US Intelligence Veterans Urge Fast Report (Clinton’s) Emails: “NSA, FBI Have Enough Evidence”

There has been much discussion on the topic of Hillary Clinton's handling of sensitive information. Much of that discussion has wandered off different rabbit trails and several aspects of the situation lead in to rhetorical quagmires. Here is a non-partisan group of individuals with 400 years (combined) experience working with just this type of information. And while we have several members who understand what is at stake (due to their own experience with clearances necessary to handle such information, but they, of necessity, must remain anonymous) and the dangers that are posed, there are many many more who cannot seem to grasp the depth of betrayal Hillary Clinton has engaged in (due to their never having held a clearance or inability to comprehend the reasons behind the need to keep such information confidential) and the potential damage that might be wrought from her criminal actions.

Here is a group who name themselves and list their bona fides, so their arguments carry the weight of applicability and pertinence:

Last Wednesday Robert Gates, CIA Director under President Bush-41 and Defense Secretary under President Bush-43, publicly commented that Secretary Hillary Clinton’s “whole email thing … is really a concern in terms of her judgment,” adding, “I don’t know what originally prompted her to think that was a good idea.”

What originally prompted her does not matter. As your Secretary of State and your subordinate, she willfully violated laws designed to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure. It may be somewhat difficult for those not as immersed in national security matters as we have been to appreciate the seriousness of the offense, including the harm done in compromising some of the most sensitive U.S. programs and activities. This is why we write.

Unless you've walked in their shoes, i.e. held a clearance, you might have a difficult time comprehending the seriousness of former Secretary Clinton's violations of national security. They go on and lay out their arguments (all of which will sound familiar as they have been made here on these forums in numerous threads) in support of the notion that Hillary Clinton should face sever penalties for what has transpired.

The story is being spun to favor Clinton and downplay how serious what she has done is:

...we believe that much of the commentary on the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton email controversy has been misplaced, focusing on extraneous issues having little or nothing to do with the overriding imperative to protect classified information.

...
The White House has said it will do nothing to impede the FBI investigation and possible filing of charges against Clinton, if the facts should warrant that kind of action. Inasmuch as the outcome of the investigation is bound to have major political consequences, such White House assurances stretch credulity.

By all indications, the FBI is slow-walking the investigation and mainstream media are soft-pedaling the issue. As things now stand, most Americans remain unaware of the import of this industrial-scale compromise of very sensitive national security information in Secretary Clinton’s emails.

...

Your White House has also made excuses for deliberate security violations by Secretary Clinton that would have gotten senior officials like us fired and probably indicted. We look with suspicion at what we see as contrasting and totally inappropriate attempts by the administration and media to play down the importance of Secretary Clinton’s deliberate disregard of basic security instructions and procedures.

The very same White House & Department of Justice who have been lying to federal judges, attempting to subvert the Constitution, and has tried to limit questioning by the FBI in this investigation.

And in her case, ignorance cannot be claimed. This really isn't on the level of an 'oopsie' as it has been attempted to be protrayed:

Another claim emanating from your White House is that Clinton was careless in managing her emails and has admitted as much, but that she has not damaged American national security. She has called it a “mistake,” but security officials of the National Security Agency explicitly forewarned her against violating basic laws and regulations designed to prevent the compromise of classified information.

She knew better, or she should have.

... She knew the rules and yet as Secretary she handled classified information carelessly after a deliberate decision to circumvent normal procedures for its safeguarding, thus making it vulnerable to foreign intelligence, as well as to criminal hackers.

And here is where lack of first hand experience hampers some from being able to understand how badly Hillary broke the law:

Anyone who has ever handled classified material knows that there are a number of things that you do not do. You do not take it home with you, you do not copy it and share it with anyone who does not have a clearance and a need-to-know, you do not strip off the classification marks and treat it as unclassified, and you do not transfer it to another email account that is not protected by a government server.

...

So the question is not whether Secretary Clinton broke the law. She did. If the laws are to be equally applied, she should face the same kind of consequences as others who have been found, often on the basis of much less convincing evidence, guilty of similar behavior.

...

Intelligence professionals (in contrast to the occasional political functionary) take the compromise of classified information with utmost seriousness. More important: this is for us a quintessentially nonpartisan issue. It has to do, first and foremost, with the national security of the United States.

By committing the acts former Secretary Clinton is known to have done, she demonstrates that personal gain overrides the above concern. Clinton, and the White House, run a very real danger of having their game exposed:

If you encourage the Department of Justice and the FBI to continue slow-walking the investigation, there is a good chance the truth will come out anyway. As you are aware, the Justice Department, the FBI, and NSA have all yielded recent patriots who, in such circumstances, decided that whistleblowing – rather than silence – was the only way to honor the oath we all swore – to support and defend the Constitution.

all emphases mine


www.globalresearch.ca...

(had to shorten thread title, and source link would not work with BB code (or I'm a dummy))

What says ATS?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Excellent thread.

The clinton defenders will be along soon to sing her praises and respond that there isn't a scintilla of impropriaty done by her majesty.

So Hillary should be indicted...what are they waiting for? The sooner she's indicted, the sooner Bernie can become the official nominee and screw all of Hillary's bought and paid for delegates.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I'm not defending Hillary but who cares about some Intelligence Veterans chiming in...it does not add any additional urgency or importance to the matter...we need to hold her accountable and that is it...

The people funding Clinton's campaign probably also fund the campaigns of the senators and congressmen that pass the FBI and DOJ budgets.

These politicians can "request" that these agencies drag their feet, because the lobyists and corporate interests that keep them elected want that.

If your organization's budget and funding is controled by bought and paid for politicians, you do what the politicians (and the special interest groups) want.

Its obvious those with the money do not want to see Clinton indicted or have charges brought against her.

Nothing a bunch of think-tanks, former professionals, or industry veterans can change that. No amount of internet bitching or ranting will change this. No amount of viral memes or million person marches will change it.

Does anyone here have half a billion dollars to buy a few key politicians on the senate intelligence committee? How about the ways and means and appropriations committees -- you know the politicians who decide who gets what money?

No?

That pretty much closes the case. The FBI and DOJ are just going through the motions to cover their own backsides.

"Well we DID investigate..."

There never was, is, or will be any attempt to bring criminal charges against Hillary, plain and simple. Sorry folks, I hate to be be the bearer or reality here, but that's just the facts.

Big money is pumping big money into keeping Hillary in the race for POTUS and out of jail.

Unless someone, or a group of someones has as much money and connections -- nothing will change that sad fact.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Here's the funny bit... If Guciffer is charged with anything other than simple hacking, it would logically mean that there was classified information on Hillary's server. Since, she knew better as a classification authority, that would mean she deliberately put her interests above the Nations and very probably put people in harm's way.

If that is the case, that is treason.

I don't think it can be spun away from the facts that might be eventually forthcoming.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Thats the way I see it aswell. Sadly She will still be our 2016 cluster F of a president.

a reply to: WeRpeons

So Hillary should be indicted...what are they waiting for?

That's the gist, and the $64,000 question, isn't it?

The time is getting closer though (and yes, I know that's been said for months) and I think that the pieces are being lined up.

Guccifer changing his plea to guilty tomorrow could very well be part of him accepting a deal in exchange for the information he has stored in the cloud.

Articles talking about her imminent interview with the FBI are sprouting up with all of the usual "Legal experts" this and "sources" that.

And the continued attempt to make it seem like a "mistake" while also emphasizing that nothing was "marked classified."

What a fraggin circus.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Excellent thread.

The clinton defenders will be along soon to sing her praises and respond that there isn't a scintilla of impropriaty done by her majesty.

Surprisingly, the usual Hillary sychophant suspects haven't replied in any Hillary threads lately. Maybe it's starting to get too hot in the kitchen.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

While logical , we are dealing with politics and corrupted people in power with vast influence$ in key places.

Sadly I see here becoming our POTUS . Even more sad is that people actually see her as a good candidate?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

So....we should not even talk about it since none of it matters?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Well your name is jadedANDcynical, I figured you of all people would appreciate my bleak outlook on the situation

Everyone can ahead and talk about it, just realize its only a form of talk therapy...

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Touché!

I wish i could make a cogent argument against you, but sadly I fear I must agree due to having been so jaded by that which has made me cynical.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Excellent thread.

The clinton defenders will be along soon to sing her praises and respond that there isn't a scintilla of impropriaty done by her majesty.

I second that notion and thanks for saying what a bunch of us ex-military previously held security clearance people have been thinking for a long time.

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I'm not defending Hillary but who cares about some Intelligence Veterans chiming in...

The fact that your sitting somewhere safe in America is proof that
these Veterans did their job, and have every right and obligation
to speak up on the matter.

Others who are in the know are equally flabbergasted:

“I assume that the messages discussing SAP programs were known instantaneously by the Russians and the Chinese and were likely shared to some degree with other really bad actors — Iran?” Martha Sutherland tells me. She spent 19 years as an operations officer in the Central Intelligence Agency.

...

“The fact that she had a completely separate system for her chats with Sid Blumenthal and others is outrageous,” this former CIA agent observes. “And then the tie-in to the Clinton Foundation and the quid pro quo is another felony count. If I had cut and pasted classified documents and put them in an e-mail on my unclassified server to avoid a written record, I would have been frog-walked in handcuffs out of Langley, no questions asked.”

People keep demanding a smoking gun in this scandal. Sutherland explains that Hillary’s unencrypted, do-it-yourself server is, ipso facto, the smoking gun. It never should have been purchased. Its mere presence is the crime.

“It goes beyond having classified stuff without markings,” Sutherland says. “It is the fact that she maintained a shadow communications system, separate from the government-mandated, secure system. And she was the BOSS! Its existence, the now damning news of SAP info on it, and her continued denial that she did anything wrong are proof positive that Hillary and the Clintons still think they are above the law! Enough already — the BIG HOUSE for Hillary, not the White House, for goodness sakes!”

Source

My mind completely boggles that people can overlook this simply because Hillary has Jedi mind tricked massive numbers of people with her 'unwilfully,' 'not classified at the time,' 'it was a mistake,' and my favorite from Obama, 'careless.'

And they buy it hook, line, and sinker

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
My mind completely boggles that people can overlook this simply because Hillary has Jedi mind tricked massive numbers of people with her 'unwilfully,' 'not classified at the time,' 'it was a mistake,' and my favorite from Obama, 'careless.'

She has a pass from the MSM, even if they do ask a question or two,
nothing like what it should be given her complete disregard for
National Security.

I think at least 50% of Americans are not buying her bumbling act,
but that is the 50% the MSM completely ignores.

Lets hope the message gets through loud and clear come
November, if not sooner.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Here's the funny bit... If Guciffer is charged with anything other than simple hacking, it would logically mean that there was classified information on Hillary's server. Since, she knew better as a classification authority, that would mean she deliberately put her interests above the Nations and very probably put people in harm's way.

If that is the case, that is treason.

I don't think it can be spun away from the facts that might be eventually forthcoming.

Cheers - Dave

Secrets to our enemies IS TREASON. I see no way around that fact.

My friends and co workers with military pasts have said "sedition"

Lets see that one is defined by my Webster's here as stirring up people against the government, which should NOT be a crime as the definition is very murky when you have had Hitler and Stalin running their governmnents. Treason is mentioned in the definition as being an overt attempt and i see an overt attempt perfectly describes these thieves and pedophiles around the Clinton legacy.

The whole lot of them seem to make no bones about subverting a Republic government approach that actually worked for free men and women and to be the cause for the FREEDOM for virtually all of mankind from bondage for hundreds of years, across civilizations and time. Balanced government at least allows a discussion and disallows dictators. The new way to subvert what has been is by using the pen and a phone technique. All the while ignoring high crimes of the Clinton's and their Democrat party sycophants who cover for them even as proof of the crimes are rolling in.

Personally, I do not care how long the FBI takes, although I believe it will be soon... middle of June time frame right after the major juicy leaks start.

As long as they get them all in one swoop.

This isn't just about Hillary Clinton.....somebody was taking information off the TS network and emailing to Clinton on her unclass network.

I, and thousands, of other current and former members of the Intelligence Community want to know who that individual was, and why they did that...were they told to do that?

a reply to: RickinVa

The state department has officially reported on her today. The report was anything but kind. She and her aids refused to be interviewed. I think the big O is trying to put distance between himself and Hillary.