Emails are just like Benghazi

1. forgive me if I don't trust that your experience with classified docs to have any relevance to this situation. If you knew if Hillary had information on her server that endangered lives... you would not be able to discuss this matter. And its really odd to say the state department has said the leak is pure speculation. Its either accurate or fabricated. Its not speculation and it was just reported.

2. regarding the facts we do now know... your facts are like the facts in the front of a previously published Dan Brown book. They are figments of a creative imagination and they are stale.

You trust the New York Times, correct?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/u...ed-too-classified-to-be-made-public.html?_r=0



WASHINGTON — The State Department on Friday said for the first time that “top secret” material had been sent through Hillary Clinton’s private computer server, and that it would not make public 22 of her emails because they contained highly classified information.

The department announced that 18 emails exchanged between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would also be withheld, citing the longstanding practice of preserving presidential communications for future release. The department’s spokesman, John Kirby, said that exchanges did not involve classified information.

The disclosure of the top secret emails, three days before Iowans vote in the first-in-the-nation caucuses, is certain to fuel the political debate over the unclassified computer server that Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, kept in her home. The State Department released another set of her emails on Friday night in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
The top secret emails lent credence to criticism by Mrs. Clinton’s rivals in the presidential race of her handling of classified information while she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. It is against the law for officials to discuss classified information on unclassified networks used for routine business or on private servers, and the F.B.I. is looking into whether such information was mishandled.

...


piezoe said:
Jem there is a world of difference between "defending large, stupid pr criminal behavior" and pointing out facts. It is a fact that Clinton will not be prosecuted if the State Department is correct that the documents in question were not marked classified at the time they were sent to Clinton's server. The sole purpose of my post was to point out the futility of proceeding further with this matter at our expense if there is no point in it other than a purely political one. If you favor these wild goose chases then you are one of those encouraging government activities that are wasteful and will not produce any useful result other than what has already been achieved. The matter was an important one, but now that it has been determined, apparently, that none of the documents on her server were marked classified at the time they were received, there is no point in pressing the matter further. Let's move to more productive efforts.
More...
 
Last edited:
Also...

Catherine Herridge produces rock solid info time and time again. Based on her previous reporting... She clearly has excellent sources...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nal-intel-put-lives-at-risk.html?intcmp=hpbt1

EXCLUSIVE: Highly classified Hillary Clinton emails that the intelligence community and State Department recently deemed too damaging to national security to release contain “operational intelligence” – and their presence on the unsecure, personal email system jeopardized “sources, methods and lives,” a U.S. government official who has reviewed the documents told Fox News.

The official, who was not authorized to speak on the record and was limited in discussing the contents because of their highly classified nature, was referring to the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails that the State Department announced Friday it could not release in any form, even with entire sections redacted
 
gwb-trading said:
At some point we will have more information on the nature of the withheld emails. All the major media outlets have put in FOIA requests for access to these retained emails. The FOIA requests, of course, will be denied. However the denials will need to provide further information on why, instead of "these are classified".
More...
That might be a fruitful path to follow at least from the media viewpoint. If it keeps the evening audiences watching and produces advertising revenue, than it will have been worthwhile. The media has the advantage so long as the documents remain withheld. If they can't find out what is in those hushed up documents they are free to speculate wildly and the hypotheticals are boundless. The media runs the small risk of their party being spoiled in the unlikely event their FOIA requests should succeed before they are ready to move on to the next conspiracy theory. And too, there is always the possibility, no matter how remote, that because of a major screw-up, something was on that server that should not have been. It could prove very embarrassing to the Secretary if it were shown that even though a sensitive document was not classified, the Secretary should have recognized immediately that it should have been and taken appropriate steps. That might, with a great stretch of legal interpretation worthy of a Johnny Cochran -- "if the glove don't fit you must acquit"-- or an F. Lee Bailey, combined with a politically ambitious prosecutor, result in at least an attempt at an indictment. My guess is once Hillary is completely out of the picture, this issue will vanish faster than the average brokerage account. But if she is the Democratic Nominee, brace yourself for an onslaught of further accusations, and possibly even deserved ones. That we have to look forward to. This election season is proving to be a "dream come true" for the media circus.
 
Last edited:
As has already been stated, the Clinton's are not stupid. One could argue that they think everyone else is. That aside, Hillary has come up with the best defense for the e-mail scandal. What better thing to say than, hey, show everything while knowing full well the State Dept. will not show such highly classified material to the public. Nice move by a master political chess player. Buys time if nothing else, and it seems that time has always been the Clinton's best friend. Eventually all the dirt just blows away.
 
piezoe said:
That might be a fruitful path to follow at least from the media viewpoint. If it keeps the evening audiences watching and produces advertising revenue, than it will have been worthwhile. The media has the advantage so long as the documents remain withheld. If they can't find out what is in those hushed up documents they are free to speculate wildly and the hypotheticals are boundless. The media runs the small risk of their party being spoiled in the unlikely event their FOIA requests should succeed before they are ready to move on to the next conspiracy theory. And too, there is always the possibility, no matter how remote, that because of a major screw-up, something was on that server that should not have been. It could prove very embarrassing to the Secretary if it were shown that even though a sensitive document was not classified, the Secretary should have recognized immediately that it should have been and taken appropriate steps. That might, with a great stretch of legal interpretation worthy of a Johnny Cochran -- "if the glove don't fit you must acquit"-- or an F. Lee Bailey, combined with a politically ambitious prosecutor, result in at least an attempt at an indictment. My guess is once Hillary is completely out of the picture, this issue will vanish faster than the average brokerage account. But if she is the Democratic Nominee, brace yourself for an onslaught of further accusations, and possibly even deserved ones. That we have to look forward to. This election season is proving to be a "dream come true" for the media circus.
More...
compared to the dreaded Clinton vs Bush.
 
jem said:
...1. forgive me if I don't trust that your experience with classified docs to have any relevance to this situation. If you knew if Hillary had information on her server that endangered lives... you would not be able to discuss this matter. And its really odd to say the state department has said the leak is pure speculation. Its either accurate or fabricated. Its not speculation and it was just reported.

2. regarding the facts we do now know... your facts are like the facts in the front of a previously published Dan Brown book. They are figments of a creative imagination and they are stale.

You trust the New York Times, correct?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/u...ed-too-classified-to-be-made-public.html?_r=0



WASHINGTON — The State Department on Friday said for the first time that “top secret” material had been sent through Hillary Clinton’s private computer server, and that it would not make public 22 of her emails because they contained highly classified information.

The department announced that 18 emails exchanged between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would also be withheld, citing the longstanding practice of preserving presidential communications for future release. The department’s spokesman, John Kirby, said that exchanges did not involve classified information.

The disclosure of the top secret emails, three days before Iowans vote in the first-in-the-nation caucuses, is certain to fuel the political debate over the unclassified computer server that Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, kept in her home. The State Department released another set of her emails on Friday night in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
The top secret emails lent credence to criticism by Mrs. Clinton’s rivals in the presidential race of her handling of classified information while she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. It is against the law for officials to discuss classified information on unclassified networks used for routine business or on private servers, and the F.B.I. is looking into whether such information was mishandled.

...
More...
1. forgive me if I don't trust that your experience with classified docs to have any relevance to this situation. Consider yourself forgiven.

If you knew if Hillary had information on her server that endangered lives... you would not be able to discuss this matter. Ahem, apparently that unnamed "government official" had no qualms.;)

And its really odd to say the state department has said the leak is pure speculation. They did??? Well, what would the State Department know about this anyway.:D
 
http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/


9-27-12-44.png


9-27-12-45.png
 
CaptainObvious said:
As has already been stated, the Clinton's are not stupid. One could argue that they think everyone else is. That aside, Hillary has come up with the best defense for the e-mail scandal. What better thing to say than, hey, show everything while knowing full well the State Dept. will not show such highly classified material to the public. Nice move by a master political chess player. Buys time if nothing else, and it seems that time has always been the Clinton's best friend. Eventually all the dirt just blows away.
More...
Very nicely observed!, and quite plausible in my opinion. Good thinking. Well done! The one place she is highly vulnerable is if any of those communications were classified before they were sent to her server. And that revelation is out of her hands. So far, the State department has backed her up. Apparently, none were classified.
 
piezoe said:
That might be a fruitful path to follow at least from the media viewpoint. If it keeps the evening audiences watching and produces advertising revenue, than it will have been worthwhile. The media has the advantage so long as the documents remain withheld. If they can't find out what is in those hushed up documents they are free to speculate wildly and the hypotheticals are boundless. The media runs the small risk of their party being spoiled in the unlikely event their FOIA requests should succeed before they are ready to move on to the next conspiracy theory. And too, there is always the possibility, no matter how remote, that because of a major screw-up, something was on that server that should not have been. It could prove very embarrassing to the Secretary if it were shown that even though a sensitive document was not classified, the Secretary should have recognized immediately that it should have been and taken appropriate steps. That might, with a great stretch of legal interpretation worthy of a Johnny Cochran -- "if the glove don't fit you must acquit"-- or an F. Lee Bailey, combined with a politically ambitious prosecutor, result in at least an attempt at an indictment. My guess is once Hillary is completely out of the picture, this issue will vanish faster than the average brokerage account. But if she is the Democratic Nominee, brace yourself for an onslaught of further accusations, and possibly even deserved ones. That we have to look forward to. This election season is proving to be a "dream come true" for the media circus.
More...


We have enough experience with the Clintons and this administration to know not to take denials at face value. You might recall explanations that Benghazi was a demonstration about a video and the IRS had done nothing improper.

You are studiously ignoring the main issue, which is how extremely confidential documents found themselves on her server. I find it highly implausible that SAP, ie above Top Secret, material, was being sent around the State Department without any classification, particularly since it would most likely have originated outside the State Department, eg CIA. Someone had to make an intentional effort to move that material from the secure system to her unsecure system. My understanding is that such transfer is criminal. How that happened should be under investigation by a grand jury. Your assumption that this transfer was a mere "screwup" is unwarranted, but even if true, it shows the utter disregard Hillary had for security and rules. If she hadn't been using a private server, there would have been no breach.

This security breach is not an isolated incident. We know there was a troubling pattern of massive donations to the Clinton foundation that seemed to pose conflicts with her official duties. Proving a quid pro quo may be difficult but the appearance alone is sufficiently damning that it must be investigated fully and openly. At least that was the standard applied to republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top