BOMBSHELL: Hillary Sent Classified Intelligence Info to John Podesta's Hacked Email Account

a reply to: DJW001

More than one of those passages were discussing operational details.

Over gmail no less.

I outline the passages here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=projectvxn

If I had sent these I'd be in Leavenworth right now.

a reply to: projectvxn

No, because any reporter on the ground could have reported, for example, that the militants stopped firing when the planes were present.

a reply to: xuenchen

Im trying really hard to understand your thought process here buddy. you are mad because she gave her expert opinion on the region to a GOV official, based on information that she gathered from classified sources? You are saying she gave away classified information, but you cant say

She told Podesta that operation x is going to start on this date in this region, and that info was classified?

Would you agree that she is working to stop ISIL?
Would you agree that based on that same email you just quoted, HIllary a solid understanding of the situation?
Would you agree that Mr Trump is at best naive when it comes to foreign policy?

I rest my case

a reply to: anarkyangel

LOL

a reply to: gladtobehere

I dont think the op understands what you just exposed. About the gold backed currency and the threat to the establishment.Thats the BOMSHELL.

a reply to: xuenchen

HOLD on im sitting down. Ok im ready. Ill be waiting for Hillary to be put in jail. How long you think? How much more tax payer millions would you like to continue to spend ?

Ill wait though.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes but are those classified sources or public info from those sources? Governments put out a lot of info if you know where to look.

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: xuenchen

Yes but are those classified sources or public info from those sources? Governments put out a lot of info if you know where to look.

Yes but if the sources were public, you could easily find them right?

a reply to: xuenchen

Trying to find sources from before August 2014 for all those points would take more time then I care to put in right now. So here is one from July 2014 that talks about the Peshmerga and us relations at the time which is a big part of the Clinton Email.

Last Man Standing: U.S. Security Cooperation and Kurdistan's Peshmerga

I encourage you to do your own research instead of parroting the articles in the future. Even more so when articles make outlandish claims in headlines but do not back it up in the actual article.

a reply to: Pyle

Of course you forget to quote the pertinent parts.

There's nothing there.

a reply to: xuenchen

The whole article talks of US/Peshmerga Relations. A large part of the Clinton email contains similar Information of US/Peshmerga Relations. Which cover points 1,2,3,4 of the email. Just 1 article from an open source confirms much of that information. With a little research you can find more

IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY With significant shared experience and mutual sacrifice fighting Iraq's insurgents, the U.S. and Kurdish militaries remain natural security partners. Iraqi Kurdistan's long frontier with ISIS and the safe domestic security environment make it an optimal air base location for U.S. drone and Special Forces operations against ISIS, whether covert or overt. The Kurdish forces are now the custodians of significant swaths of new territory and the guardians of persecuted non-Kurdish minorities who are being attacked daily by ISIS. Long-term accommodation between Kurds and neighboring ethnicities is vital for the stabilization of northern Iraq. As PUK's recent actions illustrate, the Kurds could facilitate the reinforcement of holdout pockets of federal security forces through Iraqi Kurdistan's airports. The Kurds control an important portion of Iraq's border with Syria, providing useful access to opposition-held areas.

These factors necessitate an upgrade in the U.S. military alliance with the Kurds. Such a development would improve U.S.-KRG relations after a bruising few years of differences on a raft of issues. A major new security cooperation program could tap into the $5 billion Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund. Due to its good security and excellent airports, Iraqi Kurdistan would be an ideal venue to safely undertake a major U.S.-delivered military train-and-equip program for both Kurdish and federal Iraqi security forces. The planned reorganization of Iraq's armed forces into national army and national guard components could open the door to Kurdish RGBs receiving greater U.S. security cooperation.

The United States could also help negotiate the eventual use of substantial numbers of vehicles and weapons abandoned by the federal military and currently held by the Kurds. This equipment, overwhelmingly U.S. taxpayer funded, will need significant U.S. support services to keep in operation. Transfer of some of the material to a U.S.-supported re-equipment of the peshmerga and some back to federal Iraq would seem a fair bargain. Increased federal funding for the peshmerga and Zerevany might grease the wheels of such an agreement and could kick-start both U.S.-KRG security cooperation and maybe even federal-KRG cooperation as well.

US Peshmerga Relations Google Search 01/01/2014-08/01/2014

How I found the article as well as many others if you want more information.

a reply to: projectvxn

Waiting for you to actually reply to this:

They are not discussing operations, they are discussing strategies. Do they mention specific units? Date and time of specific operations? Names of allied commanders, their location, troop strengths and weaknesses...?

The above would be operational details. The brass come down hard on cannon fodder because they do not necessarily have the same level of judgement as the Secretary of State. They are inclined to say things like "We're storming Fallujah in the morning so this may be my last email." That would be operational intelligence.

There is nothing in Clinton's email that you could not have read in the New York Times or heard on a Sunday morning gabfest. It is worth repeating the below as well, since some people seem to believe the email even though it contradicts one of their most deeply held beliefs:

There is nothing of interest in this email that is not available from open sources. It does prove, however, that the US and its allies were fighting "ISIL," not supporting it:


In Iraq it is important that we engage ISIL using the resources of the Peshmerga fighters of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), and what, if any, reliable units exist in the Iraqi Army. The Peshmerga commanders are aggressive hard fighting troops, who have long standing relationships with CIA officers and Special Forces operators. However, they will need the continued commitment of U.S. personnel to work with them as advisors and strategic planners, the new generation of Peshmerga commanders being largely untested in traditional combat. That said, with this U.S. aid the Kurdish troops can inflict a real defeat on ISIL.

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: projectvxn

And they actually WONDER WHY we end up punctuating sentences with "F" bombs...

Every F'ing time.

It seems so few give a crap about what this looks like to soldiers.

I hadn't even thought about this from a soldiers point of view.

The expectations they have of you when it comes to secrecy. She is #ting on the law and getting away with it.

And she might be your next commander in chief.

I can't imagine the anger you must feel about the double standard.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: projectvxn

No, because any reporter on the ground could have reported, for example, that the militants stopped firing when the planes were present.

This is not 2 ordinary citizens taking. This is 2 people with classified information, with security clearance, talking about what they know, not the conjecture in the media.

Once you get security clearance the Law changes about what you can say via Gmail.

Clinton broke the law. If anyone of lessor status had done the same they would be in jail.

Hypocrisy

a reply to: xuenchen

I do not understand the niceties of US law, but is not this a felony that comes with a fine and mandatory sentencing?

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: projectvxn

And they actually WONDER WHY we end up punctuating sentences with "F" bombs...

Every F'ing time.

It seems so few give a crap about what this looks like to soldiers.

I hadn't even thought about this from a soldiers point of view.

The expectations they have of you when it comes to secrecy. She is #ting on the law and getting away with it.

And she might be your next commander in chief.

I can't imagine the anger you must feel about the double standard.

I'm out now. It isn't me I'm angry for. It's the troops I've trained and molded and ENFORCED the STANDARD upon.

You're right, they are #ting all over that standard. It isn't just Hillary and the democrats either. You'll notice republicans are quiet on this too. Don't throw stones and glass houses and all that.

a reply to: Isurrender73

This is not 2 ordinary citizens taking. This is 2 people with classified information, with security clearance, talking about what they know, not the conjecture in the media.

One of who could declassify material. She said nothing that a reporter or an analyst for the New York Times couldn't say. I know you want to see her in front of a firing squad, but she is not one of your squaddies.

a reply to: DJW001

The standard should apply for everyone. Do as I say not as I do isn't leadership, it's bull#.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: DJW001

The standard should apply for everyone. Do as I say not as I do isn't leadership, it's bull#.

I agree. Nevertheless, she did not post any actionable intelligence. Sorry.

originally posted by: anarkyangel
a reply to: xuenchen

Im trying really hard to understand your thought process here buddy. you are mad because she gave her expert opinion on the region to a GOV official, based on information that she gathered from classified sources? You are saying she gave away classified information, but you cant say

She told Podesta that operation x is going to start on this date in this region, and that info was classified?

Would you agree that she is working to stop ISIL?
Would you agree that based on that same email you just quoted, HIllary a solid understanding of the situation?
Would you agree that Mr Trump is at best naive when it comes to foreign policy?

I rest my case

Not much of a case, but I am glad you are resting.