Top-secret classification confirmed on two Hillary Clinton server emails

posted at 2:41 pm on December 15, 2015 by Ed Morrissey

An yet another Hillary Clinton deflection point gets dismantled. When an intel-community review of the contents of Hillary’s secret server — or the content she allowed to be reviewed — determined that at least two messages stored on the unauthorized system contained Top Secret/Compartmented information, Team Hillary spun that as an example of overclassification. They argued that the information in both messages were in the public domain, as a way to shift the focus from her unsecured private system to the intel community itself.

That ruse has been quashed, as Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne report in a Fox News exclusive:

An intelligence community review has re-affirmed that two classified emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Hillary Clinton’s unsecured personal server despite a challenge to that designation by the State Department, according to two sources familiar with the review.

The sources described the dispute over whether the two emails were classified at the highest level as a “settled matter.”

The agencies that owned and originated that intelligence – the CIA and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency or NGA – reviewed the emails to determine how they should be properly stored, as the State Department took issue with their highly classified nature. The subject matter of the messages is widely reported to be the movement of North Korean missiles and a drone strike. A top secret designation requires the highest level of security, and can include the use of an approved safe.

The sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, told Fox News that while the emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Clinton’s server, one of them remains “top secret” to this day — and must be handled at the highest security level. The second email is still considered classified but at the lower “secret” level because more information is publicly available about the event.

This would actually be the third confirmation of the classification on this material. In September, the New York Times reported that the second review, conducted by the originating agencies, had reached the same conclusion as the first. The third time was clearly not the charm for Hillary Clinton and her aides, one or more of whom had to convert this information from secured systems in order to transmit it over Hillary’s rogue server.

The State Department can continue to challenge the classification, but they can’t change it. Per statute and a longstanding series of presidential orders, only the originating agency of the information can reclassify or declassify it. In a dispute, the agency requesting the change can take the classification dispute to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office. They can still push that option, but it will not change the fact that the information was classified at the highest levels at the time of this transmission, and that both are still highly classified to this day.

Most importantly, Hillary and her team didn’t even bother to challenge the classification before transmitting this critical information through an unsecured and unauthorized communications channel. As I noted in September, this opens Hillary and her team to prosecution, assuming the DoJ decides to enforce the law:

Why does this matter? One of the federal statutes under which Hillary and her aides could be charged, 18 USC 1924, specifies that violating presidential executive orders on handling classified material is a crime, emphases mine:

(a) 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.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

None of this matters unless the DoJ is willing to enforce these laws, as well as others (18 USC 793 in particular, as well as 18 USC 1001), but there is little doubt that the law has been broken — at least 999 times, actually. These are just the two most egregious examples yet known. The more interesting question may be this: If FBI Director James Comey develops an open-and-shut case only to see Loretta Lynch bury it, will he stay put — or go public?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Hillary Clinton is not being impeached.

It’s taken this long because it took well over a year, if not more, just to start getting emails.

It can’t be any simpler.

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 5:39 PM

OMG. I’m not talking about impeachement. Lol. I’m talking about the authority to convene a grand jury, in spite of what an AG may desire, similar to what happened with Bill Clinton (who also happens to have been impeached, though that’s not the relevant bit here.)

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 5:43 PM

So, you were completely misinformed all on your own?

+1

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 5:44 PM

What’s also weird is having this accusation leveled at me when nearly all of the comments directed at me on HA contain some sort of ad hominem. I mean, it’s not like I’m getting my wittle feelings hurt, but let’s not pretend that I’m the one bringing the acid here, eh?

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 5:40 PM

I was saying that Tlaloc was particularly acidic.

gwelf on December 15, 2015 at 5:44 PM

Let me ask you this, would you be in favor of Loretta Lynch appointing a special prosecutor for Hillary’s case?

blink on December 15, 2015 at 5:39 PM

Well, CD?

hillbillyjim on December 15, 2015 at 5:46 PM

This is my understanding, yes—I’m using Reno/Clinton as an example to show that this process worked as stated above in this case. And in this case, Reno couldn’t possibly have blocked the formation of the grand jury (Starr, etc., etc.) because of the evidence brought without her even being involved.

This is why the AG is not the sole power in these matters. Besides, we’re not at this stage yet, because the investigations are going on three years now without a request to the AG. That’s the point.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 5:34 PM

The investigation into her alleged violations of the Federal Records Act and the Espionage Act of 1918 have not been ongoing for 3 years. In fact, it wasn’t even revealed to very high-level sources in the investigatory chain that she had a separate email account – much less two ‘homebrew’ servers – until August 2014. The server issue didn’t even break until March of this year.

If Hillary were some low- or mid-level slub, she’d be toast.

Bishbop on December 15, 2015 at 5:46 PM

I was saying that Tlaloc was particularly acidic.

gwelf on December 15, 2015 at 5:44 PM

Ah, got it—my B. Carry on.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 5:47 PM

The investigation into her alleged violations of the Federal Records Act and the Espionage Act of 1918 have not been ongoing for 3 years. In fact, it wasn’t even revealed to very high-level sources in the investigatory chain that she had a separate email account – much less two ‘homebrew’ servers – until August 2014. The server issue didn’t even break until March of this year.

If Hillary were some low- or mid-level slub, she’d be toast.

Bishbop on December 15, 2015 at 5:46 PM

Exactly.

And CD would rather focus on process rather than the plain and obvious evidence of her criminality.

gwelf on December 15, 2015 at 5:47 PM

This is my understanding, yes—I’m using Reno/Clinton as an example to show that this process worked as stated above in this case. And in this case, Reno couldn’t possibly have blocked the formation of the grand jury (Starr, etc., etc.) because of the evidence brought without her even being involved.

This is why the AG is not the sole power in these matters. Besides, we’re not at this stage yet, because the investigations are going on three years now without a request to the AG. That’s the point.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 5:34 PM

There was a special prosecutor for Bill Ckibnton.

There is no special prosecutor for Hillary. Because of that Lynch is the sole determining authoriy.

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 5:49 PM

Do you support appointing a special prosecutor for Hillary’s case? If not, then why not? Surely, a special prosecutor that fails to get a grand jury indictment would be excellent for her campaign, right??

blink on December 15, 2015 at 5:45 PM

Since one has not been requested, I only have to assume they don’t feel they have the evidence to request one. THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT. Get back to me when Lynch refuses to appoint a special prosecutor that has been requested on the basis of evidence against Clinton. Until then, this is all rhetorical masturbation and investigatory auto-erotica on the tax-payer’s dime.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 5:50 PM

And CD would rather focus on process rather than the plain and obvious evidence of her criminality.

gwelf on December 15, 2015 at 5:47 PM

Pure deflection.

Is that you, Hillary?

Ahem, re: Special Prosecutor, CD?

Yay or nay?

hillbillyjim on December 15, 2015 at 5:51 PM

There is no special prosecutor for Hillary.

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 5:49 PM

Has one been requested? If not, why not?

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 5:52 PM

Since one has not been requested, I only have to assume they don’t feel they have the evidence to request one. THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT. Get back to me when Lynch refuses to appoint a special prosecutor that has been requested on the basis of evidence against Clinton. Until then, this is all rhetorical masturbation and investigatory auto-erotica on the tax-payer’s dime.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 5:50 PM

House Republicans Push Lynch to Name Special Prosecutor in Clinton Probe

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427225/hillary-clinton-emails-house-republicans-special-prosecutor

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 5:53 PM

Until then, this is all rhetorical masturbation and investigatory auto-erotica on the tax-payer’s dime.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 5:50 PM

Nice.

Your obtuse, pained rhetoric,false arguments, and attempts to derail the conversation still don’t deflect from the truth of the matter though.

Clinton lied about Benghazi, along with many top administration officials. Clinton broke the law concerning classified documents. It is the Democrats who made political the Benghazi debacle by spinning it falsely pre-election 2012.

All of the deflection in the world won’t change the plain facts.

hillbillyjim on December 15, 2015 at 5:57 PM

Does no one remember that Bill Clinton lied under oath to a Federal grand jury?

Chelsea Clinton on December 15, 2015 at 5:16 PM

F-IXED.

Was your Father guilty of a Federal Felony for lying under oath to that Federal Grand Jury? You said at the time that wasn’t a felony, because he “only” lied about sex, and so therefore he was Above the Law.

Was Bill Clinton Above the Law because of what he lied about under oath?

And before answering, remember that President Bill Clinton had already used his Department of Justice to successfully prosecute another Federal employee for lying under oath about sex to a Federal Grand Jury.

That Federal employee was a Female.

(Starts 1500 acre field of Moondials, but I expect NO answer).

PS, I’ve just been skimming your naive childlike DNC fluffing in this thread, desperately trying to prop up someone with absolutely no lifetime achievements or accomplishments that would qualify her to be Commander in Chief, except for her vote in favor of “Bush’s” War in Iraq, which she defended “with conviction” (her own words, not mine) on the floor of the US Senate.

Using your “logic” on this thread, President Richard Nixon was totally innocent too!

F-

Del Dolemonte on December 15, 2015 at 5:57 PM

OMG. I’m not talking about impeachement. Lol. I’m talking about the authority to convene a grand jury, in spite of what an AG may desire, similar to what happened with Bill Clinton (who also happens to have been impeached, though that’s not the relevant bit here.)

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 5:43 PM

So, basically, you are calling for a special prosecutor. Ken Starr was an IC and appointed by 3 Federal judges, but that isn’t how the system works now.

If only FBI Director James Comey was still Acting Attorney General! He could just appoint the godfather of one of his children to be Special Counsel in charge of the investigation. Who was that godfather? None other than Patrick Fitzgerald. Ask Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby who he is in case you’ve forgotten. If that were ever to happen, you wouldn’t be able to insert a subwavelength-diameter optical fibre into the bums of either Huma or Cheryl.

Bishbop on December 15, 2015 at 5:58 PM

Get back to me when Lynch refuses to appoint a special prosecutor that has been requested on the basis of evidence against Clinton. Until then, this is all rhetorical masturbation and investigatory auto-erotica on the tax-payer’s dime.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 5:50 PM

Special prosecutors are not appointed by the AG but by a panel of judges under the Ethics and Government Act. This has already been explained above.

dorkintheroad on December 15, 2015 at 5:59 PM

blink on December 15, 2015 at 5:57 PM

If only Gowdy hadn’t sunk your hopes and dreams of carrying on with this farce. Bemoaning the fact that there’s no grounds for special prosecutor appointment? Talk to him and his admission of partisan politics in a presidential primary, not me.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:04 PM

Legal procedure doesn’t state that the AG is the sole agent able to do so. I do believe congress/anyone in a position to act as representative of the state has this ability.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 4:40 PM

These are federal offences so no state has jurisdiction.

Congress does not have standing.

Only the DOJ – or a Special Prosecutor – can prosecute a federal case.

US Attorneys are the subordinates of the AG.

Bishbop on December 15, 2015 at 6:04 PM

Until then, this is all rhetorical masturbation and investigatory auto-erotica on the tax-payer’s dime.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 5:50 PM

Typical hypocrite liberal, when the investigation involves a Dem you get the above spin. When the investigation involves a Rep no expense can be spared and no infraction is to small to ignore.

antipc on December 15, 2015 at 6:04 PM

If only Gowdy hadn’t sunk your hopes and dreams of carrying on with this farce. Bemoaning the fact that there’s no grounds for special prosecutor appointment? Talk to him and his admission of partisan politics in a presidential primary, not me.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:04 PM

They both may have gray hair, but Gowdy is not that idiot, Kevin McCarthy.

Bishbop on December 15, 2015 at 6:05 PM

When the investigation involves a Rep no expense can be spared and no infraction is to small to ignore.

antipc on December 15, 2015 at 6:04 PM

Please tell me what case you’re referring to that comes close to this.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:06 PM

If only Gowdy hadn’t sunk your hopes and dreams of carrying on with this farce.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:04 PM

So the FBI is investigating a farce?

“Anybody’s view about an investigation they’re not involved in is irrelevant,” Comey said, and promised that the White House would not influence the investigation.

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 6:09 PM

If there’s evidence of a crime, then there’s the ability to be indicted. Talk about comical. Again, please tell me—who’s stopping an indictment from happening? Because the President and the AG don’t have the power to do that. /knowing what you’re talking about.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 4:45 PM

Huma Abedin + Loretta Lynch + Embezzlement + Prosecutorial Discretion.

Some assembly required.

Bishbop on December 15, 2015 at 6:09 PM

My understanding that a special prosecutor was appointed by the AG, and then the panel of judges selects the actual person to fill the appointed role.

blink on December 15, 2015 at 6:09 PM

Clearly, we’re all a bunch of constitutional legal scholars, here.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:13 PM

Huma Abedin + Loretta Lynch + Embezzlement + Prosecutorial Discretion.

Some assembly required.

Bishbop on December 15, 2015 at 6:09 PM

Hammer meet head of nail. I think FBI can take down all of Cankles Lt’s one at a time starting with Blumenthal and Abedin, however they are assembling something bigger to fork the P I G.

Goodie on December 15, 2015 at 6:14 PM

So in summary, CD believes that:

– Four dead Americans is nothing and a video caused them to be killed.

– Military support was unavailable although that’s countered by the military that said it had assets spinning up ready to go.

– Hillary does not need to follow the laws and rules governing cyber security, and that the SoS is allowed to use a personal non-secure server for receiving and transmitting classified material.

– That it’s OK to lie to Congress and the American people.

It’s all just a farce doncha know!

This is great info for the next Republican administration. Not only will President Trump shoot executive orders out his ass day and night destroying decades of the liberal agenda, they won’t have to leave a trail because everyone will use private servers!

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 6:14 PM

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 6:14 PM

So many straw men. *Sigh.*

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM

So many straw men. *Sigh.*

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM

Nope

You simply can’t dispute anything.

Nothing

Nada

Zilch

Keep lying to yourself if it’s what you have to do to avoid meeting reality.

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 6:20 PM

So in summary, CD believes that:

– Four dead Americans is nothing and a video caused them to be killed.

– Military support was unavailable although that’s countered by the military that said it had assets spinning up ready to go.

– Hillary does not need to follow the laws and rules governing cyber security, and that the SoS is allowed to use a personal non-secure server for receiving and transmitting classified material.

– That it’s OK to lie to Congress and the American people.

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 6:14 PM

Please point to where I’ve argued for any one of these things. Straw. Men.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:26 PM

I hope Trump has Hillary’s pay for play scheme while SoS all lined and ready to go.

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 6:26 PM

Please point to where I’ve argued for any one of these things. Straw. Men.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:26 PM

You just called any investigation of Hillary a farce and a waste of taxpayer money.

On a side note, I’m always amused when any liberal claims to be concerned about taxpayer money.

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 6:28 PM

We are discussing the finer points of appointing AND selecting a special prosecutor.

You didn’t even know what a special prosecutor was an hour ago.

Don’t even try to pretend that we’re on equal footing here….

blink on December 15, 2015 at 6:19 PM

Nice try. The first line of your comment is precisely what we were discussing.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:29 PM

Who was asking about Trey Gowdy? Here is a recent one for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pT50mZ0QQU

This business of a no-fly list and now the attempt to limit 2nd Amendment rights for being on the list are critical issues.

onlineanalyst on December 15, 2015 at 6:30 PM

On a side note, I’m always amused when any liberal claims to be concerned about taxpayer money.

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 6:28 PM

As am I when any conservative pretends to care about spending. You don’t quite get it yet, do you? The left-right divide does not exist as you think it does.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:30 PM

Special prosecutors are not appointed by the AG but by a panel of judges under the Ethics and Government Act. This has already been explained above.

dorkintheroad on December 15, 2015 at 5:59 PM

That act expired in ’99 according to Wikipedia. Justice Dept. Regulation, 28 CFR Sec. 600.1 rules now.

wifarmboy on December 15, 2015 at 6:33 PM

As am I when any conservative pretends to care about spending. You don’t quite get it yet, do you? The left-right divide does not exist as you think it does.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:30 PM

I definitely got it … I just haven’t bought it, like you.

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 6:35 PM

So, in summary … what CD admits to “getting”:

– open borders are fantastic and will lead to immeasurable prosperity for the entire world! Yay!!!!!

– more Muslims are great! Boom!

– unaccountable politicians are the future!

– New techniques for butchering late term infants will pave the way for the empowerment of the 21st Century woman!

– Solar power to cook dead babies before disposal.

– Guaranteed incomes for 3rd world nations.

– No middle class.

Am i right?

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 6:39 PM

Ha ha ha. Not at all. Again, an hour ago you didn’t even know what a special prosecutor was, and you were claiming that congress could procure indictments.

To be fair, you stayed and took your schooling bravely instead of running from the thread, but don’t even try to change the reality of what occurred in this thread.

blink on December 15, 2015 at 6:39 PM

You don’t quite have that first part right, as I wasn’t arguing that; simply that the AG isn’t the only way to a grand jury. But I do like learning things. As for the bravery, it’s easy to stick it out when people constantly argue against what they think you’re saying, instead of what you actually say. Albeit frustrating. And I rarely take anything like this personally. The bulk of other commenters I see on here, however, who have a difficult time debating even the most casual of points without resorting to name-calling—ah, well, c’est la vie.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:47 PM

Am i right?

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 6:39 PM

Lol. No. Most definitely not right.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:49 PM

simply that the AG isn’t the only way to a grand jury.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:47 PM

No, you were trying desperately to say that Lynch didn’t have sole discretion in this case and that if it were criminal any Congressman could convene a grand jury.

Essentially saying Clinton’s offenses were so minor no one bothered to push for a grand jury.

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 6:52 PM

Do you think that Loretta Lynch should appoint one?

blink on December 15, 2015 at 6:42 PM

Honestly, I’ve seen little evidence from anyone that doesn’t point to a partisan witch hunt, seeing as much of the email activity is not dissimilar to what we’ve seen in past GOP administrations, nor is the illegality of such a slam dunk, based upon the regulations in place at the time. It’s just a never-ending smear campaign based on spinning talking points, like Benghazi!™

However, if the FBI investigation turns up something convincing, meh, sure, why not—the question (as I stated from the very beginning) is whether the electorate has the patience for all the witch-hunting. I’m thinking they don’t. Which is why the Gowdy comment was so resonant.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:57 PM

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:57 PM

She ignored standing laws, rules and regulations concerning the use of email and transmittance of classified materials.

She never used a government server … for anything.

She used a dedicated private server … for everything.

She lied about … everything.

How can you sit there and say the illegality isn’t a slam dunk?

She was the Secretary of State. Not some HUD field office secretary.

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 7:02 PM

the AG is the sole agent able to do so. I do believe congress/anyone in a position to act as representative of the state has this ability.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 4:40 PM

You were claiming that anyone in a position to act a represent of the state. Ha ha. So, anyone that’s given executive authority – including all military officers confirmed by the Senate?????

blink on December 15, 2015 at 6:52 PM

We’re talking about convening/bringing evidence to a grand jury here. I know you want to tie it up in a nice bow and congratulate yourself for the “schooling,” but don’t straw man me to death. Also, I quoted the section of law that the point come from, as well.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 7:03 PM

Legal procedure doesn’t state that the AG is the sole agent able to do so. I do believe congress/anyone in a position to act as representative of the state has this ability.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 4:40 PM

If that were true, when the House impeached Eric Holder, it could have convened a grand jury and sought an indictment. It couldn’t. It lacks the power. It couldn’t go to a judge and seek the impanelment of a grand jury either because it lacks standing.

Bishbop on December 15, 2015 at 7:04 PM

Also, I quoted the section of law that the point come from, as well.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 7:03 PM

You quote dealt with state and commonwealth law. Not Federal.

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 7:05 PM

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 7:03 PM

Bottom line:

In all federal cases not involving a special prosecutor, the AG has the sole discretion in whether to present evidence to a grand jury.

If the AG says yes, it goes.

If not, it doesn’t.

That’s that. Wrap it up.

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 7:08 PM

Honestly, I’ve seen little evidence from anyone that doesn’t point to a partisan witch hunt, seeing as much of the email activity is not dissimilar to what we’ve seen in past GOP administrations, nor is the illegality of such a slam dunk, based upon the regulations in place at the time. It’s just a never-ending smear campaign based on spinning talking points, like Benghazi!™

However, if the FBI investigation turns up something convincing, meh, sure, why not—the question (as I stated from the very beginning) is whether the electorate has the patience for all the witch-hunting. I’m thinking they don’t. Which is why the Gowdy comment was so resonant.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 6:57 PM

Read:


Hillary Clinton And The ‘Searing Truth’


Sid Vicious Blumenthal’s Emails Destroy Every. Single. One. Of @HillaryClinton’s Server Explanations & Excuses

Just the facts…and the law, ma’am.

Bishbop on December 15, 2015 at 7:09 PM

Bishbop on December 15, 2015 at 7:04 PM

This is where I was quoting the law. I understand people’s points about the AG/independent prosecutor divide. This special prosecutor IS the alternative agent in the scenario. And I get that. But blink is trying to spin the discussion into something else entirely, by misrepresenting my posts.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 7:10 PM

darwin on December 15, 2015 at 7:05 PM

It’s the same—the alternative agent CAN BE the special prosecutor in the quote I gave.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 7:12 PM

Also, I quoted the section of law that the point come from, as well.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 7:03 PM

Please provide the Fed. R. Crim. P or USC § citation.

Bishbop on December 15, 2015 at 7:12 PM

Bishbop on December 15, 2015 at 7:12 PM

I did.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 7:13 PM

Anywho, it’s been real, guys; thanks for the discussion. Gotta knock off the computer for the day. And YES, I even learned something. As fossten says, no WAY this thread goes to three pages without the trolling. :-P

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 7:16 PM

blink on December 15, 2015 at 7:21 PM

Dude, pack it in. Please point to a post that makes you think I didn’t know what a special prosecutor is. Such a silly claim.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 7:26 PM

I did.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 7:13 PM

Then, please be so kind to do so again.

And, remember, state and commonwealth law do not count.

Bishbop on December 15, 2015 at 7:43 PM

Umm Holy Sheet!?!?! This is actually the most damning thing about Hil’s we have seen yet. They have been cagey dancing around the whole “Top Secret Stuff”, but now we apparently know that she had Top Secret “Keyhole” Satellite data concerning North Korean Missile movements on her incredibly flimsy personal server? Clearly during a period of time of rapidly heightening tensions on the Korean Peninsula? With the North Korean’s being among the worlds most notorious and effective hackers? Wow! That alone should disqualify her instantly from any government job, security clearance or elected office. She should be facing long term jail time. Whoever sneaker neted those documents out of the secure room to place them on her home brew security risk most certainly MUST do hard time.

patches on December 15, 2015 at 7:47 PM

Hillary’s friend, Sandy Berger, stole top secret documents from the Archives, so why would anyone expect anything better out of Hillary? If it was anyone else, they would be prosecuted, but I guarantee that Hillary never will.

grumpyank on December 15, 2015 at 7:47 PM

Blink
You mean the comments about Reno where I made mention of Ken Starr? Why, of all points, are you stuck on this?

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 7:51 PM

LOL..I NEVER get tired of that picture. She looks like Carlos Danger just goosed her with a popcicle.

bluesdoc70 on December 15, 2015 at 8:49 PM

“After you had time to read up on him”
HAHAHAHA. Now I see the problem. You believe your fantasy is real. Carry on.

CivilDiscourse on December 15, 2015 at 9:08 PM

by virtue of his office,

posted at 2:41 pm on December 15, 2015 by Ed Morrissey”

An obvious legal get out of jail free card. Hillary has not yet self identified as a “he”. You neocon self righteous people need to give her a safe space!

NiteOwl on December 16, 2015 at 12:02 AM

If the mindless voters elect this disgusting dolt you can turn in your jocks, because the game will be over.

rplat on December 16, 2015 at 6:41 AM

FBI will have to charge her now. Most think Biden and Warren are ready to get in the race when she folds, and it will be soon.

Amazingoly on December 16, 2015 at 8:02 AM

Some of have wondered if you’re another poster Tlaloc because you have a similar if not as acidic style of “argumentation”.

gwelf on December 15, 2015 at 5:33 PM

Don’t kid yourself, he has no more love for the people with whom he disagrees than Tlaloc:

So much bile and hate spewed across these pages of HA…

Every now and then, you see that mask slip and a commenter talks with glee about violence against one of these groups, but not often. At least those who are gleeful (like those who were gleeful about the PP shooting) are being intellectually consistent, if monstrous.

CivilDiscourse on November 30, 2015 at 4:33 PM

He has the user base divided up into two groups: people who are honest about being hateful monsters, and those who are lying to pretend they are not hateful monsters.

And that’s to say nothing of the remark about anyone being “gleeful” about the shooting-at-PP (of which there was one user of note, who was promptly banned), or bemoaning the “murder and violence” of some people standing around shouting outside a mosque.

The Schaef on December 16, 2015 at 9:53 AM

The Schaef on December 16, 2015 at 9:53 AM

Oddly enough that was the same thread where ol’ Civil was squealing with glee because the perp claimed he was “there for the babies”.

CD is a fraud and liar.

HumpBot Salvation on December 16, 2015 at 10:15 AM

The Clinton’s could seek political-asylum in Switzerland. Their close personal friend Marc Rich did so. He managed to bribe the Clinton’s and received a full-pardon. When F.B.I. agents attempted to arrest him in Switzerland, they were thrown out and told not to come back. This man was really “untouchable” in that little country. I am sure the Clinton’s already have “numbered-accounts” in Swiss banks. (Some of the money in these accounts was probably put there by Marc Rich.) So Bill and Hillary have plenty of money to live on. They just need a “safe” place to live. (Do the Clinton’s get full Secret-Service protection if their permanent residence is in a foreign country ?)

Bugdust172 on December 16, 2015 at 3:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3