She has grossly violated Security laws, at best she would be put out to pasture if she was anybody else, Her blatant disregard for any national security laws would end anyone's carrier anywhere in government, and each occasion is a felony. Its at least as bad as Scott Libby's disregard for national security protocol. She no better then the murderous Ted Kennedy that is part of the political elite that just blows off any law as it serve them.

nods

If you have state secrets on your personal computer or server.. you go to jail. It is simple and that dumb beaver needs to be locked up.

Good, those things cost us BILLIONS!

BTW, on topic... I'm still waiting for the actual facts. There is a ton of speculation out there about what was classified at the time or whether it was properly marked so or whether she should have come to that conclusion herself even if it wasn't marked so.

http://mediamatters.org/...intons-email-and-r/204913

I looked at 5 stories since you made this post Oceana, and from what I see, a lot of questions are still unresolved.

This sums it up well to me:

"Legally, the question is pretty clear-cut. If Clinton knowingly used her private server to handle classified information she could have a problem. But if she didn't know the material was classified when she sent or received it she's safe."

That last sentence also applies if it was only classified AFTER it had been circulated, as is sometimes done retro-actively.

Disclosure: I've held federal security clearances and been trained on them.

the Secretary of state doesnt know when something is classified or not?

lol ok.

i still hold a federal security clearance and i would have lost my job if i decided to use gmail for official business.

i double post because this is america and i do what i want.

LOL double post.

Well, I assume you understand she didn't use gmail for anything, but that is irrelevant here.

Do you really believe the Secretary of State is briefed on every classified issue and source all the time? The size and scope of our classification schemes and the information in them is enormous. Things get classified and declassified constantly. The entire reason why there is a requirement that classified materials always be marked as such is because it needs to be clear because people won't know what is and what isn't otherwise.

Some things are classified and later declassified. Some things are unclassified and later classified. This fluff changes all the time.

do you really think that none of the 42,000 emails were classified and she didnt know it? do you really think that the former first lady and at the time secretars of state wasnt briefed or at least aware of how bad of an idea it was to have a private server?

i mean seriously? im willing to bet the majority of her emails are classified to some level or another. these wernt party invitations. you arnt really telling me anything new by repeating the same thing over and over about how classifications work. i have had a clearance for 8 years.

HILLARY 2016 & 2020 JUST FOR THE LULZ ON AT!!!!!!

On part A (42k emails), I don't know. The policy was pretty clear that nobody was allowed to send anything classified to her via that server. But people may have violated that and people may have stripped the classification off as well (which would be illegal).

On part B (bad idea), I would hope that she knew it was a bad idea. I have, however, come across some REALLY dumb public sector employees and even WORSE politicians in my time who understood nothing about security and were fine with doing stuff for "convenience" if SOMEONE would tell them it was secure. Not an excuse, but an explanation.

I used to also help both campaigns (politicians outside govt) and legislators (politicians official govt email) with BES servers, for example... They had a hard time understanding why they needed two servers, they couldn't mix, and couldn't have overlapping funds either, but they generally did what they were told.

The ones that do what they are told are commonly called SHEEP>And ignorance of the LAW is no EXCUSE. She should be in jail for failing to send troops to Libya when requested by the Ambassador instead of sitting on her big but and letting our people get killed because she was to stupid to take care of business.

Hillary is irrelevant.

The evidence is undeniable and irrefutable. Hitlery is a criminal, plain and simple. She's got a string of bodies behind her murderous career, mostly to protect her and Wild Bill's asses from fraud charges, and his philandering on top of that. She's engaged in witness tampering and intimidation, she lies at least as good as Obama does, and cares not for anything like conflict of interest, hence her vast warchest for this campaign financed by the Saudi's among others.

i like your brand of stupid

It's obviously better than the brand that you are sporting. But then again, liberals have the excuse that it's a "mental disorder" on their side, right? :)

so im a liberal based on what exactly?

Based on the fact that you disagree with him.

Yep

I say send her to prison. She deserves it.

Proof assholes get walmart security card.

Based on "that's what you do". Libruls don't try and/or are incapable to debate, present facts, reason. They just throw insults like racist or fascists, in your particular case stupid.

And Republicans say things like socialist or communist, and are just as likely to present no facts or show any reason what so ever when speaking. Both parties/ideologies are similar to some degree, but republicans love conspiracies rooted in nothing and fear mongering is an every day thing.

lol, just because you hate your life and have a fluffty job, doesnt mean everyone else does

im stupid, but you have just decided my entire political idealogy off one post.

lol. how have you survived to adulthood?

tinfoil tea party in full effect!!!

You do have one?

One day, a little black boy asked his grandmother what socialism is, and she replied, it's when all those white people go to work so the government can take their money and give it to people who don't want to work, or just don't work so we can have nice things too. The little black boy then said, "Don't the white people get mad about that?" Grandma then says, "Sure they do, that's called racism".

Cerb likes that story alot.

send her to SoF...it's even worse

Ohio Sucks

all sorts of "wow" logic here.

Why the fluff does everyone turn into spock on the forums?

"logic"

DONALD TRUMP CAN'T MELT STEEL MEXICANS!

Wait, what? Are you saying the Ambassador to a foreign country should be the only one with say on how many troops should be sent to that country? And if they ask for more they should just be sent immediately without any decision process?

hindsight

although it was all fluffed up. and QRFs, by definition, dont usually have a weeks deliberation before deployment.

Since y'all have all the answers.

Run for president...

Yes that is correct you MORON. He is in charge of the embassy and all persons there and when requested she should have pulled her head out of her ass and sent a unit of fully armed marines there in 8 hours of his request. His problem was that he thought some one new what they were doing or he would have closed the embassy and left after that time was up.

Are we still talking about Benghazi? Go away with your selective Fox News memories.

it kinda was a big deal. calling it fox news bullfluff tarded dude. the logic that it happened in the past and isnt relevant anymore is just as tarded.

Hillary clinton can eat the corn out of my fluff. fluff sending her to prison, she should be publicly hung at the first dnc debate. Bernie sanders should then be dragged through the streets tied to the bumper of a prius.

i dont know about all that. i kinda like bernie. everything except some of his more socialist ideals

but there is a good chance he will kick the bucket while in office, so i dont know.

Essentially, yes. We aren't talking about a sustained military operation here. We're talking about a hot extract. Very different scenario and one that FAST/QRFs train for (at least in the USMC).

She should be held accountable far more than she has been for the blunder. She had on the ground intel from several highly credible individuals and still failed to act in any capacity. She could have, at a minimum, delegated the decision to a regional military commander and got those men the assistance they needed. When you have an ambassador and four experienced Navy SEALs calling for help, you send help. Those guys won't bullfluff you on the comms, I can tell you that from personal experience.

TRUMP 2016!!!

this thread needs



|^^^^^^^^^^^\||____
| The STFU Truck |||""'|""\__,_
| _____________ l||__|__|__|)
...|(@)@)"""""""**|(@)(@)**|(@)

cool picture ^ , shutting people up are what the clintons are good at

I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. We aren't talking about extraction. That happened incredibly fast. What we are talking about is the request to strengthen security at the embassy made well before the attack by the ambassador due to concerns about changing dynamics on the ground.

For more background:

Hillary's Testimony: http://www.nydailynews.com/...-attack-article-1.1246025

Lieberman's Report: http://www.collins.senate.gov/...cial%20Report%20final.pdf

In the second link, read starting page 5 (key findings and recommendations). Specifically, Finding 3 on page 9 and Finding 5 on page 13:

"Finding 3. The absence of specific intelligence about an imminent attack should not have prevented the Department
of State from taking more effective steps to protect its personnel and facilities in Benghazi."

"Finding 5.The Benghazi facility’s temporary status had a detrimental effect on security decisions, and that fact was clearly known by DS personnel in Benghazi and to their superiors who nevertheless left the American personnel in Benghazi in this very dangerous situation.The Department of State did not take adequate measures to mitigate the facility’s significant vulnerabilities in this high-threat environment. "

OK, once you have read the background, here is the matter at hand WRT Hillary Clinton... Her claim is that these decisions have been (and were also in this case) made at the level of the regional officer (in this case Charlene Lamb). (read her statements about trust in the security apparatus and that they get it right 99% of the time). The counter claim is that this incident happened on her watch and therefore the buck stops with her regardless of where below her the decisions were being made.

Reports of "inadequate security" exist at A LOT of foreign installations run by State. State has requested, repeatedly, additional funding for security at these facilities and been denied such requests. This has led to State having a culture of reluctance to acquiesce to requests for additional security (i.e. - you'll just have to make do), which are too common to routinely respond to.

2011 (before the incident), Clinton:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/...clinton-house-republ.html

Here is a pretty even view of this component:

http://www.politifact.com/...te-security-funding-cong/

Basically, the administrations over a long time have requested additional security and Congress has never really funded at the levels requested by State or the President (regardless of party over the years).

I think, in hindsight, it is easy to conclude that State should have taken this request more seriously. But there are other situations that also should then be taken more seriously by the same standard where incidents like this have NOT occurred. So either we fund initial security at a level commensurate with the requests or we pay for "emergency" security on a more routine basis (which is actually more expensive). But holding Clinton responsible for the actions of these terrorists in this case and saying she is criminally liable is, frankly, just politics. It reflects a very narrow view of a very complex issue that has stretched across many administrations, many congresses and many Secretaries of State.

bottom line is NOTHING will be done, remember she is a Clinton!

also remember her husband had sex that wasn't sex in the oval office while discussing war issues!

nothing was done there either

I wanna see her win just so we can call Bill the first lady.

Hahaha...

ddd: that's not a Clinton thing, that's a political elite thing. For example, George W. Bush and his cocaine use.

Personally, I find the debate about whether "oral sex" is "sex" to be highly amusing. We should all discuss it some more.

I am no fan of Hilary, but this sums it up rather fairly. Thanks for making the thread worth reading Atryn/Ford