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 (9 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
3. I'm a little surprised there is not more discussion here about the CNN revelations regarding Cheryl Mills. For the first time there appears to an inappropriate connection between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's time in the State Department. It is to be sure a tenuous connection; it doesn't prove "pay to play" (as I have pointed out in the past, in order to prove that you need to present a deliberate quid pro quo, and nobody has) but at the very least it seems to be improper and perhaps a violation of ethics. 
Click to expand...
First, hope you're enjoying your time off.

This is typical of the Clinton Way.  Of course it's improper, and insulting to think Mills just financed this trip, her hotel, her meals on her own dime to interview executives for the Foundation.  But that's what the Foundation and campaign say, and there are no records, will be no investigations (most likely) and the media accepts it as fact.  It speaks to the hopelessness, and that's the right word, of knowing it was what it was -- that it's part of a concealed pattern -- and that there ain't a damn thing we mortals can do.  

Edit: And Tim, it's a bit insulting that you would point out a prime example of many of our objection your your candidate and say "oh, this looks bad" after you gloat about how in the bag you have the election.  It's all just so troubling.  So very sad how lost we are, and out of sync with the reigns of our Republic.  

It's why she will never be loved, never be accepted.

 
Last edited:
Rohn Jambo said:
And it is not just Bill & Hillary.  Chelsea Clinton is one of the highest paid speaker in the country.  I heard her speech at the DNC convention.  C'mon, give me a break!
Click to expand...
Just goes to show how much speaking ability has to do with this.  Mind boggling how brazen the influence peddling and corruption is here.

 
Republicans also pressed Mr. Comey to say whether the Clinton Foundation, the global charity started by former President Bill Clinton, had become embroiled in the investigation, as some reports have suggested. Mr. Comey — who was surprisingly forthcoming on many other issues — twice declined to answer Mr. Chaffetz on that issue.
Click to expand...


- Had a good discussion with DParker and MT on this after Comey's testimony.

 
timschochet said:
I'm a little surprised there is not more discussion here about the CNN revelations regarding Cheryl Mills. For the first time there appears to an inappropriate connection between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's time in the State Department. It is to be sure a tenuous connection; it doesn't prove "pay to play" (as I have pointed out in the past, in order to prove that you need to present a deliberate quid pro quo, and nobody has) but at the very least it seems to be improper and perhaps a violation of ethics. 
Click to expand...
You have a funny definition of "first".

 
Sand said:
Just goes to show how much speaking ability has to do with this.  Mind boggling how brazen the influence peddling and corruption is here.
Click to expand...
This is small potatoes.

What would be nuts if they caught Clinton making stock trades based on insider info gleamed from when she was a member of congress.  Now that would get people to care.

 
timschochet said:
 I'm a little surprised there is not more discussion here about the CNN revelations regarding Cheryl Mills. For the first time there appears to an inappropriate connection between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's time in the State Department. It is to be sure a tenuous connection; it doesn't prove "pay to play" (as I have pointed out in the past, in order to prove that you need to present a deliberate quid pro quo, and nobody has) but at the very least it seems to be improper and perhaps a violation of ethics. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're still being deliberately stupid on that part.  That isn't how these things work, and you're revealing your ignorance by suggesting otherwise.

Hope you're having a good vacation though.

 
Chasing the Ghosts of the Corrupt Abacha Regime: Gilbert Chagoury, Clinton donor and diplomat With A Checkered Past

In July 2004, police lay in wait at an airfield in the far northeastern corner of Nigeria. Gilbert Chagoury, a Lebanese businessman and one-time adviser to the late dictator Sani Abacha, was set to touch down in his private jet. Nuhu Ribadu, then the country's top anti-corruption prosecutor, says that Chagoury was a kingpin in the corruption that defined Abacha's regime. "You couldn't investigate corruption without looking at Chagoury," Ribadu tells me in a recent interview in California.
Six years after Abacha's death, Ribadu's officers stood ready to take Chagoury down. Ribadu says that Chagoury made it possible for Abacha to steal billions of dollars and lined his own pockets in the process. The prosecutor says he indicted Chagoury and ordered his arrest for relatively minor violations related to Chagoury's businesses so that he could later bring additional charges for his activities in the Abacha era.

But, no sooner had Chagoury's plane hit the ground, than it took off again. Ribadu says it's likely that an airport official tipped him off, and Ribadu's big catch slipped away, literally into thin air.

Chagoury was among the last of the all-powerful middlemen who served the heads of oil-rich African states, says Philippe Vasset, longtime editor of Africa Energy Intelligence, one of a series of influential energy industry newsletters. "He [Chagoury] was the gatekeeper to Abacha's presidency," Vasset says.

In many African countries, a Western entrepreneur might hand over money to a fixer or middleman, who would then pass it on to a political leader in exchange for support for a business venture. In Nigeria, Vasset explains, Chagoury was just such a figure in the mid-1990s, when Abacha ruled the country and held the key to much of the country's oil wealth.

Today, Chagoury is a diplomat representing the tiny island nation of St. Lucia. He is also a friend of former President Bill Clinton and a generous philanthropist, who, since the Abacha years, has used his money to establish respectability. He appeared near the top of the Clinton Foundation donor list in 2008 as a $1 million to $5 million contributor, according to foundation documents. (His name made the list again in 2009.)
Click to expand...
Halliburton's Nigerian Bribes
The scheme began in the early 1990s, when Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR), at the time a subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation, led a joint venture that bid for a $6 billion contract to build a sprawling liquefied natural gas facility in the Niger Delta.

The group won the bid, but not before Abacha had agreed to accept a $40 million bribe that he would share with other Nigerian officials, according to Department of Justice court papers. It was the first installment of $180 million in bribes that KBR would pay, not only to officials of the Abacha regime, but to officials of the two heads of state who succeeded him.

A few months before I interviewed Chagoury, former KBR CEO Jack Stanley had pleaded guilty in a Texas courtroom to charges related to organizing the bribery scheme that went on for a decade in Nigeria, and to taking millions in kickbacks for himself. Since then, two more KBR contractors have been indicted, and Halliburton entered a guilty plea and paid the government a record fine of more than $500 million.
Chagoury denies any involvement in the bribery case, but his name surfaces in notes taken by one of the indictees, Chodan, who kept detailed records of so-called cultural meetings, where bribes were discussed.

One entry reads, "$250 , to IPCO via Chagoury."
When I ask Chagoury about these records, he doesn't dispute that the note refers to a sum of $250 million, but he argues that it refers to a contract, which, he says, was legitimately awarded to one of his companies, IPCO Nigeria Limited, for construction related to the liquefied natural gas plant.

Chagoury has not been named by the Department of Justice or charged with any crime related to the KBR affair.

His work as an intermediary for Abacha went beyond business affairs. He was also deeply involved in diplomacy, even though he held no official government post. In the mid-1990s, when Nigeria came under increasing pressure from Washington to hold elections, Chagoury gained access to high-level U.S. emissaries like Jesse Jackson and Bill Richardson as well as to a number of senior State Department officials, according to Donald McHenry, a former American ambassador to the United Nations, who worked in U.S.-Nigeria diplomacy at the time.

The Clinton Connections
Chagoury, along with his wife and three of his children, were guests at a the Clinton's White House holiday dinner shortly after Chagoury gave nearly half a million dollars to a voter registration committee, Vote Now '96, according to a report in The Washington Post. (Chagoury would have been barred from donating directly to the Clinton campaign because he is not a U.S. citizen.) Since then, Chagoury and Clinton have traveled together and seen each other socially.

"Every one knows I'm friends with the Clintons," Chagoury says.

...Immediately after Abacha's death, Ribadu, then a young police investigator, says he began looking into the dictator's financial affairs. "It wasn't uncommon for Nigerian leaders to put money elsewhere," Ribadu says. "But the magnitude was beyond anybody's comprehension."
The money -- estimated at more than $4 billion -- was stashed in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, and the Isle of Jersey in the names of dozens of individuals and companies. Ribadu argues that it was Chagoury who vouched for Abacha's sons at banks where the source of their assets might otherwise have been questioned.

Indeed, Chagoury's Swiss attorney, Luc Argand, told me that his client served as a reference for Abacha's sons at Credit Suisse. The Nigerian government eventually requested help from law enforcement around the world in tracking the stolen assets. In 2000, Chagoury was convicted in Geneva, Switzerland, of laundering money and aiding a criminal organization in connection with the billions of dollars stolen from Nigeria during the Abacha years.
Click to expand...




... While the Nigerian government struggles to recoup the losses it suffered under Abacha, Chagoury has prospered and continued to win acceptance from influential people around the world.

...The Clinton Foundation did not respond to emailed questions and repeated phone calls about the nature of Bill and Hillary Clinton's relationship with Chagoury. Former Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe, who, according to The Washington Post, was a sponsor of Chagoury's invitation to the White House in 1996, also failed to return phone calls. A spokesman for former Clinton political advisor James Carville, also a Chagoury acquaintance, said that Carville could not comment on the relationship.

And Chagoury hasn't stopped earning his fortune. Knowledgeable sources say that Chagoury controls South Atlantic Petroleum, a company that was awarded a choice oil exploration license before Abacha's death. Three years ago, the company sold a portion of its government-granted concession to the Chinese oil company, China National Offshore Oil Corporation, for $2.7 billion.

In our interview, Chagoury didn't deny that he profited from the deal, but he said rumors that former President Clinton helped make the deal happen were untrue.

Chagoury is unfazed by the crackdown by the U.S. Justice Department on foreign bribery, exemplified by the Halliburton case, and waves off the recent spate of prosecutions like an elder statesman: "You have lobbyists; we have agents," he says.

"You are never going to stop corruption," because it's favoritism, and that's human nature, which laws won't change, he tells me.
It's no wonder he is so confident. He is now free to come and go in Nigeria, while his nemesis, corruption hunter Nuhu Ribadu, left the country last year, he says, after an attempt on his life.

Robin Urevich is a reporter in Monterey County, California. Her work has appeared on NPR, Marketplace, NPR affiliates KQED and KPCC, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Las Vegas Sun. She is a graduate of the University of California Berkeley School of Journalism.

This story was originally published by PBS Frontline.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bananafish said:
I begrudgingly find myself in the Hillary camp but all these non-apology apologies and parsing of words nonsense is so irritating and insulting it makes it hard to swallow. I heard the point made that whenever a politician says the line "the bottom line is this" it's a signal that the next thing out of their mouth is going to be complete and utter BS. Such is the case with her Comey/truthfullness evasion.

I hate Donald Trump even more for forcing me into this position. The next four years are going to be painful.
Click to expand...
The nonsense is nothing new for Hillary. It's the hallmark of someone sloppy and careless who refuses to admit they are sloppy and careless. The whole "most qualified" marketing was put in place by those in her campaign who know how f'ing sloppy and careless she is and wanted something to divert away as far as possible from this side of her. 

 
timschochet said:
Hi guys, still enjoying my vacation, but thought I'd check in here with some Saturday night thoughts: 

1. Everything is going Hillary's way, thankfully. Hard to see how she loses now; I no longer fear a cataclysmic event that will turn things around. My only remaining concern is what we in California call the "Bradley effect"; namely that a lot of voters are prepared to vote for Trump but won't admit it in the polls. That seems unlikely to change the result but who knows? Makes me nervous. 

2. A few people have taken the Hillary fans like myself to task here in recent days for predicting that Bernie Sanders would lose to Donald Trump. That's a little bit of revisionist history. For my own part, I did argue early on that Bernie would lose to the Republican candidate, but once it became clear that this candidate was going to be Trump, I stopped making that argument and wrote that in terms of winning it made no difference because the election would be about Trump, not about Hillary or Bernie. The dominant argument in this thread however, emphatically made by Sinn Fein and repeated by many others was the exact opposite: that Hillary would lose to Trump, and that Bernie was our only chance to defeat Trump. This argument was made all the way into early July: Sinn Fein, much like his alter ego Bernie fan H A Goodman, guaranteed a Hillary defeat (Goodman still does). 

3. I'm a little surprised there is not more discussion here about the CNN revelations regarding Cheryl Mills. For the first time there appears to an inappropriate connection between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's time in the State Department. It is to be sure a tenuous connection; it doesn't prove "pay to play" (as I have pointed out in the past, in order to prove that you need to present a deliberate quid pro quo, and nobody has) but at the very least it seems to be improper and perhaps a violation of ethics. 

4. Last summer the only guy in this forum willing to admit he was a Trump fan was Eminence. As Trump's popularity grew so did his supporters. Now it seems to have shrunk back to Eminence again; the others are nowhere to be seen. I almost feel sorry for Em (almost). 
Click to expand...
Good posting here

 
Politician Spock said:
The nonsense is nothing new for Hillary. It's the hallmark of someone sloppy and careless who refuses to admit they are sloppy and careless. The whole "most qualified" marketing was put in place by those in her campaign who know how f'ing sloppy and careless she is and wanted something to divert away as far as possible from this side of her. 
Click to expand...
God this is such a good post I wish I could give it 30 likes. 

 
Politician Spock said:
The nonsense is nothing new for Hillary. It's the hallmark of someone sloppy and careless who refuses to admit they are sloppy and careless. The whole "most qualified" marketing was put in place by those in her campaign who know how f'ing sloppy and careless she is and wanted something to divert away as far as possible from this side of her. 
Click to expand...
Hillary is the "most qualified" to keep their jobs.

 
bananafish said:
I begrudgingly find myself in the Hillary camp but all these non-apology apologies and parsing of words nonsense is so irritating and insulting it makes it hard to swallow. I heard the point made that whenever a politician says the line "the bottom line is this" it's a signal that the next thing out of their mouth is going to be complete and utter BS. Such is the case with her Comey/truthfullness evasion.

I hate Donald Trump even more for forcing me into this position. The next four years are going to be painful.
Click to expand...
Clear you conscience and jump to the Gary Johnson camp.

if things keep spiraling like they have, he has a legit chance...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rove! said:
Clear you conscience and jump to the Gary Johnson camp.

if things keep spiraling like they have, he has a legit chance...
Click to expand...
Gary has terrible fiscal ideas.  Not sure he has the first clue how to run the Federal government.

 
Juxtatarot said:
Which words of his specifically? The marked classified part seems to be true from everything we've read before.
Click to expand...
There's more to Comey's statement, he also made clear that some emails were born classified. Marking has never been a requirement for classification. This was never about markings.

 
timschochet said:
Hi guys, still enjoying my vacation, but thought I'd check in here with some Saturday night thoughts: 

1. Everything is going Hillary's way, thankfully. Hard to see how she loses now; I no longer fear a cataclysmic event that will turn things around. My only remaining concern is what we in California call the "Bradley effect"; namely that a lot of voters are prepared to vote for Trump but won't admit it in the polls. That seems unlikely to change the result but who knows? Makes me nervous. 

2. A few people have taken the Hillary fans like myself to task here in recent days for predicting that Bernie Sanders would lose to Donald Trump. That's a little bit of revisionist history. For my own part, I did argue early on that Bernie would lose to the Republican candidate, but once it became clear that this candidate was going to be Trump, I stopped making that argument and wrote that in terms of winning it made no difference because the election would be about Trump, not about Hillary or Bernie. The dominant argument in this thread however, emphatically made by Sinn Fein and repeated by many others was the exact opposite: that Hillary would lose to Trump, and that Bernie was our only chance to defeat Trump. This argument was made all the way into early July: Sinn Fein, much like his alter ego Bernie fan H A Goodman, guaranteed a Hillary defeat (Goodman still does). 

3. I'm a little surprised there is not more discussion here about the CNN revelations regarding Cheryl Mills. For the first time there appears to an inappropriate connection between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's time in the State Department. It is to be sure a tenuous connection; it doesn't prove "pay to play" (as I have pointed out in the past, in order to prove that you need to present a deliberate quid pro quo, and nobody has) but at the very least it seems to be improper and perhaps a violation of ethics. 

4. Last summer the only guy in this forum willing to admit he was a Trump fan was Eminence. As Trump's popularity grew so did his supporters. Now it seems to have shrunk back to Eminence again; the others are nowhere to be seen. I almost feel sorry for Em (almost). 
Click to expand...
Help me understand the distinction between this "revelation" than any of the other information we've seen to date that you flat out rejected.  To me, this isn't as damning towards her character or judgment as many of the other things you've flat out rejected and argued against.  At worst, it's on par with all the other incidents.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
There's more to Comey's statement, he also made clear that some emails were born classified. Marking has never been a requirement for classification. This was never about markings.
Click to expand...
This.  And people need to get this through their heads.  Clintons are the king and queen of gaslighting and straw man arguments.  What she did was wildly improper and yet she finds a way to absolve herself based on semantic arguments that were not nearly the substance of what she did wrong.  These people truly disgust me, but not as much as those who fall for their BS.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Putting "born" in the search box here for the hearing's transcript comes up empty.  Same result for the original statement.  Maybe there is some other statement on the matter you are referencing?  Since I can't ever prove there is no such statement out there somewhere please link to it so I can determine which one of you is full of it.
Click to expand...
We talked about this - the original statement refers to the 110 emails being classified at the time they were sent. I think he discussed that further at the hearing as well. Another 2000 were upclassified.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
BREAKING:

Julian Assange claims that Wikileaks has, and will soon release, 1,700 emails that prove direct knowledge by Hillary Clinton of arms being sold through Libya to ISIS in Syria.  (Well, technically it was to Al Queda at the time, which became ISIS as Hillary Clinton was arming them).  If this is true, then Hillary perjured herself so clearly to Congress that it is very hard to imagine she could be saved from prosecution.  Wikileaks tends to come through when they say they have something specific, so they're probably working the press cycles to ensure the issue is understood by news organizations and debated prior to dropping the goods and ensuring that it can't merely be ignored.

Absolutely praying they have what they say they have -- and if it does in fact prove direct knowledge of ferrying weapons to the enemy (particularly ISIS), then she perjured herself without any ambiguity whatsoever.  Please let Christmas come early...
Click to expand...


Mr. Ham said:
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2016/08/hillary-clinton-julian-assange-wikileaks-claims-armed-isis/
Click to expand...
Not exactly true....

the article is from August 1st, and refers to emails already released.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
We talked about this - the original statement refers to the 110 emails being classified at the time they were sent. I think he discussed that further at the hearing as well.
Click to expand...
"10 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. " is not the same as 110 emails were "born classified".   

SaintsInDome2006 said:
There's more to Comey's statement, he also made clear that some emails were born classified. Marking has never been a requirement for classification. This was never about markings.
Click to expand...
Comey hopefully never said this because the emails were not "born classified" because "born classified" has a specific, likely unconstitutional meaning which would not apply here.   These emails were retroactively classified because they contained information that was deemed and marked by some agency other than State as such.  And hundreds of career government employees participated in these "extremely careless" conversations without noticing.    

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  Comey's comments at the hearing about the 2,000 "up classified":

 >> IT ACTUALLY WAS NOT A CONCEPT I WAS REAL FAMILIAR WITH BEFORE THIS. IT'S THE NOTION THAT SOMETHING MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME BUT THAT IN HINDSIGHT AS A GOVERNMENT AGENCY CONSIDERS RELEASING IT, THEY RAISE THE CLASSIFICATION LEVEL TO PROTECT IT BECAUSE IT IS A CANDID ASSESSMENT OF A FOREIGN LEADER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I THINK IT IS LARGELY A STATE DEPARTMENT THING BECAUSE DIPLOMATS WILL OFTEN BE CONVERSING IN AN UNCLASSIFIED WAY THAT WHEN THEY LOOK AT RELEASING IT IN RESPONSE TO A FOIA REQUEST, THEY THINK IT OUGHT TO BE PROTECTED IN SOME FASHION. BUT HONESTLY, I KIND OF PUSHED THOSE TO THE SIDE. THE IMPORTANT THING HERE WAS, WHAT WAS CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME. THAT'S WHAT MATTERS
Click to expand...

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
"10 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. " is not the same as 110 emails were "born classified".   

Comey hopefully never said this because the emails were not "born classified" because "born classified" has a specific, likely unconstitutional meaning which would not apply here.   These emails were retroactively classified because they contained information that was deemed and marked by some agency other than State as such.  And hundreds of career government employees participated in these "extremely careless" conversations without noticing.    
Click to expand...
Ok I've agreed to hang my hat on Comey for better or worse, to me it's a mixed bag and I'm fine with that. I'll rest on Comey and you can continue to weave theories. It was 110 emails which were classified when sent. The point about Billis he is trying to make it about 3 Cobfidential emails and the fact they were marked is really almost irrelevant in the sense they just fall into the 2000 like them. As stated above the TS/SCI was the key. The sub-Secret stuff was always about how people lower down the food chain would have faced serious civil & employment penalties whereas Hillary will never have to deal with that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Comey also referenced that.
Click to expand...
Where does Comey state that there were civil or employment sanctions for participating in emails which were proper job related exchanges of information which contained information that should not be released to the general public?    The same non existent place where he stated the others were "born classified"?  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Where does Comey state that there were civil or employment sanctions for participating in emails which were proper job related exchanges of information which contained information that should not be released to the general public?    The same non existent place where he stated the others were "born classified"?  
Click to expand...
Ok now you like Bill are undercutting Comey. I don't get the point of that from your end, from Bill's it's clear, I will find the reference if it helps but I'm almost certain you know the snips I will point to.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok I've agreed to hang my hat on Comey for better or worse, to me it's a mixed bag and I'm fine with that. I'll rest on Comey and you can continue to weave theories. It was 110 emails which were classified when sent. The point about Billis he is trying to make it about 3 Cobfidential emails and the fact they were marked is really almost irrelevant in the sense they just fall into the 2000 like them. As stated above the TS/SCI was the key. The sub-Secret stuff was always about how people lower down the food chain would have faced serious civil & employment penalties whereas Hillary will never have to deal with that.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that attacking a misrepresentation of Clinton's point with a misrepresentation of Comey's statement is all that convincing to anyone other than the "we can all agree" crowd.  Granted such posts are very popular.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I'm not sure that attacking a misrepresentation of Clinton's point with a misrepresentation of Comey's statement is all that convincing to anyone other than the "we can all agree" crowd.  Granted such posts are very popular.
Click to expand...
I really don't want to relitigate this here in this thread. You and I have spun round the dance floor plenty on this. Let's just stick to the original point which is that Bill is trying to pretend like this whole thing was about 3 marked emails. That clearly is not true as our conversations have shown.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What did Comey say about the 52 email chains?  I watched almost the entire hearing but I don't remember.  I can't find much when searching the transcript.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Speaking of "loads of bull".
Click to expand...
Classified information is classified even if it's not marked so. One of the basic fundamentals of those who have access to classified information is to recognize it even if it's not marked properly. Just because someone failed to mark it properly doesn't declassify it. In the emails the FBI had access to over 100 contained classified information. Three of them were even marked so. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
This.  And people need to get this through their heads.  Clintons are the king and queen of gaslighting and straw man arguments.  What she did was wildly improper and yet she finds a way to absolve herself based on semantic arguments that were not nearly the substance of what she did wrong.  These people truly disgust me, but not as much as those who fall for their BS.
Click to expand...
Unless Hillary lands in jail, she and Bill will try to rewrite history every chance they get.

 
Politician Spock said:
Classified information is classified even if it's not marked so. One of the basic fundamentals of those who have access to classified information is to recognize it even if it's not marked properly. Just because someone failed to mark it properly doesn't declassify it. In the emails the FBI had access to over 100 contained classified information. Three of them were even marked so. 
Click to expand...
Yet hundreds of people participated and failed to recognize the classified information in these emails.    Should be lots of job opening right now.

 
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
259K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Back
Top