Official: Hillary Put Lives At Risk By Keeping Highly Classified, Operational Intelligence On Unsecure Server

Official: Withheld Clinton Emails Contain ‘Operational’ Intel, Put Lives At Risk – Fox News

.

.
Highly classified Hillary Clinton emails that the intelligence community and State Department recently deemed too damaging to national security to release contain “operational intelligence” – and their presence on the unsecure, personal email system jeopardized “sources, methods and lives,” a U.S. government official who has reviewed the documents told Fox News.

The official, who was not authorized to speak on the record and was limited in discussing the contents because of their highly classified nature, was referring to the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails that the State Department announced Friday it could not release in any form, even with entire sections redacted.

The announcement fueled criticism of Clinton’s handling of highly sensitive information while secretary of state, even as the Clinton campaign continued to downplay the matter as the product of an interagency dispute over classification. But the U.S. government official’s description provides confirmation that the emails contained closely held government secrets. “Operational intelligence” can be real-time information about intelligence collection, sources and the movement of assets.

The official emphasized that the “TOP SECRET” documents were sent over an extended period of time – from shortly after the server’s 2009 installation until early 2013 when Clinton stepped down as secretary of state.

Separately, Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who sits on the House intelligence committee, said the former secretary of state, senator, and Yale-trained lawyer had to know what she was dealing with.

“There is no way that someone, a senior government official who has been handling classified information for a good chunk of their adult life, could not have known that this information ought to be classified, whether it was marked or not,” he said. “Anyone with the capacity to read and an understanding of American national security, an 8th grade reading level or above, would understand that the release of this information or the potential breach of a non-secure system presented risk to American national security.”

Pompeo also suggested the military and intelligence communities have had to change operations, because the Clinton server could have been compromised by a third party.

“Anytime our national security team determines that there’s a potential breach, that is information that might potentially have fallen into the hands of the Iranians, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or just hackers, that they begin to operate in a manner that assumes that information has in fact gotten out,” Pompeo said.

On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, one day before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton claimed ignorance on the sensitivity of the materials and stressed that they weren’t marked.

“There is no classified marked information on those emails sent or received by me,” she said, adding that “Republicans are going to continue to use it [to] beat up on me.”

Clinton was pressed in the same ABC interview on her signed 2009 non-disclosure agreement which acknowledged that markings are irrelevant, undercutting her central explanation. The agreement states “classified information is marked or unmarked… including oral communications.”

Clinton pointed to her aides, saying: “When you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain had thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”

But according to national security legal experts, security clearance holders are required to speak up when classified information is not in secure channels.

“Everybody who has a security clearance has an individual obligation to protect the information,” said national security attorney Edward MacMahon Jr., who represented former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in the high-profile leak investigation regarding a New York Times reporter. “Just because somebody sends it to you… you can’t just turn a blind eye and pretend it never happened and pretend it’s unclassified information.”

These rules, known as the Code of Federal Regulations, apply to U.S. government employees with security clearances and state there is an obligation to report any possible breach by both the sender and the receiver of the information. The rules state: “Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”

The Clinton campaign is now calling for the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails to be released, but this is not entirely the State Department’s call since the intelligence came from other agencies, which have final say on classification and handling.

“The State Department has no authority to release those emails and I do think that Secretary Clinton most assuredly knows that,” Pompeo said.

Meanwhile, the release of other emails has revealed more about the high-level exchange of classified information on personal accounts. Among the latest batch of emails released by the State Department is an exchange between Clinton and then-Sen. John Kerry, now secretary of state. Sections are fully redacted, citing classified information – and both Kerry and Clinton were using unsecured, personal accounts.

Further, a 2009 email released to Judicial Watch after a federal lawsuit – and first reported by Fox News – suggests the State Department ‘s senior manager Patrick Kennedy was trying to make it easier for Clinton to check her personal email at work, writing to Clinton aide Cheryl Mills a “stand-alone separate network PC is… [one] great idea.”

“The emails show that the top administrator at the State Department, Patrick Kennedy, who is still there overseeing the response to all the inquiries about Hillary Clinton, was in on Hillary Clinton’s separate email network and system from the get-go,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

Kennedy is expected to testify this month before the Republican-led Benghazi Select Committee.

.
————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Hillary Is Finally Asked About Non-Disclosure Agreement That Obliterates Her Classified Email Defense – Daily Caller

Hillary Clinton was finally asked on Sunday about a non-disclosure agreement she signed in Jan. 2009 which completely undermines the defense she uses to downplay the existence of classified information on her private email server. But as is often the case with the Democratic presidential candidate, she dodged the question and gave an inconsistent answer.

“You know, you’ve said many times that the emails were not marked classified,” said ABC News “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos.

“But the non-disclosure agreement you signed as secretary of state said that that really is not that relevant,” he continued.

He was referring to the “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” – or Standard Form 312 – that Clinton signed on Jan. 22, 2009, a day after taking over as secretary of state.

“It says classified information is marked or unmarked classified and that all of your training to treat all of that sensitively and should know the difference,” said Stephanopoulos, describing the document.

Clinton responded to Stephanopoulos but did not address the meat of his question. In fact, she appeared to reject the language of the SF-312, saying that “there has to be some markings” on classified information.

“I take classified information very seriously,” Clinton said. “You know, you can’t get information off the classified system in the State Department to put onto an unclassified system, no matter what that system is.”

“We were very specific about that and you – when you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain had thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”

However, as the SF-312 makes clear, classified information does not have to be marked as such in order to require being handled as classified information. The document applies not just to physical documents and emails but also to oral communications.

Clinton revised her defense of the classified information on several occasions, as federal agencies release more damaging information about her home-brew email system.

“I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified materials,” she said in March, when news of her personal email account and server first broke.

In July, after the State Department began retroactively classifying many of Clinton’s emails, she revised her claim saying that she was “confident” that she “never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent or received.”

Days later, she changed her tune again, adopting the now-familiar claim that she did not send or receive information that was “marked” as such. That was after it was reported that the Intelligence Community’s inspector general had found highly classified emails which were classified when originated.

Clinton’s statement to Stephanopoulos about the inability to transfer “information off the classified system in the State Department to put onto an unclassified system” also fails to hold water.

Earlier this week, Fox News reported on a 2013 video showing Wendy Sherman, who served as Clinton’s Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, discussing how State Department officials often used Blackberries during overseas negotiations to send and receive information that “would never be on an unclassified system.”

WATCH:
.

.

.

Trey Gowdy Destroys DHS Official Over Due Process, Gun Rights (Video)

Trey Gowdy Grills DHS Official On Due Process, Gun Rights – Washington Free Beacon

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) questioned a Department of Homeland Security official about the idea that American citizens on the terrorist watchlist should be denied gun rights on Friday.

“What process is afforded a U.S. citizen, not someone who’s overstayed a visa, not someone who crossed a border without permission, but an American citizen – what process is currently afforded an American citizen before they go on that list?” Gowdy asked DHS secretary Kelli Ann Burriesci at a House Oversight Committee hearing.

“I’m sorry, um, there’s not a process afforded the citizen prior to getting on the list,” Burriesci said. “There is a process should someone feel they’re unduly placed on the list.”

“Yes, there is,” Gowdy said. “When I say ‘process’ I’m actually using half of the term ‘due process,’ which is a phrase we find in the Constitution, that you cannot deprive people of certain things without due process. So I understand [Center for American Progress fellow Ken Gude]’s idea, which is to wait until your right has been taken from you and then you can petition the government to get it back. I understand that that’s his idea.”

“My question is, can you name another constitutional right we have that is chilled until you find out it’s chilled, and then you have to petition the government to get it back? Is that true with the First Amendment?”

Burriesci then began to explain the criteria to put someone on the watchlist, but Gowdy interrupted her, saying she was not answering his question. He then asked the question again. “My question is what process is afforded a United States citizen before that person’s constitutional right is infringed. [Gude] is fine with doing it with the Second Amendment. My question is how about the first?”

“My question is what process is afforded a United States citizen before that person’s constitutional right is infringed? [Gude] is fine with doing it with the Second Amendment. My question is, how about the First?”

Gowdy then asked what other constitutional rights DHS might be comfortable infringing upon without due process. How about we

“How about we not let them set up a website?” he asked. “Or a Google account? How about we not let them join a church until they can petition government to get off the list? How about not get a lawyer? How about the Sixth Amendment? How about you can’t get a lawyer until you petition the government to get off the list? Or, my favorite, how about the Eighth Amendment? We’re going to subject you to cruel and unusual punishment until you petition the government to get off the list.”

“Is there another constitutional right that we treat the same way, for American citizens, that we do the Second Amendment?” Gowdy asked. “Can you think of one?”

After a pause, he repeated the question. “Can you think of one?” he asked.

“I don’t have an answer for you, sir,” Burriesci said as Gowdy’s allotted time to ask questions ran out.
.

.

.

Feds Refuse To Name Official Who Misused Government Computers, Tampered With Evidence And Threatened A Witness

Watchdog: Senior Official Let Household Watch Porn On 7 Government-Owned Computers – Daily Caller

.

.
An unnamed high-ranking Department of Commerce official kept at least seven government-issued computers at her home where somebody used the equipment for months to view pornography and web sites featuring racial slurs.

Then, when the department’s Office of Inspector General began investigating, she tampered with evidence and proposed disciplining an employee who cooperated with the investigation, according to a new OIG report.

Federal taxpayers also funded her “wasteful foreign travel,” and a full eight-hour workday when she only worked about 20 minutes.

“The investigation revealed a troubling pattern of conduct that was abusive of government resources and evidenced a disregard for conservation of such resources, as well as misconduct by senior official in response to the OIG’s investigation,” the report said.

The IG refused to identify the individual’s name or position, or clarify who viewed and downloaded pornography and racial slurs.

“Our report speaks for itself,” said spokesman Clark Reid, citing privacy concerns for not disclosing the senior executive’s name or title. A department spokesman declined to comment.

The senior-level official kept two desktop computers, three laptops and two iPads at her home for at least six months and allowed members of her household access, “which resulted in inappropriate use of such equipment to view and/or store pornographic, sexually suggestive, and racially offensive materials,” the report said.

She also inappropriately booked a flight abroad, “permitting her to seek reimbursement from the government for the expenses associated with her own personal, non-official travel plans.” Investigators calculated that cost taxpayers about $1,365.

Investigators also found “numerous” discrepancies in her attendance record, including a day when she claimed she worked an eight-hour day via telework, but evidence suggests she worked about 20 minutes.

What happened next created more work for federal investigators.

“This included evidence that the senior official failed to comply with a preservation order issued by the OIG, which resulted in impeding the OIG’s access to information and materials relevant to its investigation, as well as credible evidence that the senior official’s belief that one of her subordinates cooperated with the OIG’s investigation was a significant factor in senior official’s proposal to take disciplinary action against the subordinate,” the report said.

“This evidence is deeply troubling to the OIG as it calls into question Senior Official’s compliance with her obligations as a government employee.”

.

.

The Daily Caller’s Official Rundown Of The Worst, Looniest, Most Leftist Professors In America (Emma Colton)

The Daily Caller’s Official Rundown Of The Worst, Looniest, Most Leftist Professors In America – Emma Colton

his mild summer is winding down. Professors across the fruited plain are preparing for another fall semester of spewing half-baked progressive ideologies at gullible undergrads.

It’s time, then, for The Daily Caller’s second annual, highly definitive list of the worst professors in America. All the professors on the first annual definitive list remain terrible, of course. But we won’t bore you with some rehash.

Instead, here are a dozen professors from this past school year who stole the headlines for being the most leftist, goofy and downright absurd.

.
…………

.
Former University of Memphis sociology professor Zandria Robinson came under scrutiny in July when tweets she tweeted revealed her beliefs that “whiteness” is “terror” and that the Confederate flag represents “capitalism.” Robinson, who took a job at Rhodes College this summer, also claimed that her very serious premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) might be triggered by “severe trauma from microaggressive whiteness.” Robinson set her Twitter account as private when the news broke about her radical opinions, but she has since made her account public again. She continues to comment on race and gender issues.

.
…………

.
In January, TheDC awarded Shimer College humanities professor Adam Kotsko the title of America’s Stupidest College Professor because he tweeted that the horrific terrorist attack on the French satirical publication Charlie Hebdo was foreseeable because the writers spewed “hate speech.” He later apologized profusely when he realized that Charlie Hebdo was not some exclusively anti-Islam pamphlet. He begged Salondotcom to remove screenshots of his hilariously idiotic tweets. You’d think Kotsko would slink away from social media, embarrassed for life. But, no. In a now-deleted tweet from June 2015, Kotsko suggested that white people alive right now are complicit in slavery even though they obviously have no involvement in it and even if their ancestors were never involved in it. “I know it sucks having a racial identity that exists solely to legitimate the subordination and exploitation of other races. #whiteness,” he wrote.

.
…………

.
Ron Hayduk, a professor at Queens College in New York, believes illegal alien voting is the “suffrage movement of our time.” So moved is Hayduk for the voting rights of people who have no legal right to be in the United States that he wrote an op-ed in the Providence Journal in January. “Noncitizens suffer social and economic inequities, in part, because policymakers can ignore their interests,” the taxpayer-funded professor wrote. “The vote is a proven mechanism to keep government responsive and accountable to all.” Hayduk staunchly believes that voting rights and citizenry do not go hand-in-hand, so everyone and anyone should be able to cast a ballot in the land of opportunity.

.
…………

.
Enrique W. Neblett, Jr, an associate professor of psychology and lab director of the African-American youth wellness laboratory at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, believes black college students become fat due to racism they probably experience in college. Or, shorter Neblett: The “freshman 15″ is racist – if you are black. At an April 2015 lecture at the University of Georgia, Neblett elaborated on his revolutionary theory. “Youth are thinking about their identity and may experience race discrimination for the first time,” he said. “Experiencing racism might lead to compromised health. For example, some students will cope by eating fatty snacks.”

.
…………

.
Thanks to the power of the Internet, an obscure 2012 study by Marquette University psychology professors Stephen Franzoi and Debra Oswald saw the light of day late last summer. In their study, Franzoi and Oswald concluded that calling your daughter a “princess” is sexist behavior. Worse, daughters who get called “princess” may suffer from high self-esteem. That’s bad, see, because it’s “benevolent sexism” which amounts to “restrictions misunderstood as love.” “Benevolent sexism” “restricts what the woman can and cannot do by setting up rewards and punishments when they engage in gender non-conforming behaviors.” Another example of “benevolent sexism” includes chivalrously holding doors open.

.
…………

.
Stanford University education professor Jo Boaler made claims in a February interview with U.S. News & World Report that it’s “harmful” to tell students to memorize and to practice simple math equations. Boaler – who in 2006 was accused of scientific misconduct by fellow Stanford professors – is also against giving student timed quizzes. It’s just way too stressful. “When we combine those who are stressed with those who are turned away from math because of them [quizzes], we have a large section of the U.S. population that goes across all achievement levels,” Boaler proclaimed.

.
…………

.
Sara Goldrick-Rab, a sociology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, warned her Twitter followers this year that Wisconsin governor and presidential candidate Scott Walker has “terrifying” “similarities” to Adolf Hitler. “My grandfather, a psychologist, just walked me through similarities between Walker and Hitler. There are so many-it’s terrifying,” the taxpayer funded professor tweeted in July. Goldbrick-Rab also decided it would be a good idea to contact high school seniors who are barely 18 and who have no idea who she is to tell them a bunch of professors would leave the school. She also threatened to quit and find another job in response to a new tenure law. And she has called former President Jimmy Carter is an “extraordinary national treasure.”

.
…………………..

.
Stephany Rose, a professor of women’s and ethnic studies at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs, claimed in July that African American celebrities like Stacey Dash perpetuate white supremacy by being successful African Americans. “When you come across these individuals like a Stacey Dash, there is this idea that they buy into the mythology of merit, and meritocracy, and the American dream is available to any and everyone one as long as you work hard,” Rose said in a radio interview. Successful, famous black Americans perpetuate white supremacy because they attain the American dream and their success in America immortalizes white hierarchy, capitalism and the competition to live a prosperous life. That’s Rose’s theory. If you want to read more, Rose has a book, “Abolishing White Masculinity from Mark Twain to Hiphop.” You can buy it for a cool $80.

.
…………

.
In June 2015, Cornell University associate professor of science and technology Sara Pritchard, wrote an article for The Conversation calling for universities to give bonus points to female professors as a method to combat gender bias. According to Pritchard, the course evaluations students at colleges across the country are encouraged to fill out each semester are “pervasively slanted by gender bias.” The Ivy League educator claimed that female professors are subject to personal attacks about appearances and fashion choices. Due to this alleged bias, they should be awarded extra bonus points to boost their evaluation outcomes.

.
…………

.
In the sexiest email sent to a class of law students this year, Drexel University law professor Lisa McElroy sent her pupils an email containing a 13-minute porn video from mega-website PornHub.com called, “She Loves Her Anal Beads.” The fracas occurred in April. McElroy included the text, “I thought this article on brief writing would be interesting to all of you.” As promised by the title, the video showed a woman loving her anal beads. Lots and lots of anal beads.

.
…………

.
Taxpayer-funded University of Maryland women’s studies professor Ashwini Tambe took to Twitter was in the news in May because she took to Twitter to call for “men control.” It’s masculine men with guns who kill people, Tambe claimed. “#YesAllWomen” and it’s time to “Recast masculinity.” Tambe has also used Twitter as a soapbox to rant about lowering the voting age to 16, and to defend the fraudulent and fabricated Rolling Stone article about a rape that never happened at the University of Virginia. Currently, Tambe is using her professor status to research “the legal paradoxes in age standards for sexual consent and the shifting definitions of girlhood.”

.
…………

.
Juan Cole, a professor of history at the University of Michigan, claimed in June that right-wing Jews and an “Islampohobic network” were “a key influence” for Dylann Roof’s rampage that killed nine people at a black church in Charleston, S.C. “The Muslim-hatred of the Geert Wilders and Marine LePens in Europe, for which Daniel Pipes, and Pamela Geller, and the whole Islamophobic network are cheerleaders and enablers, was a key influence on Dylann Roof, according to his manifesto,” Cole wrote on his popular blog, Informed Comment. As a commenter noted, Roof’s manifesto makes no mention of Pipes, Geller, Wilders, Muslims, or Islam.

.

.

N.J. Democrat Official Caught On Video Punching 75-Year-Old Blind Army Veteran In The Face (Video)

N.J. Democratic Official Accused Of Punching Blind Army Veteran, 75, At Polling Station – Washington Times

The chairman of the Essex County Democratic Committee in New Jersey is accused of punching a blind Army veteran following an argument at a polling location during East Orange’s council primary last month.

Video was released purportedly showing Leroy Jones punching 75-year-old Bill Graves, who was volunteering as a poll worker during the incident on primary day, June 2.

“I hear this rumbling, ‘Where the blank is Bill Graves? I’m gonna kick his butt!’” Mr. Graves told a local ABC affiliate. “You can see on the tape it was intentional.”

The suspect, identified by Essex County Prosecutors as Mr. Jones, is seen throwing several punches at Mr. Graves following what appears to be a heated confrontation.

Mr. Graves and his friends said Mr. Jones attacked him because he was backing a political candidate that Mr. Jones did not support, ABC reported.

Mr. Jones, however, said he was defending his wife, who was also working at the polls. Mr. Jones said the veteran got aggressive with his wife during an argument, and she called her husband for help, a local CBS affiliate reported.

“This man threatened my wife. This man assaulted my wife. This man charged at my wife,” Mr. Jones said.

Mr. Jones has been charged with simple assault, reports said. Mr. Graves was not charged.

Mr. Graves, who is completely blind in one eye and legally blind in the other, said his vision has gotten worse since the attack.

“Angry, disgusted, because why should I have to run back and forth to the doctor because someone decided to hit me,” he told ABC. “It’s not good, that’s all I can say. I’m smiling, but I’m not laughing.”

.

.

.

Department Of Veterans Affairs Official Paid $288K In ‘Relocation Payments’ To Move 140 Miles

VA Official Paid $288K In ‘Relocation Payments’ To Move 140 Miles – Daily Caller

.

.
The director of the Philadelphia VA regional benefits office was paid $288,000 in “relocation payments” to move the 140 miles from Washington, D.C. to her new home last year.

Diana Rubens was tapped last June to take over the Philadelphia regional benefits office, which is one of many VA hospitals and benefits offices currently being investigated over benefits claims.

Rubens, who previously served as the D.C.-based deputy undersecretary for field operations, where she oversaw 57 regional offices, was brought in to help fix the embattled Philadelphia facility.

A breakdown of Rubens’ “relocation payments” was not immediately available, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, but a VA spokesman said that there was nothing inappropriate with the spending.

Federal regulations allow for the reimbursement of relocation expenses including the “costs of house-hunting, moving, terminating leases, and a per-diem rate for meals and temporary housing for an employee and his or her family,” the spokesman said.

But that hefty repayment is nearly 160 percent of what Rubens earned in base pay all of last year, raising questions over what exactly that money could have gone towards.

Rubens was paid more than $181,000 in 2014, according to the website FedSmith.com, which maintains a database of federal employee compensation.

“The government shouldn’t be in the business of doling out hundreds of thousands in cash to extremely well-compensated executives just to move less than three hours down the road,” Florida Rep. Jeff Miller, the chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, told the Inquirer.

“For VA to pay such an outrageous amount in relocation expenses at a time when the department is continually telling Congress and taxpayers it needs more money raises questions about VA’s commitment to fiscal responsibility, transparency and true reform.”

Rubens has been mentioned before in articles criticizing other money she’s been paid by the VA. According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, in 2011, she received a bonus of more than $23,000 even though patient backlogs – one area Rubens was in charge of managing – increased by 300,000.

The Washington Examiner reported last year that Rubens received more than $97,000 in bonuses between 2007 and 2011 even though the average time to process veterans’ claims doubled to 325 days on her watch. The ratio of backlogged cases nearly doubled as well, from 37 percent in 2009 to 71 percent in 2013.

.

.