For the love of God, do not elect Hilary Clinton next election. (1 Viewer)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

From the other thread

Her server sent, received, and stored e-mails. It did not, at least as of current reports provide access to those other secured systems.

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information.

Her utilization of private account shows bad judgment not because the classified information she needed to perform her job was supposed to be e-mailed to her, but because she should have accounted for this-

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

Ok I get it, I didn't realize you were quoting the Ignatius piece.

The sole - the only - expert quoted in that piece was part of the Clinton transition in 1992 and was an adviser to the Hillary campaign in 2008. And he is a criminal defense attorney who represents people in these situations. So you're telling me the criminal defense attorney who has been paid by the Clintons in the past says everyone does it? Shocking.

Tell you what find an unconnected, objective intelligence expert, not attorney, not a Hillary advisor or contributor, who says that and we'll discuss further.

Are you suggesting that the second quote is false? That is not inevitable that classified information is passed along from time to time using unsecure systems such as e-mail?

Do you grasp what this would mean? If so I'd expect a flurry of tangents.

So..do I understand this correctly? Your defense of Hillary is that "everyone else does it"? I just want to be clear here.

Not even close.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

From the other thread

Her server sent, received, and stored e-mails. It did not, at least as of current reports provide access to those other secured systems.

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information.

Her utilization of private account shows bad judgment not because the classified information she needed to perform her job was supposed to be e-mailed to her, but because she should have accounted for this-

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

Ok I get it, I didn't realize you were quoting the Ignatius piece.

The sole - the only - expert quoted in that piece was part of the Clinton transition in 1992 and was an adviser to the Hillary campaign in 2008. And he is a criminal defense attorney who represents people in these situations. So you're telling me the criminal defense attorney who has been paid by the Clintons in the past says everyone does it? Shocking.

Tell you what find an unconnected, objective intelligence expert, not attorney, not a Hillary advisor or contributor, who says that and we'll discuss further.

Are you suggesting that the second quote is false? That is not inevitable that classified information is passed along from time to time using unsecure systems such as e-mail?

Do you grasp what this would mean? If so I'd expect a flurry of tangents.

That's obviously not the point I made. The point I made was that the sole person relied upon by Ignatius was a Clinton advisor and a criminal defense attorney who (shocker) says everyone does it. I've been after some citation of an expert from the intelligence field (as opposed to here, a criminal defense attorney) who says that what Hillary did was not improper or illegal. Ignatius writes a one-off and guess who he turns to. That was my point.

But as for the substance of the 2nd quote, it may be true but I don't think that's a legal defense to the accusation. Now I will also concede that it doesn't mean that Hillary is guilty just because others have been prosecuted. - I would factor in that we are looking at 150+ instances of this happening, possible 2-3 TS/TK/SCI emails (in which case it definitely doesn't matter), and I will add that Hillary herself fired an Ambassador to Kenya who made the exact same claim but in that instance, again, it was not enough to save his job (and likely future clearance and employment near sensitive communications).

I don't care right now about anything other than whether or not the second quote

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

should be considered factual. I'm not using it as a defense of anything or anyone. I don't care about the biases of the person quoted. I don't care about whether or not anyone would be prosecuted. All I care about right now is whether or not this is quote is true or at least something that happens occassionally. Yes or No?

Well as I said: it may be true. I think you can see it in Hillary's emails, in one after it's explained to her that something cannot be physically pulled from the classified server, it's suggested that it might be converted somehow so she can at least get the information. I can see how it would be cumbersome and how people would try to get around it occasionally.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Her server sent, received, and stored e-mails. It did not, at least as of current reports provide access to those other secured systems.

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information.

Her utilization of private account shows bad judgment not because the classified information she needed to perform her job was supposed to be e-mailed to her, but because she should have accounted for this-

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

Well as I said: it may be true. I think you can see it in Hillary's emails, ...

Lets cut to chase.

If the second quote is false then there should be no separate issue with Hillary using a private account. There won't be any classified information ever going to the private account. The utilization of the private account, the server is only something that would make other "wrong doing" worst. Absent that other activity there is nothing actually wrong with what Hillary did from a national security perspective. The freedom of information perspective is only an issue if Hillary is not being truthful about her practice of sending things to the .gov network so again not a "stand alone" issue. In fact if the State Department really lost these e-mail then Hillary's utilization of her own server bailed them out to some degree. (Ok, maybe she skirted a policy but that would really be only a concern for her former employer.)

If the second quote is true then just like the original post says it shows poor judgment because there should have been an expectation that some classified information would hit that account, hit that server just from occasional, if not everyday inappropriate "shortcuts" that people take. The closer to "every day" that this happens is the worst it is for Hillary.

But in this case why attack the credibility of the person who made an accurate statement? A statement that does not defend Hillary in the context I used it.

...in one after it's explained to her that something cannot be physically pulled from the classified server, it's suggested that it might be converted somehow so she can at least get the information. I can see how it would be cumbersome and how people would try to get around it occasionally.

The quote doesn't mean that it is cumbersome to retype (or whatever) information from the classified systems to the unsecured systems though I'm sure it is. It is saying that the classified systems are so cumbersome to use that people do crazy stuff like manually copy the info to get their job done. And, again I'm not defending the practice just assuming it happens.

I'd be interested in a link to this particular e-mail as this would be more damning than the ones you have linked that I have clicked on. The Berlin in e-mail is because it simply appears to be Hillary's own impression of her meeting, of the leaders she met, etc. But an e-mail where is she requesting or encouraging someone to get her classified information via whatever it takes would be different. It it is as you characterize it why aren't you leading with it?

ETA: Oh is this about the transcript of the public speech that Hillary wanted to read? If so

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A new name:

To find a company to take over for Pagliano, the Clintons turned to Tania Neild, a technology broker whose company, InfoGrate, is in Bronxville, N.Y., about 20 miles from their home.

In January 2013, weeks before Clinton’s departure from Foggy Bottom, Neild alerted a small Denver-based technology firm, Platte River Networks, to a possible contract, according to Andy Boian, a spokesman for the tech firm.

Boian said Neild’s notice included no reference to the Clintons and the company submitted a proposal for the work without knowing the identity of the famous potential client.

Boian said the company only learned that it might be working for the former president and former secretary of state in mid-February of 2013, when executives were told that they were finalists for the work. The Clintons hired Platte River that June. The company has said it moved the Clintons’ server at that time from the couple’s home to a data storage facility in New Jersey, where it sat until it was turned over to the FBI last month.

Neild said in an interview with The Post that she could not confirm that she worked for the Clintons because all of her clients have non-disclosure agreements about their work.

But she said her business is helping wealthy families manage private servers and e-mail systems, and she confirmed that she works regularly with Platte River Networks.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-personally-paid-state-department-staffer-to-maintain-server/2015/09/04/b13ab23e-530c-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html

It's still an open question which server the data was pulled from to do the searches and culling in October-December 2014.

But it continually sounds like Hillary's data was on a shared server with the Clinton Foundation.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

BFS, couple different things going on in your posts on this issue so I will try to treat them separately.

But in this case why attack the credibility of the person who made an accurate statement? A statement that does not defend Hillary in the context I used it.

You have to remember you posted the quote initially without comment. For some reason I thought it was in response to a point but maybe you were just establishing a fact.

The Ignatius piece had already been discussed at length in the other thread and to me it seemed and still seems like one of those placed op-ed's that are designed to provide some sort of manufactured evidence out of thin air for the Hillary campaign.

I think this is probably a case where I thought you were talking about something you weren't, I'm happy to drop it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

Ok let's look at this again.

I would look at the phrase, "people who need quick guidance." One thing to note here is that Smith himself emphasizes this is a somewhat urgent circumstance typically.

If the second quote is true then just like the original post says it shows poor judgment because there should have been an expectation that some classified information would hit that account, hit that server just from occasional, if not everyday inappropriate "shortcuts" that people take. The closer to "every day" that this happens is the worst it is for Hillary.

I had said it may be be true. I just didn't make that a definite because I really don't know but I suspect it is true. Intuitively it makes sense. I just haven't seen it read or commented upon much in what I've been reading/hearing but then again I believe I have seen comments to the effect that ok it happens sometimes. However I don't know that Hillary explicitly foresaw this or expected it when she created her private email system, maybe she should have but I think we may give her too much credit for how much she understood about how foreign intelligence worked then or even now. However, again, probably not long after she became SOS it was readily apparent to her that this was happening and Hillary essentially was taking this classified and SBU information and squirreling it away more and more every day in her private server, as you suggest. I agree it's a good point.

I'd be interested in a link to this particular e-mail as this would be more damning than the ones you have linked that I have clicked on. The Berlin in e-mail is because it simply appears to be Hillary's own impression of her meeting, of the leaders she met, etc. But an e-mail where is she requesting or encouraging someone to get her classified information via whatever it takes would be different. It it is as you characterize it why aren't you leading with it?ETA: Oh is this about the transcript of the public speech that Hillary wanted to read? If so

Ok I think you've seen them so I won't pull them.

Actually I think the German/Merkel issue is a big deal because that is automatically classified. She knew what she was doing there. A SOS's mental impressions of a foreign leader's speech are probably a big deal, but not only that Hillary forwarded on apparently mental impressions from inside the German government. That is very much a big no-no, in fact it's downright illegal. There was also nothing exigent in her reporting to Blumenthal. However that is a different issue, that's not what I was referring to.

The email where Hillary insists that Sullivan pull information from the classified system may be a yawner because the substance sounds like a published speech, but that's not all there is to it. We do not know what was there. It may have revealed who was there for the US or the foreign government to report on the issue and it may have also included analysis, which might be why it was on the classified system. In our discussion just now above I raised it to show how it could be frustrating to be confined within the system, but it also shows how when Hillary says...

We dealt with classified material on a totally different system. I dealt with it in person. I dealt with it on secure phone lines.

I had the traveling team, the technical team, that went with me and set up tents, so that when I was traveling, anything that was classified would be protected from prying eyes.

I take classified material very, very seriously, and we followed all the rules on classified material.

...that is obviously not true in that instance. She was told it was on a classified system and she instructed Sullivan to disregard it. In fact in that email she doesn't even seem to understand the concept that Sullivan cannot extract the information from the system. And then Sullivan says yes he is going to disregard it by converting the information.

In addition, I think this may be one place where the distinction between the gov and the private account comes in. With the gov account all this classified material, which Hillary knew she was receiving privately, stayed private after she left State. Hillary retained that information for 3 years, it could have remained private indefinitely as far as she was concerned. With a gov account at least it would have been possessed and held by its rightful owner, the federal government.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

AM: You have said that Colin Powell did the same thing. He actually had a personal e-mail and a State .gov official e-mail system.

So he didn't just rely on a personal system. I don't think there's any precedent for someone just relying on a personal e-mail system at your level of government.

HRC: Well, I can't speak for him. That has certainly been portrayed differently, depending on how it's considered...

Andrea Mitchell flat out tells Hillary that Powell had a gov account, which is something i read when this all started and I think that is indeed the case. Condi Rice also exclusively used a gov account (and hardly emailed, which seems smart).

Maybe we can finally put this canard to rest.

 

[jon_mx]

All I know for certain is there were no isolated networks for classified emails in the 2004-2007 range.....that'd be a new security feature if true.

Not new!

Yeah, it has been like that for a while.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

:

:

Her utilization of private account shows bad judgment not because the classified information she needed to perform her job was supposed to be e-mailed to her, but because she should have accounted for this-

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

BFS, couple different things going on in your posts on this issue so I will try to treat them separately.

But in this case why attack the credibility of the person who made an accurate statement? A statement that does not defend Hillary in the context I used it.

You have to remember you posted the quote initially without comment. For some reason I thought it was in response to a point but maybe you were just establishing a fact.

The Ignatius piece had already been discussed at length in the other thread and to me it seemed and still seems like one of those placed op-ed's that are designed to provide some sort of manufactured evidence out of thin air for the Hillary campaign.

I think this is probably a case where I thought you were talking about something you weren't, I'm happy to drop it.

I only used the quote as above to support my assertion that Hillary made a mistake in using a private account. Maybe the cut and paste font size stuff caused you to skip my comments. Anyway we can let it go. Except to say that "everyone does it" isn't a very good excuse for other claims against Hillary and actually harms her in the context of my post.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

AM: You have said that Colin Powell did the same thing. He actually had a personal e-mail and a State .gov official e-mail system.

So he didn't just rely on a personal system. I don't think there's any precedent for someone just relying on a personal e-mail system at your level of government.

HRC: Well, I can't speak for him. That has certainly been portrayed differently, depending on how it's considered...

Andrea Mitchell flat out tells Hillary that Powell had a gov account, which is something i read when this all started and I think that is indeed the case. Condi Rice also exclusively used a gov account (and hardly emailed, which seems smart).

Maybe we can finally put this canard to rest.

Right. Colin Powell found even the unsecured State Department infrastructure to cumbersome to utilize so

Colin Powell, George W. Bush’s first secretary of state, wrote in his memoir about how outdated technology infrastructure at the State Department led him to install a personal laptop in his office to use a personal email account to “shoo[t] emails to my principal assistants, to individual ambassadors, and increasingly to my foreign-minister colleagues.”

And his public statement in March said;

“He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, as he did when emailing to family and friends,” the statement said.

:

:

Mr. Powell also “used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders.”

Seems to me that:

• They both stated that they used private e-mail out of convenience (though the exact details are different)
• They both seemed to have used private e-mail out of expediency (though the exact details are different)
• They both seemed to have used private e-mail the same way, except Powell used it to communicate with foreign leaders and (I think) Hillary stated she didn't ETA: Ok there is one email from Hillary.

I don't see how having a .gov account that Powell came to chose to bypass changes anything. And if Hillary writing about her communication with foreign leaders is automatically assumed to be classified then certainly the actual communications would be.

Other than possible changes in regulations over time and possibly system upgrades at State I don't see the Hillary is horrible and Colin is unassailable difference.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

BFS good points all, Hillary just keeps interposing Powell's name to mislead people into thinking she was following precedent when she wasn't. Hillary is the only one to solely use a private email on her own server. You can argue these points but she is the one who feels the need to rest on this particular falsehood.

 

[tommyboy]

Liar

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... it was readily apparent to her that this was happening and Hillary essentially was taking this classified and SBU information and squirreling it away more and more every day in her private server, as you suggest. I agree it's a good point.

I don't think Hillary was intentionally creating a repository for classified and SBU information on her private server. This doesn't seem all that efficient since she can't have someone attaching the classified documents she wants to archive for her own nefarious purposes from the government servers in this scenario. You certainly wouldn't want to do this with an e-mail account she shared with about hundred people (I think she said ) in the government. As a "bridge" to building a private classified information repository it makes little sense, but if Hillary can't even make personal comments about foreign governments there was never a chance that the server wouldn't be "contaminated" with classified information.

Actually I think the German/Merkel issue is a big deal because that is automatically classified. She knew what she was doing there. A SOS's mental impressions of a foreign leader's speech are probably a big deal, but not only that Hillary forwarded on apparently mental impressions from inside the German government. That is very much a big no-no, in fact it's downright illegal. There was also nothing exigent in her reporting to Blumenthal. However that is a different issue, that's not what I was referring to.

From the evidence I have seen it appears that Hillary was not forwarding existing classified information she was authoring it in these e-mails she sent. What she wrote was not classified and was not a no no for her to write. It only became assumed classified because she wrote it. Now there could be more to it than this, but without seeing the e-mails, or having credible descriptions of them from those that have seen them there is no evidence to support any more than this.

The email where Hillary insists that Sullivan pull information from the classified system may be a yawner because the substance sounds like a published speech, but that's not all there is to it. We do not know what was there. It may have revealed who was there for the US or the foreign government to report on the issue and it may have also included analysis, which might be why it was on the classified system. In our discussion just now above I raised it to show how it could be frustrating to be confined within the system, but it also shows how when Hillary says...

She explicitly asked for what was "public".

but it also shows how when Hillary says...

We dealt with classified material on a totally different system. I dealt with it in person. I dealt with it on secure phone lines.

I had the traveling team, the technical team, that went with me and set up tents, so that when I was traveling, anything that was classified would be protected from prying eyes.

I take classified material very, very seriously, and we followed all the rules on classified material.

...that is obviously not true in that instance. She was told it was on a classified system and she instructed Sullivan to disregard it. In fact in that email she doesn't even seem to understand the concept that Sullivan cannot extract the information from the system. And then Sullivan says yes he is going to disregard it by converting the information.

It was so classified that the content was released in full in Hillary's Feb 10, 2010 11:30 AM reply (yet redacted in the Jacob Sullivan's original at Feb 10, 2010 11:26 AM ). And then released to the public as a public statement.

So Hillary asked that the draft of the public statement that her office would be releasing be sent to her. She did not instruct Sullivan to do anything wrong to get it. Sullivan did not disregard anything in the 10:48 e-mail that initiates this exchange he already stated that he requested "ops" convert the statement to "unclassified". Which is what happened. Your nonsense about her not understanding how the systems even work is not evident.

What it shows best with Hillary's sarcastic remark "Well, that is certainly worthy of being top secret" is that THERE WAS NOTHING HERE!

In addition, I think this may be one place where the distinction between the gov and the private account comes in. With the gov account all this classified material, which Hillary knew she was receiving privately, stayed private after she left State. Hillary retained that information for 3 years, it could have remained private indefinitely as far as she was concerned. With a gov account at least it would have been possessed and held by its rightful owner, the federal government.

All of this "classified material".

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In addition, I think this may be one place where the distinction between the gov and the private account comes in. With the gov account all this classified material, which Hillary knew she was receiving privately, stayed private after she left State. Hillary retained that information for 3 years, it could have remained private indefinitely as far as she was concerned. With a gov account at least it would have been possessed and held by its rightful owner, the federal government.

All of this "classified material".

Well we're ~25% through and we're up to 150-160 instances, plus apparently a good number still in dispute, and 2-3 instances of TS/TK material.

For this guy one instance was enough.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

BFS good points all, Hillary just keeps interposing Powell's name to mislead people into thinking she was following precedent when she wasn't. Hillary is the only one to solely use a private email on her own server. You can argue these points but she is the one who feels the need to rest on this particular falsehood.

Don't see this falsehood anywhere here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

From the evidence I have seen it appears that Hillary was not forwarding existing classified information she was authoring it in these e-mails she sent. What she wrote was not classified and was not a no no for her to write. It only became assumed classified because she wrote it. Now there could be more to it than this, but without seeing the e-mails, or having credible descriptions of them from those that have seen them there is no evidence to support any more than this.

That doesn't make any sense, if you forward on an email you forward on all the information in it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

BFS good points all, Hillary just keeps interposing Powell's name to mislead people into thinking she was following precedent when she wasn't. Hillary is the only one to solely use a private email on her own server. You can argue these points but she is the one who feels the need to rest on this particular falsehood.

Don't see this falsehood anywhere here.

You must be joking, the Briefing? How about a quote from Hillary herself. This particular canard she maintains every single time.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Well we're ~25% through and we're up to 150-160 instances, plus apparently a good number still in dispute, and 2-3 instances of TS/TK material.

For this guy one instance was enough.

So far there are exactly zero instances of Hillary or any of her aids or anybody else sending a classified report to or from her e-mail address. (Though to be fair I haven't personally looked at very many of these. It is kind of fascinating by just how conversational and ho hum these are to read.)

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

She explicitly asked for what was "public".

That's inaccurate, she assumed it public, but instructed her aide to ignore the classification system. The agency creating the classification controls, it's not up to any employee outside the IC to override that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well we're ~25% through and we're up to 150-160 instances, plus apparently a good number still in dispute, and 2-3 instances of TS/TK material.

For this guy one instance was enough.

So far there are exactly zero instances of Hillary or any of her aids or anybody else sending a classified report to or from her e-mail address. (Though to be fair I haven't personally looked at very many of these. It is kind of fascinating by just how conversational and ho hum these are to read.)

I think the number for Hillary personally is up to six.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

From the evidence I have seen it appears that Hillary was not forwarding existing classified information she was authoring it in these e-mails she sent. What she wrote was not classified and was not a no no for her to write. It only became assumed classified because she wrote it. Now there could be more to it than this, but without seeing the e-mails, or having credible descriptions of them from those that have seen them there is no evidence to support any more than this.

That doesn't make any sense, if you forward on an email you forward on all the information in it.

The e-mail in question isn't Hillary forwarding anything. It is her responding to how her trip went. She starts by stating that she met a few foreign leaders and then it is redacted. What classified information did she forward in that redacted block?

 

[jon_mx]

BFS good points all, Hillary just keeps interposing Powell's name to mislead people into thinking she was following precedent when she wasn't. Hillary is the only one to solely use a private email on her own server. You can argue these points but she is the one who feels the need to rest on this particular falsehood.

Although the points are terrible. Powell only used prrsonal email for mundane stuff not regular government business. And working inside government during both time frames, it was a completely different culture and the available technology that was being used was completely different level.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It was so classified that the content was released in full in Hillary's Feb 10, 2010 11:30 AM reply (yet redacted in the Jacob Sullivan's original at Feb 10, 2010 11:26 AM ). And then released to the public as a public statement.

So Hillary asked that the draft of the public statement that her office would be releasing be sent to her. She did not instruct Sullivan to do anything wrong to get it. Sullivan did not disregard anything in the 10:48 e-mail that initiates this exchange he already stated that he requested "ops" convert the statement to "unclassified". Which is what happened. Your nonsense about her not understanding how the systems even work is not evident.

What it shows best with Hillary's sarcastic remark "Well, that is certainly worthy of being top secret" is that THERE WAS NOTHING HERE!

I do believe you but I think you need a link to clarify or demonstrate what you're saying.

As I recall the email we are speaking of is Hillary telling Sullivan to pull it from the classification system, and he later promises to send a converted version. Same email has a redacted discussion about the speech underneath.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

From the evidence I have seen it appears that Hillary was not forwarding existing classified information she was authoring it in these e-mails she sent. What she wrote was not classified and was not a no no for her to write. It only became assumed classified because she wrote it. Now there could be more to it than this, but without seeing the e-mails, or having credible descriptions of them from those that have seen them there is no evidence to support any more than this.

That doesn't make any sense, if you forward on an email you forward on all the information in it.

The e-mail in question isn't Hillary forwarding anything. It is her responding to how her trip went. She starts by stating that she met a few foreign leaders and then it is redacted. What classified information did she forward in that redacted block?

BFS, it's redacted, that's the point, it's classified so we can't see it.

You must be talking about the email with Blumenthal, the same guy running around with a faux executive branch email address when he was explicitly forbidden from working for the executive branch.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

BFS good points all, Hillary just keeps interposing Powell's name to mislead people into thinking she was following precedent when she wasn't. Hillary is the only one to solely use a private email on her own server. You can argue these points but she is the one who feels the need to rest on this particular falsehood.

Although the points are terrible. Powell only used prrsonal email for mundane stuff not regular government business. And working inside government during both time frames, it was a completely different culture and the available technology that was being used was completely different level.

I don't want to struggle with the points right now (but we know key provisions were changed in 2005 when Powell left), my point was that Hillary consistently lies about it and interposes it as some sort of false premise that what she did was precedent, it wasn't.

And again, the fact that Rice did not use private email, completely ignored.

If it's not salient or necessary from Hillary's POV why does she keep raising it and lying about it? Obviously it matters.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

She explicitly asked for what was "public".

That's inaccurate, she assumed it public, but instructed her aide to ignore the classification system. The agency creating the classification controls, it's not up to any employee outside the IC to override that.

We know what the actual statements were. They were written explicitly for Hillary.

Well, that is certainly worthy of being top secret. Fine to go w Mitchell version; Blair's seems written as an oral statement.

Original Message From: Sullivan, Jacob J To: H Sent: Wed Feb 10 11:26:11 2010 Subject: @state.gov>

Blair statement The first has Mitchell's edits, the second is original from Blair's guy to Mara: @state.gov>

Draft Statement by the Secretary as Revised by Senator Mitchell @state.gov>

This Administration has, from the beginning, worked to bring about comprehensive peace in the Middle East, including a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On that issue our approach has been three-fold: (1) to help build the economy and capacity to govern of a Palestinian state; (2) to renew political negotiations to enable the earliest possible establishment of that state; and (3) to achieve these in a manner that ensures the security of Israel and of the Palestinians. @state.gov>

Consistent with Prime Minister Fayyad's plan for a future Palestinian state, and to support the political negotiations, Tony Blair, as the Quartet representative, will intensify his partnership with Senator Mitchell to mobilize the efforts of the international community: (1) to build support for the institutional capacity and governance of a future Palestinian State; (2) to improve freedom of movement and access for Palestinians; (3) to encourage further private sector investment; and (4) to bring change in the living conditions of the people in Gaza. @state.gov>

Original Draft Statement by the Secretary Submitted by Tony Blair @state.gov>

The United States is determined to bring about a two-state solution. Believes there is a strong basis for doing so. Believes it can be done by combining a renewed political negotiation with change on the ground, bottom up, as set out in Prime Minister Fayyad's plan for a Palestinian state.@state.gov>

To this end, Tony Blair, as Quartet Representative, will work in partnership with Senator Mitchell to support the political negotiation by mobilizing the efforts of the international community: (1) to build support for the institutional capacity and future governance of a future Palestinian state; (2) to improve freedom of movement and access for Palestinians; (3) to encourage further private sector investment; and (4) to bring change in the living conditions of the people in Gaza. @state.gov>

They were her's to decide which one would be released in her office's public statement.

Statement by the Secretary

This Administration has, from the beginning, worked to bring about comprehensive peace in the Middle East, including a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On that issue our approach has been three-fold: (1) to help build the economy and capacity to govern of a Palestinian state; (2) to renew political negotiations to enable the earliest possible establishment of that state; and (3) to achieve these in a manner that ensures the security of Israel and of the Palestinians.

Consistent with Prime Minister Fayyad's plan for a future Palestinian state, Tony Blair, as the Quartet representative, will intensify his partnership with Senator Mitchell in support of the political negotiations. In his role as Quartet Representative Tony Blair will continue, with full support by and coordination with Senator Mitchell, to mobilize the efforts of the international community: (1) to build support for the institutional capacity and governance of a future Palestinian State, including on the rule of law; (2) to improve freedom of movement and access for Palestinians; (3) to encourage further private sector investment; and (4) to bring change in the living conditions of the people in Gaza.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It was so classified that the content was released in full in Hillary's Feb 10, 2010 11:30 AM reply (yet redacted in the Jacob Sullivan's original at Feb 10, 2010 11:26 AM ). And then released to the public as a public statement.

So Hillary asked that the draft of the public statement that her office would be releasing be sent to her. She did not instruct Sullivan to do anything wrong to get it. Sullivan did not disregard anything in the 10:48 e-mail that initiates this exchange he already stated that he requested "ops" convert the statement to "unclassified". Which is what happened. Your nonsense about her not understanding how the systems even work is not evident.

What it shows best with Hillary's sarcastic remark "Well, that is certainly worthy of being top secret" is that THERE WAS NOTHING HERE!

I do believe you but I think you need a link to clarify or demonstrate what you're saying.

As I recall the email we are speaking of is Hillary telling Sullivan to pull it from the classification system, and he later promises to send a converted version. Same email has a redacted discussion about the speech underneath.

Go here Put "Blair Statement" in the search terms and the February 10 and 11th "Insulza" and "Blair Statements" e-mails are the ones in question. They say-

10:48 to Hillary : On the Mitchell material, for reasons that elude me, the two versions of the Blair statement were done on the classified system. Ops will get the statement and the other document to you ASAP. I've also asked them to convert the statement so that it can be emailed to you.

10:50 from Hillary: It's a public statement! Just email it.

11:17 to Hillary: Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it. I can't even access it.

11:26 AM to Hillary : The drafts posted here with the Mitchell edits version redacted.

11:30 AM from Hillary: Well, that is certainly worthy of being top secret. Fine to go w Mitchell version; Blair's seems written as an oral statement. (The source of the unredacted draft posted here.)

1:44 PM on the 11th the Public Release posted above

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

From the evidence I have seen it appears that Hillary was not forwarding existing classified information she was authoring it in these e-mails she sent. What she wrote was not classified and was not a no no for her to write. It only became assumed classified because she wrote it.

That doesn't make any sense, if you forward on an email you forward on all the information in it.

The e-mail in question isn't Hillary forwarding anything. It is her responding to how her trip went. She starts by stating that she met a few foreign leaders and then it is redacted. What classified information did she forward in that redacted block?

BFS, it's redacted, that's the point, it's classified so we can't see it.

You must be talking about the email with Blumenthal, the same guy running around with a faux executive branch email address when he was explicitly forbidden from working for the executive branch.

I'm talking about this e-mail you posted here when I said the "Berlin e-mail".

Berlin was terrific. Lots of good exchanges w leaders. It makes sense to me that Hillary is giving her personal account of the meetings, of the exchanges. Her personal impressions. But true we don't know exactly what she actually said. You can jump to conclusions that there was more to this than what it appears, but there is no real evidence of this.

Have you heard anything else?

Maybe there is some other e-mail that she forwarded? Something else that you are talking about?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

She explicitly asked for what was "public".

That's inaccurate, she assumed it public, but instructed her aide to ignore the classification system. The agency creating the classification controls, it's not up to any employee outside the IC to override that.

We know what the actual statements were. They were written explicitly for Hillary.

Well, that is certainly worthy of being top secret. Fine to go w Mitchell version; Blair's seems written as an oral statement.

...

Maybe you did this below, but I'm just looking for a link. I'm not sure what this is. Thanks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It was so classified that the content was released in full in Hillary's Feb 10, 2010 11:30 AM reply (yet redacted in the Jacob Sullivan's original at Feb 10, 2010 11:26 AM ). And then released to the public as a public statement.

So Hillary asked that the draft of the public statement that her office would be releasing be sent to her. She did not instruct Sullivan to do anything wrong to get it. Sullivan did not disregard anything in the 10:48 e-mail that initiates this exchange he already stated that he requested "ops" convert the statement to "unclassified". Which is what happened. Your nonsense about her not understanding how the systems even work is not evident.

What it shows best with Hillary's sarcastic remark "Well, that is certainly worthy of being top secret" is that THERE WAS NOTHING HERE!

I do believe you but I think you need a link to clarify or demonstrate what you're saying.

As I recall the email we are speaking of is Hillary telling Sullivan to pull it from the classification system, and he later promises to send a converted version. Same email has a redacted discussion about the speech underneath.

Go here Put "Blair Statement" in the search terms and the February 10 and 11th "Insulza" and "Blair Statements" e-mails are the ones in question. They say-

...

Ok, just so you know, fyi these do pop out as separate links. This way makes it kind of hard.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It was so classified that the content was released in full in Hillary's Feb 10, 2010 11:30 AM reply (yet redacted in the Jacob Sullivan's original at Feb 10, 2010 11:26 AM ). And then released to the public as a public statement.

So Hillary asked that the draft of the public statement that her office would be releasing be sent to her. She did not instruct Sullivan to do anything wrong to get it. Sullivan did not disregard anything in the 10:48 e-mail that initiates this exchange he already stated that he requested "ops" convert the statement to "unclassified". Which is what happened. Your nonsense about her not understanding how the systems even work is not evident.

What it shows best with Hillary's sarcastic remark "Well, that is certainly worthy of being top secret" is that THERE WAS NOTHING HERE!

I do believe you but I think you need a link to clarify or demonstrate what you're saying.

As I recall the email we are speaking of is Hillary telling Sullivan to pull it from the classification system, and he later promises to send a converted version. Same email has a redacted discussion about the speech underneath.

Go here Put "Blair Statement" in the search terms and the February 10 and 11th "Insulza" and "Blair Statements" e-mails are the ones in question. They say-

...

Ok, just so you know, fyi these do pop out as separate links. This way makes it kind of hard.

Popping out separate links leaves the charge that I left out "the" e-mail. But if you prefer

10:48 to Hillary : On the Mitchell material, for reasons that elude me, the two versions of the Blair statement were done on the classified system. Ops will get the statement and the other document to you ASAP. I've also asked them to convert the statement so that it can be emailed to you.

10:50 from Hillary: It's a public statement! Just email it.

11:17 to Hillary: Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it. I can't even access it.

11:26 AM to Hillary : The drafts posted here with the Mitchell edits version redacted.

11:30 AM from Hillary: Well, that is certainly worthy of being top secret. Fine to go w Mitchell version; Blair's seems written as an oral statement. (The source of the unredacted draft posted here.)

1:44 PM on the 11th the Public Release posted above

OK

Neither format contains "Hillary telling Sullivan to pull it from the classification system" nor his "later promises to send a converted version". While I don't remember you making the claim, I also don't see "Hillary berating her aid either". Basically reality is a lot more boring compared to the recent "OMG" representation of it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It was so classified that the content was released in full in Hillary's Feb 10, 2010 11:30 AM reply (yet redacted in the Jacob Sullivan's original at Feb 10, 2010 11:26 AM ). And then released to the public as a public statement.

So Hillary asked that the draft of the public statement that her office would be releasing be sent to her. She did not instruct Sullivan to do anything wrong to get it. Sullivan did not disregard anything in the 10:48 e-mail that initiates this exchange he already stated that he requested "ops" convert the statement to "unclassified". Which is what happened. Your nonsense about her not understanding how the systems even work is not evident.

What it shows best with Hillary's sarcastic remark "Well, that is certainly worthy of being top secret" is that THERE WAS NOTHING HERE!

I do believe you but I think you need a link to clarify or demonstrate what you're saying.

As I recall the email we are speaking of is Hillary telling Sullivan to pull it from the classification system, and he later promises to send a converted version. Same email has a redacted discussion about the speech underneath.

Go here Put "Blair Statement" in the search terms and the February 10 and 11th "Insulza" and "Blair Statements" e-mails are the ones in question. They say-

...

Ok, just so you know, fyi these do pop out as separate links. This way makes it kind of hard.

Popping out separate links leaves the charge that I left out "the" e-mail. But if you prefer

10:48 to Hillary : On the Mitchell material, for reasons that elude me, the two versions of the Blair statement were done on the classified system. Ops will get the statement and the other document to you ASAP. I've also asked them to convert the statement so that it can be emailed to you.

10:50 from Hillary: It's a public statement! Just email it.

11:17 to Hillary: Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it. I can't even access it.

11:26 AM to Hillary : The drafts posted here with the Mitchell edits version redacted.

11:30 AM from Hillary: Well, that is certainly worthy of being top secret. Fine to go w Mitchell version; Blair's seems written as an oral statement. (The source of the unredacted draft posted here.)

1:44 PM on the 11th the Public Release posted above

OK

Neither format contains "Hillary telling Sullivan to pull it from the classification system" nor his "later promises to send a converted version". While I don't remember you making the claim, I also don't see "Hillary berating her aid either". Basically reality is a lot more boring compared to the recent "OMG" representation of it.

Thanks, sorry, I didn't mean to make you do the work, I kind of dropped the thread after cutting out to go watch LSU last night (which got cancelled btw).

I think the charge could happen either way, but taking some time to look at this now.

First of all, question - what are the B4 and B5 redaction codes? Are these claimed privileges, like internal discussions, or are these substance being debated between IC & State as possibly being classified?

Secondly, I think this really comes down to four threads. 1 2 3 4

- On the 11:26 email (3), this seems like Sullivan following through on his promise to convert the statement from the classified system.

When you said that Hillary did not instruct Sullivan to do anything wrong to get it, that's incorrect. This proves he went to the classified system and converted the statement, which is what he said he would do at Hillary's request. You can tell this because the information was not unclassified until 8/31/15.

You can also see there are two drafts being discussed, one by Mitchell, one by Blair. The classified system contained both. Now we can see that in one place this draft statement by Mitchell is redacted but elsewhere this statement is now not redacted. Now that definitely reflects State & IC having a conflict, which perhaps is where the B5 comes in. Personally to me it makes sense that draft statements by American personnel, here Mitchell, would need to be protected. We can't have foreign agencies reading our strategy before we act on it, basically giving away our playbook. My guess is this one aspect that got reported by the IGs, here we have a draft statement that in one place is being redacted and in another being released.

Even the final email has a B5 redaction. Again, even now there is information which cannot be exposed to the public. And actually even that is a draft, the redacted portion must not have made the final cut. Again this reflects internal deliberations and thought processes.

The revelation of the Blair and Mitchell drafts also demonstrates the issue that information becomes less classified over time, not more, which is what Hillary is claiming. At the time the Mitchell statement was on the classified system it was very much secret, but Sullivan converted it anyway at Hillary's behest. It's not clear at all that the information was released by "ops", it looks like Sullivan just released the text via unauthorized email (and again note, ops must not have declassified it because it says it was unclassified only on 8/31/15). Now, at this point, 5 years later, it does not matter so much, but back then, contemporaneously, yes, it had been placed on the classified system and it very much mattered a great deal and someone placed it on that classified system for that reason. But Hillary and Sullivan just converted the text and sent it via unsecured email anyway.

Note, again, in the first email, despite all this, we have Sullivan, again, emailing Hillary SBU information which you know was prohibited and as stated elsewhere is a fireable offense and indeed resulted in Hillary herself firing an ambassador for. Even if you get past the first issue you have this issue which is undoubtedly a fireable violation with other penalties like loss of clearance.

 

[jon_mx]

As a minimum, it appears Hillary was asking to bypass the proper channels. If you take information off a secured system, you better make sure the information you release is in fact non-classified. Hillary played loose with the rules. Sometimes it is understandable because the rules make it hard to get the job done. Hillary was too cavalier with the rules to the point of violating laws.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

As a minimum, it appears Hillary was asking to bypass the proper channels. If you take information off a secured system, you better make sure the information you release is in fact non-classified. Hillary played loose with the rules. Sometimes it is understandable because the rules make it hard to get the job done. Hillary was too cavalier with the rules to the point of violating laws.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It was so classified that the content was released in full in Hillary's Feb 10, 2010 11:30 AM reply (yet redacted in the Jacob Sullivan's original at Feb 10, 2010 11:26 AM ). And then released to the public as a public statement.

So Hillary asked that the draft of the public statement that her office would be releasing be sent to her. She did not instruct Sullivan to do anything wrong to get it. Sullivan did not disregard anything in the 10:48 e-mail that initiates this exchange he already stated that he requested "ops" convert the statement to "unclassified". Which is what happened. Your nonsense about her not understanding how the systems even work is not evident.

What it shows best with Hillary's sarcastic remark "Well, that is certainly worthy of being top secret" is that THERE WAS NOTHING HERE!

I do believe you but I think you need a link to clarify or demonstrate what you're saying.

As I recall the email we are speaking of is Hillary telling Sullivan to pull it from the classification system, and he later promises to send a converted version. Same email has a redacted discussion about the speech underneath.

Go here Put "Blair Statement" in the search terms and the February 10 and 11th "Insulza" and "Blair Statements" e-mails are the ones in question. They say-

...

Ok, just so you know, fyi these do pop out as separate links. This way makes it kind of hard.

Popping out separate links leaves the charge that I left out "the" e-mail. But if you prefer

10:48 to Hillary : On the Mitchell material, for reasons that elude me, the two versions of the Blair statement were done on the classified system. Ops will get the statement and the other document to you ASAP. I've also asked them to convert the statement so that it can be emailed to you.

10:50 from Hillary: It's a public statement! Just email it.

11:17 to Hillary: Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it. I can't even access it.

11:26 AM to Hillary : The drafts posted here with the Mitchell edits version redacted.

11:30 AM from Hillary: Well, that is certainly worthy of being top secret. Fine to go w Mitchell version; Blair's seems written as an oral statement. (The source of the unredacted draft posted here.)

1:44 PM on the 11th the Public Release posted above

OK

Neither format contains "Hillary telling Sullivan to pull it from the classification system" nor his "later promises to send a converted version". While I don't remember you making the claim, I also don't see "Hillary berating her aid either". Basically reality is a lot more boring compared to the recent "OMG" representation of it.

Thanks, sorry, I didn't mean to make you do the work, I kind of dropped the thread after cutting out to go watch LSU last night (which got cancelled btw).

I think the charge could happen either way, but taking some time to look at this now.

First of all, question - what are the B4 and B5 redaction codes? Are these claimed privileges, like internal discussions, or are these substance being debated between IC & State as possibly being classified?

Secondly, I think this really comes down to four threads. 1 2 3 4

- On the 11:26 email (3), this seems like Sullivan following through on his promise to convert the statement from the classified system.

When you said that Hillary did not instruct Sullivan to do anything wrong to get it, that's incorrect. This proves he went to the classified system and converted the statement, which is what he said he would do at Hillary's request. You can tell this because the information was not unclassified until 8/31/15.

You can also see there are two drafts being discussed, one by Mitchell, one by Blair. The classified system contained both. Now we can see that in one place this draft statement by Mitchell is redacted but elsewhere this statement is now not redacted. Now that definitely reflects State & IC having a conflict, which perhaps is where the B5 comes in. Personally to me it makes sense that draft statements by American personnel, here Mitchell, would need to be protected. We can't have foreign agencies reading our strategy before we act on it, basically giving away our playbook. My guess is this one aspect that got reported by the IGs, here we have a draft statement that in one place is being redacted and in another being released.

Even the final email has a B5 redaction. Again, even now there is information which cannot be exposed to the public. And actually even that is a draft, the redacted portion must not have made the final cut. Again this reflects internal deliberations and thought processes.

The revelation of the Blair and Mitchell drafts also demonstrates the issue that information becomes less classified over time, not more, which is what Hillary is claiming. At the time the Mitchell statement was on the classified system it was very much secret, but Sullivan converted it anyway at Hillary's behest. It's not clear at all that the information was released by "ops", it looks like Sullivan just released the text via unauthorized email (and again note, ops must not have declassified it because it says it was unclassified only on 8/31/15). Now, at this point, 5 years later, it does not matter so much, but back then, contemporaneously, yes, it had been placed on the classified system and it very much mattered a great deal and someone placed it on that classified system for that reason. But Hillary and Sullivan just converted the text and sent it via unsecured email anyway.

Note, again, in the first email, despite all this, we have Sullivan, again, emailing Hillary SBU information which you know was prohibited and as stated elsewhere is a fireable offense and indeed resulted in Hillary herself firing an ambassador for. Even if you get past the first issue you have this issue which is undoubtedly a fireable violation with other penalties like loss of clearance.

 

[Mister CIA]

Regardless of anyone's thoughts on the matter, we can all agree that even Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin are capable of using email without ####### all over themselves.

 

[jon_mx]

As a minimum, it appears Hillary was asking to bypass the proper channels. If you take information off a secured system, you better make sure the information you release is in fact non-classified. Hillary played loose with the rules. Sometimes it is understandable because the rules make it hard to get the job done. Hillary was too cavalier with the rules to the point of violating laws.

A fairly reasonable assessment.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

As a minimum, it appears Hillary was asking to bypass the proper channels. If you take information off a secured system, you better make sure the information you release is in fact non-classified. Hillary played loose with the rules. Sometimes it is understandable because the rules make it hard to get the job done. Hillary was too cavalier with the rules to the point of violating laws.

A fairly reasonable assessment.

Oh I'm sure it will be the popular assessment among the faithful.

 

[jon_mx]

As a minimum, it appears Hillary was asking to bypass the proper channels. If you take information off a secured system, you better make sure the information you release is in fact non-classified. Hillary played loose with the rules. Sometimes it is understandable because the rules make it hard to get the job done. Hillary was too cavalier with the rules to the point of violating laws.

A fairly reasonable assessment.

Oh I'm sure it will be the popular assessment among the faithful.

It is probably an assessment the FBI shares. There is zero chance a non-appointed/elected federal employee would have a job if they did this during the time frame Hillary was in office. Hillary will not be charged, but I can see the IT guy and/or Huma getting slapped around a bit.

 

[Eminence]

This thread is a juggernaut. Boo, Hilary! xp

 

[rockaction]

This thread is a juggernaut. Boo, Hilary! xp

A stake right into the heart of that vampira

 

[SIDA!]

This thread is a juggernaut. Boo, Hilary! xp

Thanks for giving me an idea on what my next thread should be.

 

[Ladsud]

I like the title of this thread, GJ.

 

[Eminence]

This thread is a juggernaut. Boo, Hilary! xp

Thanks for giving me an idea on what my next thread should be.

I'm sure it will be a banger.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

nice necro bump

 

[Cjw_55106]

Does this lady understand what a microphone does? YOU DONT HAVE TO YELL!

 

[squistion]

In one of the Trump threads there is a complaint there is only one thread for Hillary and that is for her supporters (although hard to believe from most of the comments). And they felt there should be another thread for her haters to talk about her alleged crimes and moral character.

I remembered Eminence started a Hillary hate fest thread that had been forgotten.

So I am bumping this and Saints, maybe you can post 5 less articles each day in the main Hillary thread and also talk here about her evil doings. Hopefully Sinn Fein, Rich, The Commish, et al can join you and rant on a daily basis about Hillary as they do in that thread.

Go for it kids!

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

So I am bumping this and Saints, maybe you can post 5 less articles each day in the main Hillary thread and aalso talk here about her evil doings.

Good luck.

 

[Eminence]

Do the right thing this November.

 

[Rove!]

Do the right thing this November.

Move to Canada?