Hillary is Officially 'F*ED': Guccifer - 'I hacked Hillary's server'

[TheOldSchool]

"Criminal" investigation? No there is not one of those going on.

For ****'s sakes, of course there is.

What is the crime?

We have to pass the indictment to know what's in it.

You can't state a crime?

Disclosing classified information.

That's not even in question.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Yeah any day now. Any day now...

I'll wait and see on this hacker's story, but I mean you do acknowledge that obviously the criminal investigation is real, right?

"Criminal" investigation? No there is not one of those going on.

For ****'s sakes, of course there is.

What is the crime?

Exposing TSecret messaging to a non-secure communications environment. Same as if she picked up a TS convo on her blackberry phone. .That level material NEVER LEAVES a CERTIFIED secured environment. And she KNOWS by looking at it whether it is subject to classification or not. You do not need proof of hacking or interception. You only need proof that the comm traffic left CERTIFIED containment.

Any other questions?

What law did she break? Especially now that it's accepted that none of the information in the e-mails was classified as certified at the time it was sent?

 

[Tom Horn]

I read that the FBI can find a fingerprint for any IP that got inside her server. Guccifer said he saw over 20...if just ONE of those is from China, Russia, Iran, or N.Korea, she's FUCKED.

 

[SmokeALib]

For ****'s sakes, of course there is.

What is the crime?

We have to pass the indictment to know what's in it.

You can't state a crime?

Disclosing classified information.

That's not even in question.

You're right. That goes without question.

 

[TheOldSchool]

What is the crime?

We have to pass the indictment to know what's in it.

You can't state a crime?

Disclosing classified information.

That's not even in question.

You're right. That goes without question.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I'll wait and see on this hacker's story, but I mean you do acknowledge that obviously the criminal investigation is real, right?

"Criminal" investigation? No there is not one of those going on.

For ****'s sakes, of course there is.

What is the crime?

Exposing TSecret messaging to a non-secure communications environment. Same as if she picked up a TS convo on her blackberry phone. .That level material NEVER LEAVES a CERTIFIED secured environment. And she KNOWS by looking at it whether it is subject to classification or not. You do not need proof of hacking or interception. You only need proof that the comm traffic left CERTIFIED containment.

Any other questions?

What law did she break? Especially now that it's accepted that none of the information in the e-mails was classified as certified at the time it was sent?

Actually that is NOT accepted. Jesus more lies.

 

[Tom Horn]

What law did she break? Especially now that it's accepted that none of the information in the e-mails was classified as certified at the time it was sent?

How about 6.000 counts of mishandling classified information? And please, anybody with her security clearance knows what's what.....that dodge is too weak to believe. Your queen is a piece of shit....lazy, stupid, and senile and she's finally going to pay for being what she's always been.

 

[TheOldSchool]

"Criminal" investigation? No there is not one of those going on.

For ****'s sakes, of course there is.

What is the crime?

Exposing TSecret messaging to a non-secure communications environment. Same as if she picked up a TS convo on her blackberry phone. .That level material NEVER LEAVES a CERTIFIED secured environment. And she KNOWS by looking at it whether it is subject to classification or not. You do not need proof of hacking or interception. You only need proof that the comm traffic left CERTIFIED containment.

Any other questions?

What law did she break? Especially now that it's accepted that none of the information in the e-mails was classified as certified at the time it was sent?

Actually that is NOT accepted. Jesus more lies.

Only nutters don't accept it. Regardless, there was no law about storing information on a private server during her tenure.

 

[daws101]

I appreciate the thanks Daws, but would appreciate an answer even more.

What answer would that be ?
You know it's just possible that expanding the investigations is to prove innocence and not guilt .
And if it comes to a trial where are you gonna find the required amount of non bias ,objective people to hear it.
The RW nut sacks have already convicted and executed her.

 

[TheOldSchool]

What law did she break? Especially now that it's accepted that none of the information in the e-mails was classified as certified at the time it was sent?

How about 6.000 counts of mishandling classified information? And please, anybody with her security clearance knows what's what.....that dodge is too weak to believe. Your queen is a piece of shit....lazy, stupid, and senile and she's finally going to pay for being what she's always been.

I'm confused... what law are you suggesting that she broke?

 

[daws101]

I read that the FBI can find a fingerprint for any IP that got inside her server. Guccifer said he saw over 20...if just ONE of those is from China, Russia, Iran, or N.Korea, she's FUCKED.

"He said"...enough said.

 

[daws101]

Yeah any day now. Any day now...

I'll wait and see on this hacker's story, but I mean you do acknowledge that obviously the criminal investigation is real, right?

"Criminal" investigation? No there is not one of those going on.

For ****'s sakes, of course there is.

What is the crime?

Exposing TSecret messaging to a non-secure communications environment. Same as if she picked up a TS convo on her blackberry phone. .That level material NEVER LEAVES a CERTIFIED secured environment. And she KNOWS by looking at it whether it is subject to classification or not. You do not need proof of hacking or interception. You only need proof that the comm traffic left CERTIFIED containment.

Any other questions?

By never do you mean not supposed too?
Didn't stop Snowden. ..

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I appreciate the thanks Daws, but would appreciate an answer even more.

What answer would that be ?
You know it's just possible that expanding the investigations is to prove innocence and not guilt .
And if it comes to a trial where are you gonna find the required amount of non bias ,objective people to hear it.
The RW nut sacks have already convicted and executed her.

Don't evade. I'm asking you straight up. If the Director of the FBI comes out and recommends an indictment are you going to change your tune? That's a simple yes or no question.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I appreciate the thanks Daws, but would appreciate an answer even more.

What answer would that be ?
You know it's just possible that expanding the investigations is to prove innocence and not guilt .
And if it comes to a trial where are you gonna find the required amount of non bias ,objective people to hear it.
The RW nut sacks have already convicted and executed her.

Don't evade. I'm asking you straight up. If the Director of the FBI comes out and recommends an indictment are you going to change your tune? That's a simple yes or no question.

If he doesn't, will you change yours?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I appreciate the thanks Daws, but would appreciate an answer even more.

What answer would that be ?
You know it's just possible that expanding the investigations is to prove innocence and not guilt .
And if it comes to a trial where are you gonna find the required amount of non bias ,objective people to hear it.
The RW nut sacks have already convicted and executed her.

Don't evade. I'm asking you straight up. If the Director of the FBI comes out and recommends an indictment are you going to change your tune? That's a simple yes or no question.

If he doesn't, will you change yours?

Why don't you ******* read posts before you respond, I already CLEARLY wrote that if he says no crimes were committed I think he deserves to be believed.

Sick of stupid dishonest people like yourself.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'll wait and see on this hacker's story, but I mean you do acknowledge that obviously the criminal investigation is real, right?

"Criminal" investigation? No there is not one of those going on.

For ****'s sakes, of course there is.

What is the crime?

Exposing TSecret messaging to a non-secure communications environment. Same as if she picked up a TS convo on her blackberry phone. .That level material NEVER LEAVES a CERTIFIED secured environment. And she KNOWS by looking at it whether it is subject to classification or not. You do not need proof of hacking or interception. You only need proof that the comm traffic left CERTIFIED containment.

Any other questions?

What law did she break? Especially now that it's accepted that none of the information in the e-mails was classified as certified at the time it was sent?

You just don't know how this stuff works. Folks who are cleared are BRIEFED and CERTIFIED to recognize classified info when they SEE IT.. They don't NEED to have a stamp on every concept, idea or discussion that ensues. Doesn't MATTER whether it was marked. YOU can generate a classified conversation anytime you wish if you CONTAIN IT within the bounds of a CERTIFIED secure environment.


THAT's how it works.. There's a MULTITUDE of protocols broken here. I'll rely on the FBI to quote chapter and verse. But from what the public is GONNA know (which is little of what actually happened) -- it's quite clear that this "convienience she designed for herself is MORE than "bad judgement". It's a serious breach of National Security..

 

[TheOldSchool]

I appreciate the thanks Daws, but would appreciate an answer even more.

What answer would that be ?
You know it's just possible that expanding the investigations is to prove innocence and not guilt .
And if it comes to a trial where are you gonna find the required amount of non bias ,objective people to hear it.
The RW nut sacks have already convicted and executed her.

Don't evade. I'm asking you straight up. If the Director of the FBI comes out and recommends an indictment are you going to change your tune? That's a simple yes or no question.

If he doesn't, will you change yours?

Why don't you ******* read posts before you respond, I already CLEARLY wrote that if he says no crimes were committed I think he deserves to be believed.

Sick of stupid dishonest people like yourself.

Ironic.

 

[Valerie]

Don't evade. I'm asking you straight up. If the Director of the FBI comes out and recommends an indictment are you going to change your tune? That's a simple yes or no question.

okay, now i'm going to ask you the very same question in the inverse...

Don't evade. I'm asking you straight up. If and when the Director of the FBI does not come out and recommends an indictment are you going to change your tune? That's a simple yes or no question.

 

[TheOldSchool]

"Criminal" investigation? No there is not one of those going on.

For ****'s sakes, of course there is.

What is the crime?

Exposing TSecret messaging to a non-secure communications environment. Same as if she picked up a TS convo on her blackberry phone. .That level material NEVER LEAVES a CERTIFIED secured environment. And she KNOWS by looking at it whether it is subject to classification or not. You do not need proof of hacking or interception. You only need proof that the comm traffic left CERTIFIED containment.

Any other questions?

What law did she break? Especially now that it's accepted that none of the information in the e-mails was classified as certified at the time it was sent?

You just don't know how this stuff works. Folks who are cleared are BRIEFED and CERTIFIED to recognize classified info when they SEE IT.. They don't NEED to have a stamp on every concept, idea or discussion that ensues. Doesn't MATTER whether it was marked. YOU can generate a classified conversation anytime you wish if you CONTAIN IT within the bounds of a CERTIFIED secure environment.


THAT's how it works.. There's a MULTITUDE of protocols broken here. I'll rely on the FBI to quote chapter and verse. But from what the public is GONNA know (which is little of what actually happened) -- it's quite clear that this "convienience she designed for herself is MORE than "bad judgement". It's a serious breach of National Security..

E-mails on a private server. None of the info marked as classified at the time it was sent.

What. Law. Was. Broken?

 

[Tom Horn]

I'm confused... what law are you suggesting that she broke?

You're confused alright. Let's see if you really want to know:

As the head of the Department of State from 2009 until early 2013, she was legally bound to preserve all records of her agency’s official activities. As 44 U.S. Code § 3101 explicitly provides:


The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.


That law, commonly known as the “Federal Records Act,” clearly requires the head of every federal agency (i.e. a Cabinet Secretary like Clinton) preserve all of her records—not simply the ones that she deems are important enough to preserve.


And, yes, emails are considered federal records. A 1995 manual from the State Department (then part of Hillary’s husband Bill’s Executive Branch) plainly states:


All employees must be aware that some of the variety of the messages being exchanged on E-mail are important to the Department and must be preserved; such messages are considered Federal records under the law.


As such, emails are subject to the requirement of preservation under the Federal Records Act, which Clinton willfully violated when she “wiped her server clean” sometime in the fall of 2014...when that server was the subject of a Congressional investigation.


At the time, the House Select Committee on Benghazi had subpoenaed Clinton for “all documents related to the 2012 attacks on the American compound there.”


She obviously did not, since the State Department confirmed in late June that she withheld from the Department (and also Congressional investigators) “15 exchanges with longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal on the security situation in [Libya]. The existence of the new correspondence only came to light days ago after Republicans subpoenaed the former Clinton White House adviser’s records and he turned them over.”


Clinton, however, did not, and her refusal was a direct violation of both the Federal Records Act and of 2 U.S. Code § 192, which governs the “refusal of [a] witness to testify or produce papers” that are under subpoena:


Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.


Clinton not only refused to “produce papers upon” a “matter of inquiry before” the House of Representatives (which in itself is a federal offense punishable by up to a year in jail), she actively destroyed those papers by permanently deleting them from her server.


That destruction of evidence in a federal investigation is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1519, which holds:


Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


A House Select Committee investigation is, of course, governed by Title 11 and since Clinton knowingly destroyed federal records and documents related to that investigation in an obvious attempt to impede or obstruct it, she could potentially face a sentence of 20 years in federal prison.


Making matters legally worse for Clinton is the fact that a number of those emails contained classified information. As the McClatchy News Service revealed late last month:


The classified emails stored on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server contained information from five U.S. intelligence agencies and included material related to the fatal 2012 Benghazi attacks, McClatchy has learned.


Of the five classified emails, the one known to be connected to Benghazi was among 296 emails made public in May by the State Department. Intelligence community officials have determined it was improperly released.


Intelligence officials who reviewed the five classified emails determined that they included information from five separate intelligence agencies, said a congressional official with knowledge of the matter.


The Benghazi email made public contained information from the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, a spy agency that maps and tracks satellite imagery, according to the official, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the matter.


The other four classified emails contained information from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA, the official said.


Because Clinton retained this classified information long after she was legally required to relinquish it, she violated 18 U.S. Code § 1924, which governs the “unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material:”


Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.


Since Clinton maintained her own server and therefore reasonably could be assumed to know the contents of her own emails, she knowingly possessed classified information “at an unauthorized location” (i.e. her home in Chappaqua, New York) and therefore faces a potential sentence of one year in federal prison.


In 2004, this statute was used to prosecute former national security adviser Sandy Berger, who admitted to illegally smuggling five classified documents out of the National Archives as he prepared for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission in 2003.


He pleaded guilty and avoided jail time, but paid a $10,000 fine, performed 100 hours of community service, was on probation for two years, and lost his security clearance for three years.


All for removing five documents...the exact same number that Clinton is now accused of illegally removing and holding on to today. However, as The Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen notes:


The inspector general reviewed only a small sample of 40 e-mails Clinton turned over to the State Department. Yet in that tiny sample, he found that five e-mails contained classified information. Five classified e-mails in a sample of just 40 is a rate of one out of eight e-mails that contained classified information. Clinton has handed over some 30,000 official e-mails to the State Department that she had been keeping on her private server. That means there could be some 3,750 classified e-mails that she removed and retained.


If true, this would constitute a massive and possibly devastating breach of national security, as some of the United States’ Government’s highest-level diplomatic and defense communications would be left utterly exposed to quite literally any hacker in the world.


If the Office of Personnel Management—which has some of the world’s most advanced cybersecurity protecting it—could be hacked (presumably by the Chinese Government), then how easy would it be for a hostile nation to access a homebrew email server stored in a house in New York?


Very easy, apparently. Gawker reports:


"It is almost certain that at least some of the emails hosted at clintonemails.com were intercepted," independent security expert and developer Nic Cubrilovic told Gawker.


Security researcher Dave Kennedy of TrustedSec agrees: "It was done hastily and not locked down." Mediocre encryption from Clinton's outbox to a recipient (or vice versa) would leave all of her messages open to bulk collection by a foreign government or military.


This use of a private server also raises the very serious question of who exactly set up and was managing said server. Since the Obama Administration has repeatedly asserted that it had no idea that Clinton was using a private email address (despite receiving years’ worth of correspondence from “HDR@ClintonEmail.com), it may be assumed that someone with adequate security clearance did not create the server, nor did anyone with adequate security clearance manage the server and therefore have access to thousands of potentially top secret emails.


Clinton, of course, has maintained that she knows very little about technology, so it’s clear that someone other than her had access to top secret emails...thereby constituting another violation of federal law.


In March, at almost the exact same time Clinton’s private server was discovered, former CIA Director David Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count for providing classified information to his mistress as she prepared to write his biography.


Petraeus was charged with violating 18 U.S. Code § 798, which provides:


Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information....Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


Had Clinton provided any classified information to either the aide or aides who maintained her server or to an informal aide such as Sidney Blumenthal who did not have an authorized security clearance, then she too would be in violation of this law and subject to a ten-year federal prison sentence.


In fact, Clinton appears to have violated five different federal laws and, if charged and convicted on all potential counts, could conceivably be sentenced to upwards of 32 years in prison.


Read more: Of Course Hillary Broke the Law, And Here's How | Common Sense Central | News/Talk 1130 WISN