Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
gvjp9
()
Date: August 31, 2015 07:28PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — Experts in government secrecy law see almost no possibility of criminal action against Hillary Clinton or her top aides in connection with now-classified information sent over unsecure email while she was secretary of state, based on the public evidence thus far.
Some Republicans, including leading GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, have called Clinton's actions criminal and compared her situation to that of David Petraeus, the former CIA director who was prosecuted after giving top secret information to his paramour. Others have cited the case of another past CIA chief, John Deutch, who took highly classified material home.
But in both of those cases, no one disputed that the information was highly classified and in many cases top secret. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor; Deutch was pardoned by President Bill Clinton.
By contrast, there is no evidence of emails stored in Hillary Clinton's private server bearing classified markings. State Department officials say they don't believe that emails she sent or received included material classified at the time. And even if other government officials dispute that assertion, it is extremely difficult to prove anyone knowingly mishandled secrets.
"How can you be on notice if there are no markings?" said Leslie McAdoo, a lawyer who frequently handles security-clearance cases.
Clinton's critics have focused on the unusual, home-brew email server Clinton used while in office and suggested that she should have known that secrets were improperly coursing through an unsecure system, leaving them easily hackable for foreign intelligence agencies. But to prove a crime, the government would have to demonstrate that Clinton or aides knew they were mishandling the information — not that she should have known.
A case would be possible if material emerges that is so sensitive Clinton must have known it was highly classified, whether marked or not, McAdoo said. But no such email has surfaced. And among the thousands of documents made public, nothing appears near the magnitude of the Top Secret material Petraeus and Deutch mishandled.
Trump, last week, argued differently, saying Petraeus' case involved "far less important documents." Clinton's documents, he told Fox News, "were more highly secret, they were more important, there were more of them. It's really General Petraeus on steroids."
Petraeus, a married former four-star general who headed the CIA from 2011-2012, admitted he gave his biographer and lover, Paula Broadwell, journals containing Top Secret information. These included "the identifies of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings . and discussions with the president of the United States," according to court documents.
Petraeus also admitted lying to the FBI, while his emails showed he knew the journals contained highly classified information.
He pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, a misdemeanor. Though eligible for up to one year in prison, he was sentenced to two years' probation and a $100,000 fine. Broadwell didn't publish the material.
Deutch ran the agency from 1995-1996. He took Top Secret information home and stored it on computers connected to the Internet, something he also did when he worked at the Pentagon. In January 2001, he agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling government secrets, but Bill Clinton pardoned him before the Justice Department could file the case.
Another Clinton administration official, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 2005 after admitting to removing five classified documents involving a terrorism study from a National Archives facility. Berger served four years as Clinton's national security adviser.
Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, now says her use of home email server for government business was a mistake. Last year she provided about 30,000 emails to the State Department, which is public releasing another batch Monday. The department is only publishing documents after scrubbing them of any classified or sensitive information.
Two government inspectors have told Congress they found material in the emails was secret at the time it was sent to Clinton and "never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system."
The State Department and the Clinton campaign dispute that the material was classified at the time.
At least one email involved the CIA drone strikes, government officials have told the Associated Press. The counterterrorism program is a poorly kept secret, but a secret nonetheless. Another email appeared to reference a highly classified matter, the officials said, though there was some question about whether the information came in through classified or open channels.
Emails posted on the State Department's web site, made public under the Freedom of Information Act, show diplomats commonly slipping and discussing classified information over email. Unlike an intelligence agency, the department seeks to operate in the open when it can.
But arguing that violations are common isn't a valid defense for ordinary government employees, said Bradley Moss, a lawyer who often represents such people. They face discipline "all the time, in far more nuanced disputes than this," he said.
Although political controversy has centered on Clinton's use of private email instead of an unsecured government account, the distinction matters little in the context of classified information. Clinton says State Department rules allowed her to use private email and officials knew about it.
But another law could be relevant. Under the Federal Records Act, destroying official records can be a crime. Clinton ordered around 32,000 emails deleted from her server because she said they were personal. The server was then wiped, making the emails unretrievable.
"If one person has a copy of one of those deleted emails, and it was about government business, the whole game changes," said Kel McClanahan, a lawyer and expert in government records.
_____
Some Republicans, including leading GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, have called Clinton's actions criminal and compared her situation to that of David Petraeus, the former CIA director who was prosecuted after giving top secret information to his paramour. Others have cited the case of another past CIA chief, John Deutch, who took highly classified material home.
But in both of those cases, no one disputed that the information was highly classified and in many cases top secret. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor; Deutch was pardoned by President Bill Clinton.
By contrast, there is no evidence of emails stored in Hillary Clinton's private server bearing classified markings. State Department officials say they don't believe that emails she sent or received included material classified at the time. And even if other government officials dispute that assertion, it is extremely difficult to prove anyone knowingly mishandled secrets.
"How can you be on notice if there are no markings?" said Leslie McAdoo, a lawyer who frequently handles security-clearance cases.
Clinton's critics have focused on the unusual, home-brew email server Clinton used while in office and suggested that she should have known that secrets were improperly coursing through an unsecure system, leaving them easily hackable for foreign intelligence agencies. But to prove a crime, the government would have to demonstrate that Clinton or aides knew they were mishandling the information — not that she should have known.
A case would be possible if material emerges that is so sensitive Clinton must have known it was highly classified, whether marked or not, McAdoo said. But no such email has surfaced. And among the thousands of documents made public, nothing appears near the magnitude of the Top Secret material Petraeus and Deutch mishandled.
Trump, last week, argued differently, saying Petraeus' case involved "far less important documents." Clinton's documents, he told Fox News, "were more highly secret, they were more important, there were more of them. It's really General Petraeus on steroids."
Petraeus, a married former four-star general who headed the CIA from 2011-2012, admitted he gave his biographer and lover, Paula Broadwell, journals containing Top Secret information. These included "the identifies of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings . and discussions with the president of the United States," according to court documents.
Petraeus also admitted lying to the FBI, while his emails showed he knew the journals contained highly classified information.
He pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, a misdemeanor. Though eligible for up to one year in prison, he was sentenced to two years' probation and a $100,000 fine. Broadwell didn't publish the material.
Deutch ran the agency from 1995-1996. He took Top Secret information home and stored it on computers connected to the Internet, something he also did when he worked at the Pentagon. In January 2001, he agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling government secrets, but Bill Clinton pardoned him before the Justice Department could file the case.
Another Clinton administration official, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 2005 after admitting to removing five classified documents involving a terrorism study from a National Archives facility. Berger served four years as Clinton's national security adviser.
Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, now says her use of home email server for government business was a mistake. Last year she provided about 30,000 emails to the State Department, which is public releasing another batch Monday. The department is only publishing documents after scrubbing them of any classified or sensitive information.
Two government inspectors have told Congress they found material in the emails was secret at the time it was sent to Clinton and "never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system."
The State Department and the Clinton campaign dispute that the material was classified at the time.
At least one email involved the CIA drone strikes, government officials have told the Associated Press. The counterterrorism program is a poorly kept secret, but a secret nonetheless. Another email appeared to reference a highly classified matter, the officials said, though there was some question about whether the information came in through classified or open channels.
Emails posted on the State Department's web site, made public under the Freedom of Information Act, show diplomats commonly slipping and discussing classified information over email. Unlike an intelligence agency, the department seeks to operate in the open when it can.
But arguing that violations are common isn't a valid defense for ordinary government employees, said Bradley Moss, a lawyer who often represents such people. They face discipline "all the time, in far more nuanced disputes than this," he said.
Although political controversy has centered on Clinton's use of private email instead of an unsecured government account, the distinction matters little in the context of classified information. Clinton says State Department rules allowed her to use private email and officials knew about it.
But another law could be relevant. Under the Federal Records Act, destroying official records can be a crime. Clinton ordered around 32,000 emails deleted from her server because she said they were personal. The server was then wiped, making the emails unretrievable.
"If one person has a copy of one of those deleted emails, and it was about government business, the whole game changes," said Kel McClanahan, a lawyer and expert in government records.
_____
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
Steve Aftergood
()
Date: August 31, 2015 08:19PM
The so-called legal experts have this wrong. They (like Hillary's team) are focusing on the words "no classified markings." That's a red herring. The question is about whether the information is classified, not whether it was marked as such.
These "experts in government secrecy" are probably paid shills for the Clinton campaign. I'll wait to hear what the prosecutor says.
These "experts in government secrecy" are probably paid shills for the Clinton campaign. I'll wait to hear what the prosecutor says.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
Trump the Vote
()
Date: August 31, 2015 08:37PM
Politics is all about perception, Whether she can charged criminally or not, the majority of people think Cankles is a lying, dishonest, and untrustworthy woman.
Now we're just getting thru having an inept, unqualified, and racist half black man holding the most important office in the land. It's going to take years to undo the damage he has done to this country. Hillary is the last person on earth we would want to take on this task.
Now we're just getting thru having an inept, unqualified, and racist half black man holding the most important office in the land. It's going to take years to undo the damage he has done to this country. Hillary is the last person on earth we would want to take on this task.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
Yyyuuuppp!
()
Date: August 31, 2015 11:40PM
Steve Aftergood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The so-called legal experts have this wrong. They
> (like Hillary's team) are focusing on the words
> "no classified markings." That's a red herring.
> The question is about whether the information is
> classified, not whether it was marked as such.
>
> These "experts in government secrecy" are probably
> paid shills for the Clinton campaign. I'll wait
> to hear what the prosecutor says.
Exactly right. It says right on the SF-312 form that she signed.
"Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12958, or under any Executive order or statute that prohibits the authorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in Section 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security." ("12 FAM 564.1,"
-------------------------------------------------------
> The so-called legal experts have this wrong. They
> (like Hillary's team) are focusing on the words
> "no classified markings." That's a red herring.
> The question is about whether the information is
> classified, not whether it was marked as such.
>
> These "experts in government secrecy" are probably
> paid shills for the Clinton campaign. I'll wait
> to hear what the prosecutor says.
Exactly right. It says right on the SF-312 form that she signed.
"Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12958, or under any Executive order or statute that prohibits the authorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in Section 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security." ("12 FAM 564.1,"
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: September 01, 2015 01:50AM
Even without classification markings, the emails would be considered FOUO. Still a crime to mishandle FOUO.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
mn4yE
()
Date: September 01, 2015 07:16AM
Hillary isn't a legal expert -- She is a simple women. You can't expert her to be able to understand something like the SF-312. That form is only for lawyers.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
I'm Ready!
()
Date: September 01, 2015 08:04AM
gvjp9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WASHINGTON (AP) — ...there is no evidence of emails stored
> in Hillary Clinton's private server bearing
> classified markings. State Department officials
> say they don't believe that emails she sent or
> received included material classified at the time.
> And even if other government officials dispute
> that assertion, it is extremely difficult to prove
> anyone knowingly mishandled secrets.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WASHINGTON (AP) — ...there is no evidence of emails stored
> in Hillary Clinton's private server bearing
> classified markings. State Department officials
> say they don't believe that emails she sent or
> received included material classified at the time.
> And even if other government officials dispute
> that assertion, it is extremely difficult to prove
> anyone knowingly mishandled secrets.
Attachments:
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
p4mnd
()
Date: September 01, 2015 12:07PM
mn4yE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hillary isn't a legal expert -- She is a simple
> women. You can't expert her to be able to
> understand something like the SF-312. That form
> is only for lawyers.
She's one of the few persons designated by the President to be the classification authority. It's part of her job as Sec. of State to know what's classified or not regardless of markings.
Also, turns out that the expert referenced here is a Clinton supporter who has made contributions to her campaigns. This was done as a campaign move to try to counter the fire not some independent assessment.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hillary isn't a legal expert -- She is a simple
> women. You can't expert her to be able to
> understand something like the SF-312. That form
> is only for lawyers.
She's one of the few persons designated by the President to be the classification authority. It's part of her job as Sec. of State to know what's classified or not regardless of markings.
Also, turns out that the expert referenced here is a Clinton supporter who has made contributions to her campaigns. This was done as a campaign move to try to counter the fire not some independent assessment.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
GOP Wild Goose Chase
()
Date: September 01, 2015 01:52PM
gvjp9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...it is extremely difficult to prove
> anyone knowingly mishandled secrets.
>
> ...to prove a crime, the government would have
> to demonstrate that Clinton or aides knew they
> were mishandling the information — not that
> she should have known.
>
> A case would be possible if material emerges that
> is so sensitive Clinton must have known it was
> highly classified, whether marked or not, McAdoo
> said. But no such email has surfaced. And among
> the thousands of documents made public, nothing
> appears near the magnitude of the Top Secret
> material.
Ain't no 'there' there, Kids.
Yet another case of the GOP wasting taxpayer dollars on a partisan witch hunt.
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...it is extremely difficult to prove
> anyone knowingly mishandled secrets.
>
> ...to prove a crime, the government would have
> to demonstrate that Clinton or aides knew they
> were mishandling the information — not that
> she should have known.
>
> A case would be possible if material emerges that
> is so sensitive Clinton must have known it was
> highly classified, whether marked or not, McAdoo
> said. But no such email has surfaced. And among
> the thousands of documents made public, nothing
> appears near the magnitude of the Top Secret
> material.
Ain't no 'there' there, Kids.
Yet another case of the GOP wasting taxpayer dollars on a partisan witch hunt.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
Judge Sullivan
()
Date: September 01, 2015 03:03PM
GOP Wild Goose Chase Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ain't no 'there' there, Kids.
>
> Yet another case of the GOP wasting taxpayer
> dollars on a partisan witch hunt.
The judge forcing most of this is a black judge appointed by Clinton.
Doh.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ain't no 'there' there, Kids.
>
> Yet another case of the GOP wasting taxpayer
> dollars on a partisan witch hunt.
The judge forcing most of this is a black judge appointed by Clinton.
Doh.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
Wrong-o
()
Date: September 01, 2015 03:11PM
Judge Sullivan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The judge forcing most of this is a black judge
> appointed by Clinton.
Nope. Mostly it's being driven by Bush appointee Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The judge forcing most of this is a black judge
> appointed by Clinton.
Nope. Mostly it's being driven by Bush appointee Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
Judge Sullivan
()
Date: September 01, 2015 03:34PM
Wrong-o Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Judge Sullivan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The judge forcing most of this is a black judge
> > appointed by Clinton.
>
> Nope. Mostly it's being driven by Bush appointee
> Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court.
Nope. Both are involved but Leon is handling the AP's (not Republicans's) FOIA suit which is more narrow to specific information requests. Sullivan is the one handling the larger matter of Clinton and associates correspondence related to the Judicial Watch FOIA case.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Judge Sullivan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The judge forcing most of this is a black judge
> > appointed by Clinton.
>
> Nope. Mostly it's being driven by Bush appointee
> Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court.
Nope. Both are involved but Leon is handling the AP's (not Republicans's) FOIA suit which is more narrow to specific information requests. Sullivan is the one handling the larger matter of Clinton and associates correspondence related to the Judicial Watch FOIA case.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
Red Herring
()
Date: September 01, 2015 03:40PM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even without classification markings, the emails
> would be considered FOUO. Still a crime to
> mishandle FOUO.
No the law to prosecute says with the intent to knowingly distribute. Aka use the information for nefarious deeds, like make money or treason.
This is the same shit the Bush administration went through and nothing happened. All republicans really wants it read all of Clintons emails they can find out about he inner working of her circle.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even without classification markings, the emails
> would be considered FOUO. Still a crime to
> mishandle FOUO.
No the law to prosecute says with the intent to knowingly distribute. Aka use the information for nefarious deeds, like make money or treason.
This is the same shit the Bush administration went through and nothing happened. All republicans really wants it read all of Clintons emails they can find out about he inner working of her circle.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
The partisan water carrier
()
Date: September 01, 2015 03:41PM
Judge Sullivan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GOP Wild Goose Chase Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ain't no 'there' there, Kids.
> >
> > Yet another case of the GOP wasting taxpayer
> > dollars on a partisan witch hunt.
>
> The judge forcing most of this is a black judge
> appointed by Clinton.
Judicial Watch is the partisan water carrier here.
Sullivan's just doing his job.
D'oh, indeed.
-------------------------------------------------------
> GOP Wild Goose Chase Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ain't no 'there' there, Kids.
> >
> > Yet another case of the GOP wasting taxpayer
> > dollars on a partisan witch hunt.
>
> The judge forcing most of this is a black judge
> appointed by Clinton.
Judicial Watch is the partisan water carrier here.
Sullivan's just doing his job.
D'oh, indeed.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
They really, really hope
()
Date: September 01, 2015 03:43PM
Red Herring Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All republicans really wants it read all of Clintons
> emails they can find out about he inner working of
> her circle.
They really, really hope to find some dirt, too.
-------------------------------------------------------
> All republicans really wants it read all of Clintons
> emails they can find out about he inner working of
> her circle.
They really, really hope to find some dirt, too.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
Nothing will happen
()
Date: September 01, 2015 03:46PM
In the Petraeus case he was knownly sneaking classified information to a person using the information to write book. Hence profiting from the classified material.
Now if Hilary is feeding classified information to outside lobbyist bidding on contracts to gain money.... then that's another story. Simply routine email traffic mishandled... nah nothing is going to happen. That shit happens daily. I've seen on a ton of gov contracts.
The OMB\FBI\JAG would have to put all of Washington in jail.
Now if Hilary is feeding classified information to outside lobbyist bidding on contracts to gain money.... then that's another story. Simply routine email traffic mishandled... nah nothing is going to happen. That shit happens daily. I've seen on a ton of gov contracts.
The OMB\FBI\JAG would have to put all of Washington in jail.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
Ned Flanders
()
Date: September 01, 2015 03:50PM
The partisan water carrier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Judge Sullivan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > GOP Wild Goose Chase Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Ain't no 'there' there, Kids.
> > >
> > > Yet another case of the GOP wasting taxpayer
> > > dollars on a partisan witch hunt.
> >
> > The judge forcing most of this is a black judge
> > appointed by Clinton.
>
> Judicial Watch is the partisan water carrier
> here.
>
> Sullivan's just doing his job.
>
> D'oh, indeed.
Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request just like the AP's and a number of others who also now have filed suit. All were told that there were no responsive records because Clinton had intentionally hidden them outside of the Federal records system. Sullivan is doing his job in forcing Clinton and State to give up what should have been there to begin with and to quit the initial stonewalling and slow-walking that they tried at first.
Doh in doubly deed neighbor.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Judge Sullivan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > GOP Wild Goose Chase Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Ain't no 'there' there, Kids.
> > >
> > > Yet another case of the GOP wasting taxpayer
> > > dollars on a partisan witch hunt.
> >
> > The judge forcing most of this is a black judge
> > appointed by Clinton.
>
> Judicial Watch is the partisan water carrier
> here.
>
> Sullivan's just doing his job.
>
> D'oh, indeed.
Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request just like the AP's and a number of others who also now have filed suit. All were told that there were no responsive records because Clinton had intentionally hidden them outside of the Federal records system. Sullivan is doing his job in forcing Clinton and State to give up what should have been there to begin with and to quit the initial stonewalling and slow-walking that they tried at first.
Doh in doubly deed neighbor.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
Moe Szyslak
()
Date: September 01, 2015 03:53PM
Red Herring Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> No the law to prosecute says with the intent to
> knowingly distribute. Aka use the information for
> nefarious deeds, like make money or treason.
>
Nope. That's just under one statute. There are violations of multiple others.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> No the law to prosecute says with the intent to
> knowingly distribute. Aka use the information for
> nefarious deeds, like make money or treason.
>
Nope. That's just under one statute. There are violations of multiple others.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
Petraeus
()
Date: September 01, 2015 03:56PM
For the record I still think Petraeus had a good scheme going, but then he probably got the idea from other CIA agents.
Petraeus and Broadwell used fake names to create free webmail accounts exchanging messages without encryption tools. They would share an email account with one saving a message in the draft's folder and the other deleting it after reading it.
The FBI, using electronic metadata that pinpointed the times, places and IP addresses, identified Paula Broadwell as the source of "kelleypatrol".
Petraeus and Broadwell used fake names to create free webmail accounts exchanging messages without encryption tools. They would share an email account with one saving a message in the draft's folder and the other deleting it after reading it.
The FBI, using electronic metadata that pinpointed the times, places and IP addresses, identified Paula Broadwell as the source of "kelleypatrol".
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
Hate the playas
()
Date: September 01, 2015 04:00PM
Clinton took out Petraeus because he wanted to run for President. Obama cooperated because he was being critical of his actions.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
TedxE
()
Date: September 01, 2015 04:11PM
Nah, Petraeus got taken down because he could controll his bitches! Always keep your bitches in line!
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
GHuLW
()
Date: September 01, 2015 04:23PM
TedxE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nah, Petraeus got taken down because he could
> controll his bitches! Always keep your bitches in
> line!
Everybody got bitches. That just doesn't come out confirmed and wrapped up with a bow until somebody else in power wants to use it against them. They hung his ass out.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nah, Petraeus got taken down because he could
> controll his bitches! Always keep your bitches in
> line!
Everybody got bitches. That just doesn't come out confirmed and wrapped up with a bow until somebody else in power wants to use it against them. They hung his ass out.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
Control Bitches
()
Date: September 01, 2015 04:54PM
GHuLW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TedxE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nah, Petraeus got taken down because he could
> > controll his bitches! Always keep your bitches
> in
> > line!
>
>
> Everybody got bitches. That just doesn't come out
> confirmed and wrapped up with a bow until somebody
> else in power wants to use it against them. They
> hung his ass out.
That's what I said! Keep your bitches in line!
Petrae let his bitches walk all over him. Bitches are suppose to be here fro the mans pleasure. To work for da man!
He should of made it clear who the bottom bitch was!
-------------------------------------------------------
> TedxE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nah, Petraeus got taken down because he could
> > controll his bitches! Always keep your bitches
> in
> > line!
>
>
> Everybody got bitches. That just doesn't come out
> confirmed and wrapped up with a bow until somebody
> else in power wants to use it against them. They
> hung his ass out.
That's what I said! Keep your bitches in line!
Petrae let his bitches walk all over him. Bitches are suppose to be here fro the mans pleasure. To work for da man!
He should of made it clear who the bottom bitch was!
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
The partisan water carrier
()
Date: September 02, 2015 07:40AM
Ned Flanders Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All were told that there were no
> responsive records because Clinton had
> intentionally hidden them outside of the Federal
> records system.
Bullshit.
> Sullivan is doing his job in forcing Clinton
> and State to give up what should have been
> there to begin with and to quit the initial
> stonewalling and slow-walking that they
> tried at first.
Mrs. Clinton gave her e-mails to State months ago. State has been vetting the emails for public release, redacting parts that are sensitive or classified, which takes time, so tough titty.
D'oh cubed, dude.
-------------------------------------------------------
> All were told that there were no
> responsive records because Clinton had
> intentionally hidden them outside of the Federal
> records system.
Bullshit.
> Sullivan is doing his job in forcing Clinton
> and State to give up what should have been
> there to begin with and to quit the initial
> stonewalling and slow-walking that they
> tried at first.
Mrs. Clinton gave her e-mails to State months ago. State has been vetting the emails for public release, redacting parts that are sensitive or classified, which takes time, so tough titty.
D'oh cubed, dude.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
hct77
()
Date: September 02, 2015 11:53AM
Control Bitches Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GHuLW Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > TedxE Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Nah, Petraeus got taken down because he could
> > > controll his bitches! Always keep your
> bitches
> > in
> > > line!
> >
> >
> > Everybody got bitches. That just doesn't come
> out
> > confirmed and wrapped up with a bow until
> somebody
> > else in power wants to use it against them.
> They
> > hung his ass out.
>
> That's what I said! Keep your bitches in line!
>
> Petrae let his bitches walk all over him. Bitches
> are suppose to be here fro the mans pleasure. To
> work for da man!
>
> He should of made it clear who the bottom bitch
> was!
Regardless how he did or didn't ride herd on his bitches, his bitches didn't out him. The machine outted and prosecuted him. They wanted him out of the way and to pay. You could go out at any given time and find 100s of others that everyone knows about who are doing the exact same things. The only time that it will be made a problem for them is if they get out of line and/or piss somebody off.
-------------------------------------------------------
> GHuLW Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > TedxE Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Nah, Petraeus got taken down because he could
> > > controll his bitches! Always keep your
> bitches
> > in
> > > line!
> >
> >
> > Everybody got bitches. That just doesn't come
> out
> > confirmed and wrapped up with a bow until
> somebody
> > else in power wants to use it against them.
> They
> > hung his ass out.
>
> That's what I said! Keep your bitches in line!
>
> Petrae let his bitches walk all over him. Bitches
> are suppose to be here fro the mans pleasure. To
> work for da man!
>
> He should of made it clear who the bottom bitch
> was!
Regardless how he did or didn't ride herd on his bitches, his bitches didn't out him. The machine outted and prosecuted him. They wanted him out of the way and to pay. You could go out at any given time and find 100s of others that everyone knows about who are doing the exact same things. The only time that it will be made a problem for them is if they get out of line and/or piss somebody off.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
Ned Flanders
()
Date: September 02, 2015 11:58AM
The partisan water carrier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ned Flanders Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > All were told that there were no
> > responsive records because Clinton had
> > intentionally hidden them outside of the
> Federal
> > records system.
>
> Bullshit.
Absolutely not bullshit. What do you think that the AP's and other's FOIA suitsvare about?
>
> > Sullivan is doing his job in forcing Clinton
> > and State to give up what should have been
> > there to begin with and to quit the initial
> > stonewalling and slow-walking that they
> > tried at first.
>
> Mrs. Clinton gave her e-mails to State months ago.
> State has been vetting the emails for public
> release, redacting parts that are sensitive or
> classified, which takes time, so tough titty.
>
> D'oh cubed, dude.
Clinton shouldn't have had public records and classified materials outside of the system to begin with. She also only turned over what she decided to turn over. The rest will be brought in at some point too.
Diddly doodley D'oh neighbor.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ned Flanders Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > All were told that there were no
> > responsive records because Clinton had
> > intentionally hidden them outside of the
> Federal
> > records system.
>
> Bullshit.
Absolutely not bullshit. What do you think that the AP's and other's FOIA suitsvare about?
>
> > Sullivan is doing his job in forcing Clinton
> > and State to give up what should have been
> > there to begin with and to quit the initial
> > stonewalling and slow-walking that they
> > tried at first.
>
> Mrs. Clinton gave her e-mails to State months ago.
> State has been vetting the emails for public
> release, redacting parts that are sensitive or
> classified, which takes time, so tough titty.
>
> D'oh cubed, dude.
Clinton shouldn't have had public records and classified materials outside of the system to begin with. She also only turned over what she decided to turn over. The rest will be brought in at some point too.
Diddly doodley D'oh neighbor.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
The partisan water carrier
()
Date: September 02, 2015 12:03PM
Ned Flanders Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clinton shouldn't have had public records and
> classified materials outside of the system to
> begin with.
None of the material was classified when she received it. Her actions were acceptable under State Dept. policy.
> She also only turned over what she
> decided to turn over. The rest will be brought in
> at some point too.
'The rest' are gone, like dust in the wind, never to be seen again.
Scooby Doo D'oh, dude.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clinton shouldn't have had public records and
> classified materials outside of the system to
> begin with.
None of the material was classified when she received it. Her actions were acceptable under State Dept. policy.
> She also only turned over what she
> decided to turn over. The rest will be brought in
> at some point too.
'The rest' are gone, like dust in the wind, never to be seen again.
Scooby Doo D'oh, dude.
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
axsasj
()
Date: September 02, 2015 12:40PM
Obama hates Hillary.He's pissed that he had to make her SOS in order to get Bill to campaign for him. He no longer needs either of them. He has sicked the DOJ and FBI on her. Sure hope Hillary had the right people slick the server. My guess is no. Love me some Chicago political tactics. Can't wait!
Re: Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton
Posted by:
Ned Flanders
()
Date: September 02, 2015 12:47PM
The partisan water carrier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ned Flanders Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Clinton shouldn't have had public records and
> > classified materials outside of the system to
> > begin with.
>
> None of the material was classified when she
> received it. Her actions were acceptable under
> State Dept. policy.
>
Wrong. You're behind the times even for your own talking points. What you're supposed to be saying now is that none were *marked* classified. Which is just a red herring being trolled by the Clinton campaign.
Being marked classified isn't the criteria for falling within the requirements for materials requiring protection under secrecy regs. Classification in many if not most cases is done long after some material may be generated. That doesn't mean that it isn't secret and that someone can send it all over in the interim. Various types of information are deemed protected by their nature. Which is why such things aren't supposed to be done outside of secure systems.
It's made more ridiculous because her hiding the materials provided no opportunity to do any classification. Worse yet because as a classification authority, she is responsible for classifying anything that she or her organization generates which may fall within the guidelines (e.g., communications with foreign governments, sources and methods,etc.). Which as the materials now being classified by State clearly demonstrate that she did not do.
> > She also only turned over what she
> > decided to turn over. The rest will be brought
> in
> > at some point too.
>
> 'The rest' are gone, like dust in the wind, never
> to be seen again.
Not likely.
>
> Scooby Doo D'oh, dude.
Why the saddly sad face neighbor? Are you maddly mad?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ned Flanders Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Clinton shouldn't have had public records and
> > classified materials outside of the system to
> > begin with.
>
> None of the material was classified when she
> received it. Her actions were acceptable under
> State Dept. policy.
>
Wrong. You're behind the times even for your own talking points. What you're supposed to be saying now is that none were *marked* classified. Which is just a red herring being trolled by the Clinton campaign.
Being marked classified isn't the criteria for falling within the requirements for materials requiring protection under secrecy regs. Classification in many if not most cases is done long after some material may be generated. That doesn't mean that it isn't secret and that someone can send it all over in the interim. Various types of information are deemed protected by their nature. Which is why such things aren't supposed to be done outside of secure systems.
It's made more ridiculous because her hiding the materials provided no opportunity to do any classification. Worse yet because as a classification authority, she is responsible for classifying anything that she or her organization generates which may fall within the guidelines (e.g., communications with foreign governments, sources and methods,etc.). Which as the materials now being classified by State clearly demonstrate that she did not do.
> > She also only turned over what she
> > decided to turn over. The rest will be brought
> in
> > at some point too.
>
> 'The rest' are gone, like dust in the wind, never
> to be seen again.
Not likely.
>
> Scooby Doo D'oh, dude.
Why the saddly sad face neighbor? Are you maddly mad?