Emails are just like Benghazi

gwb-trading said:
If Hillary is indicted, then the FBI is going to be quite content that justice is served.
If Hillary is not indicted, then the federal Democratic prosecutors got their way.
More...

I imagine there are career people at the Justice Department who carry a lot of weight. They get a lot of high-minded people from top law schools.

Even Obama taught constitutional law. He would draw the line somewhere.

The problem may be that they made an earlier decision not to pursue this, but new information makes it look much worse. So they are chained together and can't afford to throw her overboard.
 
piezoe said:
Actually, the truth is almost anyone can determine whether something should be classified. That's the point I tried to make. Anyone! That's of course why there are thousands of government documents that are classified that don't need to be. It is also why there could easily have been something sent to Hillary's server that should have been classified that wasn't -- i.e., nobody bothered. Documents that are classified are stamped, identifying their level of classification. (The popular ink color is 'red'.) If they are not stamped, they are not classified. That may seem primitive, but that's government life for you. I wouldn't lose sleep over this if I were you. It appears at this point that there were no classified documents sent to the Secretary's personal server, merely some that maybe should have been. Some were apparently classified later. I know how difficult it will be for you to accept this. But it does not look at this point that she broke any laws. Sadly, we are still, though some dispute it, a nation of laws. Bummer. What that means is that no matter how naughty and horrible you have behaved you're not likely to get indicted unless a law can be identified that you actually broke. I sincerely hope I haven't ruined your life by telling you this.

You are referring mostly too rules rather than statutes. I'll change my mind, of course, if you can site a single case were there was a conviction involving "the use of retroactive classification" . Good luck!
More...

Once again, you are wrong...

https://www.archives.gov/isoo/faqs/identifying-handling-classified-records.html

Question #3- How can I identify Classified National Security Information?
There are three basic tests which you can apply to determine whether a document contains classified information:

  • The information should concern the national security of the U.S. government. If the document was created by a private organization or a state government agency, it may contain classified national security information only if the organization or agency was serving as an agent of the Federal Government. Defense contractors and research laboratories are obvious examples. Also, the information should not concern personal, private, or purely political issues. Over the decades many documents have been stamped “Confidential” not because they would damage national security if released, but to indicate some other type of sensitivity. When in doubt, though, consider the document as classified.
  • There should be a classification marking on the top and bottom of every page of the document. Very old documents may have the markings only on the top of the first page. In more recent documents, individual paragraphs may also be marked with markings like “(S)” for Secret or “(C)” for Confidential.
  • The document should not be marked as declassified. A declassification marking should look like an official stamp that indicates the name and office of the person who authorized the declassification action. A copy of a declassified document from the National Archives and Records Administration should include a marking that includes a project number starting with “NND” or “NW.”
While these are the primary means of identifying classified information, those who suspect they have classified materials in their collections should also be careful to examine documents for:

  • “Restricted Data” and “Formerly Restricted Data” markings. These designations refer to categories of classified information concerning nuclear weapons design and utilization. Despite the misleading nature of the phrase “Formerly Restricted Data,” documents with this marking remain sensitive and must be protected.
  • Unmarked Classified National Security Information. Records of national security officials should be reviewed and handled carefully, as the classification marking requirements were not always executed on informal records such as handwritten notes. In all cases, it is the sensitivity of the information that determines classification. An unmarked, handwritten page can just as easily contain classified national security information as a document containing classification markings. When in doubt, treat handwritten notes concerning intelligence, military, diplomatic, or emergency planning matters as classified national security information.
 
gwb-trading said:
OBVIOUSLY the Carolina Panthers are going to win Superbowl 50!
More...
That's what everyone is telling me, but has anyone bothered to tell the Broncos? I'm hoping it will at least be a close one. I had to turn off the Carolina v. Arizona game by the end of the first quarter. It was such a blowout.. I can't imagine how disappointing it would be to pay for those stadium seats and have the Super Bowl turn out the same.

By the way I found a link to the video of the State Department spokesperson reporting on the Clinton Emails. If you haven't yet seen it, it's worthwhile.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/v...rtment-declares-22-clinton-e-mails-top-secret
 
To be clear I am not saying that she will be indicted. In my opinion, it is pretty clear that she broke the law. However, the reality is that AG Loretta Lunch was appointed by Obama and reports to Obama. So, it comes down to her. Will she follow the letter of the law or be political? Obviously, Obama most likely will not want AG to indict because that will dramatically lower the chances that the next president will be a democrat.
 
so right about now...
the establishment planners are talking to Gore and Biden and others.

they are going to soon offer Hillary a deal to get out for immunity unless she wins NH an SC. Otherwise Hillary will accept a deal for immunity and blame health problems which she received in the line of duty/ Problems which only recently started acting up again. She is bowing out because she has not been able to campaign the way the party and country deserves.
 
jem said:
so right about now...
the establishment planners are talking to Gore and Biden and others.

they are going to soon offer Hillary a deal to get out for immunity unless she wins NH an SC. Otherwise Hillary will accept a deal for immunity and blame health problems which she received in the line of duty/ Problems which only recently started acting up again. She is bowing out because she has not been able to campaign the way the party and country deserves.
More...
health problems she received in the line of duty right before the benghazi questions needed to be answered. Keep in mind, I am not a Benghazi blamer. Republicans wasted 11 hours trying to prove what happened was her fault when we all know these kinds of things happen no matter who is running things. All I wanted was exposure of the cover up. At any rate, now that the republicans failed at that, any accusation can be referred to as "just like Benghazi". And that is why I don't vote for republicans. No matter how stupid the democrats are, the republicans always figure out a way to be even stupider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top