News Hillary Clinton Running for President

[Bystander]

Anyone buying her sincerity?

 

[cellurl]

So, that she is not associated with astroturf is a positive for her. Ok, I agree, I like her and hope she wins, I can't think of anyone that is as qualified as she is.

I don't see the difference between Hillary possibly exposing TOP SECRET information in her emails and Edward Snowden exposing possibly TOP SECRET information.

 

[lisab]

I don't see the difference between Hillary possibly exposing TOP SECRET information in her emails and Edward Snowden exposing possibly TOP SECRET information.

Really? You equate improper handling of secrets with purposely exposing secrets (possibly with intent to become famous)?

 

[cellurl]

Both aided the enemy, it's just that one was above board.

 

[WWGD]

Both aided the enemy, it's just that one was above board.

She acted irresponsibly, no doubt, maybe illegally, but do you have any reason to believe that either she intended to aid the enemy or that the(an) enemy benefitted from the situation?

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, the intent is everything here, which is why what Snowden did was treason, while what Hillary did was just reckless (at most a moderate felony). I see no evidence to suggest ill intent and no evidence to suggest the recklessness actually resulted in harm.

 

[mheslep]

Both aided the enemy, it's just that one was above board.

No mens rea with respect to interests hostile to the US.

 

[WWGD]

No mens rea with respect to interests hostile to the US.

I would say no _womans_ ' rea, to be precise ;) (though some have questioned even _that_ about Hillary. The whole questioning got started when someone misunderstood the statement that Hillary "was not born a broad ".)

 

[cellurl]

She acted irresponsibly, no doubt, maybe illegally, but do you have any reason to believe that either she intended to aid the enemy or that the(an) enemy benefitted from the situation?

Snowden is a whistleblower living in excile. I would be proud to have both of my sons act as he did. I am also proud that America produced Snowden and that the world sees our people cleaning our own house. No coward there. I also appreciate how intelligent and humble Snowden is. No book deal, no "I hate America like Julian Assange", just pure patriotism trying to clean our house. I think at this point we can perhaps agree to diagree ;-)

 

[Vanadium 50]

Snowden's position was that some things that the US government declared a secret shouldn't be secrets. Interestingly, some of Sec. Clinton's defenders (although not Sec. Clinton herself) are using the exact same argument in her defense: "Oh, the government classifies lots of things that aren't really all that secret".

 

[Bandersnatch]

Snowden's position was that some things that the US government declared a secret shouldn't be secrets.

Having recently watched 'Citizenfour', I find that a poor representation of his motives. I'd say it was more about the government officials publicly lying about what they're doing. About how invasive their surveillance programs are. He certainly did not take it upon himself to decide what should and what shouldn't be kept secret - that's why he went to the press with his revelations instead of publishing the data in bulk.
If anything, one could say that he wanted government lies not to be swept under the rug, which is a very much different stance.

 

[WWGD]

Snowden is a whistleblower living in excile. I would be proud to have both of my sons act as he did. I am also proud that America produced Snowden and that the world sees our people cleaning our own house. No coward there. I also appreciate how intelligent and humble Snowden is. No book deal, no "I hate America like Julian Assange", just pure patriotism trying to clean our house. I think at this point we can perhaps agree to diagree ;-)

Sorry, I was just dealing with (my limited understanding of ) the formal legalities on whether Hillary violated the law .

 

[russ_watters]

Snowden is a whistleblower living in excile. I would be proud to have both of my sons act as he did. I am also proud that America produced Snowden and that the world sees our people cleaning our own house. No coward there. I also appreciate how intelligent and humble Snowden is. No book deal, no "I hate America like Julian Assange", just pure patriotism trying to clean our house. I think at this point we can perhaps agree to diagree ;-)

Sometimes treason and patriotism overlap -- indeed, patriotism is a pretty common reason (excuse?) for treason. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the morality of his action, he still did something that was clearly damaging to the USA, at face value. The law does not concern itself with 'doing harm to do good', it stops at 'doing harm'.

The same issue exists with stealing food because one is hungry.

 

[Evo]

Both aided the enemy, it's just that one was above board.

Yes, the difference is that Snowden acted intentionally, he intended to commit an act of treason without concern for the harm it could cause. No more of this nonsense comparing the two unless you happen to have acceptable sources that show this. Please read the "current event" rules before posting, such claims are not allowed in this forum, even if it was just an effort at a bad joke. When I have time, there may be some thread cleanup needed to bring the thread back to the guidelines.

 

[WWGD]

Sometimes treason and patriotism overlap -- indeed, patriotism is a pretty common reason (excuse?) for treason. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the morality of his action, he still did something that was clearly damaging to the USA, at face value. The law does not concern itself with 'doing harm to do good', it stops at 'doing harm'.

The same issue exists with stealing food because one is hungry.

But this definition of treason:
"The betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by purposely a consciously acting to aid its enemies"

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason

I am not sure Snowden's action fall under it. Even more complicated is the fact that, AFAIK, it was the press and not Snowden who published the data. He allegedly did try to raise concern internally before going public, which makes it harder to argue he was trying to defend or aid its enemies. I am neither defending nor condoning his actions, I am just not sure they fall under what I believe is the legal definition of treason. . And I don't think h has been tried, even in absentia.
EDIT: But you may have been talking in a less formal sense.

 

[russ_watters]

But this definition of treason:
"The betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by purposely a consciously acting to aid its enemies"

I am not sure Snowden's action fall under it.

I can't fathom why you wouldn't be able to see it. Snowden "purposely and consciously" undermined intelligence activities designed to protect the USA, "acting to aid its enemies."

To keep this tied to Hillary: again, the difference is intent, but the reason Hillary's actions are still pretty bad and potentially punishable by prison time. For example:
http://nypost.com/2015/04/23/petraeus-to-be-sentenced-for-leaking-classified-material/
David Patraeus mishandled/disclosed classified information as part of aiding a biographer (who he was sleeping with...). He probably didn't even intend for the information to get out and certainly didn't intend harm to come to the US, but that's still serious enough that he's going to jail. His actions and Hillary's as pertains to her giving her lawyer a copy of her emails appear to me to be roughly equal. I see a wide range of potential outcomes for Hillary, from nothing to jail time.

Even more complicated is the fact that, AFAIK, it was the press and not Snowden who published the data.

For Snowden or Hillary, no, it really doesn't. The crime starts and ends with the initial disclosure of the classified information to unauthorized people. Yes, it is possible that the people it is disclosed to commit their own crimes - and in the case of the media, that can be complicated - but it doesn't have much impact on the person disclosing it.

He allegedly did try to raise concern internally before going public, which makes it harder to argue he was trying to defend or aid its enemies.

Nobody is claiming he wanted to aid the USA's enemies, only that he did aid the USA's enemies. It doesn't matter if he was legally or morally right in what his objection was, he still did it.

It is also worth noting that Snowden did not narrowly focus his efforts. He may have disclosed as many as 1.8 million documents. He went after the program he didn't like by undermining it directly - instead of just exposing its existence, he released its results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present)

Look, I was in the Navy and for a time an officer candidate. We took ethics and morality classes in addition to attending weekly (monthly?) seminars outside of the normal classes. The issue is clearly a really big deal in the military because there is a push-pull particularly with officers between responsibility for following orders and responsibility for upholding the Constitution. We were taught that an officer is duty-bound not to follow an illegal order. Refusal to follow an order is alone a difficult thing that can get you courtmartialed. Hopefully, the court recognizes that the order was illegal. But there is still a huge gulf between refusing to follow an illegal order and refusing to follow an illegal order and then telling the enemy about it.

 

[Evo]

I'm still shocked that Hillary would do something like this. She knew better. I didn't work for the government but worked with the government in clandestine and covert operations. I knew to never post about or copy communications to an non-secure server/network that wasn't on a private network. I can't even really say what I did. but it was an eye opener. I had no idea what really went on and I am proud that these things happened.

But I don't know that anyone else would be any better. I think once these people find out the truth, their minds kind of break down. And I only know a TEENSY WEENY bit of some side operation.

 

[WWGD]

<Snip>. I had no idea what went really went on and I am proud that these things happen.

?

 

[Evo]

?

I am under a ton of documentation not to disclose anything.

 

[WWGD]

I can't fathom why you wouldn't be able to see it. Snowden "purposely and consciously" undermined intelligence activities designed to protect the USA, "acting to aid its enemies."

To keep this tied to Hillary: again, the difference is intent, but the reason Hillary's actions are still pretty bad and potentially punishable by prison time. For example:
http://nypost.com/2015/04/23/petraeus-to-be-sentenced-for-leaking-classified-material/
David Patraeus mishandled/disclosed classified information as part of aiding a biographer (who he was sleeping with...). He probably didn't even intend for the information to get out and certainly didn't intend harm to come to the US, but that's still serious enough that he's going to jail. His actions and Hillary's as pertains to her giving her lawyer a copy of her emails appear to me to be roughly equal. I see a wide range of potential outcomes for Hillary, from nothing to jail time.

For Snowden or Hillary, no, it really doesn't. The crime starts and ends with the initial disclosure of the classified information to unauthorized people. Yes, it is possible that the people it is disclosed to commit their own crimes - and in the case of the media, that can be complicated - but it doesn't have much impact on the person disclosing it.

Nobody is claiming he wanted to aid the USA's enemies, only that he did aid the USA's enemies. It doesn't matter if he was legally or morally right in what his objection was, he still did it.

It is also worth noting that Snowden did not narrowly focus his efforts. He may have disclosed as many as 1.8 million documents. He went after the program he didn't like by undermining it directly - instead of just exposing its existence, he released its results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present)

Look, I was in the Navy and for a time an officer candidate. We took ethics and morality classes in addition to attending weekly (monthly?) seminars outside of the normal classes. The issue is clearly a really big deal in the military because there is a push-pull particularly with officers between responsibility for following orders and responsibility for upholding the Constitution. We were taught that an officer is duty-bound not to follow an illegal order. Refusal to follow an order is alone a difficult thing that can get you courtmartialed. Hopefully, the court recognizes that the order was illegal. But there is still a huge gulf between refusing to follow an illegal order and refusing to follow an illegal order and then telling the enemy about it.

I can see (extremely) poor judgement and recklessness , but not intent.
EDIT: Never mind, I get your point.

 

[WWGD]

I am under a ton of documentation not to disclose anything.

Don't worry, I saw a few guys in trench coats (in 95 deg weather)) and dark glasses hinting at their guns staring after me, right after I replied.

 

[Evo]

Don't worry, I saw a few guys in trench coats (in 95 deg weather)) and dark glasses hinting at their guns right after I replied.

It was bad, well, what I did was bad, but he lived. That's all I can say.

 

[mheslep]

David Patraeus mishandled/disclosed classified information ... but that's still serious enough that he's going to jail.

Close. Two years probation and $100K.

 

[jim hardy]

I'm still shocked that Hillary would do something like this. She knew better.

Darn tootin' she did, her husband had to pardon John Deutsch for the exact same thing. (Deutsch liked Macs.)

Lapse of judgement ?

 

[Astronuc]

Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton thus far
http://news.yahoo.com/far-legal-experts-see-no-criminal-trouble-clinton-154607712--election.html

Good news (so far) for Hilary, I guess. It certainly is not clear or apparent that classified information was delivered to an unauthorized person, which would be a clear violation, but only that classified material (some of which was unclassified at the time) was delivered to, stored on and transmitted from an unsecure server. I would have expected a person in her position to know about certain subject matter.

 

[mheslep]

Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton thus far
http://news.yahoo.com/far-legal-experts-see-no-criminal-trouble-clinton-154607712--election.html

Good news (so far) for Hilary, I guess. It certainly is not clear or apparent that classified information was delivered to an unauthorized person, which would be a clear violation, but only that classified material (some of which was unclassified at the time) was delivered to, stored on and transmitted from an unsecure server. I would have expected a person in her position to know about certain subject matter.

A more accurate summary of the article would be that, according to Ken Dilanian of AP, Leslie McAdoo, a lawyer who frequently handles security-clearance cases, indicates there is yet no clear proof of criminal wrong doing.

 

[gravenewworld]

I do not understand the appeal of Hillary at all. She is the biggest phony of all time and won't hesitate to sell herself out at all if it is what the audience wants to hear or if it will get her votes (fake southern accents anyone?). How would she sell out the country then if she were in charge if she has no problem faking her way around?

I'm not even a conservative hack, but do not like Hillary. I've voted Dem my whole life so far, but Hillary is toxic.The presidency and government should also not be controlled by 2 powerful families.

 

[Hepth]

If history teaches us anything, its that this will all blow over. People don't discuss it much now, but something similar but much much worse happened during the Bush presidency : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

Its quite surprising that 88 administration officials had RNC accounts, used them for business (some), the emails were deleted allegedly with the RNC knowing they needed to keep them, and no one was really charged with anything. Not trying to derail, just keeping things in perspective.

 

[jim hardy]

"Hoisted on your own petard". Occupational hazard in politics?

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton says she didn't 'stop and think' about email setup - Er, What!?
http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-says-she-didnt-stop-think-email-setup-070132231--election.html

 

[jim hardy]

Well the guy who made the tabloids by claiming to have hacked her "sent" box and offering to sell 30,000 emails for a half million bucks
now claims to have turned them over to FBI.

The person who hacked into Hillary Clinton‘s email server has pulled the emails off the block and turned them over to the FBI, RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned.

“After speaking with my lawyers” the hacker told Radar exclusively, “I was advised I could not legally sell these, and to get rid of them and turn in everything I had to FBI.”

http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/hillary-clinton-hacked-email-server-wont-sell-turns-over-fbi/

I'll watch for more credible reports..

 

[Astronuc]

Hmmmm - hacking (unauthorized access) someone else's computer is a crime. Of course, one cannot 'legally' sell stolen property.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm not so sure. He can certainly get in trouble for the hacking. But can he get in trouble for the selling? He's not selling anything the Clintons own - he's selling copies, and furthermore, he's selling copies of deleted - i.e. abandoned - material. The information is not protected by copyright because works of the US Government are public domain. (Clinton Foundation emails would be another matter). There certainly would be a crime if classified information were to be disclosed, but the hacker has a great defense - no less an authority than the former Secretary of State has said there's nothing classified here.

 

[mheslep]

but something similar

How so? I see no mention in the link of classified information passed over private email accounts in the Bush administration, and there is supposed to be a wall between government business email and private email, not an abolition of private email.

Its quite surprising that 88 administration officials had RNC account ...

It may be true that all government officials have private accounts about which nobody should be surprised. Indeed, its against the law for any to conduct private political operations with government resources (Hatch Act). President Obama's political agenda was handled by the group Organizing for Action, an organization supposedly fire-walled off from the White House to satisfy the law.

What would be surprising is if any of them had never used their government account for email traffic, which was the case for Clinton.

 

[Astronuc]

Well - HIllary Clinton was a frontrunner in the beginning. Now Bernie Sanders has moved into the lead in New Hampshire polls, and may be statistically even in the nation.

Now Harvard professor and academic Lawrence (Larry) Lessig
http://news.yahoo.com/harvard-professor-larry-lessig-says-hes-running-president-165508008.html

Apparently he is calling for reform in a number of areas, particularly campaign financing. Apparently he is an advocate of a Second Constitutional Convention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Constitutional_Convention_of_the_United_States

Lessig is the 6th democratic nominee candidate.

 

[mheslep]

nominee candidate

 

[Astronuc]

nominee candidate

Fixed

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton's Support Drops by a Third as Trump, Carson Surge in GOP Race
http://news.yahoo.com/clintons-support-drops-third-trump-carson-surge-gop-110000800.html

Damaged by increased doubt about her honesty and empathy, Hillary Clinton has lost a third of her support for the Democratic presidential nomination in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, while non-politicians Donald Trump and Ben Carson have surged on the GOP side, commanding more than half the vote between them in a crowded field.

The results are remarkable, particularly in the Republican contest: Even as Trump’s lead for his party’s nomination has grown, six in 10 Americans see him as unqualified to serve as president and as many say he lacks the personality and temperament to succeed in the job. His rating for empathy is far worse than Clinton’s; for honesty and trustworthiness, slightly worse.

In the Democratic contest, Clinton's drop is dramatic, yet not enough to threaten her clear lead. She's supported by 42 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who are registered to vote, down from 63 percent in July, while Sanders has gained 10 points, to 24 percent, and Joe Biden's up by 9 points, to 21 percent. If Biden doesn't run, most of his support moves to Clinton, boosting her to 56 percent – exactly double Sanders' support in this case.

It'll make for an interesting election next year.

 

[Astronuc]

In a unique twist, conservative political consultant supports Hilary Clinton
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/david-brock-hillary-clinton-hasnt-asked-me-to-129097763381.html

Brock does have some interesting comments. Brock is very critical of the NY Times.

 

[Bystander]

conservative

?

 

[cellurl]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Donald Trump will get this country back on track. New deals with China, less political correctness, get blacks and whites talking, get a handle on immigration, perhaps pay down the $100k debt you and I have given our children. Even my 18 year old liberal son likes "the Donald" who can be human as well.

 

[russ_watters]

Not sure if others have been following the Hillary email scandal, but it didn't end. Rather, the phase it has been in since the summer is periodic releases of the emails after scrubbing of classified information (and therefore cataloging the number that were classified at the time, should have been and now should be). A smoking gun appears to have been in one of the emails:

On June 16, 2011, top Clinton aide Jake Sullivan wrote to Clinton to say she would get "tps" -- presumably short for "talking points" that evening. The subject of the email is redacted so it's not clear what topic these points covered.

The next morning, Clinton wrote back to say she hadn't received them yet, and after a few minutes Sullivan responded that staff were having issues sending the document in a secure fax but that they were "working on it."

"If they can't," Clinton replies, "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-2016/index.html
So it sure sounds like Hillary is explicitly instructing her subordinate to remove the security headers and send the message non-secure, which would be a felony for both Hillary and her subordinate. Now, there's still a little wiggle room. Lemme back up and summarize the narrative from Hillary's camp:

Yes, I heard she said that, but it is my understanding that that claim is now proven false/obsolete and that's why the narrative has been changed:

That would explain the narrow wording I quoted in my post. She's squeezing herself into a tighter and tighter corner.

Yes, my understanding of the morphing of the narrative is (paraphrase):

"I didn't send any classified emails"
Then:
"I didn't send any emails that were classified at the time I sent them"
Then:
"I didn't send any emails marked as classified [even those that were classified at the time I sent them]"

The first two, if true, would indicate that there was no crime committed. The third is a crime, just not necessarily by her.
[separate post]
So now, the question is: why weren't the classified emails she sent/received marked classified and who removed the markings?
[separate post]
There is another subtlety of the new narrative that msnbc didn't catch and that is that one phrase says "sent" and the other "received". Not sure what she's after with that.
[emphasis added]

So it would appear that she's been morphing the message, backpedaling with statements that weren't quite lies as information gets released that pushes her further and further into a corner. She may have had exactly what we've found out in mind when shaping the narrative and both of those bolded questions have now been answered:
-Jake Sullivan
-Because she found the secure way inconvenient.

And for the last bit: she may have known exactly what she was referring to when she said "received": she only received the illegal email. If it included talking points for a speech, it is reasonable to assume she didn't re-send it. And she's still trying to split that and other hairs:

A State Department official declined to comment on Grassley's statement, but told CNN earlier in the day that the department has "no indication at this time that the document being discussed was emailed to her."

"I'm not going to speculate about whether the document being discussed was classified," this official added. "Generally speaking, I can say that just because a document is sent via a secure method doesn't mean that it's classified. Many documents that are created or stored on a secure system are not classified."

A spokesperson for Grassley's office says it is working under the assumption the email was classified, since Clinton's aides would have had other ways to send the document to her if it wasn't, such as through email.

Sure -- so at this point, we apparently don't have the email itself. We don't know for sure that the crime was committed, just that Hillary ordered her subordinate to commit it. And yes, it is possible that the document wasn't classified but was sent over a secure system, but that doesn't actually help her much: regardless of the content of the message, she's defeating the secure system, violating security procedures.

Gee, [former] Madame Secretary of State, I'm sorry you find the maintaining of the national security of the United States to be a personal inconvenience, but perhaps you shouldn't have taken a job where national security was in the job description if you don't consider it as important as your personal convenience?

 

[jim hardy]

" ... we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.”

- Jeremy Bash, Pentagon chief of staff

try a search on that phrase
and
you'll have to draw your own conclusions
because so many reports are, well,
seemingly at odds.

 

[russ_watters]

try a search on that phrase
and
you'll have to draw your own conclusions
because so many reports are, well,
seemingly at odds.

I saw that as well, but haven't tried to read up on it yet. I would say the Benghazi thing itself is over (though I'm sure it will come up again during the election). The idea that there were forces that could have helped and weren't employed is just more of the same bungling of the incident we already know: another piece of wood for the fire. But as far as I can tell, none of the bad job performance during that incident was criminal, and this is.

 

[Dotini]

Citing anonymous sources, FOX news is reporting an expanded FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has reportedly expanded its investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email use during her time as Secretary of State. The investigation will now look into whether a potential "intersection" of State Department business and work with her Clinton Foundation may have violated public corruption laws.

Fox News says that three unidentified intelligence sources had stated the new investigation would occur in addition to the probe into classified material found in the Democratic presidential candidate's personal server.

"The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," said one source.

Des Moines Register chief political reporter Jennifer Jacobs reported Clinton said the claims of a new investigation by the FBI were "absolutely not true." Clinton claimed she had heard nothing from the FBI in regards to a new probe. "No, there's nothing like that that is happening," Clinton told the Register.

 

[Hornbein]

Could the Clinton's be the most-investigated couple in history? That would be my guess.

If they investigated me like that they would find all kinds of stuff. But I ain't tellin'!

 

[Dotini]

Some 150 FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton have signed non-disclosure agreements. The investigation has expanded to include potentially improper State Department contracts awarded to Clinton Foundation donors.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html

Hillary Clinton's emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government's most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers.

Fox News exclusively obtained the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified "several dozen" additional classified emails -- including specific intelligence known as "special access programs" (SAP).

That indicates a level of classification beyond even “top secret,” the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate’s handling of the government’s closely held secrets.

 

[WWGD]

@mheslep: I wonder what you think about the current Republican candidates' repeated false claim that Planned Parentood is harvesting and selling body parts

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/25/grand-jury-indicts-leader-behind-planned-parenthood-videos.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

Fiorina, others, keep making these undefensible claims, whether one thinks abortion should be legal or not.

Let's be honest about this: if you dig hard-enough you can find dirt on anyone, left or right; there is no serious claim that either holds the moral high ground.

 

[Astronuc]

From the NY Post (a Rupert Murdoch tabloid paper) - ‘This was all planned’: Former IG says Hillary, State Dept. are lying
http://nypost.com/2016/01/31/this-was-all-planned-former-ig-says-hillary-state-dept-are-lying/

According to the article, the Dept of State "never set up an agency e-mail address for her in the first place"

“This was all planned in advance” to skirt rules governing federal records management, . . . .

The Harvard-educated lawyer points out that, from Day One, Clinton was never assigned and never used a state.gov e-mail address like previous secretaries.

Howard Krongard was Inspector General (2005 - 2008) at DoS. On the other hand, from his Wikipedia page - "After being accused of averting probes into contracting fraud in Iraq and a possible conflict of interest regarding investigations into Blackwater Worldwide, Krongard left his post on January 15, 2008, and was not eligible for retirement."

Does the US need a third/alternative party, or what?!

 

[Astronuc]

And that's apparently true. So now, the question is: why weren't the classified emails she sent/received marked classified and who removed the markings?

That isn't necessarily the case. It is possible that the emails were not marked, but the subject matter fell under one of the categories deemed sensitive.

Meanwhile - State IG: Classified email found from Powell, Rice tenures
http://news.yahoo.com/state-ig-classified-email-found-powell-rice-tenures-183124710--election.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the immediate staff of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also received classified national security information on their personal email accounts, according to a memo written by the State Department watchdog that was released Thursday.