Clinton claims that she "did not send or receive classified information" on private account. Do you believe her? Why or why not?

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 06:30:51 -0400

U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Saturday that she did not use a private email account to send or receive classified information while she was secretary of state, in response to a government inspector's letter this week.

"I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time," Clinton said at a campaign stop in Iowa.

The email controversy has dogged Clinton's bid for the presidency, fuelling worries that the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination has tried to sidestep transparency and record-keeping laws.

At least four emails from the private email account that Clinton used while secretary of state contained classified information, Inspector General Charles McCullough, who oversees U.S. intelligence agencies, told members of Congress in a letter on Thursday.

Clinton said on Saturday she had "no idea" what were the emails mentioned in the letter.

McCullough's letter said a sampling of 40 of about 30,000 emails sent or received by Clinton found at least four that contained information the government had classified as secret.

The information was classified at the time that the emails were sent, McCullough said.

The use of her private email account, linked to a server in her New York home for work, has drawn fire from political opponents since coming to light in March.

Republicans have accused Clinton of trying to avoid disclosure laws through her use of private systems.

The frontrunner to represent the Democratic Party in the November 2016 election, Clinton has repeatedly said she broke no laws or rules by eschewing a standard government email account.

While Clinton faces little competition for the Democratic Party's nomination, several recent polls have found a majority of voters find her untrustworthy, a perception potentially exacerbated by controversy over her emails.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-i-did-not-send-or-get-classified-emails-on-private-account/ar-AAdv1tI

Clinton: I did not send or get classified emails on private account

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2015 7:02 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:02:09 -0400

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jul 26 at 2015 8:11 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 08:11:25 -0400

I think they just found 4 emails with information on her personal email accounts that was classified at the time and remain classified today. That was out of a sampling of less then 50 emails reviewed. It appears she has lied again. The Clintons have made a career out of looking directly into the camera and lying to us then backing it up later, slowly, and the media complies.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Jul 26 at 2015 9:01 AM

SSG Robert Webster — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 09:01:39 -0400

How much does this sound like her husband? Quite a bit actually.

"Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you." - Clinton, Bill. Response to the Lewinsky Allegations, Miller Center of Public Affairs, 26 January 1998.

What I do not understand is how so many people accept the outright lies that some politicians and public figures make. How does this individual not know about the proper handling of emails, especially after having been the First Lady, having served as a Senator, and then during her tenure as Secretary of State, the WikiLeaks scandal known as Cablegate.

Is this another case of "Do as I say, not as I do."?

Either way, her response is a false statement or she can not remember. And taking that into consideration is another reason NOT to elect or appoint her to public office again.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Jul 26 at 2015 9:10 AM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 09:10:07 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad I have hard time believing most of our politicians anymore, so it doesn't matter of they are Democrats or Republicans (or what). Hopefully, the truth will come out, but so far she has dodged it. I think this will hurt her, but I believe there are way to many entitled citizens left over from the Obama days to stop her from becoming the next POTUS, unless something really serious happens with the emails and Benghazi. Just my opinion!

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Jul 26 at 2015 9:32 AM

Cpl Dennis F. — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 09:32:45 -0400

This is such a BS defense. If you are using a communications system outside channels, how can any of the content ever BE classified? Some of her content has been classified "after the fact" which is a very strong case for it being classified "at the time", had it ever had the chance to move through the system. Although I would hope that "that woman" (attempting to be civil) received some training in OPSEC for her position as SECSTATE, she is by no means the ultimate arbiter of what is classified and what is not. I believe her sidestepping the system should be an indictable offense. I hope Trey Gowdy holds her feet to the fire.

Response by SrA Daniel Hunter made Jul 26 at 2015 9:39 AM

SrA Daniel Hunter — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 09:39:41 -0400

No, I do not believe her. The IG referred the case to the FBI. The only reason they would do that is if they found evidence of criminal activity during the IG review.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Jul 26 at 2015 9:45 AM

SSG John Jensen — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 09:45:33 -0400

I'm sure that there were a great many 'For Official Use Only' emails - classified higher than that I kind of doubt, but not terribly sure about that

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 26 at 2015 9:46 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 09:46:43 -0400

in a word, not in this lifetime.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Jul 26 at 2015 12:13 PM

LTC Stephen C. — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:13:14 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad, I personally believe this woman to be one of the least trustworthy people in the public eye.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Jul 26 at 2015 1:01 PM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 13:01:13 -0400

I suspect that the Secretary of State deals with an awful of classified information so, if what she is saying is true ... then HOW did she send and receive classified information?

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Jul 26 at 2015 1:09 PM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 13:09:19 -0400

Response by LTC Trent Klug made Jul 26 at 2015 2:03 PM

LTC Trent Klug — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:03:27 -0400

Y'all are just ageist, sexist mysogonists. Just kidding. She's used to lying and getting away with it. I don't and won't trust her, and I can say I feel the same way about a majority of politicians of any political party.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2015 2:20 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:20:07 -0400

No I do not believe her, Ms. Clinton did not have a government email during her four year stint at the State Dept.. "Under federal law, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials." You can bet her legal counsel will monitor which emails are released and which are not. They are not going to allow any email to be released which will incriminate Ms. Clinton or implicate her in any manner and they will site the fifth amendment as a reason to withhold emails they do not approve of. Being that there is always more than one way around things, if someone were interested in seeing said emails they could request them from the receiving party.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32853708

First set of Hillary Clinton emails published online - BBC News

State Department releases hundreds of emails - many relating to the attack in Benghazi, Libya - from Hillary Clinton's private email account.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 26 at 2015 2:35 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:35:55 -0400

Yes and no. What a contradiction! Yes, I believe her. No, I don't. Well, I believe that she had only one device for all communications. That's what she told us. For convenience. Now that we've learned that she used her own insecure email server we must accept that she used it for all communications included those containing classified material. Thus, if I believe her, by her own admission she mishandled classified material. Now, if I believe her, she didn't mishandle classified material. So, I don't believe her. Confused? Yeah, me too...

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2015 3:20 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 15:20:40 -0400

Those who believe Clinton (or Osamabama, for that matter) in one easy-to-understand picture.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 27 at 2015 4:41 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 04:41:41 -0400

She is a habitual liar and we now know that the comment is false. She needs to face the music for her acts.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Jul 27 at 2015 3:10 PM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:10:05 -0400

Four poll numbers came out over the weekend that are decidedly sobering for Hillary Clinton's presidential prospects in 2016 ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/27/four-poll-numbers-to-make-hillary-clinton-sweat/?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z9

4 poll numbers that should unnerve Hillary Clinton

People don't like her much.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2015 8:05 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:05:07 -0400

Sounds like she didn't pay attention in her derivative classification class.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Jul 28 at 2015 11:51 AM

SFC Joseph Weber — Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:51:57 -0400

Of course I believe her. Just like I believed my Soldiers when they told me they missed PT because they forgot about daylight savings.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Jul 28 at 2015 11:54 AM

SFC Joseph Weber — Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:54:10 -0400

Whats the old joke...How do you know when a politician is lying? When their lips are moving.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Aug 12 at 2015 12:22 PM

COL Ted Mc — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:22:09 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad - Gunny; Considering the extent to which the US government "classifies" material (including classifying documents which have been published, sold, and are sitting on library shelves as "Secret") I suspect that it is impossible for her NOT to have sent SOMETHING that was "classified" using that eMail account.

Whether the material SHOULD HAVE been "classified" is a totally different matter.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Aug 15 at 2015 2:09 PM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 14:09:46 -0400

Clinton’s team went from nonchalant to nervous over e-mail controversy ...

Late last month, Hillary Rodham Clinton stood before a line of television cameras at a rural Iowa campaign stop to deny reports that she had sent sensitive information over her private e-mail system.

“I’m confident that I never sent or received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received,” Clinton said, dismissing claims to the contrary by federal intelligence officials as a bureaucratic dispute over what qualifies as classified.

The view from inside Clinton’s presidential campaign team was much the same: Clinton had done what she needed to do, there was nothing of real concern regarding the e-mails and, mostly, the whole matter was an annoyance in her efforts to win the White House.

The next week, however, law enforcement officials became interested, and the campaign’s apparent lack of concern began to turn into a sense of anxiety.

“They’re worried about it,” said a longtime Clinton adviser and confidant who agreed to discuss the mood of the campaign team only on the condition of anonymity. “They don’t know where it goes. That’s the problem.”

Read more at ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-clintons-team-went-from-nonchalant-to-nervous-over-e-mail-controversy/2015/08/14/347f1066-405e-11e5-9561-4b3dc93e3b9a_story.html?hpid=z1

Clinton’s team went from nonchalant to nervous over e-mail controversy

What had begun months ago as a question about proper archiving of records has become a bigger, more politically dangerous issue: Whether sensitive data was at risk of falling into the wrong hands.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Aug 15 at 2015 2:56 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 14:56:25 -0400

That family likes to embrace the grey area.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/bill-clinton-responds-monica-lewsinsky-affair-allegations-28406403

Video: Bill Clinton in 1998: 'I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman'

Bill Clinton, Monica Lewsinsky, affair

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 15 at 2015 3:07 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:07:34 -0400

Why was it necessary to "scrub" the email server if it did not contain incriminating evidence? This is the question that decides my response. No, I'm not falling back on that old saw that says "Where there's smoke there's fire". If that were true, we'd see Hillary being prosecuted/persecuted for a whole lot more. No, my opinion is based on a fundamental and sound legal premise that evidence should not be destroyed during a criminal investigation. Indeed, that is an act that in itself constitutes a serious crime. Also, jurors may infer that the accused was intentionally hiding incriminating evidence when they destroy it to keep it from the hands of prosecutors. Thus, my inference has a legal as well as a logical basis...

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Aug 15 at 2015 3:40 PM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:40:47 -0400

Video: Clinton jokes about email scandal ...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-jokes-about-email-scandal/vi-BBlLQ7y

Clinton jokes about email scandal

Hillary Clinton mocked interest in her use of a private email server, but a joke about Snapchat could invite more Republican ridicule and add greater focus to a controversy that is already dogging her campaign.

Response by SSG Daniel Brewster made Aug 15 at 2015 4:05 PM

SSG Daniel Brewster — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:05:13 -0400

So... we're to believe that she didn't communicate *any* classified information on her *only* email account? Hardly. If true, she should be fired for incompetence. I would expect the Secretary of State to address classified matters on a daily basis.

Response by Maj William Gambrell made Aug 15 at 2015 4:16 PM

Maj William Gambrell — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:16:39 -0400

Of course she didn't receive classified documents across her private server. The different networks are encrypted at different levels. She used a thumb drive to move files and removed the markings.

She would destroy this country more than it is being destroyed now.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Aug 16 at 2015 8:11 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 08:11:19 -0400

Gunny, the emails more than likely didn't have a classification header so in her mind they were not classified. How stupid does she think we are to think that in four years as SoS, she never received or sent classified material?

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Aug 16 at 2015 1:41 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:41:39 -0400

If she says that she didn't and it is proven that she did she's in big trouble. She has turned over the server so time will tell.

Response by CH (MAJ) Thomas Conner made Aug 16 at 2015 10:51 PM

CH (MAJ) Thomas Conner — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:51:42 -0400

Yeah, just remember this is the woman married to the guy who said, "I did not have sex with that woman!" And let's not forget the "...it depends on what your definition of is, is!" Besides, give her a break, because the Clintons were "broke" when they left the Whitehouse! Of course if I had a measly $3 million, I might consider myself broke too...I am willing to give it a try though!

Response by SSG John Mitchell made Apr 11 at 2016 10:01 AM

SSG John Mitchell — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:01:27 -0400

Don't believe ANYTHING that comes out of her mouth. Or her Husband's. They have WAY to much of a History of lying, cheating and steeling. The fact that they keep getting away with it boggles the brain.