Hillary won more votes for President

rssesq

her only grandchild's father is an investment banker/hedge funder whose father was a disgraced former congressman who did time for fraud.

She isn't gonna clean it up. (Wall Street)
She is gonna clean up.

CASH
RULES
EVERYTHING
AROUND
ME

JC29856

Hilly emails:

From: Sidney Blumenthal To: Hillary Clinton Date: 2012-11-09 23:35 Subject: H: MAY NOT BE UNRELATED AS PART OF ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT OBAMA; RE: BENGHAZI... S

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05793123 Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN PART B6 Sidney Blumenthal From: Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 11:35 AM
Writer of piece, Josh Hersh, is Sy's son, works with Paul, my son at Huff Post. Sy, of course, hates, Woodward. I am told that these Woodward sources were FBI. Since Deep Throat, he has been an FBI asset, his career dependent.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

Hilly emails:

From: Sidney Blumenthal To: Hillary Clinton Date: 2012-11-09 23:35 Subject: H: MAY NOT BE UNRELATED AS PART OF ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT OBAMA; RE: BENGHAZI... S

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05793123 Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN PART B6 Sidney Blumenthal From: Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 11:35 AM
Writer of piece, Josh Hersh, is Sy's son, works with Paul, my son at Huff Post. Sy, of course, hates, Woodward. I am told that these Woodward sources were FBI. Since Deep Throat, he has been an FBI asset, his career dependent.

whoa... heavy.. right?

Dirtie_Frank

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/03/what-everyone-with-a-top-secret-security-clearance-knows-or-should-know/

In the world of handling America’s secrets, words – classified, secure, retroactive – have special meanings. I held a Top Secret clearance at the State Department for 24 years and was regularly trained in protecting information as part of that privilege. Here is what some of those words mean in the context of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The Inspectors General for the State Department and the intelligence community issued a statement saying Clinton’s personal email system contained classified information. This information, they said, “should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.” The same statement voiced concern that a thumb drive held by Clinton’s lawyer also contains this same secret data. Another report claims the U.S. intelligence community is bracing for the possibility that Clinton’s private email account contains multiple instances of classified information, with some data originating at the CIA and NSA.

A Clinton spokesperson responded that “Any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted.” Clinton claims unequivocally her email contained no classified information, and that no message carried any security marking, such as Confidential or Top Secret.

The key issue in play with Clinton is that it is a violation of national security to maintain classified information on an unclassified system.

Classified, secure, computer systems use a variety of electronic (often generically called TEMPESTed) measures coupled with physical security (special locks, shielded conduits for cabling, armed guards) that differentiate them from an unclassified system. Some of the protections are themselves classified, and unavailable in the private sector. Such standards of protection are highly unlikely to be fulfilled outside a specially designed government facility.

Yet even if retroactive classification was applied only after Clinton hit “send” (and State’s own Inspector General says it wasn’t), she is not off the hook.

What matters in the world of secrets is the information itself, which may or may not be marked “classified.” Employees at the highest levels of access are expected to apply the highest levels of judgment, based on the standards in Executive Order 13526. The government’s basic nondisclosure agreement makes clear the rule is “marked or unmarked classified information.”

In addition, the use of retroactive classification has been tested and approved by the courts, and employees are regularly held accountable for releasing information that was unclassified when they released it, but classified retroactively.

It is a way of doing business inside the government that may at first seem nonsensical, but in practice is essential for keeping secrets.

For example, if an employee were to be handed information sourced from an NSA intercept of a foreign government leader, somehow not marked as classified, she would be expected to recognize the sensitivity of the material itself and treat it as classified. In other cases, an employee might hear something sensitive and be expected to treat the information as classified. The emphasis throughout the classification system is not on strict legalities and coded markings, but on judgment. In essence, employees are required to know right from wrong. It is a duty, however subjective in appearance, one takes on in return for a security clearance.

“Not knowing” would be an unexpected defense from a person with years of government experience.

In addition to information sourced from intelligence, Clinton’s email may contain some back-and-forth discussions among trusted advisors. Such emails are among the most sensitive information inside State, and are otherwise always considered highly classified. Adversaries would very much like to know America’s bargaining strategy. The value of such information is why, for example, the NSA electronically monitored heads of state in Japan and Germany. The Freedom of Information Act recognizes the sensitivity of internal deliberation, and includes a specific exemption for such messages, blocking their release, even years after a decision occurred. If emails discussing policy or decisions were traded on an open network, that would be a serious concern.

The problem for Clinton may be particularly damaging. Every email sent within the State Department’s own systems contains a classification; an employee technically cannot hit “send” without one being applied. Just because Clinton chose to use her own hardware does not relieve her or her staff of this requirement.

Some may say even if Clinton committed security violations, there is no evidence the material got into the wrong hands – no blood, no foul. Legally that is irrelevant. Failing to safeguard information is the issue. It is not necessary to prove the information reached an adversary, or that an adversary did anything harmful with the information for a crime to have occurred. See the cases of Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Jeff Sterling, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou or even David Petraeus. The standard is “failure to protect” by itself.

None of these laws, rules, regulations or standards fall under the rubric of obscure legalities; they are drilled into persons holding a security clearance via formal training (mandatory yearly for State Department employees), and are common knowledge for the men and women who handle America’s most sensitive information. For those who use government computer systems, electronic tools enforce compliance and security personnel are quick to zero in on violations.

A mantra inside government is that protecting America’s secrets is everyone’s job. That was the standard against which I was measured throughout my career and the standard that should apply to everyone entrusted with classified information.

mrussel1

^ It's a good thing we don't indict people based on opinion pieces.

Dirtie_Frank

It is the truth though. Every computer that is in the State Department or DoD or CIA cannot be sent without a classification marker. That is a fact not an opinion.

mrussel1

Dirtie_Frank said:

It is the truth though. Every computer that is in the State Department or DoD or CIA cannot be sent without a classification marker. That is a fact not an opinion.

But hasn't her argument been that at the time they were possessed, they were marked unclassified? Isn't that the investigation's core?

JC29856

Dirtie_Frank said:

It is the truth though. Every computer that is in the State Department or DoD or CIA cannot be sent without a classification marker. That is a fact not an opinion.

Good luck with that one!

JC29856

Dirtie_Frank said:

It is the truth though. Every computer that is in the State Department or DoD or CIA cannot be sent without a classification marker. That is a fact not an opinion.

Example:
Hillary says our borders were / are strong over the last 10 years.
Reply: that's an opinion piece from some rag

She was the sec of state during some of that period.
Reply: that's obama too, plus the republicans would have found something in all of the investigations

Result: ignore

JC29856

https://youtu.be/zLuqvEZW4wA

Dirtie_Frank

mrussel1 said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

It is the truth though. Every computer that is in the State Department or DoD or CIA cannot be sent without a classification marker. That is a fact not an opinion.

But hasn't her argument been that at the time they were possessed, they were marked unclassified? Isn't that the investigation's core?

Improper classification does not alleviate you from the crime.

Gern Blansten

Dirtie_Frank said:

mrussel1 said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

It is the truth though. Every computer that is in the State Department or DoD or CIA cannot be sent without a classification marker. That is a fact not an opinion.

But hasn't her argument been that at the time they were possessed, they were marked unclassified? Isn't that the investigation's core?

Improper classification does not alleviate you from the crime.

uh....yes it does

Ask Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/

JimmyV

Whether or not there is illegality in the private email server and whether or not that illegality constitutes criminal behavior and whether or not that criminal behavior rises to the level of indictable behavior are all important questions. They are not, however, either or questions. Setting up a private email server in the basement of her home while she was serving as Secretary of State during an age where electronic surveillance and security are more closely watched than ever speaks to her judgment. It is her judgment that is in question, and it is in question because the decision to do this was a poor decision.

Gern Blansten

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/politics/hillary-clinton-email-home-server/

Give it a rest. You're going along with the false outrage.

Proxy servers, anonymous domains, etc. It was likely just as secure as anything else.

Gern Blansten

"It's hard to say which is more secure," said cybersecurity expert Martijn Grooten. "I would expect the State Department to have better security than any technical expert she would hire. But the department is also a target for hackers."

JC29856

Libya plan for democracy, Hillary: squash the plan then bomb them
Saif s plan suggests governing Libya under a constitutional democracy, in which he would serve as a transitional leader until formal elections could be held. This proposal is not new. Saif first launched his ideas for reform in 2004, when he enlisted the help of outside consultants to develop a plan for Libyan economic prosperity. Entitled " LibyaTomorrow" this plan soon developed from an economic and social agenda into a political plan. Several times between 2004 - 2010, Saif was asked to leave the country by his father because he proposed reform measures that were not acceptable to most of the "old guard." In his role as the President of the Qadaffi Development Foundation, Saif raised the idea of a constitutional democracy, while working to develop a constitution for Libya. Shortly before violence broke out in Libya, Saif, his colleagues, and consultants completed the final version of a proposed constitution. It never gained widespread support due to strong resistance from the "old guard." Now that one of the major figures in the "old guard movement", Musa Kusa, has defected, Saif may feel empowered to put forth this document. Another reform initiative by Saif was the development of a free press. Saif was involved in launching the first Libyan media empire, Al-Ghad, which was not technically controlled by his father. This media empire, which included print, radio and television, was run by a youthful group of Libyans who were very tech and media savvy. Al-Ghad was shut down in 2010 during a very high profile disagreement between Saif and his father over its open criticism of Libyan issues. Muammar Qaddafi threw many of these young employees in jail while advising his son to leave the country for a "cooling off' period. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05785665 Date: 02/29/2016 It is also likely that Saif's most recent plan for a constitutional democracy includes an element of freedom of the press as well as freedom of internet access. Saif and his brother Mohammed were in a very difficult battle with their younger brother, Mutassim, over the shutting down of You Tube — due to some videos of Mutassim celebrating on New Year's Eve and his father violently quashing rebellions in the West. Saif insisted on allowing You Tube to continue — but Mutassim wanted to block its access. Saif also proposed holding elections for a Libyan People's Congress. Saif's proposal almost certainly contains his ideas regarding a strong role for Libyan NGOs. Saif helped arrange for the first trip by Amnesty International to Libya to visit the prisons, and then later followed up by announcing the release of several hundred prisoners. It is likely that Saif's vision for a constitutional democracy includes an active role for non-governmental organizations. (Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals, the NLC is not prepared to accept a transitional government in which a member of the Qaddafi family plays a lead role. Too much blood or too little blood has been spilled for such a compromise at this time. The NLC is incapable of consolidating military gains and is on the verge of returning to the strategic military position it had before NATO forces intervened to stop Qaddafi's siege of Benghazi. In short, their negotiating position is weak. Moreover, the NLC has few leaders of sufficient stature to head a transition government that represents a workable compromise between pro and anti Qaddafi forces. On the other hand, and in spite of the military assistance and air coverage being provided by NATO to the rebel forces, Qaddafi remains in control of his destiny. He is negotiating from a relative position of strength and the Saif proposal reflects that.)

JC29856

Hillary to Google and youtube: keep Bengazi video blocked

GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE

From: Cheryl Mills To: Hillary Clinton Date: 2012-09-26 01:35 Subject: GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE

Sue just called back and theblockwill staythroughMonday. They will not/not be unblocking it before then. Nora Toiv Office of the Secretary 202-647-8633

Dirtie_Frank

Ther

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/politics/hillary-clinton-email-home-server/

Give it a rest. You're going along with the false outrage.

Proxy servers, anonymous domains, etc. It was likely just as secure as anything else.

Are you kidding me? There are classified networks that this information is kept on. This information is not kept on the normal Internet. There is the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) that allows the exchange of classified information and messages at the SECRET level. Then there is Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS) which process information at the TOP SECRET level. To say that her server was as secure as any other is blatantly a lie.

Gern Blansten

Dirtie_Frank said:

Ther

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/politics/hillary-clinton-email-home-server/

Give it a rest. You're going along with the false outrage.

Proxy servers, anonymous domains, etc. It was likely just as secure as anything else.

Are you kidding me? There are classified networks that this information is kept on. This information is not kept on the normal Internet. There is the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) that allows the exchange of classified information and messages at the SECRET level. Then there is Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS) which process information at the TOP SECRET level. To say that her server was as secure as any other is blatantly a lie.

That is why this is so laughable. None of her emails contained anything related to those networks. They were "classified" AFTER they were transmitted, sometimes years after the fact. Read the article where Colin Powell says that he reviewed his own emails that were marked "classified" and how ridiculous he thought it was.

Clinton has been adamant that NONE of her emails sent or received were classified "at the time" because emails in those networks CANNOT be transmitted over a normal network.

Come on man....I'm doing all the work for you.

Dirtie_Frank

So the FBI is wasting it's time? Have you worked in a classified environment? Do you know why the majority of things are classified? If not let me learn you some. The majority of information that is classified is not due to the information itself. It is to protect the sources and methods used to gain this information. In the past 16 years that I have worked in a classified environment I have not once heard of or seen an item classified after it's release. There are classification guides for each of our government agencies that are as clear on the way items are classified. There is unclassified information, that when combined with other information changes the the overall classification. However, the information is ALWAYS classified prior to transmittal.

Also please do not say you did all the work for me. I have a full understanding of what she did. Even if she did not send the emails she should of reported the transmittal of classified info on an unclassified network to the DoS security office and the sender should have been prosecuted. She did not so she is at fault as well and should be prosecuted as well.

Gern Blansten

Dirtie_Frank said:

So the FBI is wasting it's time? Have you worked in a classified environment? Do you know why the majority of things are classified? If not let me learn you some. The majority of information that is classified is not due to the information itself. It is to protect the sources and methods used to gain this information. In the past 16 years that I have worked in a classified environment I have not once heard of or seen an item classified after it's release. There are classification guides for each of our government agencies that are as clear on the way items are classified. There is unclassified information, that when combined with other information changes the the overall classification. However, the information is ALWAYS classified prior to transmittal.

Also please do not say you did all the work for me. I have a full understanding of what she did. Even if she did not send the emails she should of reported the transmittal of classified info on an unclassified network to the DoS security office and the sender should have been prosecuted. She did not so she is at fault as well and should be prosecuted as well.

We'll see won't we?

If she is indicted you're right. If she isn't you're wrong.

JC29856

More shady shit.
Hillary backers at the NYT editing stories without disclosures bec of pressure from Camp Hilly.
Are these unequivocal answers?

Three editors told me in no uncertain terms that the editing changes had not been made in response to complaints from the Clinton camp. Did the Clinton people even reach out?

“Not that I know of,” Mr. Baquet told me in an email. The article’s immediate editor, Michael Tackett, agreed: “There’s zero evidence of that.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/publiceditor/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/?

JC29856

Hillary looking out for her constituents in one of her emails. Only Israel can have nuclear weapons!

"The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad."

JC29856

As I explained in this column in January, one of the most controversial of Ms. Clinton’s emails released by the State Department under judicial order was one sent on June 8, 2011 to the Secretary of State by Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary’s unsavory friend and confidant who was running a private intelligence service for Ms. Clinton. This email contains an amazingly detailed assessment of events in Sudan, specifically a coup being plotted by top generals in that war-torn country. Mr. Blumenthal’s information came from a top-ranking source with direct access to Sudan’s top military and intelligence officials, and recounted a high-level meeting that had taken place only twenty-four hours before.

To anybody familiar with intelligence reporting, this is unmistakably signals intelligence, termed SIGINT in the trade. In other words, Mr. Blumenthal, a private citizen who had enjoyed no access to U.S. intelligence for over a decade when he sent that email, somehow got hold of SIGINT about the Sudanese leadership and managed to send it, via open, unclassified email, to his friend Hillary only one day later.

NSA officials were appalled by the State Department’s release of this email, since it bore all the hallmarks of Agency reporting. Back in early January, when I reported this, I was confident that Mr. Blumenthal’s information came from highly classified NSA sources, based on my years of reading and writing such reports myself, and one veteran Agency official told me it was NSA information with “at least 90 percent confidence.”

Now, over two months later, I can confirm that the contents of Sid Blumenthal’s June 8, 2011 email to Hillary Clinton, sent to her personal, unclassified account, were indeed based on highly sensitive NSA information. The Agency investigated this compromise and determined that Mr. Blumenthal’s highly detailed account of Sudanese goings-on, including the retelling of high-level conversations in that country, was indeed derived from NSA intelligence.

Specifically, this information was illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all of them classified Top Secret / Special Intelligence. Worse, at least one of those reports was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access Program or SAP, several of which from CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in another series of her “unclassified” emails.

Gern Blansten

you're really going to be upset when she's elected President aren't you?

JimmyV

I'll be more upset if after months of hearing Democrats pretend all-is-well-nothing-to-see-here she gets indicted. Nothing will bring about a Trump presidency more assuredly than that.

The Dems are playing with fire.

Gern Blansten

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/273535-poll-trump-would-lose-home-state-of-new-york-in-general-election

This has to hurt worse than those hair plugs....

Jason P

KKK Grand Wizard supports Hillary Clinton ...

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12192975/The-KKK-leader-who-says-he-backs-Hillary-Clinton.html

mrussel1

Jason P said:

KKK Grand Wizard supports Hillary Clinton ...

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12192975/The-KKK-leader-who-says-he-backs-Hillary-Clinton.html

Dude. Seriously you have to know that guy is an idiot. Don't denigrate a serious conversation with that bs. You think Hillary is dog whistling racists? Cmon.

Dirtie_Frank

No she is more of a dog barker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtlXkJGKwao