Clinton.com Compromised Top Secrets

But we already knew that. But it's been reconfirmed, after Hillary and the pro-Hillary media have attempted to downplay it.

Top-secret classification confirmed on two Hillary Clinton server emails

An yet another Hillary Clinton deflection point gets dismantled. When an intel-community review of the contents of Hillary’s secret server — or the content she allowed to be reviewed — determined that at least two messages stored on the unauthorized system contained Top Secret/Compartmented information, Team Hillary spun that as an example of overclassification. They argued that the information in both messages were in the public domain, as a way to shift the focus from her unsecured private system to the intel community itself.

That ruse has been quashed, as Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne report in a Fox News exclusive:

An intelligence community review has re-affirmed that two classified emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Hillary Clinton’s unsecured personal server despite a challenge to that designation by the State Department, according to two sources familiar with the review.
The sources described the dispute over whether the two emails were classified at the highest level as a “settled matter.”
The agencies that owned and originated that intelligence – the CIA and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency or NGA – reviewed the emails to determine how they should be properly stored, as the State Department took issue with their highly classified nature. The subject matter of the messages is widely reported to be the movement of North Korean missiles and a drone strike. A top secret designation requires the highest level of security, and can include the use of an approved safe.
The sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, told Fox News that while the emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Clinton’s server, one of them remains “top secret” to this day — and must be handled at the highest security level. The second email is still considered classified but at the lower “secret” level because more information is publicly available about the event.

This would actually be the third confirmation of the classification on this material. In September, the New York Times reported that the second review, conducted by the originating agencies, had reached the same conclusion as the first. The third time was clearly not the charm for Hillary Clinton and her aides, one or more of whom had to convert this information from secured systems in order to transmit it over Hillary’s rogue server.

The State Department can continue to challenge the classification, but they can’t change it. Per statute and a longstanding series of presidential orders, only the originating agency of the information can reclassify or declassify it. In a dispute, the agency requesting the change can take the classification dispute to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office. They can still push that option, but it will not change the fact that the information was classified at the highest levels at the time of this transmission, and that both are still highly classified to this day.

Put her in jail, set a high bail and try to get her to plead to a lesser offense. That's what they'd do to a normal person who risked government secrets by sending them through an unsecured email system would face. And that brings up another question: What happened to the classification markings before they arrived on Clinton.com's server? Which Hillary.crim minion removed them?

Judicial Watch Sues For Clinton Aides’ Federal Employment Docs

. . .The suit was filed after the government failed to comply with the FOIA regarding Judicial Watch’s request for “all SF-85s and 85Ps; SF-86s; SF-450s; certificates of divestiture; individual waivers or any other applicable ethics statues, regulations, guidelines or agreements” for Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin. Mills was Clinton’s former chief of staff. Abedin was Clinton’s former deputy chief of staff.

Judicial Watch submitted its FOIA request Aug. 18, 2015, and filed the subsequent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The latest filing brings the group’s total active FOIA suits against the State Department to 23.
. . .
“The OF-109 form records are not limited to classified material. It requires that all records must be left in the hands of the State Department, including emails. The form is signed under penalty of perjury. The documents Judicial Watch requests, such as the SF-85 form, are filled out by incoming government employees detailing past work history, education, and references,” the non-profit said.

Earlier this month, the Daily Caller News Foundation sued the State Department for its failure to comply with the FOIA in regard to TheDCNF’s request for copies of all documents showing completion of mandatory cyber-security training by Clinton, Mills and Abedin. The two aides were among several Clinton staffers who used non-government email accounts to conduct official business. Those accounts were run from a server owned by Clinton and located in her private residence in New York.
 . . .
“The State Department is breaking federal transparency law to provide cover for Clinton and those who are now working for the Clintons:  Huma Abedin, vice chairwoman of the campaign; and Cheryl Mills, member of the board of directors for the Clinton Foundation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It shouldn’t take untold months and a federal lawsuit to get the Obama administration to turn over a dozen forms about top officials. This is another cover-up.”

Questions Real Journalists Should Ask Hillary

The Benghazi attack — the first murder of an American ambassador in 33 years — obviously cast doubt on those claims. It validated criticism of the administration's "leading from behind" in Libya policy.

Now Clinton says the victims' family members are mistaken, that she didn't mention the video to them at all. On a recent ABC News "This Week," George Stephanopoulos, the former Clinton White House aide, asked the candidate, "Did you tell them it was about the film?"

"No," Clinton said.

She went on to say she understood "the continuing grief at the loss that parents experienced," thus suggesting that they are unreliable witnesses. She cited her testimony before the Benghazi committee three years later, as if that is relevant. She talked about "a fast-moving series of events in the fog of war."

To believe that Clinton's "no" is not a lie, you have to believe that multiple individuals each misremembered what the secretary of state said to them. Or that members of three families, struck by tragedy, got together and conspired to invent and spread an identical story that would someday embarrass her. Or that this is somehow the result of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Journalists, if they are more interested in determining the truth than in making sure Clinton is elected president, should ask her if she believes any of these things.

Read the rest for two more questions she should be pressed on. But let me ask another question. Where does one find a "true" journalist? In the woods with unicorns?

Hillary uses on an old Wall Street friend to explain income inequality. Clinton leans on billionaire Warren Buffett

Buffett, the grinning investor seemed to imply, is smarter than Trump. And he didn’t need to remind the auditorium of 800 that he’s richer, too.

Ranked by Bloomberg as the third-wealthiest man on earth, the populist “Oracle of Omaha” has already chipped in more of his time for Clinton’s campaign than for any other presidential candidate he’s supported in the past. He appeared at a high-dollar campaign fundraiser for Clinton in New York last week before headlining another at her side in Omaha this morning. And, in a sign that his involvement will only ramp up from here, he’s scheduled to join Clinton for yet another big-money campaign event in the Democratic financial hub of Los Angeles on January 7.

Buffett’s willingness to travel for Clinton doesn’t necessarily imply an openness to writing the multi-million dollar checks that her super PAC would love to see, said a handful of fundraisers and donors familiar with the pro-Clinton efforts’ thinking. But the campaign is eager to play up Clinton’s proximity to the world-famous billionaire not named Trump — who, by the way, has little public association with Wall Street, and who frequently speaks passionately about income inequality.

 And readies the "Grandmother" card: Chelsea Clinton to headline first solo fundraisers for mother 

The daughter of the Democratic front-runner and former President Bill Clinton will appear at two Boston fundraisers on Jan. 11 and will campaign in the early states on her mother's behalf. That's according to a person familiar with campaign who spoke on condition of anonymity because the news has not been made public.

Chelsea Clinton, 35, was an active surrogate during her mother's first presidential campaign in 2008, speaking primarily to students and younger voters, but has not yet played a public role this time around. Clinton and her husband, Marc Mezvinsky, are parents of a 1-year-old daughter, Charlotte.

Hillary Assures Republican Foes ‘I Don’t Have Horns’

Hillary Clinton held a campaign event alongside Warren Buffet in Nebraska today, where she jokingly assured Republicans that even though she’s a Democrat, it doesn’t mean she’s some sort of liberal demonic creature of the underworld.

While Clinton was discussing her economic policy positions, she decided to give her attendees some advice if their conservative-leaning acquaintances ever ask what they were doing listening to her. While she told them to hold out hope that she might change their minds, Clinton said that the “first thing you can tell them, as best as you can tell looking under the lights, I don’t have horns.”

Lucifer was a fallen angel. All the good fiction shows him as good looking and with a convincing tongue.  Hillary, you're no Lucifer. One of his minions? Maybe.