Clinton signed Non disclosure agreement taking responsibility for classified emails

[restorefreedom]

DailyMail

Hillary Clinton's claim that she was unaware top secret documents on her private email server were highly classified took a hit on Friday, with the revelation of a State Department contract she signed in 2009.

Hillary signed State Department contract saying it was HER job to know if documents were classified top secret, and laid out criminal penalties for 'negligent handling'
Clinton signed 'Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement' on her second day at the State Department. It says she was personally responsible for determining if sensitive documents in her possession were classified at the highest level
Spelled out criminal laws under which she could be prosecuted

Hillary has said on the campaign trail that top-secret classified info found on her private email server wasn't classified originally and it wasn't her job to know better.

oooops.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3307197/Hillary-signed-State-Department-contract-saying-job-know-documents-classified-secret-laid-criminal-penalties-negligent-handling.html#ixzz3qls9uZYU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[leftofcool]

1. You must have missed the new news.

Hillary has been cleared by the Intelligence Department who said there was never any classified emails on her server.

[restorefreedom]

2. fascinating timing. nt

[Oilwellian]

3. The IGs of Intelligence and State would disagree

Their report says the following:

These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

Office of Inspector General

Hillary generated the classified information in her emails and then sent that classified information from her private email account. It was SHE who didn't label the emails properly, much less use a secured server (which is required by law when handling sensitive info).

[leftofcool]

10. Try again!

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/11/clinton-cleared-sending-highly-classified

[jeff47]

21. Try reading _ALL_ of the article.

The two emails are part of a set of four emails McCullough's investigators flagged after obtaining access earlier this year to a sample of 40 emails among the 30,000 Clinton stored on a private server and provided to her former agency last December. "My office's limited sampling of 40 of the emails revealed (that) four contained classified (intelligence community) information that should have been marked and handled at the SECRET level," McCullough wrote to lawmakers on July 23

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-no-highly-classified-215599

She has not been cleared. There's still lots more to go.

[HereSince1628]

4. Someone, tighten that damned faucet it's dripping again.

I'm not sure it really changes anything. As Bernie said we've had enough of Clinton's damned emails.

Within the primary season it's no longer an issue.

I would say, this confirms a lot of comments that were treated as wrong about how people who handle highly sensitive material are supposed to behave.

[Oilwellian]

5. Oh, it could get really stinky

I'm writing an OP as we speak, will probably take some time, considering all of the information I've compiled about the FBI investigation that is happening now.

The following document is what Petraeus had to sign when he copped a plea. It's an excellent source that explains the protocol that anyone who's given top secret clearance, has to follow. That would include Hillary as well. She had to sign a lot of documents agreeing to comply with the handling of classified material. Although Petraeus' case was entirely different because he lied to the FBI, Hillary isn't out of legal jeopardy yet because she was negligent in the handling of classified documents. I'm still trying to copy and paste some of the passages in this document, but don't have a paid Adobe account and can't get past the blocks, even when I convert it to a doc. If anyone knows how I can get past that, I'd appreciate learning how to do it.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/03/petraeus-factual-basis.pdf

[HereSince1628]

6. -If- she gets charged, it'd be a mess

Charging her before next Nov. would interfere with and very likely be seen as damaging the electoral process. Charging her after that, if she were president, would create an executive crisis. Contemplation of creating that sort of disruption produces a serious non-stick coating.

Any agency that did bring charges would quickly come under public attack and would face serious risk of retribution over the near or long term. IMO, agencies will preserve themselves and their power, rather than face that.

If she loses the primary, or loses the GE, she would become a safer target for the agencies. But then few would really care, the charge will be shrugged off as a 'technical' mistake zealously pursued by haters.

[askew]

15. If she gets charged before the Iowa caucus, I think that is fine.

I don't want her to get charged in April after she locks up the nomination. That would be a mess.

[HereSince1628]

16. Because the campaigns are fully engaged, it would still look like manipulation

of what is supposed to be a 'democratic process'. It's arguable if that process is really very democratic, but imo, the nation would be very upset with such an obvious and huge influence being levered upon it.

[askew]

17. This is a problem Hillary brought upon herself.

She shouldn't be able to evade charges just because she is running for president. If she is that careless with classified material, voters deserve to know and take that into consideration when voting.

[HereSince1628]

18. Yes, but timing certainly plays a role

and in this circumstance timing puts any action against HRC within the context of her on-going campaign.

No one can separate her from the primary process, an indictment of her now can't help but also be an intervention in the primary. Interference with the primary process by a government agency will cause a shit-storm.

[leftofcool]

11. Yea, Fox Snooze really loves this story.

Funny, that they won't even mention this one:

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/11/clinton-cleared-sending-highly-classified

[Dodo]

31. pdftoword.com or something - it's run by Nitro

and very good in converting Adobe documents of any type into a Word document, if that might help.

[Oilwellian]

38. Thanks, I did try that

It's copy protected though and never figured out how to get past that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Oy vey

Do a google search.

The only media outlets who are running with this non- story are:

-FOX- Reich Wing

-The Daily Blaze -Reich Wing

-The Daily Caller- Right Wing tabloid

-allenbwest.com -Far Reich Wing website




<patient awaits for Bully Brigade to attack>

[restorefreedom]

12. then why did i find it in the uk dailymail? nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. It's a right wing trash tabloid...

You are free to believe what you want to believe. And it's not going to help your sinking candidate. Now you can choose to ignore me or move along but I will not be cowed. I will not be bullied. And I will not stand down.

[restorefreedom]

14. bernie is not sinking, but hillary will

but we should all believe in our candidate until one is nominated

have a nice day

[riversedge]

8. Yah, The RW is all over this story.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. You betcha

[Tarc]

19. Another Sanders supporter carrying the Free Republic water

and quoting the Daily Fail, no less.

[Hepburn]

20. The lies from her never stop. n/t

[jeff47]

22. To be fair, that contract is required of all people who are given access to classified. (nt)

[restorefreedom]

25. as it should be

but it calls into question her "i didn't have to know if it was classified" routine, because clearly people who handle such info are responsible for it

[Beacool]

23. I don't have anything against Sanders, but some of his supporters have become a pill.

Thanks for posting from that RW rag. Ever read their comment section?

[restorefreedom]

24. when did the daily mail become a rw rag?

i purposely go to non us sources to avoid this

and insulting a candidates supporters is a great way to alienate them for a ge if anyone cares.

[Beacool]

26. Really?

Last edited Sat Nov 7, 2015, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Read any political article about a Democrat and then tell me what kind of site it is. Insulting a candidates' supporters is what I have seen here since Sanders decided to run.

[pinebox]

27. Sure about that?

[restorefreedom]

29. yeah. the idea that this is a slanted rw paper

is complete news to me, no pun meant.

[Beacool]

30. Read the comments.

[restorefreedom]

32. i will take a look

i hope this doesnt make me a snob, but i don't like to read comments most places because everyone and their brother is commenting and i hate reading yahoo cretins that didn't even seem to get past 8th grade..ok that does sound snobby...oh well..i will look and update this comment.

[Beacool]

33. I'm being serious, not partisan.

I too read the DM, they have some historical pieces that I enjoy and the site does give me a quick overview of what's going on in the world, but their political posts are geared toward their RW readership. Read any random article about a Democrat, the comments are vicious. Then read anything about a Republican, you'll notice the difference. Yesterday I amused myself reading the comments on Ben Carson caught lying about being accepted at West Point. People were twisting themselves into pretzels trying to excuse him and bringing up Hillary and her "lies" as a point of comparison.

[restorefreedom]

34. i just did some poking around

as for the headlines, it seems like a mixed bag. the comments were quite cretin ish, but i did see a few progressive voices, although it seemed like 75%/25% rw loon to progressive. then again, i have seen a similar ratio even at places like usatoday and cnn. i wonder if rw loons tend to post more on general sites more than progressives just as a general behavior pattern. and i noticed that about carson too. they were doing their best contortionist impression trying to give him a pass. i understand what you are saying about the comments, but i think we also have to be careful not to judge the veracity of the source by the "quality" of the comments left there. the looney birds seem to have a lot of time to troll comment threads.

then again, i might just swear off news altogether. i know my pressure would come down

cheers

[Beacool]

36. Their articles about Democrats are always geared at their conservative readership.

Even the most inane thing about any Democrat is seen through a RW prism. They got to keep their readership happy.

[restorefreedom]

44. i guess everyone has to slant it one way or another. sigh. nt

[restorefreedom]

28. no bullshit, i thought dm was an ok source

i often go to overseas pubs to avoid the fox news effect. oh well

i don,t think anyone should insult the supporters of anyone. i think calling out unkind behavior is appropriate. however, i think discussion of issues or candidates' statements is fair game. they are after all, vying for the leader of the fw position..looking at their positions, statements, etc is what we should be doing

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Res ipsa loquitur

In the late 1960s, the paper went through a phase of being liberal on social issues like corporal punishment,[citation needed] but soon returned to a conservative line. The Mail has traditionally been a supporter of the Conservatives and has endorsed this party in all recent general elections. While the paper retained its support for the Conservative Party at the 2015 general election, the paper urged conservatively inclined voters to support UKIP in the constituencies of Heywood and Middleton, Dudley North and Great Grimsby where UKIP was the main challenger to the Labour Party.[58]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

I know some folks question the objectivity of wiki but the cited sources don't lie...


As I said in my seminal post on this topic it seems only right leaning news sites went with it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=777304

[ColesCountyDem]

43. ...