Leading The Way!

[Accumulator]

Petraeus wasn`t the politically-connected creature that Hillary is.

I`m shocked, *SHOCKED* to hear that mishandling of sensitive Intel by two different people wasn`t treated the same in each case, let alone when one of those people is a Clinton!

But I do allow that, to be perfectly honest, a lot of "really sensitive" Intel simply *isn`t* all that sensitive and we shouldn`t pretend that nobody else is lax with regard to how its handled. I mean, come on...let`s be real about this, ya know how people are. Look at stuff that gets declassified and ends up in the public domain, incredible that so much of it was ever even taken seriously, let alone dubbed Top Secret.

But then I really *was* shocked that Petraeus was such a [dummy]. (Oh gee, it`s so hard to resist some kind of off-color quip )

[Bunky]

Both showed poor judgement but not sure they are exact same offense.

Petraeus knowingly shared information with someone and that someone was another issue. The latter would be something that would lead to his dismissal anyway. There was an admiral removed because he had porn on his machine but the right propaganda machine wants to say he was fired because of Obama buying a Dubai mansion. In the military justice can be quick but uneven in application.

Hilliary stored information on her personal server but was she sharing it with someone else?

Even Cruz is dancing about his loans from a company his wife works for.....

Politicians always get more leeway.

[Accumulator]

Bunky- Yeah, sigh...I`m getting pretty cynical about the whole "politicians" topic. Guess *nothing* in that area surprises me any more. Bet you can count on one hand the number of politicians who`re genuinely OK (noting that my definition of "OK" in this context covers a lot of ground..).

And sheesh, you`d think that people could control their interest in porn enough to just *keep it away from work*. They sound like some kind of arrested development cases to me, got a screw loose (oops, no pun intended).

[House of Wax]

Ya know, people can accept other people`s mistakes as long as they own up to them. The hatred for her stems from the pretty significant history of scandals that has followed her and her husband and her non stop lying. Then she has the nerve to make statements like this and throw em up on her twitter campaign:

"There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail." —Hillary #DemDebate
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 18, 2016

[House of Wax]

I would agree (and I`m guessing a large percentage of Americans would as well) that a significant number of politicians are scumbags. She just so happens to have quite a history and, oh yeah....is running for president of the United States

[Ronkh]

Both showed poor judgement but not sure they are exact same offense.

Petraeus knowingly shared information with someone and that someone was another issue. The latter would be something that would lead to his dismissal anyway. There was an admiral removed because he had porn on his machine but the right propaganda machine wants to say he was fired because of Obama buying a Dubai mansion. In the military justice can be quick but uneven in application.

Hilliary stored information on her personal server but was she sharing it with someone else?

Even Cruz is dancing about his loans from a company his wife works for.....

Politicians always get more leeway.

Quite simply, the post is deflection..........

Either she is right, or she is wrong. Simple. Doesn`t matter what someone else did, is doing, or saying.

[Accumulator]

House of Wax- Yeah, her saying that "..no individual too big.." is a hoot. But in a sad way since this really is serious stuff.

[GearHead_1]

Ron, in my opinion she did it. She won`t be held accountable for something that she should have to pay for but she did it. She should be indicted and potentially be looking at the handle of a sledge hammer but she`ll walk away whistling as she goes. It`s amazing how short America`s memory is and how forgiving we`ve become.

[Accumulator]

GearHead_1- And her husband will probably never pay the piper for the stuff I`m certain *he* did either, though the Bill Cosby developments do give me a little glimmer of hope. Honestly, the sexual predator [crap] bugs me more than anything else..[freakin`] basic violation of how humans are supposed to behave towards one another.

[Accumulator climbs down off his soapbox...for now ]

[House of Wax]

House of Wax- Yeah, her saying that "..no individual too big.." is a hoot. But in a sad way since this really is serious stuff.

Agreed. Quite frankly I find to be a relatively serious matter and it`s almost like she`s making a mockery of it. Which, maybe there`s a good chance she is since it seems like she`s impervious of any punishment for anything

[GearHead_1]

GearHead_1- And her husband will probably never pay the piper for the stuff I`m certain *he* did either, though the Bill Cosby developments do give me a little glimmer of hope. Honestly, the sexual predator [crap] bugs me more than anything else..[freakin`] basic violation of how humans are supposed to behave towards one another.

[Accumulator climbs down off his soapbox...for now ]

No arguments here. With respect to her husband, his lying, cheating, preditorial ways tie well into my point about how short our memory`s have become.

[House of Wax]

GearHead_1- And her husband will probably never pay the piper for the stuff I`m certain *he* did either, though the Bill Cosby developments do give me a little glimmer of hope. Honestly, the sexual predator [crap] bugs me more than anything else..[freakin`] basic violation of how humans are supposed to behave towards one another.

[Accumulator climbs down off his soapbox...for now ]

I could not agree more.

[Ronkh]

Ron, in my opinion she did it. She won`t be held accountable for something that she should have to pay for but she did it. She should be indicted and potentially be looking at the handle of a sledge hammer but she`ll walk away whistling as she goes. It`s amazing how short America`s memory is and how forgiving we`ve become.

I`m actually surprised it made it to the msm. So mebbe there`s hope....

[House of Wax]

I`m actually surprised it made it to the msm. So mebbe there`s hope....

We`ll see. I was surprised as well....maybe it`s finally getting to a point that it can`t be ignored. I`ve also read rumors of some high ranking people in the FBI that are itching to take her down.

I won`t hold my breathe though. I`m sure a kardashian will say something stupid soon and that`ll take over the headlines

[House of Wax]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...5ce_story.html

Hillary Clinton went into damage-control mode when news broke that the inspector general of the intelligence agencies had identified additional classified emails on her private server, including ones containing intelligence on covert “Special Access Programs.” Her campaignxeven accusedxthe inspector general — an Obama appointee confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Senate — of engaging in a “coordinated leak” with Republicans “for the purposes of hurting her campaign.”

Lash out as she might, Clinton’s constantly changing email story is rapidly falling apart. First, Clinton claimed there was “no classified material” on her private server — which turned out to bexuntrue. Then she claimed none of the intelligence on her server was “classified at the time” — which also turned out to be untrue. Now, in a National Public Radio interview last week, Clinton said there was no information that was “marked classified.”

But this is not a defense.

It is against the law to remove classification markings from classified information and enter it into an unclassified system — which is the only way this information could have found its way into more than 1,300 emails on Clinton’s personal server. There is no way to “accidentally” send classified information by unclassified email. Senior officials have separate computers in their offices for classified and unclassified information. The two systems are not connected. The only way information from the classified system can make it onto an unclassified system is for someone to intentionally put it there — either by taking a document that is marked classified and typing the information without markings into an unclassified email, or by putting a thumb drive into their classified computer, downloading information and then putting that thumb drive into an unclassified computer, as Edward Snowden did. In either case, it is a crime.

So Clinton’s defense that the information was not “marked” classified does not absolve her of wrongdoing. Quite the opposite, it puts her in greater legal jeopardy.

The revelation that the intelligence on her private server included discussions of Special Access Programs makes the situation even more serious. Having any classified information on your private server is against the law. But Special Access Programs contain information so sensitive, it is given a secret “codeword” and placed into a “compartment” to which only a small number of specially cleared people have access. To see this information, it is not enough to have Top Secret security clearance; you have to be cleared for that specific compartment.

Having that kind of super-sensitive, codeword-protected, compartmented information on her unsecured server in her Chappaqua, N.Y., basement put U.S. national security in grave danger — because foreign powers could easily hack into her system and get it. In August,NBC News reported that “China’s cyber spies have accessed the private emails of ‘many’ top Obama administration officials . . . and have been doing so since at least April 2010. The email grab — first codenamed ‘Dancing Panda’ by U.S. officials, and then ‘Legion Amethyst’ — was detected in April 2010 . . . [and] is still going on.” We also know that Russian hackerssuccessfully penetratedxthe State Department’s computer systems. Does anyone believe they did not target Clinton’s unsecured private server as well? It would be a miracle if the intelligence on her server was not currently in the hands of foreign intelligence services.

Clinton’s latest defense is that “it’s likely what they are referring to is the forwarding of a New York Times article” containing leaked intelligence about the drone program. First, she has no way of knowing that. Second, even if true, that is still not a defense. Think about her argument: Because the Obama administration leaked highly classified information about our drone program to the New York Times, she was no longer obligated as secretary of state to treat the program as classified? That is not going to go very far with the FBI agents investigating her right now.

Her team says the drone program was an “open secret.” But our government has no category of “open secret,” and the fact that a classified covert action program has been reported by the New York Times does not make it unclassified. When I was in the White House, I wrote President George W. Bush’s speech acknowledging the existence of another special access program — the CIA interrogation program. Its existence had also been reported by the New York Times. But I had to write the speech in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the National Security Council, on a top-secret computer that was not even connected to the top-secret Internet system. Until Bush delivered it, the details were Top Secret/Codeword intelligence.

For government officials to discuss such a program on a private, unsecured email server is a criminal offense — a fact Clinton should soon learn the hard way.