yet ignore when Trump does it.

Plus you've lost your shit about 30,000 lost Clinton emails but not 22 million emails from Bush.  The Bush administration were in comtempt. Not Hillary.  

You tools pretend to be upset about possible breeches of security but not when Trump hands over intel to the Russians that endangered allied operatives.  

In short, you are hypocrites and morons.  

 

Calm down you have knitting class this afternoon, you need to be ready!!!