incriminating email from Hillary Clinton

[Will Wiley]

I think Hillary is pretty untouchable but still it does make her look good.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I think Hillary is pretty untouchable but still it does make her look good.

View attachment 7001

Where did you find those e-mails? From Trump University?

 

[dismal]

Where did you find those e-mails? From Trump University?

This one came out months ago. It's real.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think Hillary is pretty untouchable but still it does make her look good.

Certainly doesn't read well. Of course, if people read some of my emails and didn't understand the context in the profession, they could be misconstrued as well.

 

[dismal]

I think Hillary is pretty untouchable but still it does make her look good.

Certainly doesn't read well. Of course, if people read some of my emails and didn't understand the context in the profession, they could be misconstrued as well.

So, imagine the context is an FBI investigation to figure out how 2000 emails with confidential US government information came to be on a private homebrew server.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well, at least she used an inconspicuous domain name.

 

[Rhea]

What's a TP, do you know?
What thing is she talking about stripping of identifiable info and sending as "hidden in plain sight"?

I've done that with addresses and phone numbers when I don't want a web-bot to notice it. I chop it up into bits and send it that way. Need my 603 phone to make a 123 reply at a later 5555 time? Use that one. Cheers,

 

[Rhea]

Because if the thing that needs to be secure _is_ the heading and she already knows that context, they can just ship the non-secure part to her on a non-secure method and all is actually well in spy land.

Just a possibility that causes me to not immediately jump to BENGHAZI!!!!

 

[dismal]

What's a TP, do you know?
What thing is she talking about stripping of identifiable info and sending as "hidden in plain sight"?

I've done that with addresses and phone numbers when I don't want a web-bot to notice it. I chop it up into bits and send it that way. Need my 603 phone to make a 123 reply at a later 5555 time? Use that one. Cheers,

It turns out much has been written about this in the non-fawning Hillary apologist press.

The basics are that the government operates secure systems for information that should be secure and unsecure systems for information that needn't be. It is a crime to remove confidential documents from secure systems and port them over to unsecure systems.

In the above email Hillary appears to be showing a lack of regard for the protocols regarding security.

In related news you may have missed, it turns out there were 2000 e-mails containing confidential information on her private unsecure server and an FBI investigation is underway to determine how they got there.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think Hillary is pretty untouchable but still it does make her look good.

Certainly doesn't read well. Of course, if people read some of my emails and didn't understand the context in the profession, they could be misconstrued as well.

Matthew J Spence was an international expert/advisor in 2011 to the National Security Council when he sent that initial email in the chain over secure state.gov email server.* So the context was that an NSC advisor was trying to send TPs (no, not TPS reports, T.P.'s) to the State Dept over secure fax.

* See his LinkedIn profile:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy
United States Department of Defense
2012 – 2015 (3 years)Washington D.C. Metro Area
Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for International Economic Affairs
National Security Council, The White House
2011 – 2012 (1 year)Washington D.C. Metro Area
Senior Advisor to the National Security Advisor
National Security Council, The White House
2009 – 2011 (2 years)Washington D.C. Metro Area

 

[Rhea]

What's a TP, do you know?
What thing is she talking about stripping of identifiable info and sending as "hidden in plain sight"?

I've done that with addresses and phone numbers when I don't want a web-bot to notice it. I chop it up into bits and send it that way. Need my 603 phone to make a 123 reply at a later 5555 time? Use that one. Cheers,

It turns out much has been written about this in the non-fawning Hillary apologist press.
.

So what did they say a "TP" was?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is of interest is that the request to send it via not so secure means, was sent from a different email address.

So, TP, 'nonpaper' (PDF?), no heading. Is that protocol, help? It doesn't seem good, primarily from the fact she is sending the request from a different email.

Also, are these appended to each other, or did she copy the email chain to the other email address?

One last question, why is Spence's email address redacted?

It turns out much has been written about this in the non-fawning Hillary apologist press.
.

So what did they say a "TP" was?

And they are still using Faxes?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It turns out much has been written about this in the non-fawning Hillary apologist press.
.

So what did they say a "TP" was?

If I had to guess I'd guess "transition plans" for Libya but that's a complete guess. In theory, it could also be Travel Plans for her personal travel though less likely because of who was sending the info and what the function of that NSC advisor was. Who knows though.

So overall I agree with you that without knowing exactly what a TP is, it isn't 100% clear that it needs to be secure. There is evidence though that they were trying to send the TPs securely. Since they made a big deal over it and then did not opt to send it over nonsecure fax, it's reasonable to think that the info was probably classified.

It can't be proved beyond a doubt with information we have available to us in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

What is of interest is that the request to send it via not so secure means, was sent from a different email address.

So what did they say a "TP" was?

And they are still using Faxes?

The NSC advisor used email to contact Sullivan at state.gov. Why didn't he use email to contact Hillary? AND why did he try to resort to a secure fax?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

CNN speculates that "TPs" stood for talking points. However, wouldn't that come from the Press Secretary instead of the NSC?

On the other hand, there were times in which TPs was used for talking points such as in 2012 post-Benghazi:
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_NovWeb/276/DOC_0C05796868/C05796868.pdf

 

[Rhea]

And they are still using Faxes?

FAXes are thought to be more secure. Medical facilities will only use them, no e-mail at all. Which makes it secure to the facility, I guess, but you have no idea who picks it up off the printer when it arrives.

 

[Rhea]

So if the thing they are talking about, "TPs," is not classified, but Clinton wants it to be obscured somewhat anyway, just for obvious public v. non-public consumption mode, then it would be a wise and uncontroversial move to strip the headers and send the info.

Is it possible that they were using habit to send on a secure fax when the information did not warrant that?
It should be easy to report, "And a TP is a ___, and it is considered secret" or, "and a TP is a ___ and the information was not secret anyway."

Until we have that info, aren't we fighting windmills?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So if the thing they are talking about, "TPs," is not classified, but Clinton wants it to be obscured somewhat anyway, just for obvious public v. non-public consumption mode, then it would be a wise and uncontroversial move to strip the headers and send the info.

Is it possible that they were using habit to send on a secure fax when the information did not warrant that?
It should be easy to report, "And a TP is a ___, and it is considered secret" or, "and a TP is a ___ and the information was not secret anyway."

Until we have that info, aren't we fighting windmills?

We aren't even at the windmill state yet.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hillary is FAR from untouchable, especially by trump, who has a history with her. Once the general has started, and it is too late to replace her as nominee, I think we are going to see some real dirt surface against her, painting her as the corrupt establishment candidate. She may still win but she is by no means untouchable.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is difficult to get up-in-arms over talking points. I mean it's annoying that the Authority thinks they have to speak to the public like we're children and that's not really what a transparent democracy should be and technically it's illegal not to archive the discussions of business (TPs), but I really just don't care.

When we find something like torture memos ala Bush or that Clinton's secret program of collecting DNA of ambassadors at the UN was discussed through private emails, then we'll have something interesting to read about and discuss.

 

[dismal]

So if the thing they are talking about, "TPs," is not classified, but Clinton wants it to be obscured somewhat anyway, just for obvious public v. non-public consumption mode, then it would be a wise and uncontroversial move to strip the headers and send the info.

Is it possible that they were using habit to send on a secure fax when the information did not warrant that?
It should be easy to report, "And a TP is a ___, and it is considered secret" or, "and a TP is a ___ and the information was not secret anyway."

Until we have that info, aren't we fighting windmills?

What if they were the talking points to tell some world leader in a diplomatic negotiation? Virtually all information regarding high level diplomatic discussions is born classified. Which illustrates the absurdity of the Secretary of State operating a private unsecured server.