Video of former State Department official seems to admit to Clinton email scandal

posted at 8:01 am on January 26, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

Is this the “smoking gun” everyone has been waiting for in the Clinton email server scandal? Fox News broke a story last night which, at least on the surface, seems to indicate that it could be. Fox’s Ed Henry revealed a video of former State Department official Wendy Sherman appearing to brag about how communications were so slow in the old days, but now a much more nimble State Department could have all sorts of interesting things show up on their Blackberry on a moment’s notice. (Fox)

A 2013 video, obtained exclusively by Fox News, raises fresh questions about how Hillary Clinton handled sensitive information at the State Department.

In the video, veteran diplomat Wendy Sherman reveals that in the interest of speed, Clinton and her aides would share information that “would never be on an unclassified system” normally.

The questions surround a 2013 speech in which Sherman compared the technology differences between serving at the State Department in the administrations of President Bill Clinton and President Obama.

“Now we have BlackBerries, and it has changed the way diplomacy is done,” Sherman, who was undersecretary of state at the time, said in the 2013 on-camera remarks. “Things appear on your BlackBerries that would never be on an unclassified system. But you’re out traveling, you’re trying to negotiate something. You want to communicate with people, it’s the fastest way to do it.”

The video is included in this brief Fox report. Take a look and judge for yourself.

So was Sherman talking about the general capabilities of the technology or citing examples of times when restricted information was zooming around on Secretary Clinton’s hand held device? The Daily Caller notes that she referenced a specific conference where they happened.

As an example of that, Sherman cited a Sept. 2011 meeting Clinton and other officials held at the UN General Assembly with Lady Catherine Margaret Ashton, then-vice president of the European Commission, to discuss Middle East peace negotiations.

“And so they sat there, as they were having the meeting, with their Blackberries, transferring language back and forth between them and between their aides to multitask in quite a new fashion, to have the meeting and at the same time be working on the quartet statement,” Sherman said in the video…

Fox News found emails contained in the trove of records that Clinton gave to the State Department in Dec. 2014 which appear to refer to the meeting Sherman referenced. And indeed, show traffic containing now-classified information that was forwarded to Clinton. In one message from that same email chain, Clinton’s foreign policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, sent her a message that is now classified.

If the gun wasn’t smoking it was certainly still warm to the touch. The main issue here is that Wendy Sherman obviously isn’t sitting there and saying, Hey, look at us! We broke the law! But the fact that she talked about information that would never be on an unclassified system seems to be as close to an admission as we’re going to see. Also, since the meeting she’s discussing shows up in Hillary’s emails with items which were redacted as classified, well… how much more do you really need?

But that leaves us pretty much where we were before, doesn’t it? True, the fact that a member of Clinton’s staff at State was out there bragging about it adds a new twist and makes Hillary’s continued denials look all the more farcical. But we’re still not going to be getting a look at what actually showed up in those messages. We’re forced to rely on the FBI (and to a lesser extent, Congress) to confirm that the law was being broken. And as we’ve discussed here repeatedly, even if the FBI nails this down beyond a shadow of a doubt, none of it comes to fruition if Loretta Lynch isn’t willing to prosecute the case.

It was still a great scoop by Ed Henry and it’s one more drop in the drip, drip, drip of this sordid tale. But at the same time, there’s wasn’t a direct admission of guilt that closes the cell door on Hillary Clinton.

HillarySad


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

You swish back and forth to and fro from abject naivete to enabling despotism.

When oh when will you ever grow up?

Younggod on January 26, 2016 at 10:16 AM

I think it’s more about the straw men you see flying around you, since my position began and has been to wait for a recommendation from the FBI, and then to believe that if they do recommend to indict, that it will happen.

Any other hay you see swishing around has been caught up in blinkered’s and your bluster.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 10:21 AM

Well, thanks for giving me the right-wing outrage hit parade, but that’s not an FBI recommendation to indict.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 9:45 AM

Uh, you do realize that the thing that started the entire IRS targeting scandal was a press conference where SHE ADMITTED THEY WERE GUILTY, right?

Oh, sure, they were only admitting it in advance of an IG report that said they were guilty, but the point is, they admitted targeting TEA party and other conservative groups illegally.

Now, in your odd little world, does an admission of guilt in front of the press constitute enough evidence to prosecute? If not, why not? If so, why has not one person been indicted?

I’m only following your standard here. By that standard, you should have an easy time answering, right?

I’m betting you won’t even try.

runawayyyy on January 26, 2016 at 10:23 AM

yawn

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 8:06 AM

Hypocrite

blink on January 26, 2016 at 10:18 AM

I’m just tired of the theatrics—and the breathless, this probably isn’t the smoking gun, but it’s coming!-ness of it all. IF the FBI recommend to indict, I’ll bang that drum with you. If the administration refuses, I’ll be screaming with you about that, too. Deal?

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 10:23 AM

*yawn* wake me when there’s an indictment.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 8:06 AM

So, you have no concern over multiple illegalities being committed by the SoS and her staff? And less concern over the fact this lawlessness will go unpunished? *smh*

IF there’s enough to indict Clinton, then she’ll be indicted.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 8:57 AM

Riiiight.

GWB on January 26, 2016 at 10:28 AM

Hillary hates to shake hand with the fools who vote for her.

She is superior to you, sheeple.

Schadenfreude on January 26, 2016 at 10:29 AM

runawayyyy on January 26, 2016 at 10:23 AM

What, in your mind should have been be the exact charges, and what, do you recall, was the scope of that so-called confession?

Ever notice how few people around here actually speak to the point that one makes?

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 10:29 AM

Hillary hates to shake hand with the fools who vote for her.

She is superior to you, sheeple.

Schadenfreude on January 26, 2016 at 10:29 AM

Like I’ve said, Schad—I’m not that big a fan.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 10:32 AM

Is this the “smoking gun” everyone has been waiting for in the Clinton email server scandal?

heh.

keep digging.

everdiso on January 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM

What, in your mind should have been be the exact charges, and what, do you recall, was the scope of that so-called confession?

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 10:29 AM

Besides multiple blatant violations of the privacy act of 1974, you mean? They were releasing protected information to political enemies of these conservative groups, they admitted it, and you know it. Your demand for specifics is just another lie, since you already knew the answer. And that’s just to get started.

Are you actually suggesting they did nothing illegal? Then why admit to anything in the first place? Why would the IG bother mentioning it at all if nothing untoward was being done?

Like I said, you know damn well she’ll never be indicted no matter what evidence is uncovered. This administration will never allow an ally at her level to be tarnished with official legal action, it never has, and your denials of that reality ring hollow (just like her lies).

Also, no one said you were a fan. I said you’d gladly vote for her no matter how corrupt she is. You’ll do as you’re told, like all good leftists do.

runawayyyy on January 26, 2016 at 10:41 AM

keep digging.

lester on January 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM

Just like your Montreal Canadiens, eh? 3-6-1 in their last 10 games.

HOSER-

Del Dolemonte on January 26, 2016 at 10:46 AM

keep digging.

everdiso on January 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM

They don’t have to “dig” to far. Every other week or so, more emails are released under court order, with many of them illegally containing classified information. The FBI probably has never had it so easy. Because of the FOIA request and court order, the State Department is providing them with the evidence of multiple felony violations of the Espionage Act, 1340 so far, not to mention tens of thousands of violations of the Federal Records Act. Actually, each email represents multiple violations. The transfer of each of the classified information to her email was a separate violation. The retention of each of the classified information on her server was a separate violation. The transmission of each of the classified emails were a separate violation. The transfer of the classified emails on a thumb drive to her lawyer was a separate violation. We’re probably talking about 5,000-7,000 violations of the Espionage Act.

The only “digging” they have to do is through the BS amply supplied by Clinton sycophant. That and connecting the dots between the State Department and the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Criminal Foundation.

GAlpha10 on January 26, 2016 at 10:56 AM

Nothing will happen to Scankles.

Valiant on January 26, 2016 at 10:59 AM

runawayyyy on January 26, 2016 at 10:41 AM

You and I know (but the brain-dead liberals refuse to accept) that the only reason the IRS illegalities were not prosecuted is that the direction to target Tea Party organizations came from the WH. Either from BHO himself, or from ValJar. If it went to trial, that juicy bit of information would become public and impeachment and removal from office would follow.

GAlpha10 on January 26, 2016 at 11:00 AM

*yawn* wake me when there’s an indictment.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 8:06 AM

So, you have no concern over multiple illegalities being committed by the SoS and her staff?

IF there’s enough to indict Clinton, then she’ll be indicted.

No. Democrats get to commit as many felonies as they want because they really care about people, unlike evil Republicans, who should be locked up on principle.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 8:57 AM

FIFY. Basically summing up the attitude of the media.

talkingpoints on January 26, 2016 at 11:10 AM

The FBI has so much material and 100 agents working on the case, I really wonder how many names are going to be on the list where they recommend indictment.

I wonder if they are going to stage the recommendations and start with the classified information violations, then do the influence peddling violations or release the whole set together.

If it were me, I’d start with the information indictment recommendations. I think different sets of people will be involved in the crimes and I think it will be easier for the public to understand and not get confused if the indictment recommendations are separated by at least a few days.

I wonder if Obama and Biden will be on the list for failing to report failure to secure classified information.

Drip, drip, drip.

Maybe it will be Warren.

talkingpoints on January 26, 2016 at 11:16 AM

CNN trash

Schadenfreude on January 26, 2016 at 11:29 AM

They don’t have to “dig” to far.

they’ve been digging for what? 4 years now?

everdiso on January 26, 2016 at 11:38 AM

Civil Discourse do you think it was right Hillary lied to the parents of those who were killed at Ben Gazi? She said “I didn’t lie ,, someone else must have” I don’t have her quote word for word but she assumed the parents lied. She believes her own lies and our Justice Dept. is now 3rd world standards and if you think otherwise you are a fool. Obama runs everything and you are a greater fool if you don’t believe that.

garydt on January 26, 2016 at 11:40 AM

Like I’ve said, Schad—I’m not that big a fan.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 10:32 AM

Says tlaloc’s alter ego.

Neitherleftorright on January 26, 2016 at 11:45 AM

they’ve been digging burying for what? 4 years now?

everdiso on January 26, 2016 at 11:38 AM

Neitherleftorright on January 26, 2016 at 11:46 AM

they’ve been digging for what? 4 years now?

everdiso on January 26, 2016 at 11:38 AM

I know right? This could have been done much sooner had the State Department and Hillary Clinton would have cooperated instead of stonewalling.

HumpBot Salvation on January 26, 2016 at 11:49 AM

Our biggest problem is that Hillary only sees positions like SoS and PotUS as opportunities to network and enrich herself, rather than serving America’s interests and security.

A good example was her first exit of the white house, and it’s been made even more clear ever since.

Oxymoron on January 26, 2016 at 12:21 PM

Rules are for little people.

Galtian on January 26, 2016 at 12:26 PM

Where is Scooter Libby today?

Goodie on January 26, 2016 at 12:42 PM

Pin it on Abedin and watch the ghoul tip over without her kickstand.

Christien on January 26, 2016 at 12:59 PM

I guess the only defense left is Appeal to Authority:

Hillary needs to be indicted bc of evidence a, b, c, d, e…but the Justice Dept has a conflict of interest.

No no, the authorities will indict her if she should be indicted. Until the authorities say so, it’s a non-story.

forest on January 26, 2016 at 1:15 PM

Is this the “smoking gun” everyone has been waiting for in the Clinton email server scandal?

Given you guys have claimed a dozen smoking guns already that were somewhat less than smokey I’m going to guess “no, it isn’t.”

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 1:24 PM

But at the same time, there’s wasn’t a direct admission of guilt that closes the cell door on Hillary Clinton.

So my guess was right.

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 1:25 PM

IF there’s enough to indict Clinton, then she’ll be indicted.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 8:57 AM

Naive.

Also,did you call anyone racist today?/

CWforFreedom on January 26, 2016 at 1:32 PM

Tialic, still no integrity with you or HRC.

CWforFreedom on January 26, 2016 at 1:33 PM

Self-aggrandizement is always top priority for lefties, making it relatively easy to catch them in lies and contradictions.

See also: Gruber.

jangle12 on January 26, 2016 at 1:34 PM

It has become obvious from his recent statements lauding Hillary and her verbal Lewinkys when talking about him that President Mugawbe is giving her a pass.

There MAY be some tough talk about not following proper procedures etc. from the FBI but nothing about recommending an indictment.

bluesdoc70 on January 26, 2016 at 1:37 PM

Tialic, still no integrity with you or HRC.

CWforFreedom on January 26, 2016 at 1:33 PM

I’ve been right all along about the ‘scandal’. Your evaluation of what constitutes integrity means very little to me given that.

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 1:48 PM

You’ve always maintained that:

No indictment = No wrongdoing

Right?

blink on January 26, 2016 at 1:47 PM

No, as usual your understanding of my arguments is severely deficient.

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 1:50 PM

Why hasn’t Cankles been cleared yet?

HumpBot Salvation on January 26, 2016 at 2:07 PM

We need to leave the forest, rise above it in a figurative helicopter, and view it from above before this becomes an examination of the bark on every tree and we lose sight of the fundamental issue.

There is only one question to ask, only one:

Does the SOS ever receive, originate, or forward classified information by e-mail?

The answer is yes, without question.

If so, and if HRC did not use the State Department e-mail system, she transmitted that information over her private server. There is no other option and it doesn’t require looking at every e-mail she ever sent or received, though the exercise is enlightening.

In other words, if she didn’t view classified information via her private server, how exactly did she see it, since she used no other means of communication?

Or does she have some other explanation? If so, I’d like to hear it.

I’d send the question to the debate moderators but something tells me it might not make the cut.

IndieDogg on January 26, 2016 at 2:17 PM

No, as usual your understanding of my arguments is severely deficient.

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 1:50 PM

Yes, the problem with discourse with Tlaloc is always other people’s deficient understanding of his arguments.

Never mind that he’s the same people who claim the moon landings were faked.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 2:24 PM

Remember, the lying Hildabeast asserted that she was well acquainted with the requirements on what constitutes classified info.
Hence she cannot even claim ignorance due to absence of classification labels – which in some cases she had cronies strip off.

The Hildabeast belongs in an orange jump suit ASAP along with her help-maids.

Chessplayer on January 26, 2016 at 2:31 PM

Never mind that he’s the same people who claim the moon landings were faked.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 2:24 PM

Which I never claimed. Let me guess, you’re still flailing around and trying to get a grip on the concept of group identity?

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 2:31 PM

Which I never claimed. Let me guess, you’re still flailing around and trying to get a grip on the concept of group identity?

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 2:31 PM

No, I have a firm grasp of group identity.

Given a group of persons, you can hold people from one subset responsible for the words and actions of another subset, even if those two subsets have zero persons in common.

You don’t have to claim it. You’re the same people.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 2:43 PM

Great, so everyone at Hot Air is justified in yawning every time there’s video of a white cop shooting an innocent black guy – because they know how much certain people (that include me) want cops to be held accountable for these types of actions. So, because people want indictments in these cases, that means that everyone is justified in yawning.

Because only law enforcement and prosecutors can determine if there’s sufficient evidence of a crime and they NEVER cover anything up, right?

blink on January 26, 2016 at 10:21 AM

You know the difference between right, wrong, criminal activity, common sense, and stupidity, right? Because your self-righteous absolutism is boring.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 2:52 PM

Naive.

Also,did you call anyone racist today?/

CWforFreedom on January 26, 2016 at 1:32 PM

Is it Tuesday already?

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 2:55 PM

Because your self-righteous absolutism is boring.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 2:52 PM

Not clear on what is meant by this.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 2:57 PM

No, I have a firm grasp of group identity.

Given a group of persons, you can hold people from one subset responsible for the words and actions of another subset, even if those two subsets have zero persons in common.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 2:43 PM

It does speed things up when you do the work of proving you wrong so I don’t have to.

Thank you.

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 3:06 PM

It does speed things up when you do the work of proving you wrong so I don’t have to.

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 3:06 PM

I don’t understand this response.

If my understanding is wrong, it can only be because your understanding is wrong. This is taken directly from your explanation.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 3:08 PM

If my understanding is wrong, it can only be because your understanding is wrong. This is taken directly from your explanation.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 3:08 PM

And as usual you try to substitute your complete misunderstanding as if it were my argument. Sometimes, well most times actually, your mistake is just yours.

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 3:15 PM

Are you talking about the Black Lives Matters group?

blink on January 26, 2016 at 11:00 AM

BLM is a political agitating activist group; I’m talking about right-wing sitting members of Congre—oh, yeah; you’re right. Totally the same thing. My bad.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 3:21 PM

And as usual you try to substitute your complete misunderstanding as if it were my argument.

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 3:15 PM

Saying the same people who portrayed him as an african witch doctor means some subset of the people he worked with (“the right”) did this. It in no way means there have to be members of either subset in common between the two.

There is a group of people.

You are in one subset.
People who claim the moon landing was faked are in one subset.
No members of this subset are common, but that is not required, as noted above.

There is no substitution. There is nothing outside your own words.

You are the same people.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 3:25 PM

There is no substitution. There is nothing outside your own words.

You are the same people.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 3:25 PM

Thank you for proving my point that you have no understanding.

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 3:29 PM

Thank you for proving my point that you have no understanding.

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 3:29 PM

I posted your precise words. There is no flaw in my understanding. If there was, you could point it out.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 3:30 PM

runawayyyy on January 26, 2016 at 10:41 AM

So what is it you think they admitted to—you left that part out. And then there was an investigation, a suit, and a settlement after wrongdoing was shown. What else is it that you expect to happen? Impeachment?

Here’s the thing—and follow closely, because you’ve lost sight of my argument here—I’m saying that IF the FBI recommends to indict, there’s NO WAY the administration could possibly ignore the cries to heaven that will call for HRC’s indictment. No elfin’ way.

The examples given by you and others that supposedly show how corrupt the administration is (again, and this is important, as I’m NOT arguing whether the Obama administration was right or wrong in any of these cases) ABSOLUTELY pale in comparison to the hype around these Clinton emails. THAT’s why they won’t be able to ignore a call to indict by the FBI.

You can pretend that I’m arguing something else, but I’m not.

For what it’s worth, most folks I talk to outside of HA similarly don’t think she’ll make it to the general.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 3:33 PM

I posted your precise words. There is no flaw in my understanding. If there was, you could point it out.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 3:30 PM

Which I have done in the past and as usual you have ignored it and proceeded to continue posting your misconceptions. Now I just point and laugh at you.

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 3:37 PM

there’s NO WAY the administration could possibly ignore the cries to heaven that will call for HRC’s indictment. No elfin’ way.

THAT’s why they won’t be able to ignore a call to indict by the FBI.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 3:33 PM

To the contrary, you can pretty much count on exactly that happening. They’ve spent too much time saying it’s nothing, and when cornered they’ll only double down on the lie.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 3:37 PM

Now I just point and laugh at you.

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 3:37 PM

What your wife does during sex?

itsspideyman on January 26, 2016 at 3:39 PM

Which I have done in the past and as usual you have ignored it and proceeded to continue posting your misconceptions.

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 3:37 PM

This is the last and most detailed statement you made on your concept of “the same people”.

Prove me wrong. Show me where you said more or differently.

In addition, this claim by you is a proven lie, by virtue of the fact that, when adequate explanations have been given, I can and have dropped issues in the past. Multiple times.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 3:39 PM

To the contrary, you can pretty much count on exactly that happening. They’ve spent too much time saying it’s nothing, and when cornered they’ll only double down on the lie.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 3:37 PM

Nope—and it’s specifically because it’s an election year that that won’t happen. There will be far too many people on the left who join the chorus if the FBI and congress start to howl.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 3:41 PM

To clarify:

“last and most detailed statement”:

Saying the same people who portrayed him as an african witch doctor means some subset of the people he worked with (“the right”) did this. It in no way means there have to be members of either subset in common between the two.

“claim that is a demonstrable lie”:

as usual you have ignored it and proceeded to continue posting your misconceptions.

Lest anyone be confused or think I am playing the pronoun game.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 3:41 PM

Nope—and it’s specifically because it’s an election year that that won’t happen. There will be far too many people on the left who join the chorus if the FBI and congress start to howl.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 3:41 PM

Me included, btw.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 3:42 PM

Nope—and it’s specifically because it’s an election year that that won’t happen. There will be far too many people on the left who join the chorus if the FBI and congress start to howl.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 3:41 PM

Their behavior to date in response to this gives me zero reason to believe they will suddenly do a 180 on the issue. I will bet cash money that any recommendation to indict will go directly into AG Lynch’s round file.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 3:43 PM

I will bet cash money that any recommendation to indict will go directly into AG Lynch’s round file.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 3:43 PM

You’re on. I’ll mail you my Subway card. One more stamp and free footlong!

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 3:49 PM

Their behavior to date in response to this gives me zero reason to believe they will suddenly do a 180 on the issue.
The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 3:43 PM

BTW, Obama has called HRC out on this issue saying it was unwise, a mistake, poor decision, etc. He’s been adding daylight. If there’s an FBI call to indict, she’s on her own.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 3:51 PM

Obama has called HRC out on this issue saying it was unwise, a mistake, poor decision, etc.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 3:51 PM

He has also, in the only comment he has made on the legality of the issue, opined that it was not illegal.

So if one is a tea leaf to be read, so is the other.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 3:56 PM

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 3:56 PM

I’m just saying it wouldn’t be a total 180*.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 4:02 PM

I’m just saying it wouldn’t be a total 180*.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 4:02 PM

I’m not particularly interested in debating the precise number of degrees in the arc; I don’t see how that serves the discussion.

The Justice Department is perfectly capable of launching its own investigation as to whether to indict; they have had no qualms about inserting themselves similarly into local cases where arguably they have no jurisdiction. They have not done so, and I find that telling.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 4:06 PM

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 4:06 PM

It’s really not the most crucial thing to be arguing over. You said that for the administration to follow a recommendation to indict would be a complete reversal on their position. I noted that Obama has allowed that HRC bears blame and responsibility for this stupidity, and that these are valid questions.

So I said it’s not a complete reversal. The end.

Lemme know about the Subway card, and whether you have anything you’d like to put up? ;-)

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 4:24 PM

Now I just point and laugh at you.

Tlaloc on January 26, 2016 at 3:37 PM

What your wife does during sex?

itsspideyman on January 26, 2016 at 3:39 PM

Zing!

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 4:25 PM

noted that Obama has allowed that HRC bears blame and responsibility for this stupidity, and that these are valid questions.

So I said it’s not a complete reversal. The end.

CivilDiscourse on January 26, 2016 at 4:24 PM

It’s not a reversal on their opinion regarding legality or whether to pursue prosecution?

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 4:31 PM

And all the old wheels turn the same.

Give Tlaloc one simple request to stand by his words, show a fact to support his claim, and he promptly bails on yet another thread.

The Schaef on January 26, 2016 at 9:45 PM

canopfor on January 26, 2016 at 8:22 AM

Mildly familiar with the BYOD program. The device, once configured for and authorized to receive government communications, becomes the de-facto property of the ISIC related to the user. It is subject to un-announced content audit and detailed inspection, to ensure that all configuration and compliance protocols are intact and functional. It must comply with all relevant NISPOM provisions for the information it sends or receives. It CANNOT handle any information whose classification would require NIPRNet transmission. Failure to operate the device within these and numerous other guidelines is a federal crime.

The clintonemail.com server was never so configured, nor available for audit/inspection, nor authorized to transmit ANY official government data in accordance with NISPOM or DoD COMSEC directives.

The continually elevating criminal activity being revealed is notable, but it must always be remembered that every single use of this communications platform for official government material, regardless of classification, constituted a violation of federal law; for anyone sending official traffic out of it OR into it: A fact which the liberals and their talking head governmental experts would be screaming on every news source if it had been done by a Conservative.

Hillary, every member of her inner staff, and many other governmental officials are criminally guilty for their blatant refusal to follow the law in this regard.

Freelancer on January 27, 2016 at 2:13 AM

Still waiting for any answer.

blink on January 26, 2016 at 11:42 PM

You and I both know it’s not coming.

He was asked to stand by his words after his 3:37 post, and he decided to go troll other threads. This thread in his mind no longer exists.

The Schaef on January 27, 2016 at 9:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 2