Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Hillary and the email

Hillary and the email (Page 2)
Thread Tools
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2015, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well, from my understanding those laws already exist and went into effect after she left her post.
I thought they were rules, not laws. I am not a lawyer, but there is a difference.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2015, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by osiris View Post
I thought they were rules, not laws. I am not a lawyer, but there is a difference.
I don't know, but you make a good point.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2015, 12:59 PM
 
There is that separation form she was required to sign. The State department spokesman won't say if she did or did not sign it. Gen. Petraeus got into a bit trouble after he left the CIA. He's going to or has plead guilty to charges.
45/47
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2015, 01:27 PM
 
Well, that's our answer.

If she signed, she's guilty of breaking a rule.

But like I side before, the rules are meaningless in a legal sense, so making it a law and making it enforceable is whats best for national security imo.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2015, 01:36 PM
 
If she signed the form and did not turn over what she was supposed to turn over, she committed perjury, as did Gen Petraeus.
45/47
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2015, 01:39 PM
 
All this talk of a form sounds like a legalistic hail mary by the right to somehow nail Hilary. As if somehow her quite obviously trying to skirt accountability and possibly obstructing the investigation weren't enough.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2015, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
If she signed the form and did not turn over what she was supposed to turn over, she committed perjury, as did Gen Petraeus.
These people perjure themselves on a daily basis, but I can't see this sticking, not for Hillary.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2015, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
All this talk of a form sounds like a legalistic hail mary by the right to somehow nail Hilary. As if somehow her quite obviously trying to skirt accountability and possibly obstructing the investigation weren't enough.
I really don't know, but I think she'll be clear of any real charges, though politically no one will ever trust her again.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2015, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by osiris View Post
though politically no one will ever trust her again.
You have to wonder, though. The state of politics is, a candidate has to eat a baby in front of a person to get someone to consider voting for the opposite party (maybe). The question is, what exactly does she have to be guilty of to get torpedoed?

I mean, I'm pretty much guilty of this. I didn't vote for Hilary in 2008 primaries, and barring a repugnant showing in 2016, I probably won't again. But short of Jon Huntsman-like candidate from the right, will I vote against her? I suppose apathy is strategy but it isn't one I'd bet on.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2015, 01:53 PM
 
It seems Vallerie Jarrett was the one who got the ball rolling on as many as 6 separate investigations into the various aspects of Hillary's email servers, and her deleting the emails SHE THOUGHT were work oriented. etc.

"It’s the vast left-wing conspiracy.

President Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett leaked to the press details of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address during her time as secretary of state, sources tell me.

But she did so through people outside the ­administration, so the story couldn’t be traced to her or the White House.

In addition, at Jarrett’s behest, the State Department was ordered to launch a series of investigations into Hillary’s conduct at Foggy Bottom, including the use of her expense account, the disbursement of funds, her contact with foreign leaders and her possible collusion with the Clinton Foundation.

Six separate probes into Hillary’s performance have been ­going on at the State Department. I’m told that the email scandal was timed to come out just as Hillary was on the verge of formally announcing that she was running for president — and that there’s more to come."

http://nypost.com/2015/03/14/obama-a...-mail-scandal/
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2015, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You have to wonder, though. The state of politics is, a candidate has to eat a baby in front of a person to get someone to consider voting for the opposite party (maybe). The question is, what exactly does she have to be guilty of to get torpedoed?

I mean, I'm pretty much guilty of this. I didn't vote for Hilary in 2008 primaries, and barring a repugnant showing in 2016, I probably won't again. But short of Jon Huntsman-like candidate from the right, will I vote against her? I suppose apathy is strategy but it isn't one I'd bet on.
Ah, you still have a stomach for politics and voting... I'm far too jaded at this point to even vote anymore. Terrible, isn't it?
A baby-eating candidate would be forgiven today, depending on sex/color. I'm still hoping Obama goes all ghetto during his last year just to see WASPs scared shitless. But we all know he's about as white as it gets too .... I digress.

I haven't looked at Huntsman, but I wish for a Theodore Roosevelt - someone who isn't a pushover but isn't an idiot either, and not afraid to lead. We need leaders!
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2015, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by osiris View Post
Ah, you still have a stomach for politics and voting... I'm far too jaded at this point to even vote anymore. Terrible, isn't it?
I can't deal with the alternative. I think this is from when I was a kid, but a lot of elections aren't voting for who you want, but against what you don't want. Be it legislating morals or 'big' government. Some things are too unacceptable for some people to let slide and deal with the fallout.

Originally Posted by osiris View Post
I haven't looked at Huntsman, but I wish for a Theodore Roosevelt - someone who isn't a pushover but isn't an idiot either, and not afraid to lead. We need leaders!
I often wonder how LBJ would have handled this congress. The man was gigantic prick and bully, but god he got some shit done, right?

---

Huntsman isn't all that amazing, but as a conservative that believes in evolution and climate change, he gets a huge leg up everyone else. Though only the latter is a worthwhile campaign issue.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2015, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I can't deal with the alternative. I think this is from when I was a kid, but a lot of elections aren't voting for who you want, but against what you don't want. Be it legislating morals or 'big' government. Some things are too unacceptable for some people to let slide and deal with the fallout.

I often wonder how LBJ would have handled this congress. The man was gigantic prick and bully, but god he got some shit done, right?

---

Huntsman isn't all that amazing, but as a conservative that believes in evolution and climate change, he gets a huge leg up everyone else. Though only the latter is a worthwhile campaign issue.
we need people who aren't afraid of getting shot - is perhaps a clearer way of putting it.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2015, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by osiris View Post
we need people who aren't afraid of getting shot - is perhaps a clearer way of putting it.
Given the current quality of the secret service, this would not be an ideal time for that candidate.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2015, 05:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Given the current quality of the secret service, this would not be an ideal time for that candidate.
Perhaps if that candidate we're likely to get shot, they'd ensure the secret service were up to par.

The current shenanigans over at the SS are a direct result of their overseers attitudes (we live above the law as the ruling class).

Perhaps we ought to disband the SS entirely (or at least their security functions) and make our representatives earn their security via the general citizenry. I know how ridiculous it sounds, but the ruling class today has a severe attitude problem that won't be fixed as long as there is so much money to be made stolen in the game of politics.

I'd almost say that it'd be worth our while to ban people with a certain net worth (lets say 3 million) or net income (lets say 1m/year) from holding any public office - that would fix the problem real quick.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2015, 10:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'd almost say that it'd be worth our while to ban people with a certain net worth (lets say 3 million) or net income (lets say 1m/year) from holding any public office - that would fix the problem real quick.
That sounds like commie talk
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2015, 01:42 PM
 
That would eliminate most of both houses of Congress.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...0E&usp=sharing
45/47
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2015, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That sounds like commie talk


Depends on what kind of communism you're talking about.

You can still make your millions, you just can't screw the public over in order to do it any more under my scenario....at least from a public office.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2015, 07:44 AM
 
Uh-OH!

State Department: No record of Clinton signing 'separation' form | Fox News

"The State Department said Tuesday it has no record of Hillary Clinton signing a key form stating she turned over all official documents upon leaving the department -- a form that was the subject of intense speculation since the issue could determine whether she broke the law.

That document is known as a "separation" form, which officials are supposed to sign upon leaving the department. It certifies that the person who signs it has turned over all "classified or administratively controlled" materials, as well as all "unclassified documents and papers" relating to official government business.

Given that Clinton exclusively used personal email while secretary of state and didn't turn over official records until late last year, a former Justice Department official said last week that if Clinton signed that form, she probably gave a false statement and broke the law. "
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2015, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You can still make your millions, you just can't screw the public over in order to do it any more under my scenario....at least from a public office.
Possible flaw in your idea: Person goes in then becomes a millionaire through manipulation of the laws to his benefit.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2015, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Uh-OH!

State Department: No record of Clinton signing 'separation' form | Fox News

"The State Department said Tuesday it has no record of Hillary Clinton signing a key form stating she turned over all official documents upon leaving the department -- a form that was the subject of intense speculation since the issue could determine whether she broke the law.

That document is known as a "separation" form, which officials are supposed to sign upon leaving the department. It certifies that the person who signs it has turned over all "classified or administratively controlled" materials, as well as all "unclassified documents and papers" relating to official government business.

Given that Clinton exclusively used personal email while secretary of state and didn't turn over official records until late last year, a former Justice Department official said last week that if Clinton signed that form, she probably gave a false statement and broke the law. "
Well, that's one document that definitely went through a shredder.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2015, 11:45 AM
 
Looks like they need to call in Abby Sciuto
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/us...says.html?_r=0
WASHINGTON — An examination of the server that housed the personal email account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used exclusively when she was secretary of state showed that there are no copies of any emails she sent during her time in office, her lawyer told a congressional committee on Friday.

After her representatives determined which emails were government-related and which were private, a setting on the account was changed to retain only emails sent in the previous 60 days, her lawyer, David Kendall, said. He said the setting was altered after she gave the records to the government.

“Thus, there are no [email protected] emails from Secretary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state on the server for any review, even if such review were appropriate or legally authorized,” Mr. Kendall said in a letter to the House select committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
45/47
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2015, 09:15 AM
 
I'd opt for Mike Franks.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2015, 09:21 AM
 
I'm sure the server was erased for security reasons.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2015, 09:27 AM
 
So Hillary has no audit trail for ANY of her Benghazi activities?
The Dept of Snake doesn't have them, and isn't responsible for email on private servers?
Hillary, as Sec-O-State had a personal responsibility to preserve the email. She didn't.
This is who the Democrats want as President?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2015, 11:07 AM
 
I kinda feel like the Denocrats want Elizabeth Warren.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2016, 09:31 AM
 
It looks are getting interesting.
Smoking Gun: Email Suggests Hillary Broke Law | LifeZette
Clinton instructed an aide to remove the classification marking from information, a federal offense
45/47
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2016, 11:20 AM
 
ANYONE that has even tangential, possible, negligible access to ANYTHING classified is supposed to be trained in the hows, whys, whats, and whens of touching, seeing or otherwise dealing with classified information. My 17 year-old Airman students were capable of grasping that. But then again, my 17 year-old Airmen didn't have any sort of political agenda that could have given them some "reason" to ignore Federal law and mis-handle classified information...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2016, 11:34 AM
 
I was under the impression that ALL federal employees who have contact with classified data had to take yearly courses on IT security etc. I have to as a Gov't contractor.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2016, 10:49 PM
 
This article raises some serious questions.
Hillary’s EmailGate Goes Nuclear | | Observer
In fact, the June 8, 2011 Blumenthal report doesn’t read like CIA material at all, in other words human intelligence or HUMINT, but very much like signals intelligence or SIGINT (for the differences see here). I know what SIGINT reports look like, because I used to write them for the National Security Agency, America’s biggest source of intelligence. SIGINT reports, which I’ve read thousands of, have a very distinct style and flavor to them and Blumenthal’s write-up matches it, right down to the “Source Comments,” which smack very much of NSA reporting and its “house rules.”

But is this an NSA assessment? If so, it would have to be classified at least Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information, a handling caveat that applies to most SIGINT, and quite possibly Top Secret/SCI, the highest normal classification we have. In that case, it was about as far from Unclassified as it’s possible for an email to be.

No surprise, NSA is aflutter this weekend over this strange matter. One Agency official expressed to me “at least 90 percent confidence” that Blumenthal’s June 8 report was derived from NSA reports, and the Agency ought to be investigating the matter right now.

There are many questions here. How did Sid Blumenthal, who had no position in the U.S. Government in 2011, and hasn’t since Bill Clinton left the White House fifteen years ago, possibly get his hands on such highly classified NSA reporting? Why did he place it an open, non-secure email to Hillary, who after all had plenty of legitimate access, as Secretary of State, to intelligence assessments from all our spy agencies? Moreover, how did the State Department think this was Unclassified and why did it release it to the public?

It’s possible this Blumenthal report did not come from NSA, but perhaps from another, non-American intelligence agency – but whose? If Sid was really able to get top-level intelligence like this for Hillary, using just his shoestring operation, and get it into her hands a day later, with precise information about the high-level conspiracy that was just discussed over in Sudan, the Intelligence Community needs to get him on our payroll stat. He’s a pro at the spy business.
45/47
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2016, 12:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I was under the impression that ALL federal employees who have contact with classified data had to take yearly courses on IT security etc. I have to as a Gov't contractor.
That's the way it's supposed to work. But the Secretary of State isn't an "employee," but rather an appointee. That should NOT be an excuse for not being trained - and I'd put money on there being a piece of paper somewhere that has Ms. Clinton's signature on it saying "I received training." So there is zero excuse for her directing mishandling of classified.

As for her staff, they should have also been trained, and they "should have known better." But then, Nixon's staff "should have known better" than to take action on his thoughts and ideas about spying on the Democrats, too...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2016, 04:25 PM
 
The FBI is now looking at the Clinton Foundation.
EXCLUSIVE: The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.
FBI's Clinton probe expands to public corruption track | Fox News
45/47
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2016, 10:40 AM
 
The SAP level documents will sink her fat ass.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2016, 04:50 PM
 
They are talking about charging Huma and Hillary.
Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release | Fox News
45/47
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2016, 07:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
They are talking about charging Huma and Hillary.
Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release | Fox News
It's interesting to note the difference in how the same story is being reported by Fox News and CNN.

Originally Posted by Fox News
The intelligence community has deemed some of Hillary Clinton’s emails “too damaging" to national security to release under any circumstances, according to a U.S. government official close to the ongoing review. A second source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, backed up the finding.

The determination was first reported by Fox News, hours before the State Department formally announced Friday that seven email chains, found in 22 documents, will be withheld “in full” because they, in fact, contain “Top Secret” information.


The State Department, when first contacted by Fox News about withholding such emails Friday morning, did not dispute the reporting – but did not comment in detail. After a version of this report was first published, the Obama administration confirmed to the Associated Press that the seven email chains would be withheld. The department has since confirmed those details publicly.

The decision to withhold the documents in full, and not provide even a partial release with redactions, further undercuts claims by the State Department and the Clinton campaign that none of the intelligence in the emails was classified when it hit Clinton's personal server.
Originally Posted by Fox News
The developments, taken together, show Clinton finding herself once again at the epicenter of a controversy over incomplete records.

During her time as the first female partner at the Rose Law firm in Arkansas during the mid-1980s, she was known as one of the “three amigos” and close with partners Webb Hubbell and Vince Foster. Hubbell ended up a convicted felon for his role in the failure of the corrupt Madison Guaranty, a savings and loan which cost taxpayers more than $65 million. Hubbell embezzled more than a half-million dollars from the firm.

Foster killed himself in Washington, D.C., in July 1993. As Clinton’s partner in the Rose Law firm, he had followed the Clintons into the White House where he served as the Clintons’ personal lawyer and a White House deputy counsel.
Originally Posted by CNN
The State Department announced Friday that it will not release 22 emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton because they contain "top secret" information, the highest level of government classification.

The decision, coming three days before the Iowa caucuses, could provide fodder for Clinton's political opponents, especially Republicans, who are likely to make note of the emails' "top secret" designation. Clinton's email use has haunted her on the campaign trail since it became public early last year that she maintained a private server while leading the State Department.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said the documents, totaling 37 pages, were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but are being upgraded at the request of the Intelligence Community because they contain sensitive information.


"We are aware that there is intense interest in this matter, and we are announcing this decision now because the (Freedom of Information Act) process regarding these emails has been completed," Kirby said. "While we have requested a month's extension to complete the entire review, we did not need the extension for these documents."

But, Kirby said, a separate review by the bureaus of Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research is being held into whether the information in the emails was classified at the time they were sent and received. He would not say when the review began or how long it would go, and acknowledged it's possible there could be classified emails that weren't marked as such.

"It's certainly possible that for any number of reasons, traffic can be sent that's not marked appropriately for its classification. That is certainly possible," Kirby said.

But he added that he wasn't going to make any judgments about this particular case.

"All I can tell you definitively is it wasn't marked classified at the time it was sent," Kirby said.
The Fox News article makes no mention of State Department spokesman John Kirby's unequivocal statement that the information contained in these 22 emails was not "marked classified at the time it was sent" ... even if it was altogether possible that "the information in the emails was classified at the time". In fact, it makes no mention of Mr. Kirby at all! Nor does it mention Huma Abedin let alone any possible charges against her for that matter. What it does say is "The decision to withhold the documents in full, and not provide even a partial release with redactions, further undercuts claims by the State Department and the Clinton campaign that none of the intelligence in the emails was classified when it hit Clinton's personal server.". And then it sees fit to dogwhistle the old "The Clintons had Vince Foster killed" conspiracy theory that was all the rage in right-wing circles back during the Clinton Administration. My point here is that the Fox News article uses language in a manner that is very misleading. IOW the CNN article makes it clear that it is one thing if the information contained in the emails "was classified" ... but it is quite another if that information was "marked classified". Because it is the latter that determines a legal violation. OTOH the Fox News article makes no such distinction and uses the phrase "was classified" in a manner that IMPLIES "marked classified" ... while preserving a modicum of "plausible deniability" if challenged. And I say a "modicum" because as written the "was classified" part may turn out to be true ... but the part where it states that the State Department and the Clinton Campaign made "claims" about classified status using that particular phrase is not.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jan 29, 2016 at 07:58 PM. )
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2016, 07:57 PM
 
AFAIK, top secret information is always marked as such.
The defense that it was classified top secret after the fact doesn't make any sense.

One of my family members was an Army Intelligence Analyst. They just laugh at all the spins that the Clintons are trying to make. Anyone that has actually worked with classified information knows how full of shit all these explanations are.

-t
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2016, 08:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
AFAIK, top secret information is always marked as such.
The defense that it was classified top secret after the fact doesn't make any sense.

-t
It would appear that’s not necessarily the case.

Originally Posted by John Kirby - State Department Spokesman
It's certainly possible that for any number of reasons, traffic can be sent that's not marked appropriately for its classification. That is certainly possible.
People screw up. Systems screw up. Happens all the time. And it doesn't necessarily indicate the commission of a crime. And lest one thinks I'm blindly defending Sec. Clinton just take a look at my initial comment about all of this.

OAW
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2016, 08:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
It would appear that’s not necessarily the case.

People screw up. Systems screw up. Happens all the time. And it doesn't necessarily indicate the commission of a crime. And lest one thinks I'm blindly defending Sec. Clinton just take a look at my initial comment about all of this.

OAW
The number of incidents shows this can't be possibly ONE screw up.
This was systematic.

And in the intell community, you don't just screw up like this. You get court martialed. There are systems and controls in place to prevent this from happening accidentally. It's not like stepping in dog shit.

-t
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2016, 08:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The number of incidents shows this can't be possibly ONE screw up.
This was systematic.

And in the intell community, you don't just screw up like this. You get court martialed. There are systems and controls in place to prevent this from happening accidentally. It's not like stepping in dog shit.

-t
We shall see. My main purpose was to point out the misleading language in the Fox News article. I would have found it a lot more credible had it focused on what you are talking about here and properly sourced it. Just saying ...

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2016, 10:31 PM
 
Here's a more in-depth read for those who are interested.

The Hillary Clinton top-secret email controversy, explained - Vox

OAW
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2016, 08:53 AM
 
Misleading is coming from CNN. I get to take the IT Security class every year. All of us are laughing at Clintons pathetic lies. Kirby is a spokesman? He's absolutely WRONG. The correct question is WHO removed the classifications? Doing it doesn't make it unclassified.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2016, 10:37 AM
 
Isn't it time you gave up on this? Are we going to have to live cries of "Benghazi!" and "Email!" for the next 8 years?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2016, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Isn't it time you gave up on this? Are we going to have to live cries of "Benghazi!" and "Email!" for the next 8 years?
I have a problem with government officials hiding official communications.

**** me, right?
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2016, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Isn't it time you gave up on this? Are we going to have to live cries of "Benghazi!" and "Email!" for the next 8 years?
In the US we'd like to have our gov't folks FOLLOW THE LAWS, and NOT run their private crap through their illegal servers, so as NOT to let everyone see the SAP level documents. Laws mean something in the US. Seems this isn't the case in the UK. Hillary will be indicted w/in 60 days.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2016, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Laws mean something in the US. Seems this isn't the case in the UK.
I wonder if that's actually still true. We have seen much law broken without consequences, and courts torturing the law to make it fit whatever they want it to say.

Personally, I don't feel we still have the Rule of Law in the USSA.

-t
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2016, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I have a problem with government officials hiding official communications.

**** me, right?
Do you normally vet them all then?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2016, 05:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
In the US we'd like to have our gov't folks FOLLOW THE LAWS, and NOT run their private crap through their illegal servers, so as NOT to let everyone see the SAP level documents. Laws mean something in the US. Seems this isn't the case in the UK.
So you object to her putting private stuff through her private server? So much for the land of the free.


Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Hillary will be indicted w/in 60 days.
Course she will.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2016, 05:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Do you normally vet them all then?
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2016, 12:03 PM
 
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2016, 02:25 PM
 
She's NOW going to try the "Well, everybody else did it" defense!
I don't see where anybody else told their co-conspirators to remove the security info from the documents before sending them.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:17 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,