Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (2 Viewers)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Is this the same Clinton who claims to be technologically incompetent?  

The old lady who couldn't understand how to turn on a computer, yes.

 

[Hang 10]

The old lady who couldn't understand how to turn on a computer, yes.

The one that didn't know how to work a fax machine? 

 

[Trey]

@SaintsInDome2006 Just for factual purposes. The Washington Post issued a correction this morning on their "147 agents" information.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

@SaintsInDome2006 Just for factual purposes. The Washington Post issued a correction this morning on their "147 agents" information.

That is a good update, I will look for it, thanks.

eta - Here's the correction:

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that Clinton used two different email addresses, sometimes interchangeably, as secretary of state. She used only hdr22@clintonemail.com as secretary of state.  Also, an earlier version of this article reported that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. Two U.S. law enforcement officials have since told The Washington Post that figure is too high. The FBI will not provide an exact figure, but the officials say the number of FBI personnel involved is fewer than 50.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

- Kind of interesting that WaPo now says the exact '147' number came second hand from Comey himself though.

- eta2 - However <50 is a very big difference if true.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

The old lady who couldn't understand how to turn on a computer, yes.

She's wacos.  She said "with a cloth or something?" to be disrespectful, not to sound dumb.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

@Trey - My guess at the discrepancy: I think 147 "agents" per se is unlikely. I think 40-50 actual agents is entirely possible or even likely. However I think that 147 persons or FBI personnel working on the investigation as a team or in teams is also likely. 147 agents would be like 1% of all agents in all the US, which is crazy.

But - considering the servers, hardware and data points, seized, I could see how the agents would need a large support staff of IT, forensics, technical, researchers, document reviewers and even intelligence and other experts to go through everything. My perception from all this data gathering is that they are trying to recover any live or ghost data from the hardware and they are also gathering it from numerous accounts, and prior reports have said as many as 30 State accounts were affected, in an effort to piece together Hillary's entire original data history down to the last byte and also to divine the origination of the most important classified data in her system as well as track where it has spilled to.

That makes total sense to me. Now I will also say that 40-50 FBI agents working on the investigation is not good for Hillary either. Cases with 40-50 agents are of the sort found in mob/mafia, terrorist, RICO & government corruption, and mass embezzlement/fraud or Ponzi scheme cases. That's what 40-50 actual FBI agents on a case looks like. I see no joy in resting on that number either.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

She's wacos.  She said "with a cloth or something?" to be disrespectful, not to sound dumb.

Oh I agree, it was arrogant sarcasm. I'm sure Kendall went over the technical options at the time. But I think BFS's theory that Hillary is aware of the risks and details of proper pst archived email storage are likely 0% present in Hillary's thought processes then or now.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

She used only hdr22@clintonemail.com as secretary of state. 

- This by WaPo is demonstrably false by looking in the emails. This is straight from the Hillary campaign.

 

[Henry Ford]

@SaintsInDome2006 Just for factual purposes. The Washington Post issued a correction this morning on their "147 agents" information.

Yeah, I also think that there should be a distinction between analysts and agents. I have no idea if they're including analysts in the numbers being given out, but I would assume so.  And I don't know if they're included in the sub-50 number, but I hope so.

 

[pantagrapher]

Has anyone mentioned Benghazi yet?

My take: It's a problem.

 

[The Commish]

She's wacos.  She said "with a cloth or something?" to be disrespectful, not to sound dumb.

Oh I agree, it was arrogant sarcasm. I'm sure Kendall went over the technical options at the time. But I think BFS's theory that Hillary is aware of the risks and details of proper pst archived email storage are likely 0% present in Hillary's thought processes then or now.

If she was asked what pst stood for in BFS' context and she answered correctly, I'd vote for her.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If she was asked what pst stood for in BFS' context and she answered correctly, I'd vote for her.

Someone like that would not have done what Hillary did. BFS argues from the POV of a public transparency advocate. Hillary is not that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Has anyone mentioned Benghazi yet?

My take: It's a problem.

Yes, Hillary brings it up every time she is confronted with a question she cannot handle.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I am surprised that the DNC will nominate someone who is a traitor to the US of A.

 

[Guest]

Getting seriously cheesed by the lack of clear investigation by the mainstream media.  In fairness to the pro-Hillary crowd, NBC news reporting that as few as 12 agents, and under 50 are assigned full time.  (Wapo retracted 147 in favor of fewer than 60).

LA Times opinion piece stares unequivocally that she did not break the law.  

Seems like the press is only reacting to each other, publishing pundit opinions and not delving into the entire timeline and facts.  I believe that the threat of losing access to the presumptive nominee and likely President is preventing the press from doing its job--which has best been deconstructed and analyzed to date by a university student on his free time.

When you consider the facts that are known, everyone agrees that Hillary screwed up.  No one can state that she did not break laws.  Granted, no one can state that she did.  But the overall lack of media probing and analysis beyond skating on the political surface is troubling to me.  This is a very important story that is simply not being examined with any real resourcing or insight.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Nbc does say 12...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fed-source-about-12-fbi-agents-working-clinton-email-inquiry-n548026

... they also affirm that 50 would be akin to what is seen in a terrorism investigation, i.e. a major national security matter. If Comey did say 147 as the anonymous lawmaker (certainly R)  related per WaPo then that would be incredible. 

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

She definitely made choices that were questionable and exposed her propensity to view herself as different than, and really above, other people and rules. That should be the message, which appears to be getting lost in the details. Can't trust her because: a, b & c. All these details about the number of FBI agents and the guy and the documents and how many emails is chewing up the cycle. Focus on the message: she can't and shouldn't be trusted.

 

[The Commish]

I am surprised that the DNC will nominate someone who is a traitor to the US of A.

really?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

My first question would be "Secretary Clinton:  what does it say about your judgment that you found it satisfactory to put an email server in your home rather than have it on the State Department network with it's (the State Department network) existing security measures in place?"  Depending on how she dodged the question, I'd continue.

Her answer should be -

• It would be against policy for using my government account for personal emails and I was not making myself an exception 
  
• It would be too impractical to manage local .pst files with my travel schedule as a means to archive email for document retention purposes with the limited size email accounts though I would believe this would have been a more appropriate exception.
  

5 FAM 752 USING THE EMAIL SYSTEM (CT:IM-122; 11-14-2011)

Not saying it will be her answer but it should be! 

After done smiling, maybe even chuckling a bit:  "Madam Secretary.  Do you expect me to believe you know what .pst files are or that you have the foggiest idea about document retention after your 'you mean with a cloth' comment from a couple months ago or is this just something your lawyers have told you to say?"

"Are you going to answer my question?  None of this speaks to how you believe this reflects your judgment (if at all)"

Hillary responds-  

Of course I don't know what those .pst files are beyond the gibberish in the policy.  I don't think it is important for me to know, or any of the non technical staff in the State Department or elsewhere in government to know.   The idea that I would need to do such stuff should be all the justification you need that not only was my decision to take advantage of resources personally available to me to work around such a ridiculous setup, but should make obvious it was the only correct decision.  ​

And the appropriate next question to this kind of reply is political rather than criminal.  It is something I'd like to actually hear/read asked and I'd like a response.  

Madam Secretary - In your four years what exactly did you do to address the IT shortcomings?  ​

The document I linked says November 2011 (I think).  Does that mean she was doing/did nothing?  Or that the glacial pace of government meant her efforts were still months/years out?  If she did something - what was it?  If she didn't - why not?  

Until there is evidence that the "classified information" in the emails is not benign. is not innocuous  as has been described by those that have seen [some of?] them then I believe that these questions would reveal more about her decision making, her priorities, he leadership than just about any others concerning this topic.  ("Just about" and subject to change when and if there is more specific information available.)

While on the subject of questions loosely related to this I'd liked to see asked I'd also like to see both democratic candidates asked about their view on classification and over classification.  Specifically their view on whether "when in doubt and we should error on the side of caution" that should means information should be classified or left unclassified?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Getting seriously cheesed by the lack of clear investigation by the mainstream media.  In fairness to the pro-Hillary crowd, NBC news reporting that as few as 12 agents, and under 50 are assigned full time.  (Wapo retracted 147 in favor of fewer than 60).

LA Times opinion piece stares unequivocally that she did not break the law.  

Seems like the press is only reacting to each other, publishing pundit opinions and not delving into the entire timeline and facts.  I believe that the threat of losing access to the presumptive nominee and likely President is preventing the press from doing its job--which has best been deconstructed and analyzed to date by a university student on his free time.

When you consider the facts that are known, everyone agrees that Hillary screwed up.  No one can state that she did not break laws.  Granted, no one can state that she did.  But the overall lack of media probing and analysis beyond skating on the political surface is troubling to me.  This is a very important story that is simply not being examined with any real resourcing or insight.

Can this thing go to trial?  Imagine being on that jury?!

 

[The Commish]

My first question would be "Secretary Clinton:  what does it say about your judgment that you found it satisfactory to put an email server in your home rather than have it on the State Department network with it's (the State Department network) existing security measures in place?"  Depending on how she dodged the question, I'd continue.

Her answer should be -

• It would be against policy for using my government account for personal emails and I was not making myself an exception 
  
• It would be too impractical to manage local .pst files with my travel schedule as a means to archive email for document retention purposes with the limited size email accounts though I would believe this would have been a more appropriate exception.
  

5 FAM 752 USING THE EMAIL SYSTEM (CT:IM-122; 11-14-2011)

Not saying it will be her answer but it should be! 

After done smiling, maybe even chuckling a bit:  "Madam Secretary.  Do you expect me to believe you know what .pst files are or that you have the foggiest idea about document retention after your 'you mean with a cloth' comment from a couple months ago or is this just something your lawyers have told you to say?"

"Are you going to answer my question?  None of this speaks to how you believe this reflects your judgment (if at all)"

Hillary responds-  

Of course I don't know what those .pst files are beyond the gibberish in the policy.  I don't think it is important for me to know, or any of the non technical staff in the State Department or elsewhere in government to know.   The idea that I would need to do such stuff should be all the justification you need that not only was my decision to take advantage of resources personally available to me to work around such a ridiculous setup, but should make obvious it was the only correct decision.  ​

You don't get to play both sides BFS!

So you don't know what they are, but you do know it's impractical to manage?  Ok Madam Secretary.  How often have you been on the campaign trail instructing voters that if they want to see Washington DC behave differently that it's on them to get out and affect change?  If they don't like the laws, work to change them, but until they are changed they need to follow them?  Why aren't you taking your own advice and following the rules while working to change them?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary responds-  

Of course I don't know what those .pst files are beyond the gibberish in the policy.  I don't think it is important for me to know, or any of the non technical staff in the State Department or elsewhere in government to know.   The idea that I would need to do such stuff should be all the justification you need that not only was my decision to take advantage of resources personally available to me to work around such a ridiculous setup, but should make obvious it was the only correct decision.  

This would land her in trouble IMO. Hillary is not winning any arguments with the CIA, NSA, FBI or the IC about the reasonableness of her setup because it's part of the national security protocol. The best argument is the one she has made from the beginning is that she had no idea she was transmitting classified information. Saying she did it purposefully because she - who did not know how to operate a computer - thought she knew better than what the technical experts at State TOLD her to do ("which was "shut up and color") is a good way to blow her defenses.

It would also be totally and completely false, also guaranteed to get her in real hot water.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And the appropriate next question to this kind of reply is political rather than criminal.  It is something I'd like to actually hear/read asked and I'd like a response.  

Madam Secretary - In your four years what exactly did you do to address the IT shortcomings?  

The document I linked says November 2011 (I think).  Does that mean she was doing/did nothing?  Or that the glacial pace of government meant her efforts were still months/years out?  If she did something - what was it?  If she didn't - why not?  

Until there is evidence that the "classified information" in the emails is not benign. is not innocuous  as has been described by those that have seen [some of?] them then I believe that these questions would reveal more about her decision making, her priorities, he leadership than just about any others concerning this topic.  ("Just about" and subject to change when and if there is more specific information available.)

The reg you linked to resulted (partly) in the firing of the Ambassador of Kenya, by Hillary herself. Surely you recall this. The Ambassador was fired for transmitting SBU over private email.

Hillary has had several scores (couple hundred?) SBU emails which rarely get mentioned. - Why should Hillary be held to a different standard than what she applied as manager of State?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

While on the subject of questions loosely related to this I'd liked to see asked I'd also like to see both democratic candidates asked about their view on classification and over classification.  Specifically their view on whether "when in doubt and we should error on the side of caution" that should means information should be classified or left unclassified?

I would like to hear this asked of all the candidates of both parties, but more in terms of what they will do to enforce regs in place which protect real state secrets.

I'd be interested in overclassification to the extent that it is used to defeat genuine whisteblowers.

I would really like it if just once a reporter asked Hillary if she will ensure that private email use for official purposes will be banned and enforced as such under her administration to ensure compliance with Foia.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You don't get to play both sides BFS!

So you don't know what they are, but you do know it's impractical to manage?  Ok Madam Secretary.  How often have you been on the campaign trail instructing voters that if they want to see Washington DC behave differently that it's on them to get out and affect change?  If they don't like the laws, work to change them, but until they are changed they need to follow them?  Why aren't you taking your own advice and following the rules while working to change them?

Hillary - Yes it is impractical  to expect me to manage what I don't even understand.  Of course!

Hillary - What law, or even policy are you suggesting I violated?  How did I violate it?  

FBI agent who is asking this stupid stuff- That is what we are trying to determine.

Hillary - So you are lecturing me on why I didn't follow some unknown law as I tried to change this mysterious law? 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary - Yes it is impractical  to expect me to manage what I don't even understand.  Of course!

Hillary - What law, or even policy are you suggesting I violated?  How did I violate it?  

FBI agent who is asking this stupid stuff- That is what we are trying to determine.

Hillary - So you are lecturing me on why I didn't follow some unknown law as I tried to change this mysterious law? 

FBI will be most unamused by this whole exchange.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This would land her in trouble IMO. Hillary is not winning any arguments with the CIA, NSA, FBI or the IC about the reasonableness of her setup because it's part of the national security protocol. The best argument is the one she has made from the beginning is that she had no idea she was transmitting classified information. Saying she did it purposefully because she - who did not know how to operate a computer - thought she knew better than what the technical experts at State TOLD her to do ("which was "shut up and color") is a good way to blow her defenses.

It would also be totally and completely false, also guaranteed to get her in real hot water.

Her argument is that what she did was proper and appropriate and that nothing on her server should have ever been confused as being classified.  She doesn't need to know the technical stuff, she just needs to know that when she asked those that do for options she chose the one that would work best for her. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Her argument is that what she did was proper and appropriate and that nothing on her server should have ever been confused as being classified.  She doesn't need to know the technical stuff, she just needs to know that when she asked those that do for options she chose the one that would work best for her. 

Did you read those NSA emails? That was not presented as an option. She was told to use the SCIF sans blackberry for classified information.

She can try to say she did not know it was class but the hardware was not optional ever.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The reg you linked to resulted (partly) in the firing of the Ambassador of Kenya, by Hillary herself. Surely you recall this. The Ambassador was fired for transmitting SBU over private email.

Hillary has had several scores (couple hundred?) SBU emails which rarely get mentioned. - Why should Hillary be held to a different standard than what she applied as manager of State?

We rate this claim mostly false

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We rate this claim mostly false

It says "alone".

I said partly.

Here is the IG report.

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/196460.pdf

Recommendation 57: Embassy Nairobi should cease using commercial email to process Department information and use authorized Department automated in formation systems for conducting official business.

The Ambassador’s requirements for use of commercial email in the office and his flouting of direct instructions to adhere to Department policy have placed the information management staff in a conundrum: balancing the desire to be responsive to their mission leader and the need to adhere to Department regulations and government information security standards.

 
- eta - That sounds exactly like the situation Hillary put her staff in.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Did you read those NSA emails? That was not presented as an option. She was told to use the SCIF sans blackberry for classified information.

She can try to say she did not know it was class but the hardware was not optional ever.

Yes.  The NSA emails are about an entirely different subject.  Hillary being told "no" she and her staff couldn't receive the waivers granted to Rice to use a  blackberry (or any wireless device) in her suite and/or that there was no blackberry like technology available to her to be used in such an area considered secured does not say she was not allowed to use a blackberry for email.   Similarly not being offered a customized blackberry such as the one provided the president also does not say anything about whether or not Hillary can use a blackberry for email.      

 

[The Commish]

You don't get to play both sides BFS!

So you don't know what they are, but you do know it's impractical to manage?  Ok Madam Secretary.  How often have you been on the campaign trail instructing voters that if they want to see Washington DC behave differently that it's on them to get out and affect change?  If they don't like the laws, work to change them, but until they are changed they need to follow them?  Why aren't you taking your own advice and following the rules while working to change them?

Hillary - Yes it is impractical  to expect me to manage what I don't even understand.  Of course!

Hillary - What law, or even policy are you suggesting I violated?  How did I violate it?  

FBI agent who is asking this stupid stuff- That is what we are trying to determine.

Hillary - So you are lecturing me on why I didn't follow some unknown law as I tried to change this mysterious law? 

Madam Secretary, I wasn't suggesting anything.  I was asking you questions about your decisions and what they say about your judgment and you still haven't answered them.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yes.  The NSA emails are about an entirely different subject.  Hillary being told "no" she and her staff couldn't receive the waivers granted to Rice to use a  blackberry (or any wireless device) in her suite and/or that there was no blackberry like technology available to her to be used in such an area considered secured does not say she was not allowed to use a blackberry for email.   Similarly not being offered a customized blackberry such as the one provided the president also does not say anything about whether or not Hillary can use a blackberry for email.      

The waivers for Rice were eliminated during Rice's tenure.

The issue was whether Hillary could use her blackberry for classified information. The answer was always no.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

FBI will be most unamused by this whole exchange.

The FBI won't be asking Hillary why she didn't just break policy and use the government account on servers already with space constraints to double as her personal email account.  Well they might ask, but they aren't asking expecting that such alternative would be more appropriate.   That is I hope they won't.  If the FBI does then it would be difficult for this investigation to be taken seriously.

 

[Gr00vus]

You guys really care about something. And that's not at all tedious.

 

[Guest]

www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/as-long-as-hillary-clinto_b_9571406.html

Most notable thing about this H.A. Good an blog on Huffington isn't it's content per se.  It's nothing too different than opinions expressed here.  What's amazing is the comments, on Huffington.  When I started following this in earnest last Summer/Fall, any article that appeared there was peppered with charges of right wing conspiracy, the ludicrousness of the attacks.  Oh have things changed.  The sentiment now is hang her.  

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/as-long-as-hillary-clinto_b_9571406.html

Most notable thing about this H.A. Good an blog on Huffington isn't it's content per se.  It's nothing too different than opinions expressed here.  What's amazing is the comments, on Huffington.  When I started following this in earnest last Summer/Fall, any article that appeared there was peppered with charges of right wing conspiracy, the ludicrousness of the attacks.  Oh have things changed.  The sentiment now is hang her.  

If you put the hanging on PPV say at $79.99 I'm pretty sure we could take a big chunk off the national debt.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I would like to hear this asked of all the candidates of both parties, but more in terms of what they will do to enforce regs in place which protect real state secrets.

I'd be interested in overclassification to the extent that it is used to defeat genuine whisteblowers.

I would really like it if just once a reporter asked Hillary if she will ensure that private email use for official purposes will be banned and enforced as such under her administration to ensure compliance with Foia.

I'm on the side that 90+% of what is classified should not be classified especially after say a year.  This has nothing to do with this issue. However, my inability to read these emails for myself and decide for myself when multiplied by 120 million "me" voters is a greater threat to this nation's security.  How can you or I or anyone make an informed decision on whether or not Hillary placed the security of the nation secondary to her convenience based only on anonymous leaks and statements from politicians?  Sure I'd give greater weight to an FBI statement, but I doubt the FBI is going to offer much of an opinion on the appropriateness of the classification.

When jon states that those in government treat this very seriously I assume he means that they error on the side of classifying information.  That is backwards.   Classifying information should be the exception, not the rule.  And a rare exception.   

I'd guess that Sanders more than Hillary would share this view.  Hiding information from the people is how government is hijacked from the people  and is no for the people.  But I'd still like to hear him say it.  

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Watch Hillary's eyes... she has a problem with going after top secret information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBEJjy_s_ZM

 

[jon_mx]

I'm on the side that 90+% of what is classified should not be classified especially after say a year.  This has nothing to do with this issue. However, my inability to read these emails for myself and decide for myself when multiplied by 120 million "me" voters is a greater threat to this nation's security.  How can you or I or anyone make an informed decision on whether or not Hillary placed the security of the nation secondary to her convenience based only on anonymous leaks and statements from politicians?  Sure I'd give greater weight to an FBI statement, but I doubt the FBI is going to offer much of an opinion on the appropriateness of the classification.

When jon states that those in government treat this very seriously I assume he means that they error on the side of classifying information.  That is backwards.   Classifying information should be the exception, not the rule.  And a rare exception.   

I'd guess that Sanders more than Hillary would share this view.  Hiding information from the people is how government is hijacked from the people  and is no for the people.  But I'd still like to hear him say it.  

Information I come across is classified appropriately.  The only information that is over-classified is sensitive information.  We treat all paper and CD's generated in the course of business as sensitive and are shredded when we are done using them.  But classified information with respect to military systems including technology, capabilities and vulnerabilities of course needs to be classified and I don't see over-classification as an issue with any of it. 

 

[Gopher State]

All this email stuff is utterly fascinating.

But let's not lose sight of the bottom line when it comes to Hillary:

She a liar and a socialist and her feet stink.

Sanders is the socialist, are you confused?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

All this email stuff is utterly fascinating.

But let's not lose sight of the bottom line when it comes to Hillary:

She a liar and a socialist and her feet stink.

Sanders is the socialist, are you confused?

I'm OK as a voter not knowing about the stinkiness of candidates feet.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm on the side that 90+% of what is classified should not be classified especially after say a year.  This has nothing to do with this issue. However, my inability to read these emails for myself and decide for myself when multiplied by 120 million "me" voters is a greater threat to this nation's security.  How can you or I or anyone make an informed decision on whether or not Hillary placed the security of the nation secondary to her convenience based only on anonymous leaks and statements from politicians?  Sure I'd give greater weight to an FBI statement, but I doubt the FBI is going to offer much of an opinion on the appropriateness of the classification.

When jon states that those in government treat this very seriously I assume he means that they error on the side of classifying information.  That is backwards.   Classifying information should be the exception, not the rule.  And a rare exception.   

I'd guess that Sanders more than Hillary would share this view.  Hiding information from the people is how government is hijacked from the people  and is no for the people.  But I'd still like to hear him say it.  

We can agree on several things. I disagree on your percentages but I would be happy to argue for reform of what gets classified up front.

Another is that Sanders - who I like for a few reasons but the major one that to me is that he is a reform candidate and he is the only reform candidate - could have explored the email and security situations to his great benefit. He did not have to attack Hillary but he could have recognized this for the substantive issue that it is - protecting whistleblowers and protecting the nations true secrets appropriately.

Yes, overclasification goes on. To me the prime problem is the whistleblower who wants to report that there is something wrong at an agency or in policy but he cannot because the information is classified. The government over-protects its information sometimes in an effort to clamp down on transparency and internal dissent. That's wrong. But the cases are replete with the whistleblowers getting prosecuted, the thing that Hillary saying there are whistleblower protections was incorrect, there aren't, and Hillary was a harsh prosecutor of violators. I do not see any reason why you have sympathy for her. It's frankly befuddling to me that you have what to me is an (yes) extremely conservative position by protecting a politician who was hiding public information by using arguments for whistleblowers who are trying to inform the public.It's the sort of thing that could come from a Cheney or a Nixon. And I also wish Sanders had brought this distinction to light. Sanders also could have burnished his national security credentials over Hillary in this way because yes you and I both know that there are some national secrets, they do exist and they need to be protected. There have been hacks at OPM, State and IRS and Sanders could raise that as something he could address.

But I want to be clear on this: "How can you or I or anyone make an informed decision on whether or not Hillary placed the security of the nation secondary to her convenience based only on anonymous leaks and statements from politicians?" - Ok, that is not what is happening. The docs are classified by analysts at the originating agencies. I give zero sh|ts about what Chafetz or whoever else says about a classification. He gives us a clue about actual content because Hillary herself challenges what is in it and she hasn't seen it for 5 years so likely has no clue either. - The analysts at the agencies classify the documents and they matter. They matter because they are the same people who would have classified had Hillary let them review the information in her emails at the time. These are the people who are the most knowledgeable about the subject matter and the risks they pose.

 

[The Commish]

I'm on the side that 90+% of what is classified should not be classified especially after say a year.  This has nothing to do with this issue. However, my inability to read these emails for myself and decide for myself when multiplied by 120 million "me" voters is a greater threat to this nation's security.  How can you or I or anyone make an informed decision on whether or not Hillary placed the security of the nation secondary to her convenience based only on anonymous leaks and statements from politicians?  Sure I'd give greater weight to an FBI statement, but I doubt the FBI is going to offer much of an opinion on the appropriateness of the classification.

When jon states that those in government treat this very seriously I assume he means that they error on the side of classifying information.  That is backwards.   Classifying information should be the exception, not the rule.  And a rare exception.   

I'd guess that Sanders more than Hillary would share this view.  Hiding information from the people is how government is hijacked from the people  and is no for the people.  But I'd still like to hear him say it.  

  on board with this for sure.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

But I want to be clear on this: " How can you or I or anyone make an informed decision on whether or not Hillary placed the security of the nation secondary to her convenience based only on anonymous leaks and statements from politicians?" - Ok, that is not what is happening. The docs are classified by analysts at the originating agencies. I give zero sh|ts about what Chafetz or whoever else says about a classification. He gives us a clue about actual content because Hillary herself challenges what is in it and she hasn't seen it for 5 years so likely has no clue either. - The analysts at the agencies classify the documents and they matter. They matter because they are the same people who would have classified had Hillary let them review the information in her emails at the time.

Please list the email threads that are believed to contain classified information which originated in agencies other than the State Department

• Blumenthal's 
  
• Arguably the conference call summary which the State Department argues was parallel sourced 
  
• what else?
  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Please list the email threads that are believed to contain classified information which originated in agencies other than the State Department

• Blumenthal's 
  
• Arguably the conference call summary which the State Department argues was parallel sourced 
  
• what else?
  

Takes some work to get the actual numbers but I think Secret and above plus some lower class from IC is likely in the few hundred range.

I'm guessing you're saying release everything else because Hillary had authority over that. Well if she argues that she is going to have to acknowledge she knew they were classified to begin with, which she seems very reluctant to do.

Other options for the State classed documents would be:

- Hillary file a amicus brief in the Foia cases calling for their release by acknowledging their classification but saying they should be downclassified.

- Kerry releasing them.

- Obama releasing them.

 

[raidergil]

Wife just had me read The Murder of Vincent Foster during vacation.  Granted it is over 20 yrs ago, but what has demonstrably changed that Hillary would be found guilty of email issue or corruption behind Clinton Foundation? If they can escape so many 'coincidental deaths' unscathed, why even argue whether a DA initially appointed by Bill (to a previous position) would ever press forward with such a case?

 

[raidergil]

Wife just had me read The Murder of Vincent Foster during vacation.  Granted it is over 20 yrs ago, but what has demonstrably changed that Hillary would be found guilty of email issue or corruption behind Clinton Foundation? If they can escape so many 'coincidental deaths' unscathed, why even argue whether a DA initially appointed by Bill (to a previous position) would ever press forward with such a case?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Watch Hillary's eyes... she has a problem with going after top secret information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBEJjy_s_ZM

She can take any fun topic and turn it into a policy lecture and empty campaign promise.

 

[jon_mx]

Wife just had me read The Murder of Vincent Foster during vacation.  Granted it is over 20 yrs ago, but what has demonstrably changed that Hillary would be found guilty of email issue or corruption behind Clinton Foundation? If they can escape so many 'coincidental deaths' unscathed, why even argue whether a DA initially appointed by Bill (to a previous position) would ever press forward with such a case?

I did not even realize Loretta Lynch served a three year appointment from Bill Clinton.  Would seem to raise conflict of interest concern.