Politics Oh oh Hillary

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

magnifier661

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
59,328
Likes
5,588
Points
113
Hillary Clinton signed non-disclosure agreement to protect classified info while secretary of state
clintoninternal44546362.jpg

Nov. 3, 2015: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks during a town hall meeting at Grinnell College Tuesday in Grinnell, Iowa. (AP)

On January 22nd, 2009, Hillary Clinton signed a Non-Disclosure agreement, or NDA, where she agreed to protect highly classified information, and a failure to do so could result in criminal prosecution.

"I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in my termination of my access to SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) and removal from a position of special confidence," the NDA reads.

ADVERTISEMENT

"I have been advised that any authorized disclosure of SCI by me may constitute violations of United States criminal laws, including provisions of Sections 793, 794, 798 and 952, Title 18 United States Code..." These are provisions of the Espionage Act, and as Fox recently reported, 18 USC 793 subsection (f) is of special interest to the FBI investigation as it includes "gross negligence" in the handling of national defense information.

The NDA was first obtained through a federal lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, which says on its website that it is a "...non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty."

The NDA signed by Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State is significant because the State Department has never publicly acknowledged that she signed documents, confirming she was "advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling" of top secret material was a punishable offense.

The use of a private server for government business, on its face, is a clear violation of the NDA agreement.

The NDA goes on to say -- "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by foreign nationals."

This summer the intelligence community's inspector general or ICIG reviewed a random sample from Clinton's server used for government business. The rules are straight forward: the agencies that obtain the intelligence have final say on classification matters, and the affected agencies confirmed to the ICIG that four emails contained classified information that did not originate with the State Department. Two of the emails contained Top Secret/SCI material -- the most highly classified. "Sensitive Compartmented" material has limited access, and requires security clearance holders to sign additional paper work, "to be read in, and off" the project. This second NDA is designed to reinforce how important it is to protect the information as well as sources and methods.

On Friday, based on anonymous sourcing, Politico reported that "the U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top-secret information,"

A spokeswoman for the ICIG, Andrea. G. Williams, told Fox the classification had not changed, and no formal notification had been received by her office. The State Department requested a second review of the emails by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence who oversees the 17 agencies. A statement was expected Friday from the ODNI, that no such determination had been made and the review was ongoing.

The Clinton campaign seemed quick to seize on the Politico report, in light of the now public NDAs. A second NDA for classified information, not specific to special programs, signed by Mrs. Clinton also became public.

Clinton aides had countered the NDA by referring to the Politico report.

The NDAs played a significant role in the prosecution of former CIA Director David Petraeus for wrongly providing highly classified information to his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell. Petraeus, like Clinton, signed NDAs and a statement of fact filed in his case with the federal court stated that his "criminal conduct" was based on violations of the NDAs signed with the Defense Department and CIA.


Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.
 
I don't see the relevance, Mags. She didn't, in fact, leak sensitive information. The NDA would be a great fact for your side if Ed Snowden had got his information from Hillary's server, but he didn't. Given that, it's hard to see how her email server is clearly 'negligent handling'.

barfo
 
I don't see the relevance, Mags. She didn't, in fact, leak sensitive information. The NDA would be a great fact for your side if Ed Snowden had got his information from Hillary's server, but he didn't. Given that, it's hard to see how her email server is clearly 'negligent handling'.

barfo
The relevance is that she said that the emails coming in were not labeled "classified" so it isn't applied "classified." She signed that documents don't need to be labeled "classified" to be "classified".
 
The relevance is that she said that the emails coming in were not labeled "classified" so it isn't applied "classified." She signed that documents don't need to be labeled "classified" to be "classified".

Ok... that certainly sounds, uh, important. However it doesn't appear that she violated the NDA.

barfo
 
Ok... that certainly sounds, uh, important. However it doesn't appear that she violated the NDA.

barfo
If an email is labeled "classified" after the FBI is reviewing them, then her NDA agreement is in violation. Here is the link to the actual "signed NDA" It clearly states she should be responsible for "ANY" classified documents. That means anything that was on her email labeled "classified" is her responsibility.

 
If an email is labeled "classified" after the FBI is reviewing them, then her NDA agreement is in violation.

I don't think so. You'd have to show that she was negligent about protecting that classified info, not merely that it was classified.

barfo
 
I don't think so. You'd have to show that she was negligent about protecting that classified info, not merely that it was classified.

barfo
I don't know if you know this, but... sending an email over a private server, with a third party, non-authorized by the government company is not secure. You know this right? Why do you think the dude is pleading the 5th? He knows she's in deep shit
 
If an email is labeled "classified" after the FBI is reviewing them, then her NDA agreement is in violation. Here is the link to the actual "signed NDA" It clearly states she should be responsible for "ANY" classified documents. That means anything that was on her email labeled "classified" is her responsibility.



Isn't her NDA classified? The Daily Mail is releasing classified documents to prove that Hillary released classified documents?
 
I don't know if you know this, but... sending an email over a private server, with a third party, non-authorized by the government company is in-secure. You know this right? Why do you think the dude is pleading the 5th? He knows she's in deep shit

Who is "the dude"? Apparently I am not following the story as closely as you.

It is not the case that a private email server is necessarily less secure than a government server.

And if government servers are so secure, explain Snowden.

barfo
 
Isn't her NDA classified? The Daily Mail is releasing classified documents to prove that Hillary released classified documents?
I would assume its not since they've publicized it

P.S. Just looked at the bottom of the documents and it says "Unclassified" under the case file. I guess it's public record
 
Who is "the dude"? Apparently I am not following the story as closely as you.

It is not the case that a private email server is necessarily less secure than a government server.

And if government servers are so secure, explain Snowden.

barfo
Come on dude, stop playing dumb... Bryan Pagliano
 
Come on dude, stop playing dumb... Bryan Pagliano

I missed that news from September. I don't really understand why he took the 5th, don't see what crimes he could have committed as the IT guy.

But anyway, the lack of testimony from him doesn't prove that Clinton treated classified material negligently.

barfo
 
I missed that news from September. I don't really understand why he took the 5th, don't see what crimes he could have committed as the IT guy.

But anyway, the lack of testimony from him doesn't prove that Clinton treated classified material negligently.

barfo
He pleaded the 5th to probably work out a deal with the Feds.
 
He pleaded the 5th to probably work out a deal with the Feds.

Could be... she may in fact have murdered hundreds of people and stolen billions of dollars, and will be put to death eventually. That still won't make the NDA relevant.

barfo
 
Could be... she may in fact have murdered hundreds of people and stolen billions of dollars, and will be put to death eventually. That still won't make the NDA relevant.

barfo
Not really... Don't need to hyperbole the outcome. It should be much easier to put Hillary in prison for being unable to maintain her NDA.
 
You guys keep spelling DNA wrong.

And Hillary not being able to maintain hers proves she's an alien.
 
I don't see the relevance, Mags. She didn't, in fact, leak sensitive information. The NDA would be a great fact for your side if Ed Snowden had got his information from Hillary's server, but he didn't. Given that, it's hard to see how her email server is clearly 'negligent handling'.

barfo
Of course you see no relevance. She didn't mention pyramids.
 
Not really... Don't need to hyperbole the outcome. It should be much easier to put Hillary in prison for being unable to maintain her NDA.

The problem with that is there is no evidence, or even suggestion, that she violated the NDA.

barfo
 
I don't see what your hat has to do with it.

barfo
You're all over pyramids like white on rice.

You pretend to be blind to incompetence followed by obstruction of justice.

Seems like the priority is fucked up just a tad.
 
You're all over pyramids like white on rice.

You pretend to be blind to incompetence followed by obstruction of justice.

Seems like the priority is fucked up just a tad.

There's no there there, Denny. The Republicans have had, what, 7 different investigations of Benghazi? No smoking guns found. Now we are off in the weeds wondering if maybe her email was sufficiently secure (despite there being no evidence that it wasn't - indeed, it might have been more insecure had it been on a government server, where it should have been).

Conservatives can (and will) go on acting like this was the crime of the century, but you have a problem: you can't name what the crime was.

barfo
 
You're all over pyramids like white on rice.

You pretend to be blind to incompetence followed by obstruction of justice.

Seems like the priority is fucked up just a tad.

Whoa, this is the latest I've ever seen you on here.
 
Hillary Clinton May Have Just Committed Election Fraud — And the Internet Found Out (Part 1)
Strap yourselves in, this is going to be a long ride involving a ton of Internet sleuthing. Oh, and DISCLAIMER TIME. This piece is not intended to support or disparage any political candidate. These are still ALLEGATIONS, so if you think I’m foaming at the mouth to see anyone put behind bars, I’m not. I’m simply recording what the Internet dug up.

If you’ve been on the Internet recently, you’ve no doubt seen this website mentioned:

Deport Racism 2016
Deport Racism 2016 Anti-Racism T-Shirts & Campaigndeportracism.com

EDIT: It has come to my attention that the site has been scrubbed of incriminating evidence. This archive shows the site as it was at the time I was looking around. If you’d like to follow along, load it up in another tab!

False Flags and Piñatas
I was linked to Deport Racism by a friend, and the first thing I noticed was a large and prominent link (now removed) to a website dedicated to Bernie Sanders, feelthebern.org. This gave me pause. Sanders has long condemned what he calls “soap opera coverage”, and I found it unlikely that he would condone his name on a website that offers a $5,000 bounty to anyone who disrupts Trump’s performance on SNL this weekend. It just didn’t seem like something Sanders would do.

As it turns out, many users on Reddit shared my suspicion, and decided to inspect the website’s source code themselves. What they found, documented throughout multiple threads and on the hashtag #WhoFramedBernieSanders, was shocking, to say the least.

The Internet never fails to deliver the sketchiest looking screenshots
You can verify this code for yourself, if you’d like. I can’t believe I’m saying this about a candidate for President, but it looks like this is a false flag attack straight from next season’s House of Cards. Bernie Sanders would take the fall for Hillary’s attack on Trump, and all Hillary would have to do would stare menacingly into the camera.

BillForFirstLady2016 is a pro-Hillary PAC, owned by one Luke Montgomery, who coincidentally is also the owner of DeportHate2016 and the well-known FCKH8 campaign, which produced the controversial “F-Bombs for Feminism” video. This information is readily available from the FEC.

…and the FEC never fails to deliver web design straight from 1995
As further evidence that Luke is actually coding both of these sites, BillForFirstLady2016's site is virtually identical. But I digress.

But perhaps most damning about this whole thing is that, once digging started on Reddit, not only were the pages edited, but the initial pages were PRESERVED AND HIDDEN. Behold, your smoking gun, straight from the browser’s dev tools.

X’s mark the spot. Or, in this case, the hidden evidence.
What does Hillary have to do with this?
Well, if the problem was just that Luke Montgomery had set up a false flag attack, that’s pretty terrible, but not Clinton’s fault. PAC’s operate independent of their candidates under Federal law, and I was ready to let sleeping dogs lie. That is, until I found from Reddit that there was something a lot more damning in the source. Embedded in a comment was a link to an unheard of PAC called “WhiteHouseWonderWoman”, along with a link to a password-protected Vimeo account, containing unaired campaign ads.

In the interest of privacy, I will not reveal the obvious password here. But, I will post a copy of the unaired ad that Reddit put on YouTube.

WhiteHouseWonderWoman also appears to be hosted on the same servers as Montgomery’s other sites, confirming that it’s his.

The MS Command Prompt. Not sketchy at all. Note the matching IP addresses.
So what does this mean? Well, for one, it means that Clinton and Montgomery are working very closely together. But, aside from the knowledge that we can guess Hillary may have known about the false flag, any allegations of illegal behavior are basically straight conjecture at this point.

If you’re content with knowing that Hillary’s campaign tried to frame Sanders for an attack on Trump this weekend, you’re good to go. But the rabbit hole goes much deeper, my dear readers.

Luke and the Law
All right, Feds, get your reading glasses on. This is where we start talking about people breaking the law.

Luke is no stranger to controversy, as is to be expected from someone who, in addition to leading FCKH8, temporarily changed his name to “Luke Sissyfag” to raise awareness about LGBT issues.

However, some of his other controversies have been significantly harder to justify. The Better Business Bureau currently has a staggering number of complaints against FCKH8 for failing to deliver products on time, and the company underwent a fair amount of media scrutiny for its decision to have children swear and kiss on camera.

But while it’s all well and good to dig up skeletons, let’s take a look at things BillForFirstLady2016 and DeportRacism have specifically done to break the law. They increase in severity from least severe to most severe.

Spam
In today’s age of content-aware spam filters, you may be unaware that there is a law still on the books called the CAN-SPAM Act (cheesy, I know, but hey, it was 2003) which gives the FTC power to fine and punish business that send large amounts of spam, even if such spam is never opened.

Many Reddit users were complaining about receiving unwanted spam from BillForFirstLady2016 after signing up to DeportRacism. This kind of cross-site spam is known as E-Mail harvesting, and if the FTC catches you doing it, your business could be subject to fines and penalties.

There was considerable debate on Reddit on how to catch the site in the act, until a heroic Redditor stepped in to save the day and gave Reddit the piece of the puzzle it was missing, in the form of 2 sniffed JSON objects. While many others in the thread verified, readers are free to verify by themselves, as well.

Hooray for network sniffing!

IMPORTANT: If you have been a victim of any spam campaign from any website, send complaints to https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov!

Funding
The spam allegation, as of now, only affects the PAC itself. Again, Clinton could have been aware of it and still not done anything, upholding the separation between her and her PAC. But it looks like the PAC may be in deeper water than we thought. This is a letter from the FEC sent to the BillForFirstLady2016 PAC in August.

Furthermore, I checked, and the FEC seems to have no subsequent paperwork from Montgomery. Long story short, Montgomery has not reported any of his earnings for any of the PACs, and we don’t know where the money is coming from. So, what does this mean?

  • Best Case — All 3 of Montgomery’s PAC’s could be penalized for failing to report their earnings. See below:
If the Commission decides that the investigation by the FEC’s Office of General Counsel confirms that the law has been violated, the Commission tries to resolve the matter by reaching a conciliation agreement with the respondents. The agreement may require them to pay a civil penalty and take other remedial steps. If an agreement cannot be reached, however, the Commission may file suit against the appropriate persons in a U.S. District Court.
  • Worst Case — These PAC’s were receiving money from Clinton herself, a direct violation of independent expenditure law. I wasn’t able to find anything more specific than the block above, but we can assume this means Clinton would either pay a very large fine, or go to court.
Server Sharing
Author’s Note: The section about server sharing has been removed due to a lack of hard evidence. The Internet is ever-changing, and, while I’m trying to report the Internet’s findings faithfully, I don’t want to muddy the waters with statements that are not provable. Several websites that were provided as evidence were down, hosted in different places, or did not say what people claimed. Read on, though! The last section is worth it.

A more detailed summary of the server sharing may be published in Part 2 if I can find archives. Until then, feel free to look through these InterNIC logs. They prove some sort of link between Clinton’s websites and Montgomery’s, but I’m unsure if it’s actionable.

Do with this link what you will. But be warned it may be flimsy without archive support.

Financial Collusion
It was at this point that I figured that if there were financial tricks being played, I should just go ahead and ask the best. So I decided to hit up a friend in Switzerland and put him in touch with a friend in Germany, who had been instrumental in organizing the investigations on Reddit.

(Everyone knows Switzerland is just Germany on steroids, anyway.)

And what they found was pretty incredible.

Source here (page 13,869)
Hillary’s main PAC, Hillary for America, paid Correct the Record (Luke Montgomery) a whopping $275,615.43 for 3 months of what’s filed as “research”. This report is for 3 months only, so a bill of that magnitude is far too high. Research might be $10–30,000 per month, so anything higher than $90,000 would be fishy. But, hey, this is not a typical job, so we might be jumping the gun.

Unless of course, something like this existed.

Source here (page 8)
Not only does this confirm the receipt of the money, but it doesn’t declare any intended purpose. This means that a PAC is employing another PAC for three times the amount of money that the other PAC’s services might be worth. This should set your alarm bells ringing right away.

“But wait!”, you might say. Is it possible that this “research” might simply be worth the staggering price tag? Maybe there’s no smoking gun here after all? Well, let’s take a look at the reporting period covering the time up until this month.

Source here (page 16,745)
Hillary for America is again paying for 3 months of “research”, but now, the price tag has dramatically decreased to $6,346.00. So suddenly, this PAC’s service is worth about $2,000 per month, down from more than $10–50,000. We can assume their service quality didn’t suddenly take a nosedive, which leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that this was a one time cash-infusion.

Oh, and there’s no second payment to Correct the Record. This was a one-time payment.

Oh, but it gets better. Let’s get to know David Brock, a journalist and chairman of the American Bridge 21st Century PAC who donated $2,700 to Hillary’s official campaign.

American Bridge 21st Century also donates to Luke Montgomery’s Correct the Record…

Which then pays David back. $2,705 for his donation to Hillary, and $6,135.39 for the computer from his PAC.

If this isn’t already looking fishy to you, get ready. You’re gonna need a bigger boat. This article is still a working draft, but I’m awaiting another batch of analysis from Switzerland, and it looks like this might involve billionaire George Soros. Get ready for that in Part 2.

Keep following this account. Until next time!
 
oh, good, a conspiracy theory! mmm, mmm!

barfo
 
There's no there there, Denny. The Republicans have had, what, 7 different investigations of Benghazi? No smoking guns found. Now we are off in the weeds wondering if maybe her email was sufficiently secure (despite there being no evidence that it wasn't - indeed, it might have been more insecure had it been on a government server, where it should have been).

Conservatives can (and will) go on acting like this was the crime of the century, but you have a problem: you can't name what the crime was.

barfo

They did find the smoking guns. Plural.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
 
@barfo bro... Hillary said there was no classified emails on her server. They found multiple and said it wasn't labeled classified as if that would save her. The problem is, she signed a NDA that states that she is responsible for classified documents, even if they aren't labeled classified. If this wasn't partisan, she would be in deep shit.
 
@barfo bro... Hillary said there was no classified emails on her server. They found multiple and said it wasn't labeled classified as if that would save her. The problem is, she signed a NDA that states that she is responsible for classified documents, even if they aren't labeled classified. If this wasn't partisan, she would be in deep shit.

Ok, so she had classified documents, and she's responsible for the safety of same. No doubt about any of that. Same is true of pretty much any high ranking government official (and probably lots of low-ranking government officials too).

And?

Where's the beef? Did she give classified documents to someone she shouldn't have? No. Did she allow someone to steal them? No.

So... what, exactly, is the crime that you think she committed?

barfo
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top