Dead candidate walking...

If you want the full list, ask Valerie Jarrett for it. If you have doubts, name one other Cabinet member who was given a green light to use their own private server for official purposes.

Can't do it? Didn't think so, sewer rat.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

If they were given a green light, why are you bitching about it now?

Those "special conditions" have to be assumed as a matter of course. Since someone could not do what Hillary did without some prior permission from someone. If not Obama (who else could do it?) then Hillary is in violation of White House regs and should be charged as such. Since she isn't......she must have had some kind of permission. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I don't have to assume shit. What were the special conditions. If she was given special dispensation, then what's the big fucking deal?

From the NYT dated Nov. 22, 2008:

"...Mrs. Clinton was skeptical about the prospect of joining the cabinet, said her confidants.... But Mr. Obama addressed her concerns about access, personnel and other issues, leading her to conclude she should take the job, they said."

Both camps (Obama's transition team and the Clinton foundation) had their lawyers meet to negotiate the terms and conditions of her acceptance. Negotiations were supposed to limit Bill Clinton's activities (speaking fees, fund-raising, etc.) in order to "avoid any appearances of conflict of interest". Guess that didn't work out too well, either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us...s/22obama.html

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-of-state-job/

Any investigation into the Hildabeast's private server arrangement will surely need to find out how it was authorized in the first place.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

If it was authorized, then where is the wrongdoing?

If it was authorized, then where is the wrongdoing? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Seriously? Are you even paying attention, assclown? What do you think this thread is all about? I don't know the full details yet but I do know where to dig for them. She may have been "authorized" by a wink and a nod. Her lawyers may have told her what federal employment forms not to sign. Where is the wrongdoing? Ask David Patraeus to explain it to you.

You and Hildabeast are poster children for why libtarded dems are unfit to run the executive branch. You instinctively put politics ahead of national security, then try to shrug it off when it blows up on you.
.

Seriously? Are you even paying attention, assclown? What do you think this thread is all about? I don't know the full details yet but I do know where to dig for them. She may have been "authorized" by a wink and a nod. Her lawyers may have told her what federal employment forms not to sign. Where is the wrongdoing? Ask David Patraeus to explain it to you.

You and Hildabeast are poster children for why libtarded dems are unfit to run the executive branch. You instinctively put politics ahead of national security, then try to shrug it off when it blows up on you.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

Really? Playing politics? Like when the GOP blocked extending provisions of the Patriot Act earlier this year, because of the political implications of doing so?

Or maybe when republicans threatened to shut down Homeland Security earlier this year when they were throwing a tantrum over the budget?

You disingenuous asshole. To pretend that either side has the market cornered on playing politics is to be a fucking naive shithead. Are YOU paying attention, dickcheese? Where is the wrongdoing? Find something other than pieces and connect them together.

The fact you keep restating your stupidity doesn't make it less stupid. Originally Posted by Old-T

Is the Washintonpost stupid? It is a Federal Government regulation regarding emails, the BURDEN is on the sender use the correct security classification. From the link:

Material not allowed on non-approved systems

Federal rules prohibit sharing classified material on non-approved or personal systems. Regulations dictate the burden is on the sender of an e-mail to classify its security clearance level.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...clinton-email/

Provide a link that contradicts what the Washingtonpost printed or SHUT THE FUCK UP. The link was posted in post #75. I guess you did not read it.

Material not allowed on non-approved systems

Federal rules prohibit sharing classified material on non-approved or personal systems. Regulations dictate the burden is on the sender of an e-mail to classify its security clearance level. Originally Posted by flghtr65

A few simple questions for you, flighty:

1. Does the job description for US Secretary of State involve frequent and routine access to classified information?

2. Did Hillary understand the job when she accepted it in 2008?

3. Even if you accept at face value her claim that she used her private server as a matter of personal convenience, does her convenience trump national security and the need to keep classified information secure?

.

A few simple questions for you, flighty:

1. Does the job description for US Secretary of State involve frequent and routine access to classified information?

2. Did Hillary understand the job when she accepted it in 2008?

3. Even if you accept at face value her claim that she used her private server as a matter of personal convenience, does her convenience trump national security and the need to keep classified information secure?

. Originally Posted by lustylad

What if the system was approved? It says classified cannot be shared on a person or non-approved system. It also says the burden is on the sender to clarify it's security clearance level.

What if the system was approved? It says classified cannot be shared on a person or non-approved system. It also says the burden is on the sender to clarify it's security clearance level. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're notoriously wrong, again, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Per government regulations, the individual receiving classified information -- even if it is not marked as such -- is still responsible for the security of the classified material, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Furthermore, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, Hildabeast WAS, in several instances, the offending sender!!!

"[S]ome of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not....

"The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
"This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

What if the system was approved? It says classified cannot be shared on a person (sic) or non-approved system. It also says the burden is on the sender to clarify it's (sic) security clearance level. Originally Posted by WombRaider

The questions were not directed at you, sewer rat. Let flighty answer them, if he can. We already know you can't.
.

Obviously your I.Q. is too low to be insulted by anyone.

Fluffy is the one who brought up your two Texas favorite sons, not me. Your pal Perry was indicted for firing a drunk and you think that is worse than what the Hildabeast did? And your pal W has never been indicted of anything here, so you're the fucking idiot making things up.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

That's not really what I said, Junior, is it?

Perry is facing felony charges now and could do hard time. He didn't fire a drunk, as much as you'd like it to be.

Bush is a convicted war criminal and wanted outside the U.S.

For a change, you're tryIng to mold the truth to your simplistic little needs. Unconvincingly, I might add.

No wonder you're nothing more than an insignificant speck on the great IGNORE list of life.

Piss off pissant!

The questions were not directed at you, sewer rat. Let flighty answer them, if he can. We already know you can't.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

Fuck yourself silly, you cum-guzzling queen.

A few simple questions for you, flighty:

1. Does the job description for US Secretary of State involve frequent and routine access to classified information?

2. Did Hillary understand the job when she accepted it in 2008?

3. Even if you accept at face value her claim that she used her private server as a matter of personal convenience, does her convenience trump national security and the need to keep classified information secure?

. Originally Posted by lustylad

I have already handed you and old-t your asses as far back as post #75. Answer my question first and then I'll answer yours.

IS THE WASHINGTONPOST STUPID?

You're notoriously wrong, again, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Per government regulations, the individual receiving classified information -- even if it is not marked as such -- is still responsible for the security of the classified material, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Furthermore, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, Hildabeast WAS, in several instances, the offending sender!!! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You left out some information from the Reuters link. From the link at the bottom.

Although it appears to be true for Clinton to say none of her emails included classification markings, a point she and her staff have emphasized, the government's standard nondisclosure agreement warns people authorized to handle classified information that it may not be marked that way and that it may come in oral form.
The State Department disputed Reuters' analysis but declined requests to explain how it was incorrect.

This is a Reuters vs the State Department dispute. Nothing more.

At this point in time none of this really matters. The court of public opinion is proving that. Her poll numbers are dropping like a rock!

Once Biden announces she's history anyway.