Bombshell: Hillary instructed aides to alter classified documents and send them nonsecure

By 45 Comments 4,470 views

deleter

 

Hillary Clinton, March 2015

“I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material.”

March 10, 2015

“I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”

July 25, 2015:

“I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.”

 

Now we know why they weren’t marked classified. The lies just keep piling up. Fox News:

The latest batch of emails released from Hillary Clinton’s personal account from her tenure as secretary of state includes 66 messages deemed classified at some level, the State Department said early Friday.

In one email, Clinton even seemed to coach a top adviser on how to send secure information outside secure channels.

All but one of the 66 messages have been labeled “confidential”, the lowest level of classification. The remaining email has been labeled as “secret.” The total number of classified emails found on Clinton’s personal server has risen to 1,340 with the latest release. Seven of those emails have been labeled “secret.”

But this time it was different. Among the Clinton emails was found this bomb:

Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has repeatedly maintained that she did not send or receive classified material on her personal account. The State Department claims none of the emails now marked classified were labled as such at the time they were sent.

However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means.

In response to Clinton’s request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.” Clinton responds “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

Ironically, an email thread from four months earlier shows Clinton saying she was “surprised” that a diplomatic oficer named John Godfrey used a personal email account to send a memo on Libya policy after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi.

As John Lott notes:

These two paragraphs are very damning.  They show both that she knew she was telling people to send secret information in a way that wasn’t secure, that her previous statements that the secret material wasn’t labeled may have been because she thought she could hide that it was secret and protect her from liability (she is wrong legally even if she thought this excuse could confuse the issue), and finally that she called out others for doing what she was doing.

Of course she knew. This also explains why all of her emails weren’t marked classified.

She stripped them of their markings.

This is what’s being released. Imagine what’s not.

Clinton turned over the emails she did not destroy, but she and her cronies did not turn over the meta data, which would provide much more information than Clinton wants to divulge.

One IT expert who has looked into Clinton’s unique email arrangement has explored the importance of the information contained in the email headers.

“If anyone ever got and [sic] email from Hillary and still has the email then they can look in the received lines in the message headers to see where the message has been,” Marc Perkel, a former systems administrator at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote on his blog in March.

“This is worth looking into because every received line is another server where Hillary’s outbound email could have been tapped.”

The truth is out there. It is said that the FBI investigation is nearing a critical mass. Clinton claimed to be surprised that one of her staff members was using a private email address and allegedly fired an Ambassador for using a private email account for business. her hypocrisy knows no limit.

Former US Attorney Joseph DiGenova thinks it likely that Hillary will be indicted:

“They (the FBI) are going to make a recommendation that there is going to be charges against a series of people, ” DiGenova said on the program..

“What I know is that the FBI has been building a compelling — an unassailable case against Hillary and her surrounding group inside the State department,” he said.

Mr. DiGenova must have some inside knowledge about the investigation because so far FBI director has refused to answer questions about the ongoing investigation into whether the private emails were mishandled.

Interestingly, this comes at the heels of the U.S. State Department’s Inspector General Office findings that the department gave “inaccurate and incomplete” answers to those who were trying to seek then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s records. For example, the report says the State Department mistakenly told a group they had no information regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account.

I’ve got a bottle of Cristal ready.

 

 

 

 

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

45 Responses to “Bombshell: Hillary instructed aides to alter classified documents and send them nonsecure”

  1. 1

    Enchanted

    A federal offense. Any other federal employee would have already been arrested , tried and in jail. This is no short of treason – aiding and abetting the enemy. Who else hacked her server besides China, Iran and Russia?

  2. 2

    Pete

    There is no question that if Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Christie, Carson, or any other republican candidate had such clear, blatantly damning proof of knowing violation of US National Security laws, the MSM would have never-ending propaganda programs bellowing out their lack of competence, integrity and judgment for such violations, demanding said felons be brought up on charges and forced to withdraw from the race. It is utterly definitional of the evil of the left that when irrefutable evidence appears about which Hillary is so obviously lying in her effort to cover up her illegal, treasonous, and knowing mishandling of classified documents – the left deflects and twists to avoid having to acknowledge their annointed tyrant is going to be charged and (hopefully) spend the rest of her worthless, evil life behind bars.

  3. 3

    Ditto

    Greg will be along any time now to say “Nothing to see here.” “These are not the emails you’re looking for. Move along, move along.” and of course “It was Bush’s fault.”

  4. 4

    kitt

    I really don’t think this is such a bombshell, it will promply be ignored by MSM, but they will continue to say how many hearings there have been held with no results and it is a witch hunt as they make up a fresh batch of kool-aid. Having a iron clad case against Hillary when the DOJ wont bring charges is good for what?

  5. 5

    Nanny G

    Donald Trump said, in a recent speech, that the statute of limitations for crimes Hillary possibly committed will not run out until after the next president is in office.
    So, if not Obama’s DOJ, then the next DOJ could still indict her.
    Strangely enough, Hillary might run for office based on her competency then defend herself from prison based on her INcompetency!
    Take a look at the ground work she’s already laid in that direction:
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261387/hillary-health-horrors-matthew-vadum

  6. 6

    Greg

    It’s going to be ignored because there’s still nothing there worth paying much attention to. Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but FOX News is showcasing the views of actors that appeared in a Hollywood movie, who have no more knowledge of or insight into the Benghazi situation than anyone else.

    One of the actors asks a very important question: “I mean, who would have a reason to lie?” There are totally obvious answers:

    Anyone having a political agenda that could be furthered by misrepresenting the truth;

    Anyone not wanting to see Hillary Clinton become president;

    Any right-wing news organization wanting to justify the bullshit they’ve been pushing for the past three years.

    The answers are so obvious that the question is almost an insult to the intelligence of anyone who is listening closely and thinking carefully about what is being asked.

    They’re using that video to preface an article that yet again totally ignores the fact that the emails under consideration were only recently designated as confidential, because they’ve only recently been screened for public display that was never intended to happen.

    Are you not smart enough to figure this out, or do you simply not want to figure this out?

  7. 7

    Ditto

    @Greg:

    Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but FOX News is showcasing the views of actors that appeared in a Hollywood movie, who have no more knowledge of or insight into the Benghazi situation than anyone else.

    Greg is far too obsessed with Fox News. It’s become a clear blithering mental illness with him

    News flash: Very few of FA’s Republican and Conservative followers give a rat’s patootie about what Fox news’ establishment talking heads have to say.

  8. 8

    Rasputin

    Sorry! No way this goes.to.court or pleas out.

    You people are amatures. You have no idea how the game is played yet you write this tripe trying to impress the uneducated.

    The Clintons are held to a different set of rules than everyone else.

  9. 9

    DrJohn

    author

    @Greg:

    They’re using that video to preface an article that yet again totally ignores the fact that the emails under consideration were only recently designated as confidential, because they’ve only recently been screened for public display that was never intended to happen.

    Greg,
    There is a reason Clinton turned over only the printed files instead of including the meta data. Someone stripped off the classified markings and then sent them on an insecure basis to Hillary. The Secretary of State is obligated to treat everything as classified. She did not, and without a doubt it was hide her abuse of her position.
    Directing someone to remove classified markings from a document is a violation of the law.

  10. 10

    kitt

    @Ditto: Correct again, I have told poor Greg that is obsession with the GOP channel was unhealthy and he should seek help, but notice how quickly he deflected the subject of the thread from classified Emails to Bengahzi. From the crimes of how she intentionally mishandled classified material to her utter leadership failure in protecting the people who work for the State Dept? He has been studying the MSNBC tactics of 1/2 truths and outright lies to cover for Soros political pets. I bet he didn’t like the movie Blackhawk Down either.

  11. 11

    Mully

    @Greg:
    You must watch Fox news a lot. You seem to be the resident expert on them.
    However I saw an interview with servicemen on Fox who were actually involved in the Benghazi debacle. They were there, not actors. They actually know the family members of those who were slain in the Sept 11 attack and they said they believe the family members account of their meeting with Hilliary Clinton. They posed the question why would the families lie? Indeed why?
    But a politician vying for office of course would lie to get elected. You however would believe the politician.
    Now go take your ADHD meds.

  12. 12

    Enchanted

    @Greg: any person who advocates what hillary and her staff did are against the United States. I don’t care what you say. Ironic though those who do support her actions could also be taken down and out by terrorists. Wake up and think about the security of this country and her people.

  13. 15

    Greg

    @Ditto, #7:

    News flash: Very few of FA’s Republican and Conservative followers give a rat’s patootie about what Fox news’ establishment talking heads have to say.

    Ah, I see. That would explain why the first link in the attack on Hillary Clinton at the top of the page was to the same FOX News article I was commenting on, wouldn’t it?

  14. 16

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Anyone not wanting to see Hillary Clinton become president;

    NO ONE should wish to see Hillary become President. NO ONE.

    They’re using that video to preface an article that yet again totally ignores the fact that the emails under consideration were only recently designated as confidential, because they’ve only recently been screened for public display that was never intended to happen.

    Earth to Greg. Earth to Greg. Come in, Greg. This article is about WHY the classified information Hillary so haphazardly handled did NOT have classified markings on them.

  15. 17

    Greg

    @DrJohn:

    There is a reason Clinton turned over only the printed files instead of including the meta data. Someone stripped off the classified markings and then sent them on an insecure basis to Hillary.

    Turning over the full digital files would totally defeat the purpose of reviewing the e-mails for sensitive information before releasing them. Once anything has been released, all information contained therein might as well have been forwarded directly to Russian, Chinese, and Iranian intelligence agencies, as well as ISIS.

    The people who are complaining about this precaution are the same people who are complaining that Hillary Clinton’s private server may not have been sufficiently secure, and might have been spied on by unfriendly parties. It’s a bit schizophrenic to be simultaneously making both complaints—a glaring inconsistency that seems to be lost on a surprising number of people.

  16. 18

    Greg

    @Bill, #16:

    This article is about WHY the classified information Hillary so haphazardly handled did NOT have classified markings on them.

    Because there was nothing haphazardly handled, nor was any information transmitted that was classified at the time that hadn’t already become public knowledge.

    Am I wrong? If so, cite a specific example. I’m guessing you can’t, because nobody else has been able to. People just keep throwing out the claim, playing on the gullibility of their audience rather than presenting any evidence. It’s just more of the same old game.

  17. 19

    Ditto

    @Greg:

    Greg is wrong again. The first link is not to FOX. The first link is to National Review. The link Greg referenced was the third link. He used that link to support his following argument claiming that there were actors in that link commenting on the Benghazi situation:

    GREG: “It’s going to be ignored because there’s still nothing there worth paying much attention to. Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but FOX News is showcasing the views of actors that appeared in a Hollywood movie, who have no more knowledge of or insight into the Benghazi situation than anyone else.”

    If one goes to that link, they will find that there is no such supporting evidence of “actors that appeared in a Hollywood movie” making any such comment. Clear conclusion:

    Greg’s mental delusions about Fox News are leading him to see things that are not there. Greg really needs to seek professional help regarding his paranoid FOX-nophobia.

  18. 20

    Greg

    I stand corrected: The three FOX interviewees are Mark Geist, Kris Paronto and John Tiegen, not the actors who portray them in the movie. The interview took place just ahead of the release of the movie.

    The events as portrayed in the movie are based on a best selling book written by Mitchell Zuckoff, based on accounts given to him by annex security team. The book and movie both assert that a stand down order was given.

    However, after hearing all testimony and considering all evidence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Bipartisan Report, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Bipartisan Report, the The Independent Accountability Review Board Report, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Republican Report were all in agreement that the response of the CIA security time was timely, and that no stand down order was given:

    Select Committee on Benghazi: Was the CIA security team improperly prevented from departing for the Benghazi diplomatic compound?

    How many times does this matter need to be fully investigated by both republican and bipartisan committees, with each investigation coming to the same conclusion that no stand down order was given that prevented a timely response, before you finally understand that no stand down order was given?

    You simply prefer the story that appeared in a book. You’ll probably believe it even more strongly, once you see told in a movie. The problem is that the various committees and officials that have been repeatedly been tasked with determining the truth based on comprehensive investigation and testimony don’t believe that story is entirely accurate.

    Why the hell do you keep having investigations if you’re never going to believe their official findings? Why do you believe stories told by people on FOX News when the accuracy of their testimony has been repeatedly rejected?

    “There have already been seven investigations, 13 hearings, 50 briefings, and 25,000 pages of documents have been released. But that won’t stop Republicans from re-re-re investigating Benghazi as a part of a crass partisan ploy to turn out the far-right base in November.”

    So, I’m mentally deluded for noticing?

  19. 21

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Turning over the full digital files would totally defeat the purpose of reviewing the e-mails for sensitive information before releasing them.

    Uh… there WASN’T any sensitive information on the emails… remember?

    The people who are complaining about this precaution are the same people who are complaining that Hillary Clinton’s private server may not have been sufficiently secure, and might have been spied on by unfriendly parties. It’s a bit schizophrenic to be simultaneously making both complaints—a glaring inconsistency that seems to be lost on a surprising number of people.

    No one would be making the argument if Hillary had followed the rules and used secure channels. But, no… she wanted the option of getting rid of whatever she wanted to get rid of before anyone else could see it…. because she is so honest and competent.

    Am I wrong? If so, cite a specific example. I’m guessing you can’t, because nobody else has been able to.

    There are 1,340 examples, Greg. Read the article. The crime is not IF she gets hacked… the crime is handling the information in such a way that she WOULD get hacked. And, to address your oft-cited excuse that the classified information haphazardly kept on her secret, private, unsecured server were not MARKED classified… well, now we know why.

  20. 22

    Greg

    No one would be making the argument if Hillary had followed the rules and used secure channels.

    How many times does it have to be said that there were no laws, regulations, or rules at the time that forbade Hillary Clinton from using a private server?

    I’ve got nothing more to add to the discussion at this point, since my previous post has gone into moderation.

  21. 23

    kitt

    @Greg: There have always been laws on handling classified information, the USA did not go through 2 world wars without those types of laws rules or regulations, you are grasping at non-existent straws of liberal hope. She deserves to be imprisoned for her gross and willful breach of security.

  22. 24

    Bill

    @Greg:
    18 USC Sec. 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
    (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.

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/hillary-violated-law/

  23. 25

    Ditto

    @Greg:

    So, I’m mentally deluded for noticing?

    Lets revisit the claim Greg made that Greg and I were both specifically referencing:

    One of the actors asks a very important question: “I mean, who would have a reason to lie?” There are totally obvious answers:

    He used that link to support his argument claiming that at that link there were actors commenting on the Benghazi situation: Everyone here is capable of clicking on that link and verifying:

    (1) That there is isn’t a single Hollywood actor saying anything whatsoever regarding Benghazi.
    (2) Benghazi isn’t mentioned anywhere in the linked page, and
    (3) The linked page has nothing to do with any interview.

    The Link Greg gave does not prove his claim, because it has no relevance whatsoever to his claim. That means that Greg is either mentally deluded or disingenuous. If Greg would rather we call him a liar, that’s fine by me. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

  24. 26

    DrJohn

    author

    @Greg:

    Turning over the full digital files would totally defeat the purpose of reviewing the e-mails for sensitive information before releasing them. Once anything has been released, all information contained therein might as well have been forwarded directly to Russian, Chinese, and Iranian intelligence agencies, as well as ISIS.

    No. They are supposedly reviewed by State and perhaps others before release. She stripped off the meta data before turning them over so we could not learn from where the classified intelligence on her server came from, and who took them outside the in-House email system, stripped them, and sent them to Hillary.

    The other question is-once the rule disallowing a private server was in place why didn’t Hillary have to abide by it?

    We both know the answer.

  25. 27

    Nanny G

    Usually Obama loves everybody on the Left.
    But Obama made an exception in FOB (and FOH) Sidney Blumenthal.
    Obama absolutely prohibited Sidney Blumenthal from having any official relationship with anyone in the US State Dept., including Hillary!
    So, what did Hillary do?
    She ignored her boss and kept Blumenthal in the loop.
    In fact, according to recent email tranches released to the public, Blumenthal was even directing State Department policy.
    Hillary would get his input then order his recommendations be followed by all.
    Over and over again.
    What she missed in all of that was that Blumenthal was benefiting by being a paid consultant to many of the interested parties involved!
    As this is exposed, I have to wonder if Obama will ”pull the trigger” on his DOJ investigation of Hillary.
    She went against Obama’s desires and benefited her old friend in doing so to the detriment to Obama’s policies.
    Obviously Obama could do this at any time.
    BTW, Blumenthal is only the WORST case of Hillary’s wrongful use of her job at State.
    In seven batches of emails released so far this year many show the then-secretary of state helping out other friends, family, political allies, and donors.
    Government jobs should not be slush funds for our buddies.

  26. 28

    Bill

    @Greg:

    How many times does this matter need to be fully investigated by both republican and bipartisan committees, with each investigation coming to the same conclusion that no stand down order was given that prevented a timely response, before you finally understand that no stand down order was given?

    Obviously, it hasn’t yet BEEN fully investigated because the administration continues to stonewall and lie. If you actually wanted the facts to come out and the subject to be closed, you would be insisting that Obama and Hillary be more honest and “transparent” (to borrow a term). If, however, you want those you have erroneously placed all your faith in to evade justice simply so you don’t have to confess to a terrific error in judgement, you would be wanting for those doing to probing to cease and desist.

    You simply prefer the story that appeared in a book. You’ll probably believe it even more strongly, once you see told in a movie.

    Hmmm. This from a guy that supports a candidate that has to have a phony television program concocted to confuse her Gruber-esque supporters into believing she was a competent Secretary of State.

  27. 29

    another vet

    Picture this in the first Presidential debate. The GOP nominee looks Hillary straight in the eye and says:

    “You knowingly sent not one, not two, but over 1,300 classified emails by nonsecure means a clear violation of the law. Not only did you look the American people straight in the eye and lie about doing so, you also told your subordinates to send classified information by nonsecure means as well. You are not above the law. As President, I will instruct my Justice Department to prosecute you to the full extent of the law.”

    You can damn sure bet Trump would make a statement like that. I wouldn’t put it past Cruz, Christie, Fiorina, and possibly Rubio as well. From there on out, every time she launches some sort of an attack, they can point out that she is desperate and wants to avoid prosecution. Trying to play nice with the left doesn’t work.

  28. 30

    Greg

    @Ditto, #25:

    I acknowledged my error concerning actors in post #20, which has now come out of moderation. The three that were interviewed by Megan Kelly were, in fact, in Benghazi. Their claim to the effect that a stand down order was given and impeded a timely response by anyone available who could have made a difference that night has been rejected by every official investigative committee that has looked into the matter.

    They know nothing more than what they heard and what they saw themselves. They don’t know first hand what went on anywhere else, or what communication took place that they didn’t themselves hear. They have their interpretation. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that their interpretation was honest. That doesn’t mean it is accurate. Those tasked with hearing or reviewing all testimony and all evidence have repeatedly concluded that it was not.

    As I pointed out previously, Why would anyone lie? is a ridiculous question. There are those who might have honestly misunderstood or incorrectly remembered, for a variety of reasons. There are also those who have strong reasons for deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

  29. 31

    Greg

    @another vet:

    Yeah, right. Let’s picture Donald Trump debating Hillary Clinton. She would totally shred the man, and then shred the shreds. I expect similar results with anyone who attempts to roll out any of the Benghazi bullshit, the server bullshit, or who tries to resurrect Bill Clinton’s misbehavior and attach them to his wife, though the massacre might not be so total as it would be in the case of Trump. I haven’t heard Trump put three consecutive intelligent sentences together concerning any single substantive topic without running out of material.

  30. 33

    Ditto

    @Greg:

    Their claim to the effect that a stand down order was given..

    Greg doesn’t really know whether a stand-down order was given or not. This could just as easily have been a major F-up CYA and a coordinated discredit the witnesses program.

    They know nothing more than what they heard and what they saw themselves.

    Say’s Greg who was not even in the loop and was in no position to have heard or seen anything.

    I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that their interpretation was honest. That doesn’t mean it is accurate.

    It could however mean they are telling the truth. We know how hostile this administration is to whistle-blowers and how much they are willing to lie to further their political agenda..

    There are those who might have honestly misunderstood or incorrectly remembered, for a variety of reasons.

    There are also those who could be telling the truth, but the Washington establishment (and political partisans such as Greg) refuse to listen to or give credit simply because it might be damaging to their political leadership. If they whom were there are correct and accurate in their statements, it wouldn’t be the first time something as important as this were swept under the rug. After years of dissembling, outright lies and trolling for the progressives, Greg pretends to act as if he has some amount of trust or integrity left among our gentle readers. He doesn’t, he squandered that long ago.

  31. 34

    Mully

    @Greg:
    Given the choice between those who were there and the political class I’d go with the people who were there. Those were the ones putting their lives on the line. Doubtful politicians in the same scenario would have acted in the same manner. Yet you continually choose to believe them.

  32. 35

    Greg

    @Ditto, #33:

    It could however mean they are telling the truth. We know how hostile this administration is to whistle-blowers and how much they are willing to lie to further their political agenda..

    It could mean that, but that hasn’t been the conclusion of 7 formal investigations and 13 hearings, which most certainly have not all been conducted by administration-friendly investigative committees. Those committees had access to a much wider range of information and testimony than did three private security contractors.

    Why should anyone automatically assume that their views and statements are unbiased? There have been book and movie deals. They’re paid to appear on FOX News. They’re paid to appear at republican events. Kris Paronto has a lucrative career involving self promotion and motivational speaking. What do you not understand about this? Do you imagine this to be the stuff of unbiased viewpoints?

    Seven formal investigations and 13 hearings have reached conclusions that do not support their allegations.

  33. 37

    Greg

    @Mully, #36:

    It’s Paronto’s own Facebook page, isn’t it? It reveals a little something about what he’s about, which is most certainly relevant to the matter of how objective we can expect his account to be. He’s got a paid PR person managing that for him. What his account has become is a marketable commodity.

    If someone can’t figure out the significance of this, they probably can’t figure out much of anything.

  34. 39

    kitt

    This situation with the above top secret emails is looking much like an older spy series, Hillary after they read the Email your server and campaign will self destruct in 10 seconds.
    (I know she is too slimey for anyting to stick)

  35. 40

    Randy

    We shall see if this administration will treat everyone equal. Clinton did have emails with a security classification higher than Top Secret. There are many people in prison for lesser crimes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *