IBD Article About Hillary's E-mail

[Jarqui]

23. How old the Reuters story is has little to do with it's substance.

The Gettysburg address happened in 1863. I do not think it has suffered much with age. Facts are facts.

In Obama's, Bush's and Clinton's executive order's on classified material, they refer to the automatic declassification of material (the opposite of born classified). They also state things like "The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security." And they define that, etc.

So the terminology doesn't match "born secret" or "born classified" literally but figuratively, the implications of what those terms mean are covered by the executive orders. A foreigner emailing Hillary Clinton about information relating to their foreign government or ongoing diplomatic efforts with their foreign government is at the very least classified confidential - from the moment it is received.

It's very naive to imagine something like that would not exist. They have to have abilities to protect classified material that is created by or evolves from foreigners in that fashion. It's absurd to suggest otherwise. Hillary having her unsecure email server at home did not prepare for that very likely contingency - and it was her responsibility as Secretary of State to do so.

It doesn't matter which media company reported it. I'm sure a number of media companies sympathetic to the GOP reported on it and a number of media companies sympathetic to the Clintons or Dems did not report it - because those media companies have their thumb on the scale for their candidates. But the prevailing notion of Reuters article is not wrong - no matter who they got to quote on it.

Those are the executive orders on Classified National Security Information that everyone is subject to, including media companies examining the issue and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. The executive order, originated by her husband, revised by Bush and replaced by Obama, is referenced in Hillary's nondisclosure agreement that she signed as Secretary of State.
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRC_NDAS/1/DOC_0C05833708/C05833708.pdf
as are the criminal laws on illegal possession and/or disclosure of classified material.

If you doubt it, look up those laws and research them and the case law like I did to draw your conclusions. I don't follow Breitbart or Free Bacon, etc. I have a mind of my own. They may say similar things but wouldn't know as I have not read them regularly. Obviously, you would know better than I because you're evidently an avid reader of theirs that can identify their work. I guess Reuters is another messenger we must shoot, right? Where does that end?

Hillary was in possession of classified material at her home without authorization. With her server setup, and the likelihood of retroactive classification (ignoring born classified), she had all kinds of reasons to expect her server would collect classified material - which she didn't turn over for years. As Bill Clinton's former Director of the CIA found out the hard way, that is a violation of criminal law. According to what I've seen of the law, not what some right wing media outlet says, Hillary has a real problem here.