What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
BREAKING: State Department reopens probe of how Hillary Clinton, top aides handled classified information.

Thats according to the AP

 
I've seen this idea that Comey was under "attack" today. I watched almost all 4 hours and didn't see an attack. Pointed questions for sure, but he wasn't fending off an assault.  I still think he walks away with both sides holding him in high regard. 

I thought there was a lot of new info. He expounded on a lot, reinforcing absence of criminality, but a high degree of recklessness. I know the republican actors have other things in mind and this was just the beginning, but if the idea is for us to know more about our prospective candidates and how they behave, today provided valuable insights into HRC. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27 said:
I've seen this idea that Comey was under "attack" today. I watched almost all 4 hours and didn't see an attack. Pointed questions for sure, but he wasn't fending off an assault.  I still think he walks away with both sides holding him in high regard. 

I thought there was a lot of new info. He expounded on a lot, reinforcing absence of criminality, but a high degree of recklessness. I know the republican actors have other things in mind and this was just the beginning, but if the idea is for us to know more about our prospective candidates and how they behave, today provided valuable insights into HRC. 
Click to expand...
This.

He was asked twice by dems and clearly said he had no problem being there, wanted to show all of us transparency, and did not feel like he was being attacked.

 
So am I following this correctly, there was a total of 3 emails that were sent that were marked as classified and none of them was marked correctly?

 
avoiding injuries said:
110
Click to expand...
I was just reading the exchange someone posted between Comey and Gowdy and part of it goes:

Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Click to expand...

 
Jayrok said:
This will fall on deaf ears, but it really doesn't matter if the sentences were marked with a (C), or (S), or (TS) or not at all.  That correspondence should not have been sitting on a private, non-accredited server.  The marking (C) would have been at the left margin of the line item in the document that was being marked as confidential.  Either way, it is a classified spillage of information onto a non-secure, unclassified network.  

When I see sentences in a document that are marked with a (C), it tells me that the originator knew what he/she was doing and is saying this particular line (not the entire document) is classified confidential.  Handle accordingly.  It tells me that the originator or sender did not use gmail or yahoo or send it from a server at home.  It says that Clinton received it on the appropriate system and transferred it to her own email system, whether with her iPhone or tablet, etc.  Or she had it done by someone else.  Anyone who knows to include (C) in the document before a line would not do so on their personal iPhone using a gmail account.  It doesn't matter if she saw the classification or not.  She created an incident when she sent the email or document to her own private server.  
Click to expand...


Jayrok said:
This is why any classified correspondence, whether document attachments or email conversations, should be conducted on the appropriate media/platform to handle the information.  She wouldn't be in this position if she had used to right equipment cleared to handle the information.  
Click to expand...
The person with the sophistication to mark the email was the one that sent the information on the non secured network as content in email.  That person may have intended for it stay "in house", but this is the person who put the information on an inappropriate system. 

 
So all the email communications were through these servers? As SoS, shouldn't there have been a ton of classified documents or is that just generally considered unsafe to begin with and high priority documents are only done in print?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
squistion said:
Sharrell ‏@sharrell86 2m2 minutes ago

Private server/email shouldnt have been used but a (C) can EASILY be overlooked by a busy person receiving thousands of emails #ComeyHearing
Click to expand...
Again this ignores the documents marked SBU.

However what I look forward to is Hillary saying "I was WRONG there were classified emails in my system but....".

Think we will get that?
Click to expand...
I'm reasonably sure that non classified markings were not considered by investigators as evidence that Hillary sent or received classified emails.   SBU requires special considerations, but it would not be in scope of a security referral.

 
jamny said:
So all the email communications were through these servers? As SoS, shouldn't there have been a ton of classified documents or is that just generally considered unsafe to begin with and high priority documents are only done in print?
Click to expand...
Vast majority of communications would be unclassified.   To send classified email is a bit of a PITA.  

 
timschochet said:
I still claim VRWC dammit. They didn't create this mess, but as usual they have revved it up and exaggerated its seriousness far beyond they would do with any body else. The Bush Administration destroyed millions of emails and not a peep. (Just as they also lost many lives in embassies and there weren't any investigations, much less dozens). 

Yeah the way this case has blown up is absolute proof of the vast right wing conspiracy which has always sought to destroy the Clintons. (Note- I use the phrase because it's in common parlance but it is NOT really a conspiracy by the common definition of that word- it would be more apt to call it a vast right wing movement). 
Click to expand...
The point is that the VRW didn't create any of these messes.  It was Bill Clinton that issued questionable pardons, while Hillary and her family accepted cash, without any input from the vast right-wing.  It was Bill who harassed interns, employees, and other women, without any input from the vast right-wing.  It was Hillary who accepted payments from Goldman and others, knowing full well she'd be running for POTUS shortly thereafter, without any input from the vast right-wing.  It was Hillary who sought to hide her communications from FOIA, without any input from the vast right-wing.  Etc., etc., etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another thing I'm seeing quite a bit of is she was too busy to pay attention to the (C) business.  Comey addressed this a number of times over the past several days, indicating that a person in her position should know better.  She doesn't need an email with a (C) or a subject header "DO NOT FORWARD THIS ON YOUR PRIVATE SERVER, AS IT IS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION YOU UNSOPHISTICATED GRANDMA!"  She's the Secretary of State for chrissakes.  Comey was really clear this shouldn't be given a pass for this.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I'm reasonably sure that non classified markings were not considered by investigators as evidence that Hillary sent or received classified emails.   SBU requires special considerations, but it would not be in scope of a security referral.
Click to expand...
Or a criminal investigation.

My point is to point the fact of the SBU in the first place. I would think that Hillary would be as careless with class marked docs as SBU, both were prohibited but the numbers are different.

I also think that the State Dept explanation details how documents should be marked, what gets me is that the only three that got through were mistakenly marked. Hillary would not have known that.  Hillary had 3 docs and they were all mistakes? She would be just as likely to ignore correct markings as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
The point is that the VRW didn't create any of these messes.  It was Bill Clinton that issued questionable pardons, while Hillary and her family accepted cash, without any input from the vast right-wing.  It was Bill who harassed interns, employees, and other women, without any input from the vast right-wing.  It was Hillary who accepted payments from Goldman and others, knowing full well she'd be running for POTUS shortly thereafter, without any input from the vast right-wing.  It was Hillary who sought to hide her communications from FOIA, without any input from the vast right-wing.  Etc., etc., etc.

The only vast right-wing movement is the effort to catch her red-handed, an effort that admittedly is usually over the top.  In truth, however, it's easy to understand why they try so hard, seeing how many times she and Bill have managed to get away with their shenanigans and outright crimes.
Click to expand...
It's really not.  Their job is to govern, not to get into endless pissing matches.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I'm reasonably sure that non classified markings were not considered by investigators as evidence that Hillary sent or received classified emails.   SBU requires special considerations, but it would not be in scope of a security referral.
Click to expand...
It establishes that someone is knowingly sending information they believe is classified on a system which was not approved for it.  Anybody who received such a message had the responsibility to report it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Or a criminal investigation.

My point is to point the fact of the SBU in the first place. I would think that Hillary would be as careless with class marked docs as SBU, both wereprohibited but the numbers are different.

I also think that the State Dept explanation details how documents should be marked, what gets me is that the only three that got through were mistakenly marked. Hillary would not have known that.  Hillary had 3 docs and they were all mistakes? She would be just as likely to ignore correct markings as well.
Click to expand...
When Comey was asked about the investigation into Hillary lying to Congress what was his answer?

When Comey was asked about corruption at the foundation what was his answer?

This being a "criminal investigation" doesn't change the fact that this investigation was limited in scope to the original security referral.  Maybe there are other on going or soon to be initiated investigations for other items,  but not here.

 And sorry, I have lost count of how many times you have been reminded that SBU may be a "classification", it is not and cannot be used as a classification level for classified information.

(CT:IM-117; 06-16-2011)

a. Information may be classified at one of the three levels described below. Except as otherwise provided by statute (e.g., the Atomic Energy Act for Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data), no other terms may be used to identify United States classified information. If there is significant doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it should be classified at the lower level.

b. Top Secret applies to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the OCA is able to identify or describe.

c. Secret applies to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the OCA is able to identify or describe.

d. Confidential applies to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the OCA is able to identify or describe.

Oh, and I underlined the "may be" piece because it is so often forgotten by the security experts.

 
jon_mx said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I'm reasonably sure that non classified markings were not considered by investigators as evidence that Hillary sent or received classified emails.   SBU requires special considerations, but it would not be in scope of a security referral.
Click to expand...
It establishes that someone is knowingly sending information they believe is classified on a system which was not approved for it.  Anybody who received such a message had the responsibility to report it. 
Click to expand...
Remind me what the "U" stands for in "SBU"?

 
Can I ask another dumb question?     She obviously wasn't the creator of the 3 classified emails since she would've known the "(C)"'s were in them.   Why did someone send classified emails to her personal email address?  Powell and Rice also had personal email addresses that they used for work correspondence and I'm guessing no one sent them classified emails although some of the emails they did receive were later marked as classified.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Listening to Comey, and reading that Politifact article, I am feeling better and better about Hillary Clinton. 
Click to expand...
Really? You've said all along you believed her and didn't think she was lying. And now Comey has confirmed she was lying all along and that makes you feel "better and better"?

 
Several sources reporting Bernie Sander's will announce his endorsement of Hillary on Tuesday.  A good step forward to start the healing between the two camps.

 
NutterButter said:
Can I ask another dumb question?     She obviously wasn't the creator of the 3 classified emails since she would've known the "(C)"'s where in them.   Why did someone send classified emails to her personal email address?  Powell and Rice also had personal email addresses that they used for work correspondence and I'm guessing no one sent them classified emails although some of the emails they did receive were later marked as classified?
Click to expand...
You're wrong on Rice. She did not. At all.

Powell used gov for internal State correspondence, back then the email would not go outside State. And the rules changed when he left.

About those emailing Hillary class marked documents, that's probably partly what the State investigation will look at. As Comey & others have pointed out in terms of criminality or negligence Hilllary's private server was the original sin. That's why she was in trouble, not them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NutterButter said:
Can I ask another dumb question?     She obviously wasn't the creator of the 3 classified emails since she would've known the "(C)"'s where in them.   Why did someone send classified emails to her personal email address?  Powell and Rice also had personal email addresses that they used for work correspondence and I'm guessing no one sent them classified emails although some of the emails they did receive were later marked as classified?
Click to expand...
It's 110 classified emails. But I believe only three were marked TSC. And yes it's quite possible that if Hillary were to go down for this, she wouldn't go down alone. It probably isn't just her presidential campaign at stake here.  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
When Comey was asked about the investigation into Hillary lying to Congress what was his answer?

When Comey was asked about corruption at the foundation what was his answer?

This being a "criminal investigation" doesn't change the fact that this investigation was limited in scope to the original security referral.  Maybe there are other on going or soon to be initiated investigations for other items,  but not here.

 And sorry, I have lost count of how many times you have been reminded that SBU may be a "classification", it is not and cannot be used as a classification level for classified information.

(CT:IM-117; 06-16-2011)

a. Information may be classified at one of the three levels described below. Except as otherwise provided by statute (e.g., the Atomic Energy Act for Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data), no other terms may be used to identify United States classified information. If there is significant doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it should be classified at the lower level.

b. Top Secret applies to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the OCA is able to identify or describe.

c. Secret applies to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the OCA is able to identify or describe.

d. Confidential applies to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the OCA is able to identify or describe.

Oh, and I underlined the "may be" piece because it is so often forgotten by the security experts.
Click to expand...
You've gone way afield here. My point to Squiz was that Hillary improperly emailed more marked docs than just those three. I didn't know if he realized that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock said:
It's 110 classified emails. But I believe only three were marked TSC. And yes it's quite possible that if Hillary were to go down for this, she wouldn't go down alone. It probably isn't just her presidential campaign at stake here.  
Click to expand...
This is one of the problems behind why they don't enforce the GN statute, they're protecting themselves.

 
Politician Spock said:
It's 110 classified emails. But I believe only three were marked TSC. And yes it's quite possible that if Hillary were to go down for this, she wouldn't go down alone. It probably isn't just her presidential campaign at stake here.  
Click to expand...
I'll mention this again as I did earlier b/c there seems to be some confusion about this.  This is from the Comey/Gowdy exchange.

Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Click to expand...

 
GroveDiesel said:
It's a little shocking to hear that the head of the FBI believes that mens rea is constitutionally required for something to be a crime.
Click to expand...
For this particular thing to be a crime. That's the way the law is written. There's a post quoting a law professor hundreds of pages back in this thread that said the same thing.

That's why I am a little shocked that any of the regulars in here are surprised she didn't get charged.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gopher State said:
Several sources reporting Bernie Sander's will announce his endorsement of Hillary on Tuesday.  A good step forward to start the healing between the two camps.
Click to expand...
Funny, sounds to me like he was awaiting word on the investigation.

I guess he cared about those damned emails after all.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
How about that "S"?

The example originally posted showed the "sensitive" became SECRET.
Click to expand...
Please stop!  This is not something that reasonable, honest, and informed people can disagree on!

The presence of "unclassified" markings is not evidence that Hillary lied when she stated she never received items marked as "classified".

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Please stop!  This is not something that reasonable, honest, and informed people can disagree on!

The presence of "unclassified" markings is not evidence that Hillary lied when she stated she never received items marked as "classified".
Click to expand...
I may have lost track of the OP. My point was just that Hillary emailed more marked documents than the three discussed. I don't think I brought other conclusions about wether a crime occurred into that. I think it does lead to other questions but not conclusions. I agreed with you further up that SBU wasn't part of the investigation into whether crimes were committed, at least to the extent that itself would have been a crime.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NutterButter said:
I'll mention this again as I did earlier b/c there seems to be some confusion about this.  This is from the Comey/Gowdy exchange.
Click to expand...
There were many emails containing classified info that failed to be marked classified. The Gowdy/Comey exchange is about marked emails. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
You're wrong on Rice. She did not. At all.

Powell used gov for internal State correspondence, back then the email would not go outside State. And the rules changed when he left.

About those emailing Hillary class marked documents, that's probably partly what the State investigation will look at. As Comey & others have pointed out in terms of criminality or negligence Hilllary's private server was the original sin. That's why she was in trouble, not them.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you're right, it was Rice's aides that used a personal email account.   So you're saying if Clinton had a hotmail address instead of hosting the email herself, this wouldn't be as big of a deal?

 
Politician Spock said:
Yes, yes it would. It would establish wilful intent, the lack of which is the only thing currently separating her from prosecution. 
Click to expand...
Her setting up the server to avoid FOIA requests in no way establishes willful intent to mishandle classified documents.  HTH

 
NutterButter said:
Sorry, you're right, it was Rice's aides that used a personal email account.   So you're saying if Clinton had a hotmail address instead of hosting the email herself, this wouldn't be as big of a deal?
Click to expand...
Hm, well Comey IIRC made the point about GMail, i.e. at least it has better physical security and better intrusion security. 

The server brings other issues, like control especially. But yeah at times the software protections were at times nearly nil.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone paying attention knows my feelings on HRC.  But, I take issue with folks on *my* side who are crying about a "double-standard."  That there are rules for HRC and rules for everyone else.  This comes up now that the State Department is reopening its internal investigation, and it would not be surprising to see sanctions levied against her associates.  

But, what's the double standard?  Comey established that, while reprehensible, irresponsible behavior that could be grounds for termination of employment in his office, the same evidence would not be grounds for criminal prosecution.  For anyone.  And, since Hillary is no longer employed (by anyone), there is no way to sanction her, suspend her, terminate her, etc.  

Forget Hillary's history or the Clintons' history of being above the law.  On this particular issue, I don't see grounds for a double-standard.  The means to sanction her is political.  Don't vote for her.  That raises other problems, ones I'd argue are more grave and serious.  But, that's another issue for another day.  Just not sure what other recourse others want with Hillary (assuming the facts of the case are as Comey sees them).

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
254K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top