State Department reopens Hillary Clinton emails probe

My guess is that in the coming months and years that Hillary's aids will fall victim to the dreaded single car accident.

By the way. openyourmind: Thats a sweet little pistol in your avatar.
I have a 1911 Kimber Stainless Ultra carry2 about that size. Mines a 45, with tritium sites
I just ordered some grim reaper carved wood grips for it on Amazon

originally posted by: queenofswords

And actually when you think about it, how do we know that some of the deaths we have read about in the last few years weren't people that were offed because of information professional hackers got from her and her State Dept. and her unsecured way of communicating. We will never know.

There is a thread around here someplace with details, but this did happen.

There is a general who said that for some reason their operations against terrorist failed repeatedly, because the targets were somehow tipped off. The target would move within hours before the attack. He investigated to find out what the leak was, and found state department staff in insecure locations using insecure devices.

So, he stopped informing the State Department on pending operations, and suddenly the operations were successfully completed.

One of the many sources

a reply to: BlueAjah

Damn, thats the first time Ive heard this piece of news. Pretty damning. And especially damning - or it shouldve been - if this part is true:

Johnson’s account is supported by other media reports that indicate Clinton continued to use unsecured mobile devices even after she received multiple warnings about the security risks associated with that practice. The Inspector General report also discussed several warnings that Clinton received about using unsecured devices.

He said he is only speaking out now because Clinton continues to refuse to admit wrongdoing. “I wouldn’t be so hard on her if she had simply admitted that what she did was wrong,” Johnson said. “But to insist she’s done nothing wrong … is beyond the pale.”

The above is from your source - Source

a reply to: BlueAjah

Oh, my Gosh!! I missed this story in the news somehow. This is appalling and I figure is part of the reason why she was given an award for her State Dept. shenanigans.



Hillary, !!!

a reply to: Excallibacca

It would be nice if traitors were hung publicly-and it's hard for me to think of a more deserving candidate than "Pantsuit Jong Vomit."

One thing I am curious on . The FBI (supposedly neutral) closes it's case recommending no further action from them. However Obama's State Dept is reopening the case ? doesnt make sense.

a reply to: Gothmog

Well... technically the FBI did recommend further action, administrative sanctions, etc.

a reply to: BlueAjah

He is dumping the whole issue into the state department where Hillary was in charge at the time of the email scandal, they are the ones that can sanction and it makes sense.

Nothing will come of this. She is above the law.

a reply to: marg6043

It does make sense.
Comey knew that Lynch would never do anything.

The State Dept under Hillary was a schlock operation.

Could still be under Kerry.

The Obama Administration as a whole is a schlock operation.

A few disciplinary actions by the SD might help maintain the illusion of integrity.

But the voters in November will remember the countless proven lies.

This is interesting...
At the State Department daily press briefing, John Kirby said:

And what I’m basing that on, Brad, is the longstanding – and I don’t just mean recently – the longstanding training and indoctrination that one goes through before you get employed here and the periodic reviews of the training and sensitive information handling that you have to go through all the time. I’ve been here a little bit more than a year; I’ve already had to go through it several times myself. That you – we have two networks for email traffic that are deliberately set up to handle various degrees of sensitive information, and that the work of diplomats all around the world is by its very nature is sensitive, but it’s also outward-facing, and has to be. And there is a role here at the State Department to be communicative, to have dialogue, to foster communication. That’s a big part of who we are. And I can – and I can tell you that everybody involved in that understands the risks and the opportunities of it, and takes it very seriously.

This shows that Clinton and her staff can not play dumb. They supposedly received regular training, and knew very well how things are supposed to work at the State Department.

The next question from the press:

The problem is this indoctrination that you speak of obviously didn’t work when it came to the past secretary, or the hundred or so officials who all contacted her during the course of her tenure, or the dozens of officials who would have known that she wasn’t using a state.gov address or would have known that information that was at least on the borderline was going to a nongovernment account. So that failed across the board, right?

Mr. Kirby did not answer that question at this time.

State Dept Briefing

a reply to: Excallibacca

I missed this when it was spoken so if it's a repeat, it's still worth seeing again.

A quick quote from Hillary ("There should be no individual too powerful to jail."):

a reply to: tweetie

Good find

Based on the recent IG report, and on Kirby's statements in the briefings, I think that the current State Department is not too happy with Hillary right now.

The FBI claims that the State Department is lax and has a system of carelessness with classified information. Let's face it. Hillary's actions have made the entire State Department look like incompetent fools. And I really do not think they are going to take the fall for her. I think they are going to be sure that she takes the blame.

There is evidence that their IT people tried to get Clinton to understand and to do things correctly, and she refused. The IG report says things that clearly contradict her claims, including showing that they never would have given her permission to use a private server for State Department business.

I personally think that they are going to come down hard on Hillary and be sure she takes all the blame for her actions.
But we shall see.

a reply to: BlueAjah

If there had been a real inspector general at the State Dept., he would have made sure she complied with the State Department's protocols. But, alas, Barack Obama intentionally failed to appoint that IG. Why? He evidently didn't have a problem with her hiding. He was either negligent or complicit. I wish somebody in congress would look into that.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: BlueAjah

If there had been a real inspector general at the State Dept., he would have made sure she complied with the State Department's protocols. But, alas, Barack Obama intentionally failed to appoint that IG. Why? He evidently didn't have a problem with her hiding. He was either negligent or complicit. I wish somebody in congress would look into that.

Complicit without a doubt.

A lot was at stake.

State Department briefing 7/8/16:

QUESTION: Just following up on the internal review that you’ve reopened. Can you say anything more about what exactly the review is focusing on particularly?

MR KIRBY: Well, it’s going to focus on what we said it would focus on at the time when we first talked about it, and that was the degree to which email traffic was properly handled, sensitive – the degree to which email traffic was classified or sensitive at the time it was transmitted, the degree to which it was properly treated as such at the time it was transmitted. And that’s what we said back when – in January, when we had originally intended to start.

QUESTION: And I know you call it a review, this review has – as you said this week, it has the ability to determine possible infractions at the end of the day, whenever it completes.

MR KIRBY: It’s a review into these issues. As a result of information that the review uncovers, there could be outcomes, but the review is to actually determine the degree to which information was handled appropriately, not to determine specific outcomes. There are outcomes that could come from what we learn from the review.

QUESTION: I won’t ask about any of the officials who worked under Secretary Clinton per se, but about the secretary herself, there are some calls from the Hill about stripping her security clearance. Is that – as a former official, albeit the top official in the department, is that something that is even possible as the end of this review?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, without speaking to any individual or to – and certainly not to get ahead of this review, which is now just beginning, obviously, as I said before, the process can result in a variety of employment and/or security clearance outcomes from both current and former employees.

QUESTION: So when you say former employees, that – does that include the former Secretary of State, or is she not actually a former employee since she was essentially the employer?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to speculate any more. Again, the process could result in a variety of employment and/or security clearance outcomes for current and former employees.

state.gov

originally posted by: BlueAjah
Based on the recent IG report, and on Kirby's statements in the briefings, I think that the current State Department is not too happy with Hillary right now.

The FBI claims that the State Department is lax and has a system of carelessness with classified information. Let's face it. Hillary's actions have made the entire State Department look like incompetent fools. And I really do not think they are going to take the fall for her. I think they are going to be sure that she takes the blame.

I second that assessment!!

That's why I don't think this is over. She's not been cleared at all, but the repercussions of her intentional (my word) carelessness are bouncing around the government's departments as most want to protect their earned and legitimate integrity.