does hillary have classified info on her server?

believe the DOJ takes possesion of her server

Gowdy: Hillary Clinton Should Be Treated As David Petreaus Was, Equal Under The Law
Katie Pavlich | Aug 12, 2015
Katie Pavlich
Share on Facebook 125 227 SHARES


As you've probably read by now, Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had at least two top-secret, classified information emails stored on her private server. The FBI is currently conducting a criminal investigation and her server has been turned over.

The Clintons have always been known as the teflon couple, somehow capable of dodging any scandal that comes their way. But this time, things could be different.

As you'll recall, General David Petraeus was charged, prosecuted of convicted of improperly storing classified information in his home. The information Petraeus had was categorized at the lowest level of the classified tier. The information found on Clinton's server by the Inspector General is classified as top secret, the second to highest level.

So the question is now, will Hillary Clinton be treated equally under the law? Or will she get a free pass? Chairman of the House Benghazi Select Committee and former prosecutor Trey Gowdy believes in the former.

"The lady out in front of the Department of Justice wears a blindfold and holds a set of scales and she does so that she treats everybody the same whether it's me or you, whether it's General Petreaus, whether it's a cabinet level official. I was not part of the prosecution team or the defense team for David Petreaus, I don't know all of the facts. I know this, the same rule ought to apply people irrespective of their station in life," Gowdy said during an interview with Fox News Wednesday. "So, I'm going to have to count on the Bureau [FBI] and [Director] Jim Comey has a reputation for even handedness and fairness. The same folks who investigated and prosecuted General Petreaus are looking into the current allegations with respect to classified information and if the facts are the same then I expect the result to be the same."


We'll see if Lady Justice is really blind.

Would that not be nice.

* Believe that she provided it freely upon request.

* State Department - Flagged Emails were forwarded to Clinton, NOT sent by her. No classified documents have been found by ANYONE.

* No criminal investigation = No prison. Easy-peasy!

Now you're being just plain obtuse (read "watching FoxNews").

Petraeus pleaded guilty to "unlawfully and knowingly" removing classified documents "without authority" to an "unauthorized" location.

Whereas, Clinton's email practices were in line with State Department regulations, and there is NO EVIDENCE that Clinton was aware of any classified information in her unmarked email correspondence.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/08/17/fox-news-attempts-new-spin-on-faulty-comparison/204971

Yeah, that's pretty much all you have for a rebuttal, these days.

you can tell by her body language and her facial expressions that she is hiding the truth

she made a comment to a reporter that she did not know what wiping the server means... try again hillary

her comment about snapchat shows her arrogance

wiping the server clean can be seen as tampering with evidence

having her server in a unsecured bathroom closet is foolish

she wanted nixon impeached for watergate

martha stewart went to jail for less

WOW, you're simply amazing! With such superhuman powers of observation, one would think that you'd render jury trials obsolete.

Except the DOJ is executing a criminal investigation and have found 106 classified e-mails and counting. She turned her server over after she cleaned it but the backup server in a bathroom closet in CO has them all. Better hope they wrap up the investigation before elections so Obama can bail her out. She may find some scapegoats but it won't be easy-peasy.

You're completely delusional. There has not been one single document or corrosponence to date that has been identified as "classified" at the time of which they were released to her. Not one.

Additionally, there has been absolutely NO evidence whatsoever, that any files were deleted from the server other than her personal correspondence, nor has it been shown that there is any evidence to indicate any misuse or illegality relating to those or any other files. Lastly, there is zero evidence to suggest that any files were deleted after they were officially requested.

In your emotional desperation to slow the Clinton Juggernaut, you prematurely fling "poop" in every direction, hoping that something will stick. And like the consistently poor marksman that you've long proven yourself to be, you keep missing the target. Four documents (sent by others) were flagged due to "references" to classified subject matter. NONE of them contained classified information.

Last month, the inspector general of the nation's intelligence community raised concerns that classified information had traversed the email system and sent a counterintelligence referral to the Justice Department. The referral did NOT allege any criminal wrongdoing.

Like it or not, those are the facts.

So, as usual, it appears that you are once again wrong on all counts.

They ARE "the" facts and they've been widely reported by investigators, journalists and related agencies alike.

You and Richie should try accurately reporting them rather than taking the coward's way out, by without exception, ignoring the challenge to substantiate your blatantly concocted claims.

Betting Timbo did not supply citations.

Just one more thing that you're wrong about.

Go look again.

“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.” - 07/25/2015 Steve A. Linick, the State Department inspector general, in a statement signed by him and I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence agencies.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts

So, Next time try including the pertinent facts!
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/brittany...-clinton-emails

“The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls,” the IGs said. “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 transferred via an unclassified personal system.”

---------------

At Monday’s State Department briefing, Toner was asked: “On July the 24th, the inspectors general for the intelligence community and the State Department--they released a joint statement saying that some of the emails that Hillary Clinton sent while she was Secretary of State from her personal email account were, and I can quote it, ‘not retroactively classified but contained classified information when they were generated. That information remains classified today and they should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.” Does the State Department refute the factuality of any part of this statement by the two IGs, first of all?”

In fact, the joint statement by the IGs did not specify whether Clinton had “sent” the emails in question, or received them, or both. But it did say that the emails were among “the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton” from her private email system and that they “should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”

Toner responded: “Well, so you’re talking about--this is already a couple weeks old, but we spoke to this at the time this report came out. We don’t have any purview over the Office of Inspector General. That’s an independent operation, rightly so, and so we, frankly, I don’t believe, have seen the emails that they’ve questioned.

“We’ve been very forthright, I think, in saying that we believe everything we’ve seen and cleared on and put out publicly was not confidential or classified at the time. But we have since then upgraded it and redacted portions of these documents. So you’ll see on--if you look at it online, you’ll see certain names and other portions simply blocked out. So that’s a common thing to do in these kinds of FOIA requests where documents over time have become--you need to upgrade their classification, I guess is the simplest way of putting it. But I can’t speak to the contents of these--in emails that they’re talking about in the report, because we don’t--we frankly don’t know. All I can say is what we put out publicly, released up ‘til now, we believe was not classified at the time. But we’ve redacted portions of these documents since then that we believe should be classified now.”

The Facts, All the Facts and nothing but the Facts.