Quote:EXCLUSIVE: At least a dozen email accounts handled the “top secret” intelligence that was found on Hillary Clinton’s server and recently deemed too damaging for national security to release, a U.S. government official close to the review told Fox News.

The official said the accounts include not only Clinton’s but those of top aides – including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines – as well as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and others.

A second source not authorized to speak on the record said the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/...tcmp=hpbt2

Interesting that these "government officials" only seem to choose to talk to Fox 'news'.

(02-10-2016 03:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Interesting that these "government officials" only seem to choose to talk to Fox 'news'.

also interesting that the government officials keep being right. So, basically, you are saying that if I want the truth, go to fox news.

(02-10-2016 03:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Interesting that these "government officials" only seem to choose to talk to Fox 'news'.

also interesting that the government officials keep being right. So, basically, you are saying that if I want the truth, go to fox news.

here you go RWT...

(02-10-2016 03:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Interesting that these "government officials" only seem to choose to talk to Fox 'news'.

also interesting that the government officials keep being right. So, basically, you are saying that if I want the truth, go to fox news.

So now you trust government officials? Just trying to keep up.

(02-10-2016 03:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Interesting that these "government officials" only seem to choose to talk to Fox 'news'.

also interesting that the government officials keep being right. So, basically, you are saying that if I want the truth, go to fox news.

So now you trust government officials? Just trying to keep up.

Go ahead Tom, attack the source. The questions of who had been sending and receiving classified information to and from Clinton, and from where, was a missing piece of this cluster**** of a puzzle. This information brings it all together.

Edit: I've always felt Cheryl Mills was the mastermind of this cluster****, I may be right.

(02-10-2016 03:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Interesting that these "government officials" only seem to choose to talk to Fox 'news'.

also interesting that the government officials keep being right. So, basically, you are saying that if I want the truth, go to fox news.

OOOooooo, good one UofM. LOL

(02-10-2016 03:58 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Interesting that these "government officials" only seem to choose to talk to Fox 'news'.

also interesting that the government officials keep being right. So, basically, you are saying that if I want the truth, go to fox news.

So now you trust government officials? Just trying to keep up.

Go ahead Tom, attack the source. The questions of who had been sending and receiving classified information to and from Clinton, and from where, was a missing piece of this cluster**** of a puzzle. This information brings it all together.

Edit: I've always felt Cheryl Mills was the mastermind of this cluster****, I may be right.

I didn't attack the source as they're nameless.

Curious though, how did they not know who sent them to her and who she sent them to? Don't they have the e-mails? Don't those e-mails list "From" and "To" like every e-mail?

I hate to break it to you, this information changes little to nothing. Sorry.

(02-10-2016 04:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:58 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Interesting that these "government officials" only seem to choose to talk to Fox 'news'.

also interesting that the government officials keep being right. So, basically, you are saying that if I want the truth, go to fox news.

So now you trust government officials? Just trying to keep up.

Go ahead Tom, attack the source. The questions of who had been sending and receiving classified information to and from Clinton, and from where, was a missing piece of this cluster**** of a puzzle. This information brings it all together.

Edit: I've always felt Cheryl Mills was the mastermind of this cluster****, I may be right.

I didn't attack the source as they're nameless.

Curious though, how did they not know who sent them to her and who she sent them to? Don't they have the e-mails? Don't those e-mails list "From" and "To" like every e-mail?

I hate to break it to you, this information changes little to nothing. Sorry.

Questioning the credibility of the source because of what media outlet they're talking to, regardless if they're nameless, is attacking the source. Sorry Tom, if it walks like a duck...

No one ever released who sent them to her and who she sent them to. So in the eyes of of the public, yes this is very new. What's even more damning is this information, if proved to be correct, shows that her aides, including her then Chief of Staff, and even an undersecretary at the State Department also used her same server. I hate to break to you but that is what changes alot to even more.

(02-10-2016 04:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:58 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Interesting that these "government officials" only seem to choose to talk to Fox 'news'.

also interesting that the government officials keep being right. So, basically, you are saying that if I want the truth, go to fox news.

So now you trust government officials? Just trying to keep up.

Go ahead Tom, attack the source. The questions of who had been sending and receiving classified information to and from Clinton, and from where, was a missing piece of this cluster**** of a puzzle. This information brings it all together.

Edit: I've always felt Cheryl Mills was the mastermind of this cluster****, I may be right.

I didn't attack the source as they're nameless.

Curious though, how did they not know who sent them to her and who she sent them to? Don't they have the e-mails? Don't those e-mails list "From" and "To" like every e-mail?

I hate to break it to you, this information changes little to nothing. Sorry.

ever hear of the term "redacted"

So the big news here is that you now know what the people whose job it is to know have known all along?

(02-10-2016 04:39 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 04:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:58 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  also interesting that the government officials keep being right. So, basically, you are saying that if I want the truth, go to fox news.

So now you trust government officials? Just trying to keep up.

Go ahead Tom, attack the source. The questions of who had been sending and receiving classified information to and from Clinton, and from where, was a missing piece of this cluster**** of a puzzle. This information brings it all together.

Edit: I've always felt Cheryl Mills was the mastermind of this cluster****, I may be right.

I didn't attack the source as they're nameless.

Curious though, how did they not know who sent them to her and who she sent them to? Don't they have the e-mails? Don't those e-mails list "From" and "To" like every e-mail?

I hate to break it to you, this information changes little to nothing. Sorry.

Questioning the credibility of the source because of what media outlet they're talking to, regardless if they're nameless, is attacking the source. Sorry Tom, if it walks like a duck...

Nope. Wrong. I was questioning why these folks only seem to talk to Fox 'news'. Never once questioned the veracity of anything reported.

Mainly because it still does not change the fact that nothing has been shown as marked classified when it was sent/received...only that it was classified as such later.

And sending an e-mail to her that ended up on her server, is not using her server. It's merely sending her an e-mail to the e-mail account she wanted it sent to. Again, this information has been known all along by those doing the actual investigation.

Sorry.

(02-10-2016 04:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So the big news here is that you now know what the people whose job it is to know have known all along?

Yes the investigators know more than the public, this is blatantly obvious and an incredibly stupid argument on your part. What's different is her aides, Chief of Staff and an undersecretary all used HER server to process classified information (allegedly). We will soon find out if this is correct and if true will be bad news for Clinton.

The answer is very simple. If you want to know the bad things of an organization you don't go to that organization or its water carriers.

Let me explain: If you want to dig into maliciousness of the Protestant church you don't go to a protestant church and ask them you go to the catholics. Got it.

What do you think would have happened if the news had been divulged to CNN or MSNBC? Swept under the table? Probably.

(02-10-2016 04:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 04:39 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 04:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:58 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So now you trust government officials? Just trying to keep up.

Go ahead Tom, attack the source. The questions of who had been sending and receiving classified information to and from Clinton, and from where, was a missing piece of this cluster**** of a puzzle. This information brings it all together.

Edit: I've always felt Cheryl Mills was the mastermind of this cluster****, I may be right.

I didn't attack the source as they're nameless.

Curious though, how did they not know who sent them to her and who she sent them to? Don't they have the e-mails? Don't those e-mails list "From" and "To" like every e-mail?

I hate to break it to you, this information changes little to nothing. Sorry.

Questioning the credibility of the source because of what media outlet they're talking to, regardless if they're nameless, is attacking the source. Sorry Tom, if it walks like a duck...

Nope. Wrong. I was questioning why these folks only seem to talk to Fox 'news'. Never once questioned the veracity of anything reported.

Mainly because it still does not change the fact that nothing has been shown as marked classified when it was sent/received...only that it was classified as such later.

And sending an e-mail to her that ended up on her server, is not using her server. It's merely sending her an e-mail to the e-mail account she wanted it sent to. Again, this information has been known all along by those doing the actual investigation.

Sorry.

WRONG

Quote:the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server.

Accounts were all set up on her server so all communications could be maintained on HER server.

Edit: Now that I think of it, this is a brilliant way to avoid IG oversight and FOIA requests. Very convenient.

Sorry Py, but I don't think that's correct from the story. You're reading more into it. Read it again:

Quote:At least a dozen email accounts handled the “top secret” intelligence that was found on Hillary Clinton’s server and recently deemed too damaging for national security to release, a U.S. government official close to the review told Fox News.

The official said the accounts include not only Clinton’s but those of top aides – including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines – as well as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and others.

A second source not authorized to speak on the record said the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server.

I bolded the key parts. What this says is that as many as 30 accounts sent and received the now classified information. They're just basically saying that as many as 30 people communicated now classified information with Hillary to and from her home e-mail account.

That is if this leaked story proves to be true.

(02-10-2016 05:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sorry Py, but I don't think that's correct from the story. You're reading more into it. Read it again:

Quote:At least a dozen email accounts handled the “top secret” intelligence that was found on Hillary Clinton’s server and recently deemed too damaging for national security to release, a U.S. government official close to the review told Fox News.

The official said the accounts include not only Clinton’s but those of top aides – including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines – as well as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and others.

A second source not authorized to speak on the record said the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server.

I bolded the key parts. What this says is that as many as 30 accounts sent and received the now classified information. They're just basically saying that as many as 30 people communicated now classified information with Hillary to and from her home e-mail account.

That is if this leaked story proves to be true.

I'm reading it as up to 30 accounts were found "on Hillary Clinton's server". THis indicates they had the same @blahblah as Clinton and all communicated using only @blahblah. The article doesn't seem to be blatantly clear on this but that is how I'm reading it.

If I'm wrong, then I'll own it. Hopefully someone else can clear this up.

As usual, RWT arguing over the minutiae and attempting to deflect from the real issue here.

We may well now have a conspiracy to obstruct and a wide variety of other issues.

So, now the playbook looks like this- which of these other "potential 30" folks has a young spouse at home, little kids running around and questionable allegiance to the clinton front group?

You only gotta flip one of them. Then get them in a witness protection group ASAP.

(02-10-2016 05:12 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  As usual, RWT arguing over the minutiae and attempting to deflect from the real issue here.

We may well now have a conspiracy to obstruct and a wide variety of other issues.

So, now the playbook looks like this- which of these other "potential 30" folks has a young spouse at home, little kids running around and questionable allegiance to the clinton front group?

You only gotta flip one of them. Then get them in a witness protection group ASAP.

Obstruct what exactly?

The gyrations that seem to take place in her detractors minds is numbing.

(02-10-2016 05:07 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 05:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sorry Py, but I don't think that's correct from the story. You're reading more into it. Read it again:

Quote:At least a dozen email accounts handled the “top secret” intelligence that was found on Hillary Clinton’s server and recently deemed too damaging for national security to release, a U.S. government official close to the review told Fox News.

The official said the accounts include not only Clinton’s but those of top aides – including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines – as well as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and others.

A second source not authorized to speak on the record said the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server.

I bolded the key parts. What this says is that as many as 30 accounts sent and received the now classified information. They're just basically saying that as many as 30 people communicated now classified information with Hillary to and from her home e-mail account.

That is if this leaked story proves to be true.

I'm reading it as up to 30 accounts were found "on Hillary Clinton's server". THis indicates they had the same @blahblah as Clinton and all communicated using only @blahblah. The article doesn't seem to be blatantly clear on this but that is how I'm reading it.

If I'm wrong, then I'll own it. Hopefully someone else can clear this up.

Likewise.

To me, it still doesn't change my position on things in that if they continue to not find any e-mails labeled classified when she sent or received them that she will never be prosecuted for anything. But I could be wrong. Hopefully this investigation has an end in sight.

You have to question why it seems like a new piece of information just happens to come out each week. Very interesting...possibly.