Hillary Clinton

None Dare Call It Treason

The disclosure about Valerie Plame was called "treason" and people have gone to jail for mishandling classified info, what Hillary Clinton is accused of.

|

Few might remember it now, but there was a time when certain members of George W. Bush's administration were denounced as traitors. Virginia's current governor, Terry McAuliffe, was among the denouncers.

Back then—in 2004—McAuliffe headed up the Democratic National Committee. In an Oct. 15 interview on CNN, McAuliffe said Bush adviser Karl Rove had just spent "two and a half hours before a federal grand jury today answering questions about who in the White House committed treason by outing a CIA operative."

McAuliffe was referring to a scandal known as Plamegate. The backstory is complicated, but it boils down to this: During the run-up to the Iraq War, a fellow named Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed in The New York Times undermining a key administration claim about Iraq's quest for weapons of mass destruction. This made the administration most unhappy. Not long afterward, someone told columnist Robert Novak and a few other members of the media that Wilson was married to one Valerie Plame, a CIA employee.

Plame was supposed to be undercover; her role as a CIA operative was classified. True, she was working in Washington at the time, but you still don't blab about these things. Outrage ensued, and suspicions coalesced around the theory that someone high up in the Bush administration had outed Plame to undermine Wilson's story. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, became the chief suspect.

To say this intrigue consumed Washington would be putting it mildly. A special counsel was appointed. Reporters went to jail for not revealing sources. The thing dragged on for years. The news coverage alone bordered on obsessive, for obvious reasons. "Villainous War-Mongering President Violates Sacred Tenets of National Security to Slime Truth-Telling Critic of War" must have been auto-saved on a thousand newsroom computers for easy repetition.

Libby eventually was convicted of lying to the FBI and a couple of other things, but Bush commuted his sentence. Anyway, by then it had been learned that a State Department official, Richard Armitage, was the original source of the leak. He had "casually disclosed" Plame's identity at the end of an interview with Novak.

Nevertheless, rage continued to simmer over the disclosure. It was—as The New York Times put it—"a serious offense, which could have put (Plame) and all those who had worked with her in danger." Wilson and Plame called it treason.

When he was asked if Karl Rove "is guilty of treason," Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) said, "Yes, I think so." Rachel Maddow and others agreed. The word got tossed around so much Plamegate was sometimes referred to as "Treasongate."

Which brings us to Hillary Clinton.

As the AP reported several days ago, "Clinton's home (e-mail) server contained closely guarded government secrets," including "material requiring one of the highest levels of classification." That material involves "special access programs," a "highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs."

Some of the material is so closely guarded that the State Department has chosen to withhold 22 of the e-mails, on the grounds that releasing them would be too damaging. One unnamed government official alleges the e-mails contain "operational intelligence" that could jeopardize "sources, methods, and lives."

But then, those e-mails might already have been released. The AP has reported that Clinton's server "was connected to the Internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers." (In fact, the person who revealed Clinton's private e-mail address was a Romanian hacker named Marcel Lazar Lehel.) Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said "the odds are pretty high" that Russia, China, and other nations hacked into her server.

Clinton repeatedly has tried to bluff her way through all of this. First she claimed her e-mails contained no classified material. When that didn't hold up, she insisted she never received or sent material that was "marked" classified at the time. But as countless others have noted, whether the material was marked as classified is irrelevant.

Six years ago, a former NSA official, Thomas Drake, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act for keeping a printout of an email that was not marked classified. Eight years ago, Jessica Lynn Quintana pleaded guilty to knowingly removing classified material from a national research library; she had taken home printouts and information stored on a thumb drive.

In late September the State Department confessed that the safe it installed for Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, so he could review her emails was not secure enough. It was good enough for some classified information, but "not approved for TS/SCI material"—i.e., Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information. Material like that is supposed to be held in a special facility designed for just such purposes—not, say, the basement of your home in Chappaqua, N.Y., which is where Clinton's server lived.

Clinton signed a nondisclosure agreement acknowledging that "negligent handling" of classified information "could cause irreparable injury to the United States." Confronted about that the other day, she dodged the question: "You can't get information off the classified system in the State Department to put onto an unclassified system, no matter what that system is."

Actually, you can. And she might have. There is evidence her aides might have copied material from the secure Secret Internet Protocol Router Network and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications systems and pasted it into emails to her. "Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure," Clinton ordered a staffer at one point.

The very best that can be said of Clinton's behavior, which she claims was driven by personal convenience, is that it constitutes grotesque negligence. The FBI continues to investigate the matter. Perhaps, one of these days, she will testify about it before a federal grand jury. If so, it will be interesting to hear what Terry McAuliffe, et al., have to say about that.

This column originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

NEXT: Arizona Supreme Court Justice: GOP Nativism Has Paul Ryan Ducking-and-Covering on Immigration

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Different spanks for different ranks…

    1. I am so tempted to buy that Hillary nutcracker.

      1. Make sure to get the complete set.

        1. Not at that price. They have the nutcracker for $21.

          1. Holy Shi-ite! I didn’t even pay attention to the price.

            I bought these beauties at a local surplus store as a xmas gift for my parents years ago. I wonder if they still have them or if they have resold them.

      2. I bought one for my girlfriend last year. She saw it in one of those ‘As Seen On TV’ stores at the mall.

      1. It is very much satire, just not the self-concious sort. Which makes it funnier.

    2. i particularly enjoyed #4 – “know your history”, which is the headline she gave the argument that “anything can be rationalized so long as it is in Hillary’s self-interest”

      e.g. = “…Should Hillary have dumped his political career for a chance to spit in Sam Walton’s eye? Well, that wasn’t going to happen. She sat on the Walmart board and did what she could to both ensure the prosperity of the state of which her husband was governor and to do the right thing. She has almost always chosen the path (sometimes not the one you’d pick???) that would enable her to accomplish some good actions*, rather than the pure path that tends to lead to inaction, or to exile from the power than enables you to make change.”

      (*never mind that these ‘good actions’ have never really materialized, while the parade of Self-Advancing compromises of ethics remain her defining feature)

      This is how shallow the feminist argument is=

      “yes, principles are like supposed to be important and stuff. And maybe we think women should always side with victims. But she *had* to destroy critics of her husband! because how else could she maintain power? She HAD to sit on walmart’s board? Because it helped a governor become president? EXPEDIENCY TRUMPS PRINCIPLE YOU FOOLS.”

      1. Thanks. I didn’t read it in depth.

        1. To her credit =

          she says that the “Bernie Bro”-attack is stupid, and that screaming ‘sexism’ when anyone dares criticize women is generally a bad idea…

          (because it makes the same scream less-effective when there is *genuinely* a sexist attack – which is what she considers criticism which points to Hillary’s “likeability” or “fakeness” , her appearance, or her physical frailty….which is basically #1 and #2 in her list of points.)

          “”If the label applies, absolutely use it. Call out sexism and misogyny-especially if it’s coming from someone who claims to be progressive. However, I worry the label is being thrown around loosely and being applied to many well meaning, non-sexist male critics of Clinton. And that only silences debate. I don’t want anyone to feel as though they cannot legitimately critique Clinton for fear of being called sexist, a BernieBro, or other names.””

          She makes good points in both places.

          But the #4, listed above…which basically attempts to suggest that “Hillary’s History” is really a story of ‘advancement’…and that everything should be seen in the context of ‘sacrifices made in the pursuit of power’… is just the supreme “feminist ur-rationalization”.

          i.e. “Its OK if a woman does it, because woman”… and women needs powers.

          ergo, stfu about all the lies and ethics violations and money-grubbing corrupt behavior that defines her legacy. That shit was IN THE SERVICE OF GETTING MORE POWER.

          1. We’ll see how long those good points last when they come from conservatives.

      2. Ends justified. Means irrelevant for progs. Water wet, too.

  2. Reason just wants to impress the cute boys, all who like Bernie Sanders.

    1. Does supporting Bernie really get you laid by college chicks? Asking for a friend.

      1. No it’s the other way around. The college chicks like Bernie so boys will have sex them.

        1. If that’s what they resort to do to get laid, I’m afraid that they are hopeless.

          1. I’ve done worse.

    2. Robby’s still in the “undecided” column.

    3. Why does Gloria get to say “boys”? If someone said that college age men were flocking to Hillary’s campaign because that was where all the girls were, she’d have a shit fit about calling young females “girls”.

      1. It’s nice to be part of the Vanguard.

      2. No no, the words ‘men’ and ‘man’ don’t exist in the feminist lexicon anymore, unless they’re describing a rapist. It’s either ‘dudes’ or ‘boys’.

        I don’t think I’ve ever seen it explained, but I’m sure their argument would generally be about revenge, but wrapped up in some pseudo intellectual bullshit about the patriarchy and undermining traditional privlege structures.

  3. The server “connected to the Internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers” is bad but not even the whole risk. The server itself wasn’t in a guarded government location or even the Clintons’ guarded home. It was in a dry cleaning shop in Colorado. Any second-rate spy could have walked in and hacked the physical server whenever they were in the mood.

    1. Would the spy have hacked it with a saw?

    2. The huge issue is the criminal conspiracy that is why the server existed. Yes the server was clearly violating US National Security in ways that most of us cannot begin to comprehend. It exposed actual human lives to danger. (Case in point the top secret e-mails detailing Ambassador Steven’s Libya itinerary Security Arrangements and Security concerns and weaknesses were on that server, as apparently were a listing of CIA assets tasked to or embedded with the State Department, including the Benghazi safe house that was the second attack. Let that sink in a bit).

      But why was Hillary using that server? Well short answer it shielded her from investigation, oversight and public inquiry into her dealings. So the server existed to do an illegal end run around FOI requests, Inspector Generals and lawful Congressional Oversight. To give Hillary complete control of the record. I mean why do that just to block Congress? Surely not simply political considerations?

      And that’s where we reach the heart of the matter. The Clinton Foundation. Her privately controlled electronic communication system allowed her to blur and secure the lines of communication between the governments business and the Clinton’s business. And in doing so operate a Racketeering Cabal that was selling influence in our National Foreign Policies to Foreign Powers. The National Security concerns were simply the unintended consequences. The canary in the coal mine warning of the true crime.

      1. That Obama and other officials in the State Dept. emailed her and knew she was using a personal server (because the email address didn’t say something like HillaryClinton@State.gov and instead was something like hrc@clintonemail.com) says they all knew and went along with it, and were part of the conspiracy as well.

        They all were OK with her communications not being archived as part of the State.gov server.

        And you may recall all the reports of no emails found and officials learning of her private server from the news. They were (almost) all obviously lying to us, their employer. They should all be fired at a minimum, if not prosecuted for facilitating corruption and skirting the law. But they won’t, because government employees are all in it together against the rest of us, because they have the guns and use them to take our money to provide their high life.

        1. I don’t suppose that Obama has the brains to check the actual address HRC was using – or be bothered enough to look into it. I expect his in-box just showed “Hillary” or “Secretary Clinton” as the sender and he never paid any mind to where it actually came from.

          If somehow Obama did notice and bring the issue up to her I’m sure she made him uncomfortable about the issue and he just dropped it.

          1. Tejicano, are you trying to imply that Obama has EVER sent or received an email himself or would recognize the difference between a personal url and a government url?
            Surely, you jest!

  4. Dow briefly plunges 350; gold surges

    SHRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKE!!!!

    SHRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKKEE! WHERE YOU AT DOG?

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/08/us-markets.html

    1. You know, I can’t believe those numbers. The president said that those who say the economy is not rebounding are peddling lies and horrible calumnies meant to undermine his great efforts and I have to believe him because he’s been so believable and truthful up to today.

  5. Silly Hinkle, treason’s for Republicans!

    The reason Hillary can ignore the rules and Cheney can’t is that she’s awesome and he is more evil than if Hitler and Stalin had a lovechild.

    Principals, nor principles — or haven’t you heard?

    1. Well, to be fair, they are kinda right on Cheney.

  6. I’m sure she’s just worried sick about the possibility of any of this becoming a concern to any potential voters.

  7. “Grotesque negligence”

    That’s what it is. It shouldn’t be excused, but also should not be equated with trying to silence a critic of an administration that launched a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people. There’s a big difference between “negligence” and malice.

    1. There’s a big difference between “negligence” and malice.

      Not when it comes to national security. At least, not for the hoi polloi.

      1. National security is overrated.

        If we are a upstanding a nation as we claim to be, why all this need for secrets?

        Most of what gets classified as national security, should actually be openly debated in Congress where we can at least pretend to have some transparency and expect some accountability.

        It’s really just a way for the feds to exercise more control over all of us.

        1. That’s just not true at all. This is why people have a hard time taking libertarians seriously.

          National security is often used as an excuse, yes, but to say that ‘national security is overrated’ and downplay the very real, very dangerous, and very valuable work that our clandestine services do is to simply ignore the reality of planet earth.

          1. The very real, very dangerous work that actually is valuable is a small minority. Most of what they do has nothing to do with benefitting the nation they work for, in America or any other nation. Yes there is some work that needs to be called “National Security” and kept secret, but it is massively overrated in terms of actually helping real people. Spies don’t win revolutions, ideas do.

    2. I can’t remember was Hillary Clinton in congress at the time when we invaded Iraq?

    3. There is nothing remotely defensible in the entire email fiasco. Your best bet is to pretend it didn’t happen (like all the other progs), and go talk smack about women who don’t support Hillary.

    4. Re: American Stultified,

      It shouldn’t be excused, but also should not be equated with trying to silence a critic of an administration that launched a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people.

      According to you, an act should be judged by the intention behind it and not by the result or the actual harm it caused. Is that it?

      I just want to be sure. I also would like to know if the intention matters to you when the person committing the act shares the same ideology as you. I just want to know if that’s the case.

      1. According to you, an act should be judged by the intention behind it and not by the result or the actual harm it caused. Is that it?

        To be fair, that is a pretty important part of law. Manslaughter and murder are properly considered different things, I think. Mens rea is a thing.

        Of course, if you are secretary of state, ignorance is not really an acceptable excuse.

        1. Re: Zeb,

          To be fair, that is a pretty important part of law. Manslaughter and murder are properly considered different things, I think. Mens rea is a thing.

          I don’t dispute that. I want to be sure that the American Stultified does not suddenly pivot towards a different consideration. That’s all.

          The reason for my question to him is because there had to be a purpose in setting up a private server. I don’t believe Hill-Rod’s intentions were pure.

        2. “To be fair, that is a pretty important part of law. Manslaughter and murder are properly considered different things, I think. Mens rea is a thing.”

          That’s the number! Hillary didn’t intend to set up a secret server and pass around state secrets. It just happened by accident. It’s not like she had govt approved and supplied options. She was acting in our best interest.

    5. Ah yes, the favorite defense of politicians: I wasn’t criminal, I was just stupid. So elect me President of the United States!

      Given the ridiculous amount of power that has been vested in the presidency, I’d rather not have an idiot in that office. But I suppose you’ll say that’s an “extremist” view.

      1. Well, whether she was negligent or malicious might turn on why she did it the way she did.

        Out of convenience? Don’t make me laugh. She was SecState, she could have had any level of support for her communications, up to and including having a full-time crew to follow her around and run her Blackberry for her.

        The only rational explanation is that she wanted to conduct business and not have any visibility to anyone else in the government or leave any paper trail. It was a cover-up machine. Exactly what it was covering up, I think we have a pretty good idea.

        1. THIS.

          With all the talk of intent, everyone still seems to be missing the central crime here — the ONLY reason she could possibly have wanted all her communication on a home server like this is to remove it from the usual government checks, archives, and FOIA requirements. As you said, it’s a cover-up machine. Convenience had NOTHING to do with it.

          Even if there wasn’t a single classified email on that server, it’s STILL a grotesquely criminal act.

      2. Hillarys the most experienced and competent in the race.

        1. Barf – voice recognition.

          ” the most experienced incompetent”

          1. that’s funny

    6. There is ZERO difference according to the laws she broke. Intent is not a component of the crime.

  8. “Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure”
    So much for the “poor grandmother not comfortable with technology who wouldn’t even know how to do something wrong” defense.

    1. “‘Nonpaper’? You mean, like a cloth or something?”

      She is going down.

  9. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

    article three section three makes very clear what treason is…..that pesky little” levying war” hurdle…

    1. The statement is a logical OR not a logical AND. So, you need not “levy war against them” if you “adhered to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort”.

      Given that, I’m also not sure if mishandling classified information is treason. It could be considered giving enemies aid.

    2. article three section three makes very clear what treason is…..that pesky little” levying war” hurdle…

      So does that mean any country or its citizens with whom the US has ever been at war are to be considered traitors? Or does treason imply disloyalty where loyalty should be expected?

    3. you ignored the second part about “giving the enemies aid and comfort”. Both Hillary and Traitor Kerry are guilty of that. Hillary’s carelessness may be why the Libyan ambassador was murdered,along with his defenders,how they found out where he would be and when. It’s also how Libyan weapons got shipped to Syria,where they ended up in Al-Qaeda hands,or worse. IIRC,Al-Qaeda is an official US enemy.
      Traitor Kerry committed treason by working with the North Vietnamese while the US was still engaged in combat operations with them. And while he was still in uniform. He belongs in front of a firing squad.

  10. Clinton claims you can’t classified info off the secure system into a non-secure system. She’s talking about specific documents already classified and curated in a secure system. But this is irrelevant.

    As Secretary of State, Clinton’s ongoing, normal day-to-day correspondence has to be considered classified. At the very least it is confidential. These communications themselves must be protected. They taught us in training to assume something is classified if in doubt.

    That Clinton had a private server and conducted daily correspondence on it is a scandal involving not just her, but all of her staff and any IT guys that are supposed to be on top of stuff like this.

    1. Don’t forget anyone she exchanged messages with, both below and above her. They are all culpable.

      1. No, not necessarily. They have no reason to believe that the official E-mail address given to them by the SoS is not on a secure system, and they would have no way of checking either way.

        1. If you receive an e-mail that comes from an address like “HillaryRodhamClinton@yahoo.com,” you might think it’s a hoax because of the yahoo.com domain name. Similarly, if you receive an e-mail from an address like “hrc@state.gov,” the address would give you some idea that 1) it might be from the Secretary of State and 2) it’s on a government server because it ends in “state.gov.” The domain name tells you that. If her e-mail was coming from a server that wasn’t maintained by the government, then it shouldn’t have had a “.gov” on the end, and therefore any reasonably competent person working in a federal investigative agency should have been able to put two and two together and exclaim, “it’s coming from the basement! Hillary Clinton’s BASEMENT!!!”

          1. Whoops! Meant to put this down below, though it still mostly applies here. If you see it again, don’t read it twice!

  11. BTW, this Reason Staff trend seems to be a way of avoiding criticism from the commentariat. Whose hair do we make fun of on these posts? Hmmm?

    1. The “Reason Staff” attribution is for the announcement an article is available for perusal, should one be inclined to peruse it. The article itself has a listed author, so if all you’re seeing in the author slot is “Reason Staff”, you’re commenting on the announcement of an article, not the article itself. It’s a little marketing trick they’ve picked up to double page views once they figured out nobody actually reads the articles.

      But don’t you dare complain, or they’ll be forced to go with the slideshow listicles with clickbait headlines and then you’ll be sorry.

      1. “Reason was forced to go with the slideshow listicles with clickbait headlines. You’ll be amazed at what happened next…”

  12. The very best that can be said of Clinton’s behavior, which she claims was driven by personal convenience, is that it constitutes grotesque negligence.

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

    1. As long as she is found guilty and placed in a Federal Supermax facility in solitary confinement for the rest of her unnatural life it makes no difference at all to me.

  13. The FBI knew about this for years and said nothing. Until someone hacked Sidney Blumenthal’s AOL account and suddenly it became a national crisis. Clinton will be fine. She had an email about ‘drones over Afghanistan’ program which no one knows about except all the residents of Afghanistan who watch the drones flying over them daily and anyone who watched the news ever. I’m scared for the dopes at FBI who will get tried for dereliction of duty, treason, withholding evidence of wrongdoing, and obligation under oath. Hm if it takes 150 agents over a year to examine one server (which they knew about all along) then I wonder how many it will take to prosecute themselves. This should be fun.

    1. Why would the FBI have “known about this all along” and what evidence do you have that they did?

      1. HAHAHA of course they knew about it all along. There were emails in there FROM the FBI. And if you are wondering why they are ‘withholding sensitive information’ to protect ‘the most secretive programs under the sun’ then now you know. And if you are sure they had no idea then present your evidence. Time to put up or shut up:

        1. There were emails in there FROM the FBI

          So, provide a link to them.

          And if you are sure they had no idea then present your evidence.

          You are the one who made a positive statement, and one that should be trivially easy to prove at that.

          Time to put up or shut up

          I guess you’re laughing because you are telling a joke.

          1. HAHAHA the FBI got tons of warnings about 9/11 and did nothing. Yes there were people who called them and said, “There are people learning to fly and they don’t care about landing.” The FBI did nothing. Yes, this is a fact. Of course you say there’s no way they could have known that this was going to result in a terrorist attack. You will defend them beyond all sense and reason. Of course they knew that Clinton had a server. Yes I have evidence for that assertion. Here it is: “The FBI knew all along that Clinton was running an email server and if they didn’t then they are guilty of gross misconduct and conduct unbecoming in front of the enemy and criminal negligence.” Do you need more evidence? Here it is: “Instead of putting 100 agents on Clinton’s email, how about looking into if other people aren’t taking every statutory precaution to protect information that can later be classified as ‘the most sensitive information under the sun'”. Do you need more evidence? Sure, just ask and I will gladly supply it:

            1. So what I take away from this is that you laugh a lot for no reason and can’t follow simple instructions.

              1. HAHAHA I see so if the dissenter doesn’t ‘follow simple instructions’ to your satisfaction then this proves that Clinton committed treason. You must be KGB, this is common tactic for them.

                1. Take those words out of my mouth and put them back under your tinfoil hat.

                  1. Ah good point, the KGB perfected the art of oppressing people by calling them ‘crazy’, assuming that ‘loser, moron, and stupid’ didn’t seem to have much effect. OK now how else does the KGB suppress dissent. Let’s see:

                    1. Your comments are still here and will remain here. Nobody is suppressing your “dissent” you imbecile. This is called a discussion, but apparently that concept is above your head, as are such concepts as “empirical evidence” and “non sequitur”.

                    2. “empirical evidence” – Hilary “might have” copied information from one system to another, it’s certainly possible, let’s get 100 agents to work on this for a year and see if they come up with anything

                      “non sequitor” – Terry McAuliffe called Karl Rove a traitor, therefore Hilary must be guilty, so there.

                    3. The point is to make an analogy, you screeching howler monkey.

                    4. Hilary “might have” copied information from one system to another, it’s certainly possible, let’s get 100 agents to work on this for a year and see if they come up with anything

                      No one is alleging she copied information to a tape or flash drive and physically carried it. The crime is the mere act of running an insecure information system that was used to store or transmit sensitive information, by whatever means. Clinton doesn’t have to know how it works, or to have facilitated it in a manner that a caveman would understand; she disregarded procedures and policies and thus is responsible for the consequences of those decisions. She is not the only one at fault, but the rest are accomplices; she is the primary conspirator, doubly so because she was herself an OCA and had to set an example for everyone in her charge.

                    5. Hilary “might have” copied information from one system to another, it’s certainly possible

                      Having your aids send classified info to you on a nonsecure network is also illegal, you moron.

                2. Every progressive is guilty of treason. They are all traitors to their very cores.

      2. If you receive an e-mail that comes from an address like “HillaryRodhamClinton@yahoo.com,” you might think it’s a hoax because of the yahoo.com domain name. Similarly, if you receive an e-mail from an address like “hrc@state.gov,” the address would give you some idea that 1) it might be from the Secretary of State and 2) it’s on a government server because it ends in “state.gov.” The domain name tells you that. If her e-mail was coming from a server that wasn’t maintained by the government, then it shouldn’t have had a “.gov” on the end, and therefore any reasonably competent person working in a federal investigative agency should have been able to put two and two together and exclaim, “it’s coming from the basement! Hillary Clinton’s BASEMENT!!!”

    2. I’m scared for the dopes at FBI who will get tried for dereliction of duty, treason, withholding evidence of wrongdoing, and obligation under oath.

      Unless the FBI was actively collaborating with Clinton or her staff, they’re not guilty of any of those things. That’s like saying the local police are guilty of a dozen counts of murder because they didn’t catch a serial killer until after his twelfth victim. It’s utterly absurd.

      1. HAHAHA first of all that is the FBI’s job to know these things and secondly the FBI knew these things, and thirdly they ignored these things until they realized that people were starting to ask questions about it and having run out of real crimes to prosecute instead they decided to try to turn it around fast by launching an investigation involving 150 agents to examine her server for over a year and finding nothing other than ‘top secret drone programs’ that everyone already knew about. And it is a blatant double standard to claim that Clinton is guilty of a crime for having material about drones that was LATER classified while saying that the FBI was not criminally negligent for failing to predict this.

        1. first of all that is the FBI’s job to know these things

          To know what things? The FBI is tasked with information technology and security at all of the other cabinet-level departments?

          secondly the FBI knew these things

          See above, about how the burden of proof works.

          was LATER classified

          This is meaningless. If the information concerned sensitive matters or its release could pose a danger to national security, then it is required to be handled securely until an OCA with subject matter expertise can make a determination. Mishandling that information prior to an official determination of its classification is no different from mishandling it after such determination.

          the FBI was not criminally negligent for failing to predict this

          The FBI has a pre-crime unit?

          1. “The FBI has a pre-crime unit?” Obviously the FBI knew and did nothing. Their emails were on the server. Here’s my evidence: “An FBI agent was present when Hilary gave her email address to a colleague.” Obviously the FBI is complicit. But please, continue to demonstrate how aggressively they will defend themselves and waste taxpayer money to justify their existence:

            1. Please stop conflating “shit you made up” with evidence. Just because you put your words in quotes does not make them authoritative.

              1. HAHAHA ok please continue to demonstrate how persistently you will attempt to deflect from the simple fact that obviously the FBI knew she was running a server and if they didn’t it was criminal negligence and this is all just a full employment program for them and anyone who points this out is ‘making shit up’:

                1. POST A LINK

                  1. Post a link to show that you will attack Hilary with manufactured hyperventilated nonsense and defend the FBI beyond all sense and reason? Just read your own comments.

                    1. I have not defended the FBI nor have I accused Clinton of anything other than a gross violation of her obligations to protect the security of sensitive information, obligations which she voluntarily took upon herself and swore an oath to uphold, the violation of which people who are not in her shoes are spending a lifetime in prison for.

                      But it is clear to me that you are not interested in factual discussion.

                    2. Post a link to show that you will attack Hilary with manufactured hyperventilated nonsense and defend the FBI beyond all sense and reason?

                      Are you suggesting that Clinton is innocent and the FBI guilty because the latter knew about this and did nothing?

                    3. Clinton is innocent and the FBI is guilty. Absolutely. This is obvious from witch hunt articles like this. They are clearly trying to justify their existence with the threat that any material can later be called ‘classified’. It is obviously a jihad against her.

                    4. This is obvious from witch hunt articles like this.

                      First of all, you don’t know what a “witch hunt” is. Senator McCarthy trying to find communist sympathizers in the US government was a witch hunt. Trying to investigate a criminal act by a single individual is not a witch hunt.

                      Secondly, sometimes witch hunts find witches. In the aforementioned example of McCarthy, many of the employees he claimed were communist sympathizers were actually on the Soviet payroll.

                      Saying that she is the victim of a witch hunt is both factually incorrect and yet even if true doesn’t prove her innocence.

                      They are clearly trying to justify their existence

                      This doesn’t even make sense. The FBI has been around longer than Clinton has been alive. No one in the mainstream is questioning the bureau’s existence. Maybe people should be, but this is hardly the example to use to make that case.

                    5. Joe McCarthy was an American hero who worked tirelessly to destroy the lives of vicious traitors. I only regret he did not destroy more of them. His claims have been proven true millions of times over by the endless treason and sedition of the communities of Hollywood, federal workers, and most of the democrat party.

                      This country desperately needs thousands of new Joe McCarthy’s if it’s going to be saved.

                    6. Trust Suicidy to bring the crazy. Well done.

                2. Do you add “HAHAHA” at the beginning of all your posts reflexively as some form of prefix? It’s pretty fucking retarded. You know that, right?

                  1. HAHAHA

                    1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            2. Here’s my evidence: “An FBI agent was present when Hilary gave her email address to a colleague.”

              Which doesn’t have anything to do with the classification level of the information in her emails, you moron.

              that was LATER classified

              You obviously don’t have a clue how information security works. The information is classified by its nature. Even the memo from the Department of State’s IG division that kicked off this whole thing directly stated that the four emails they found had information that was classified at the time and should have been marked as such. The SF312 also states that classified information can be in “marked or unmarked” documents. Hillary’s pleading ignorance on this because she knows that idiots like you won’t know the difference.

              finding nothing other than ‘top secret drone programs’ that everyone already knew about.

              There’s over 1,300 classified emails that they’ve found so far, plus the ones that contained SAP information. You don’t have the facts on your side, so you resort to mendacity.

              And quit whining about “double standards.” It’s always projection with you losers, isn’t it?

              1. HAHAHA so I am ‘moron’ ‘stupid’ and ‘loser’ because I point out that the FBI is wasting man-years on trying to distract from the fact that they knew about her server and did nothing and that their minions will come out of the woodwork to defend their incompetence, fraud and waste and they will write articles saying “Hilary is a criminal because information she discussed was later classified by the same organization that must prosecute her and defend itself from accusations of negligence” which of course they can’t say what it is because it’s ‘classified’ and anyone who points this out is a ‘moron stupid loser’. Please, continue to show how you think you can stifle dissent by insults and bullying:

                1. classified by the same organization

                  The FBI did not classify the information in question because they did not originate it. At most, they could have passed it on to an appropriate OCA and received a determination for it.

                  Please stop posting inane shit when you clearly know nothing about it.

                  Also, post a fucking link already.

                  1. Here you go:

                    https://reason.com/archives/ 2016/02/08/none-dare-call-it-treason

                    This article shows that the FBI is conducting a witch hunt against Hilary under the claim that “Terry McAuliffe called Karl Rove a traitor”. And therefore the FBI must investigate whether Clinton “might have” copied material from one system to another despite refusing to post any evidence of that while demanding that anyone who points this out produce links to evidence that the FBI didn’t know that a top official was using a private email server for years with hundreds of correspondents and tens of thousands of emails including from its own department. There you go. Would you like more links?

                    1. Post a link to back up your own claims about what the FBI knew.

                      Or STFU.

                2. I am ‘moron’ ‘stupid’ and ‘loser’ because I point out

                  No, you’re a moron, stupid, and a loser because you’re proudly ignorant of information security laws.

                  Please, continue to show how you think you can stifle dissent by insults and bullying:

                  Deliberately ignorant people should be bullycided at every opportunity. You haven’t proved shit except conjecture and wishful thinking.

                  Hillary’s a criminal because she deliberately allowed classified information on an unsecure server, told her aides to remove markings from classified documents, and lied about it all. That you can’t grasp that is what makes you a moron, stupid, and a loser.

                3. No. You’re a moronic stupid loser because you are a shrill trolling piece of shit. Which overshadows any validity you might possibly have had.

                  HAHAHA.

            3. Dafuq?

              Because one employee of the FBI “knew” that Hilary had an e-mail address other than her official State Department address that is somehow supposed to mean that this FBI employee had to know Hilary was using that non-State Department address to send and receive state secrets? Just how is anybody supposed to connect those dots?

              dajjal wanting to believe is not enough to make this true for anybody other than dajjal.

    3. If the FBI “knew about this for years” they wouldn’t be conducting their own investigation of the emails, you moron.

      1. It is possible that some FBI employees knew about this or had reason to know about it (e.g. they sent her emails, as dajjal the laughing moron says), but that does not prove “the FBI knew” about it. It may mean some FBI employees are accomplices, though.

        However, given what Mr. HAHAHA has posted so far, there’s more evidence for bigfoot.

  14. Some of the material is so closely guarded that the State Department has chosen to withhold 22 of the e-mails, on the grounds that releasing them would be too damaging.

    Too damaging to national security, too damaging to Hillary, or too damaging to the State Department? You do realize that the people conducting this investigation are themselves quite liable to be implicated in the whole affair, right? Apparently, the Secretary of State used a private e-mail server for years and nobody at the State Department noticed or thought it worth mentioning to anybody. If Hillary’s guilty of gross negligence, what about all the people who knew or should have known she was being grossly negligent? Those are the ones investigating the gross negligence.

    If I were cynical, I might guess that they not only knew but approved of her using a private server – keeps the plebs from knowing what their masters are up to because it’s none of their damn business. State Department business is foreign affairs and you gotta have a certain cosmopolitan “internationalist” view of the world to deal with the geo-political reality, a nuance lost on the rubes who think you ought to be representing American values to the rest of the world like American values aren’t absurdly parochial hicksville compared to the much more sophisticated Euro-elites values.

  15. Personal convenience trumps national security????? Awesome – I’m gonna go tell my boss I will be handling all my work over my personal gmail and public Facebook postings from now on.

    1. “I learned it from *Hillary*, OK?!”

    2. You work at a bank by any chance? Need any help sorting through the work you’re going to be bringing home? I’m pretty good at counting, if you need help counting stuff.

    3. Apple is okay with it.

      They hired Lisa Jackson after she left the EPA.

      (She conducted government business on a private email account under the pseudonym Richard Windsor.)

      She claims that was her dogs name.

      Coincidentally, Lois Lerner also used private email with a male name, which she also said was her dogs name.

      1. So, it’s ok if they use their dog’s email address? Or, maybe it was their dogs who did the deed.

  16. My roomate’s sister makes $86 an hour on the internet . She has been without work for 5 months but last month her pay was $17168 just working on the internet for a few hours. linked here…..
    Clik this link in Your Browser……..

    ??????????? http://www.Wage90.com

  17. Remember Valerie Plame? The Washington political class went bananas about whether whoever in the Bush administration disclosed her job with the CIA had committed treason

    Richard Armitage in the State department.

    Also, no, I don’t recall any serious attempt at a treason charge, even in rhetoric. I recall lots of claims (which turned out to be entirely unfounded) that it was an intentional punishment for her husband, and that it was somehow a crime under the Espionage act. But not treason.

    He wasn’t charged because the prosecutor “found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame’s covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward”. And of course nobody found the slightest bit of evidence that he acted on the President’s behalf even indirectly. Probably because he didn’t.

    (Plus all I heard suggested that “Plame works for the CIA!” was nothing like secret at the time, in Washington circles.)

    It bears repeating, is all.

    1. I don’t think a treason charge is founded if one is just to go by the sensitive nature of the emails and the insecure way they were handled. That may be why none “dare call it treason”. However, a gross violation of the law was nonetheless committed.

    2. I also remember Plame’s show hearing before Congress after the Democrats took control in 2007. Every time a Republican asked her if she had covert status at the time her name was disclosed — a key element, one would think. Incredibly, she claimed that “covert status” was a “legal issue” and, because she was not a lawyer, she could not answer the question.

    3. Remember they were going to frog march Karl Rove out of the White House.

  18. Even after Hillary knew she had classified material on her server,she gave that data to a non-cleared lawyer on an unsecure thumb drive,besides allowing that Colorado data company to have access to it.
    She’s guilty of several serious violations,she belongs in prison or preferably in front of a firing squad.
    She CERTAINLY should be disqualified from any candidacy.(per the law)

    1. I’ve had a security clearance in the past. I signed a form much like the one Hillary did. If I did what she apparently did, *I* would be in prison. Even at my relatively low level, it’s almost impossible not to know the rules, recommendations and laws. The government takes handling of classified documents seriously (I guess I have to add *, usually*).

      1. One set of rules for the peons…

        One set of no-rules-need-apply to our moral superiors!

        The powers-that-be, NEVER find themselves guilty!

        I am SHOCKED, utterly SHOCKED! Who knew?!?!

  19. Let’s tell it like it is. Most democrats know that Hillary is scummy and that this e-mail thing is a big deal but they also know that they are stuck with her. They don’t think Bernie can win and they allowed Debbie Wasserman Schutlz, Clinton’s buddy, to scatter the field so Hillary would have a free shot. They still support her because they are scared that they will lose the election and that she is their only hope. Shallow.

    The result will be that unless the GOP goes with Cruz, that Shrillery is going to get stomped in November.

  20. It’s not “treason treason” when Hillary does it.

  21. Zactly.

  22. It is very simple: Standards of behavior do not apply to Democrats and – even less so – to the Clintons.
    No charges will ever be brought against Hillary Clinton.

  23. If the Feds don’t jail Hillary they owe Snowden a pardon, a free ride home and a ticker-tape parade. Libby should get a pardon and back pay. He can sit in the parade with Julian Assane.

  24. From a retired intelligence officer-it’s GD disgrace that this woman isn’t already in prison

    DEVASTATING: The Clintons’ Mind-Boggling Damage to National Security

    By Major Ed. Coet [Ret.]

    I am a retired US Army Intelligence Officer. In my last job in the army I was the Chief of the Human Intelligence Branch for the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany. In that capacity I was also the Designated Program Manager for a Special Access Program (SAP) like the SAP that Hillary Clinton is alleged to have compromised in the most recent State Department Inspector General report to Congress and which has been widely reported in the news. Here is what I personally know about SAP’s and what I can attest to in an unclassified forum:

    1. The names of each SAP are themselves classified Top Secret because the information within the SAP are far and above Top Secret.

    2. SAP’s are so sensitive that even people who have security clearances giving them access to Top Secret Sensitive Compartment Information (TS SCI), an enormously high security clearance level, cannot have access to SAP’s unless they receive a special indoctrination into the SAP based on an operational “must know” that exceeds all other “need to know” standards.

    The rest can be read at http://directorblue.blogspot.c…..gling.html

  25. In case anyone still cares at this point, the Plamegate saga recounted here is a little off on one important detail. The special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, knew for years that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak to Novak.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/1472…..r50BMeGj8s

    However, Fitzgerald was a special prosecutor who needed a hide to nail to the wall, and he needed a member of the Bush administration inner circle. Fitzgerald knew all along that the source of the leak was at the State department and not part of the Bush administration, but he badgered enough people long enough to compile some inconsistent statements, and on that basis prosecuted Scooter Libby. Neither Libby nor anyone else was ever convicted of leaking Plame’s identity, even though Fitzgerald knew who had actually done so.

    The Bush administration made many mistakes, but “outing” Valerie Plame was not one of them. The main reason that Plamegate should be remembered is for gross misconduct by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

  26. til I looked at the draft which had said $8465 , I accept that my friends brother was like trully making money in their spare time on their apple labtop. . there aunt haz done this less than 1 year and recently cleard the loans on there house and bought a gorgeous Saab 99 Turbo . view ….

    Clik this link in Your Browser
    ????? http://www.Wage90.com

  27. Yes, FBI did not know that a top official was using a private email server for years with hundreds of correspondents and tens of thousands of emails including from its own department.

    1. Sending classified information over a non-secure medium is still against the law, irrespective of whether the FBI knew about it or not. Funny how that little fact is escaping the drooling, mendacious Hillarybots.

  28. This whole thing is one of those issues which is going to either show the true extent of government corruption in full light of day, or show how little the general public actually cares about whether their “elected” leaders are actually held accountable to the laws of the land (or both). Sadly i’m thinking the latter is going to be the reality of the situation.

    One thing i am certain of is that FBI Director James Comey is a principled man. I personally believe Hillary will be recommended for indictment by the FBI, however, its what happens next that i’m not sure of. I personally think that Obama will just instruct the AG to not pursue the issue and make up some platitudes about how its not really that big of a deal, and blah blah blah. What i hope will happen at that point (and i think a good chance of happening), would be Comey then very publicly stepping down and stating the reasons as such. What that will achieve i’m not certain.

    /Sigh, what a crapshoot this has been…

  29. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.