Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (14 Viewers)

[timschochet]

If Cruz gets the nomination, the Republicans will have successfully avoided nominating the worst possible candidate by instead nominating the second worst possible candidate.  But yeah, I think he clearly would have a better chance than Trump.

There's a lot of disagreement about who Hillary would have an easier time beating. 

But I don't care. As I wrote in the other thread, at least Cruz respects our constitution and system of government. I hope he is the nominee. 

 

[lod01]

Happens to me a lot. 

I'll gladly take a Bernie candidacy in exchange for the end of Trump. 

But realistically Sanders is going to win 3 out of 4 tonight, but he needs to win Michigan to change the momentum around. 

If Sanders can overtake her, I will seriously consider him. He won't get any of his #### passed either. It's way to ridiculous but he is #2 in sticking it to the establishment. Free college for everyone. Oh, c'mon. I know the debt is meaningless, but let's be realistic.

 

[lod01]

There's a lot of disagreement about who Hillary would have an easier time beating. 

But I don't care. As I wrote in the other thread, at least Cruz respects our constitution and system of government. I hope he is the nominee. 

Cruz will most definitely be destroyed by Hillary. I hope he is as well via a brokered convention. Then Trump will be able to say 'see what you did' and maybe it totally fractures the Rs. Then we just need to fracture the D's. 4 parties would be nice.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'd probably be on board with you 100% if this information showed up on the .gov network.  That wouldn't be any different than the "oooops" sorts of emails being used by Hillary supporters for her actions....that "see, it happens a lot" meme would be more applicable, but that's not what happened.  We'd probably know for sure that the servers were hacked in that case and do the damage control accordingly.

I don't know that I quite get what you are saying here.  So if I whiff...

I think the meme that classified information leaks into email all of the time is the most damning argument against Hillary's arrangement we have so far.  Her experience in government should have made her aware that this kind of stuff happens frequently and that "what is and what is not" classified can be difficult to ascertain.  Funny to me that critics of Hillary want to dismiss these two points as being false.  That is her mistake.  

However, most of my professional career I have been only a few people removed from the very top of the org chart.   Sure not federal government cabinet  level but high enough.  While there are a few exceptions this is exactly the kind of "my time is too valuable" mistake that they all would make.  So while I certainly see the mistake, I can't imagine any of the candidates that are or were running wouldn't make a similar one.  It is just the nature of those at the top.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't know that I quite get what you are saying here.  So if I whiff...

I think the meme that classified information leaks into email all of the time is the most damning argument against Hillary's arrangement we have so far.  Her experience in government should have made her aware that this kind of stuff happens frequently and that "what is and what is not" classified can be difficult to ascertain.  Funny to me that critics of Hillary want to dismiss these two points as being false.  That is her mistake.  

However, most of my professional career I have been only a few people removed from the very top of the org chart.   Sure not federal government cabinet  level but high enough.  While there are a few exceptions this is exactly the kind of "my time is too valuable" mistake that they all would make.  So while I certainly see the mistake, I can't imagine any of the candidates that are or were running wouldn't make a similar one.  It is just the nature of those at the top.

How are the people making the calls now ascertaining it?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There are three different kinds of experts quoted in the Hillary news reports IMO - lawyers (intelligence breach defense often), IT, and intelligence. Here's an IT and a lawyer:
 

Security experts say Pagliano could know a great deal. 

“I think of him as Sammy ‘The Bull’ Gravano; he knows where the bodies are buried and he could bring down the whole organization,” said Morgan Wright, a cybersecurity consultant who has worked with tech companies like Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent, referencing the underling who helped bring down mob boss John Gotti. 

According to reports, Pagliano was the central figure behind Clinton’s server configuration.

“There was no crew,” Wright said. “This was a one-man shop.”

As a result, Pagliano would have the “most direct knowledge” of how the server was set up, said Peter Toren, a cyber crime attorney and former DOJ computer crimes prosecutor.

He likely can provide pivotal details, including what security measures — such as encryption — were put in place when the server was installed, and whether backups were made.

Perhaps more importantly, Pagliano might have been part of conversations regarding what Clinton’s camp said the server would be used for, and how the team wanted to manage confidential information that could pass through the device.

“Was he told, ‘Oh this server is going to have confidential, or top secret, or secret State Department communications on it?’” Toren said.

All of the conversations with Clinton’s staff at State could give investigators more targets and leads.

“This guy’s low-hanging fruit,” Wright said. “But he’s going to lead them to bigger things.”

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/271718-immunity-deal-raises-stakes-in-clinton-email-investigation

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

How are the people making the calls now ascertaining it?

They are making their own judgment calls.  Some of that is determining that the information is the same or "similar enough" to information "owned" by other agencies.   .  

 

[The Commish]

I'd probably be on board with you 100% if this information showed up on the .gov network.  That wouldn't be any different than the "oooops" sorts of emails being used by Hillary supporters for her actions....that "see, it happens a lot" meme would be more applicable, but that's not what happened.  We'd probably know for sure that the servers were hacked in that case and do the damage control accordingly.

I don't know that I quite get what you are saying here.  So if I whiff...

I think the meme that classified information leaks into email all of the time is the most damning argument against Hillary's arrangement we have so far.  Her experience in government should have made her aware that this kind of stuff happens frequently and that "what is and what is not" classified can be difficult to ascertain.  Funny to me that critics of Hillary want to dismiss these two points as being false.  That is her mistake.  

However, most of my professional career I have been only a few people removed from the very top of the org chart.   Sure not federal government cabinet  level but high enough.  While there are a few exceptions this is exactly the kind of "my time is too valuable" mistake that they all would make.  So while I certainly see the mistake, I can't imagine any of the candidates that are or were running wouldn't make a similar one.  It is just the nature of those at the top.

No...I think we're on the same page.  I don't buy into the "everyone else does it" meme for the exact reasons you list.  That hasn't stopped others in this thread from attempting to use this path as a justification.  To the bold, I'm not sure where you're going.  I agree that most executives in private businesses think way too much of themselves and the "can't be bothered with....." attitude is prevalent.   I don't know what that has to do with a public service position where the state of national security is in play.  Yeah CEOs can be dooshes but reality is, there's nothing all that significant, to the country, at stake.  If we hold them to a lesser standard because of their position, we have issues IMO.  We don't get more lax in our standards as we go up the ladder in this case...we get more strict because there is a lot more at stake.  

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

God her voice. It's like a parrot swallowed a kazoo.

 

[John Bender]

Going from Trump to Cruz is like trading a Herpes outbreak for leprosy IMO 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... I don't know what that has to do with a public service position where the state of national security is in play.  Yeah CEOs can be dooshes but reality is, there's nothing all that significant, to the country, at stake.  If we hold them to a lesser standard because of their position, we have issues IMO.  We don't get more lax in our standards as we go up the ladder in this case...we get more strict because there is a lot more at stake.  

I have no reason to believe that national security was impacted at all.

 

[The Commish]

I have no reason to believe that national security was impacted at all.

I didn't say it was impacted.  I said it was in play.  It's always in play at that level and when one makes it even MORE in play than it has to be for no real reason, I have to question those actions.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I have no reason to believe that national security was impacted at all.

I didn't say it was impacted.  I said it was in play.  It's always in play at that level and when one makes it even MORE in play than it has to be for no real reason, I have to question those actions

It wasn't for no reason though.  It was for the convenience of the Secretary of State of the US who had to rebuild the shattered international reputation of the nation after the disaster of the prior administration's "cowboy diplomacy".  If it made her even a tiny bit more effective at that task than the minuscule risk was worth it.  

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Hillary is very strong in Southern states that she has zero hope of winning in the general election.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary is very strong in Southern states that she has zero hope of winning in the general election.

It was the exact same for Obama in 2008. 

And anyhow, it doesn't matter. In November, Bernie won't be on the ticket, so Hillary will get (almost!) all of those votes as well. 

 

[jon_mx]

It wasn't for no reason though.  It was for the convenience of the Secretary of State of the US who had to rebuild the shattered international reputation of the nation after the disaster of the prior administration's "cowboy diplomacy".  If it made her even a tiny bit more effective at that task than the minuscule risk was worth it.  

It is starting to get real deep in here.  

 

[timschochet]

It wasn't for no reason though.  It was for the convenience of the Secretary of State of the US who had to rebuild the shattered international reputation of the nation after the disaster of the prior administration's "cowboy diplomacy".  If it made her even a tiny bit more effective at that task than the minuscule risk was worth it.  

Really well said. 

 

[RCon]

It wasn't for no reason though.  It was for the convenience of the Secretary of State of the US who had to rebuild the shattered international reputation of the nation after the disaster of the prior administration's "cowboy diplomacy".  If it made her even a tiny bit more effective at that task than the minuscule risk was worth it.  

Ridiculous.  First, I think we both know it wasn't for "convenience", it was done to thwart FOIA requests.  Second, the risk was significantly greater than minuscule, especially now that we know how cavalier she and her staff were about using the non-secured systems for classified information.  Third, this assertion that the private server somehow made her more effective at "getting the world to like us again (insert tears here)" is patently absurd.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

It wasn't for no reason though.  It was for the convenience of the Secretary of State of the US who had to rebuild the shattered international reputation of the nation after the disaster of the prior administration's "cowboy diplomacy".  If it made her even a tiny bit more effective at that task than the minuscule risk was worth it.  

brilliant, it was GWB's fault 

 

[The Commish]

I have no reason to believe that national security was impacted at all.

I didn't say it was impacted.  I said it was in play.  It's always in play at that level and when one makes it even MORE in play than it has to be for no real reason, I have to question those actions

It wasn't for no reason though.  It was for the convenience of the Secretary of State of the US who had to rebuild the shattered international reputation of the nation after the disaster of the prior administration's "cowboy diplomacy".  If it made her even a tiny bit more effective at that task than the minuscule risk was worth it.  

Couple things.  

#1;  This is why I used the term "real reason"

#2.  You'll never convince me that server location and the perceived "convenience" of that location has/had an impact (positive OR negative) on our foreign policy.  The potential damage far outweighs the potential "convenience" even if a hacker didn't chose to walk through the wide open door, it was incredibly selfish and poor judgment to create it in the first place.

Come on BFS!

 

[jon_mx]

I don't know that I quite get what you are saying here.  So if I whiff...

I think the meme that classified information leaks into email all of the time is the most damning argument against Hillary's arrangement we have so far.  Her experience in government should have made her aware that this kind of stuff happens frequently and that "what is and what is not" classified can be difficult to ascertain.  Funny to me that critics of Hillary want to dismiss these two points as being false.  That is her mistake.  

However, most of my professional career I have been only a few people removed from the very top of the org chart.   Sure not federal government cabinet  level but high enough.  While there are a few exceptions this is exactly the kind of "my time is too valuable" mistake that they all would make.  So while I certainly see the mistake, I can't imagine any of the candidates that are or were running wouldn't make a similar one.  It is just the nature of those at the top.

Maybe this is true for politicians, but at the working grunt level this is 100 percent false.  Classification of information and protecting it is a top priority.  There is nothing difficult to ascertain what is and what isn't classified.  If you have any question what so ever, you treat it as classified.  You let one piece of even Confidential information spill on to unclassified network you get suspended.  It happens again a longer suspension.  A third time and you are gone.  And top secret information, forget about it, you are done.  period.  This thought of 2000 occurance of leakage is completely mind-blowing to me.  No, this does not happen all the time.  

 

[jon_mx]

Really well said. 

You are kidding, right.  BFS is completely going off the deep end into the world of the far left loonies.  That had to be shtick.

 

[Trey]

Looks like she won the delegates yesterday 59-48 in preliminary figures.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Looks like she won the delegates yesterday 59-48 in preliminary figures.

Huh? Didn't HDR22 get swamped in 2 different states?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

They are making their own judgment calls.  Some of that is determining that the information is the same or "similar enough" to information "owned" by other agencies.   .  

Which Hillary should have made 5 years earlier just as easily.

And just like that email where Hillary asked Jake Sullivan if an email was classified, he made that determination then, which was the duty in every instance, he wasn't looking at whether the email was marked because it wasn't.

There are standards, it's not complicated.

For instance - does the email reveal a confidential source in US or foreign diplomatic activities? If so then it's classified under 1.4(d). It's not rocket science. If in doubt then err on the side of it being classified or ask one of the security officers who are always on hand for the SOS to help make these determinations.

You should direct all inquiries concerning those reporting requirements and reporting channels to the Director, Office of Information Security, Special Security Office (DS/SI/SSO)...

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88344.pdf

 

[timschochet]

You are kidding, right.  BFS is completely going off the deep end into the world of the far left loonies.  That had to be shtick.

I'm not kidding, I thought he put it very well. 

And FYI, the "far left loonies" are just as convinced as you are that Hillary is guilty of some terrible crime, as has been demonstrated in this thread. Only reasonable people on both sides know that she very likely did nothing wrong. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Ridiculous.  First, I think we both know it wasn't for "convenience", it was done to thwart FOIA requests.  Second, the risk was significantly greater than minuscule, especially now that we know how cavalier she and her staff were about using the non-secured systems for classified information.  Third, this assertion that the private server somehow made her more effective at "getting the world to like us again (insert tears here)" is patently absurd.

 Sorry no. You are accepting the most damning narrative because of your dislike of Hillary.  I have my own bases, but none of the above makes sense.   Thus you guys fill in the blanks with incompetence.  That is not a very compelling argument for those not predisposed to damn Hillary.

 

[timschochet]

 Sorry no. You are accepting the most damning narrative because of your dislike of Hillary.  I have my own bases, but none of the above makes sense.   Thus you guys fill in the blanks with incompetence.  That is not a very compelling argument for those not predisposed to damn Hillary.

Exactly. Rich and Ivan and jon and others have been doing this all along. They dislike Hillary so much that they are willing to buy into false narratives about her. But why do they dislike her so much? Because they have bought into false narratives about her all along. And on it goes...

 

[Trey]

Huh? Didn't HDR22 get swamped in 2 different states?

LA had pretty much the same amount as the other 2 combined and she romped there. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Which Hillary should have made 5 years earlier just as easily.

And just like that email where Hillary asked Jake Sullivan if an email was classified, he made that determination then, which was the duty in every instance, he wasn't looking at whether the email was marked because it wasn't.

There are standards, it's not complicated.

For instance - does the email reveal a confidential source in US or foreign diplomatic activities? If so then it's classified under 1.4(d). It's not rocket science. If in doubt then err on the side of it being classified or ask one of the security officers who are always on hand for the SOS to help make these determinations.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88344.pdf

For any and all of the content that originated at the Sate Department there was only one judgment that ultimately mattered per section 1.2 other than the Vice President and the President.  Yep, not complicated at all!

 

[squistion]

Exactly. Rich and Ivan and jon and others have been doing this all along. They dislike Hillary so much that they are willing to buy into false narratives about her. But why do they dislike her so much? Because they have bought into false narratives about her all along. And on it goes...

They are predisposed to believe any negative story about her, no matter what the source is or how far fetched and ridiculous it might sound - and if that is one's starting point it really makes any serious discussion pointless.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

....Classification of information and protecting it is a top priority.  There is nothing difficult to ascertain what is and what isn't classified.  If you have any question what so ever, you treat it as classified.  ....  

This is what happens way too often in practice.   This is why almost nothing that is marked classified has anything to do with national security.  In a democracy this is a major problem.

So you are correct that this is what happens.  You are completely wrong that this is how it is supposed t work!

ETA:  And this is the bias I bring to this.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

For any and all of the content that originated at the Sate Department there was only one judgment that ultimately mattered per section 1.2 other than the Vice President and the President.  Yep, not complicated at all!

The Secret and above documents were never within her control to declassify as I'm sure you know.

Also if Hillary declassified herself for the State class material then that's a complete reversal from her claiming it was never classified to begin with, that would at least be refreshing to hear.

And there is plenty marked SBU material, that also should not have had that on her unclass system, if she was flaunting that rule no reason to think she wouldn't violate the others. Hillary herself personally fired an ambassador for that on the basis of the sort of IG report just like the investigation made into her actions.

 

[jon_mx]

Exactly. Rich and Ivan and jon and others have been doing this all along. They dislike Hillary so much that they are willing to buy into false narratives about her. But why do they dislike her so much? Because they have bought into false narratives about her all along. And on it goes...

Which false narratives are you referring too?  The e-mail scandal is about reported facts and does not rely on creating any false narrative.  The elements of a serious crime are all there with the exception of whether Hillary had knowledge that these messages were classified and/or if she behaved in a grossly negligent matter.  Now Hillary will be afforded a much larger benefit of the doubt than the rest of us, especially considering the Justice Department is controlled by her party.  But the facts are that there was a lot of wrong doing going on, whether there is enough to bring criminal charges against her under the circumstances is doubtful.  Most of the false narrative concerning this story comes from team Hillary. 

 

[MaxThreshold]

They are predisposed to believe any negative story about her, no matter what the source is or how far fetched and ridiculous it might sound - and if that is one's starting point it really makes any serious discussion pointless.

Just like you're predisposed to believe any positive story and cast aside any negative story, regardless of the facts?  You are correct - serious discussion with you, BFS, AA and Tim is non-existent because of your 24/7 slobbering over her and ridiculous excuse making FOR her.  

Did she promise you guys some position in government if she gets elected?  That has to be it, because no logical or normal person would stoop to the levels you guys are in defending her.  So far, for excuses, we have:

• She would never do that, pfft!
  
• Everybody else does it
  
• The rules don't apply to her because of her position
  
• It's no big deal
  
• It's GWB's fault
  
• It's the server's fault
  
• She was doing it to fix American diplomacy
  
• She's not tech savvy and didn't know any better
  
• She was doing it for convenience
  
• Well, emails we're classified, but  "Classified" doesn't really mean "Classified".
  
• Vast Right-Wing ConspiracyTM

Did I miss anything?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Exactly. Rich and Ivan and jon and others have been doing this all along. They dislike Hillary so much that they are willing to buy into false narratives about her. But why do they dislike her so much? Because they have bought into false narratives about her all along. And on it goes...

Which false narratives are you referring too?  The e-mail scandal is about reported facts and does not rely on creating any false narrative.  The elements of a serious crime are all there with the exception of whether Hillary had knowledge that these messages were classified and/or if she behaved in a grossly negligent matter.  Now Hillary will be afforded a much larger benefit of the doubt than the rest of us, especially considering the Justice Department is controlled by her party.  But the facts are that there was a lot of wrong doing going on, whether there is enough to bring criminal charges against her under the circumstances is doubtful.  Most of the false narrative concerning this story comes from team Hillary. 

Start with Rich's first one.  Please explain how Hillary could have possibly believed that the "vast right wing conspiracy" would have stopped pursuing FOIA requests when the State Department responded with that there was no emails to be found?  How did her server ever create the potential to prevent such requests?  Which request was prevented?  When it turned out that forwarding to a .gov wasn't enough what happened?  If this was really her concern, why would she inner mix the stuff she really wanted to keep private such as her foundation slush fund activities?

Please explain this in such a manner that doesn't toggle from evil mastermind to incompetent as the need requires. And without being completely stupid.

 

[squistion]

Just like you're predisposed to believe any positive story?  You are correct - serious discussion with you, BFS, AA and Tim is non-existent because of your 24/7 slobbering over her.

I believe Hillary is a typical calculating politician who has a history of triangulation for political expediency and I take everything she says with a grain of salt - I am not predisposed to believe everything she says, contrary to how you keep characterizing me - however I am always willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, which is something her critics here won't do.

Hillary is a flawed candidate but she is our best and only hope to continue Obama's legacy and stop the GOP from taking the White House and appointing more Scalia's to SCOTUS. 

 

[jon_mx]

Start with Rich's first one.  Please explain how Hillary could have possibly believed that the "vast right wing conspiracy" would have stopped pursuing FOIA requests when the State Department responded with that there was no emails to be found?  How did her server ever create the potential to prevent such requests?  Which request was prevented?  When it turned out that forwarding to a .gov wasn't enough what happened?  If this was really her concern, why would she inner mix the stuff she really wanted to keep private such as her foundation slush fund activities?

Please explain this in such a manner that doesn't toggle from evil mastermind to incompetent as the need requires. And without being completely stupid.

She had full control of her server and having that control would afford her the opportunity to cleanse information before it is released if something too incriminating was there.  As opposed to if the server was in the hands of career IT government employees.  Because of this there was a large number of personal emails she was able to purge from what was released.   

 

[MaxThreshold]

I believe Hillary is a typical calculating politician who has a history of triangulation for political expediency and I take everything she says with a grain of salt - I am not predisposed to believe everything she says, contrary to how you keep characterizing me - however I am always willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, which is something her critics here won't do.

Hillary is a flawed candidate but she is our best and only hope to continue Obama's legacy and stop the GOP from taking the White House and appointing more Scalia's to SCOTUS. 

EVERY post you've made in this thread completely obliterates this assertion.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

She had full control of her server and having that control would afford her the opportunity to cleanse information before it is released if something to incriminating was there.  As opposed to if the server was in the hands of career IT government employees.  Because of this there was a large number of personal emails she was able to purge from what was released.   

She always had 100% control over the emails she sent out.  And 0% control over the emails that came in.  Her server did not change those numbers.  

 

[Guest]

They are predisposed to believe any negative story about her, no matter what the source is or how far fetched and ridiculous it might sound - and if that is one's starting point it really makes any serious discussion pointless.

And you in particular are not predisposed to believe any positive story?  We all have blind spots, but some of us are Stevie Wonder blind.  

 

[timschochet]

She had full control of her server and having that control would afford her the opportunity to cleanse information before it is released if something to incriminating was there.  As opposed to if the server was in the hands of career IT government employees.  Because of this there was a large number of personal emails she was able to purge from what was released.   

But that makes no sense either. If she had done it the way you wanted, she would have had a separate private email account which would not have been subject to FOIA anyhow. If she had desired to keep stuff secret that would have been the logical way to go. She wouldn't have had to "cleanse" anything. 

 

[squistion]

And you in particular are not predisposed to believe any positive story?  We all have blind spots, but some of us are Stevie Wonder blind.  

See my response to Max on the prior page.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Exactly. Rich and Ivan and jon and others have been doing this all along. They dislike Hillary so much that they are willing to buy into false narratives about her. But why do they dislike her so much? Because they have bought into false narratives about her all along. And on it goes...

Just to clarify, I'm genuinely agnostic on whether Hillary broke any laws.  I'm not an attorney, I know very little about laws governing classified information, and I know even less about relevant case law in the area.  If an impartial group of folks look at Hillary's actions and decide that she didn't break any laws (or that any potential lawbreaking isn't severe enough to warrant charges), I'll have no objection to that.

Having said that, I don't get the "false narrative" thing when it comes to her emails.  It's not like one side is saying that she had a private server that improperly sent and received classified intelligence, and the other side is saying that no, none of that happened.  All of us agree that the server exists and there was stuff on it that should never have been there.  There's no false narrative involved in concluding from what we all know with certainty that Hillary did something either unwise or improper or both in this case.  Whether her actions were also criminal is outside my expertise.   

 

[MaxThreshold]

See my response to Max on the prior page.

Also, see Max's response to squiz' response on the prior page.

 

[jon_mx]

She always had 100% control over the emails she sent out.  And 0% control over the emails that came in.  Her server did not change those numbers.  

Oh on her computer.  But government computers are backed up where she would not have control.  She could delete her entire inbox and sent messages, but there are still backups.  That is why she did not delete any messages she sent to government computers, she would get caught and have the appearance of obstruction.

 

[squistion]

EVERY post you've made in this thread completely obliterates this assertion.

 Not true, for example, I didn't accept her statement that Edward Snowden would have been protected the by the whistle blower laws from prosecution. The benefit of the doubt given being that she was incorrect about the law rather than deliberately misstating it (although she could have been). There are other examples but rather pointless to bring them up to you when you make statements like the above.

 

[Trey]

Very strong polls for Clinton in Michigan this weekend. Should be primed for a nice night on Tuesday.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Having said that, I don't get the "false narrative" thing when it comes to her emails.  It's not like one side is saying that she had a private server that improperly sent and received classified intelligence, and the other side is saying that no, none of that happened.  All of us agree that the server exists and there was stuff on it that should never have been there.  There's no false narrative involved in concluding from what we all know with certainty that Hillary did something either unwise or improper or both in this case.  Whether her actions were also criminal is outside my expertise.   

The false narrative here is that what should be classified for FOIA request and what should be excluded from the communication among State Department employees s one and the same.   The false narrative is that Hillary wasn't the ultimate authority within the State Department.  The false narrative is that reasonable people can't disagree about what should or should not be classified.  The false narrative is "we know how cavalier she and her staff were about using the non-secured systems for classified information."  There are too many false narrative here to even list.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The false narrative here is that what should be classified for FOIA request and what should be excluded from the communication among State Department employees s one and the same.   The false narrative is that Hillary wasn't the ultimate authority within the State Department.  The false narrative is that reasonable people can't disagree about what should or should not be classified.  The false narrative is "we know how cavalier she and her staff were about using the non-secured systems for classified information."  There are too many false narrative here to even list.

I only understand about a third of this.  For example, nobody disputes that Hillary Clinton was the #1 person in charge of State.  That doesn't make her exempt from the FOIA, nor does it exempt her from our ordinary expectations involving government transparency.  (Tim -- I know you disagree; let it go for the sake of argument). I also agree with you that reasonable people can disagree about whether government material is currently being over-classified.  We don't know and will probably never know whether the redacted stuff on Hillary's server falls into that category or not.