SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Just ignore BB and look at the documents, and then make up your own mind. Which you often do, and I always respect that. And I have something like above utmost respect for MT like everyone else buuuuttt it was just the other day he claimed a NY Times Editorial Board piece on the email issue was dismissable out of hand because they addressed her as "Mrs. Clinton".... per the standard NYT Manual of StyleI am not willing to argue that there is not an e-mail where " highly classified CIA sources were discussed" and more importantly identified, especially since we already know that this happened with one of the news article discussions (this is the "CC" example"). There may very well be such a case that is actually damning.
However, I really find it sad that you guys cannot recognize the style of this article. It has been used over and over again, and not just by right wing media. The style basically goes like this:
- A certain classification code was found to have been used in redacting information in Hillary's emails
- A brief definition of this code
- A much longer explanation of what this could mean in the worst case, usually with dismayed and/or appalled expert quotes
- Never a counter point that this could also be nothing
- Or more importantly that it was act of marking the item classified that created the danger such as:
This is all of course to create an ominous sounding story that will generate attention to attract eyes to ad and click throughs. The fact that it also leads to many to jump to the conclusion that the mere presence of the markings means that the worst case scenarios apply is just a necessary evil for some and a happy coincidence for others.
- just a name on a list might have sent foreign intelligence actors scurrying to identity who someone was, but they weren't actually outed until the code was used to redact the information.
Again there may very well be something damning buried in these emails, and stories like this one may very well get it right but the stories themselves should not be very convincing of anything other than what kid of articles the American public go read.
But there are examples!: Which once again the worst of the worst is information generated from outside the government (the first and last) and most of the rest are just names having their pictures taken, or being brought to a meeting, or "having done a good job" which were outed to those that may have unredacted copies of the emails when they were redacted and marked.
By my count they actually link 10, I see 4 that go right to the document. We could probably find the others for the descriptions provided.
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb29thWeb/O-2015-08635HCE11_FEB29/DOC_0C05787634/C05787634.pdf
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb29thWeb/O-2015-08635HCE11_FEB29/DOC_0C05789812/C05789812.pdf
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Jan29thWeb/O-2015-08640HCE10/DOC_0C05795231/C05795231.pdf
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/11613
The claim that the (b)(3) code appears does indeed appear to be true and they do say (just glancing) "CIA PERS/ORG".
That's a big potential career ending problem for most people working in diplomatic and military circles. It may not result in indictment (Valerie Plame's name being revealed under yes different circumstances might be a counter-example) but it's a big problem.
I think the better argument here if you look at the examples is some (except one, there could be others) appear to have been emailed first to Hillary and their landing or originating on gov accounts in the first place is no better than their landing on Hillary's (well maybe better IMO but equally unauthorized).
And there is again the dual email (HROD17) appearing. and we have marked SBU again which is prohibited as discussed before, but those are side points.
Personally I have zero doubt that foreign intelligence was reading Hillary's emails in real time. I don't even know if that required "hacking" given what has been the state of signals intelligence for some time now.
But like I said, look at the documents linked to make your own determination, you don't have to listen to NYT or BB or anyone.
Last edited by a moderator: