Emails are just like Benghazi

piezoe said:
Has anyone else noticed how the incautious use of logic and reason can result in one being assumed to be associated with the political "left"? It is quite a curious phenomenon.
More...

No, but what I have noticed is that folks on the left seem to think they're using logic and reason when, in fact, it is just partisan belief and hope.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
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.
More...
well said. While others are concerned about who sleeps in the Whitehouse, many of us honest gamblers (oxymoron) must bet on 4 years of Hillary, so even if we win, the only thing we have to entertain us is this court drama.
 
Logic and reason. Right or left. All depends on their reference origins and coordinate systems!

g545556.png
 
1. Cute... you don't understand there are "authorized leaks" to real reporters like Herridge?

2. I see no recent state dept source calling this pure speculation.
you are referring to a state department comment from over the summer.
If I am correct... you are running a disinformation campaign again.


piezoe said:
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
More...
 
Last edited:
here is today's report... with a congressman also saying lives were risked.
its not even about a leak...

how could the state department have said this was speculation? Here is a Congressman on the intelligence committee. He was briefed on the info.
did you actually look this up or were you just making shit up again?

and if you watch the video, it shows Kerry had been using unsecured email accounts too.

I know your buddy soros has spent a lot of money on hillary... but it is time for you to cut bait.


 
Last edited:
piezoe said:
It wouldn't be skirting the law to use your own server for non classified communication. It is perfectly legal. As you say, the Clintons are not stupid they wouldn't take the risk of intentionally doing anything they knew to be illegal. But of course you conspiracy theorists will enjoy yourselves with this one.
More...

This is completely incorrect. Government employees are required to do *all* government business on the government email system where a document retention system exists in compliance with federal law related to the FOIA. Additionally "non classified" government information is still regarded as "For Official Use Only" and is not to be disseminated to non-governmental entities.

You speak authoritatively about matters you seem to have no actual experience or training on.
 
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. We can rest assured that John Kerry is not making the same mistake. The lesson learned has been made note of. Let's move on.
More...
It makes no difference whether it was marked or not. This is spin. In many situation, Hillary herself would have to determine whether or not something is Top Secret and have the document marked herself. She is spinning this to act like some other department has to mark it. That is not the case. She had the legal responsibility to determine what is and isn't top secret. It is the fucking secretary of state. Many of the emails that she typed would be top secret. The secretary of state doesn't type an email and then a some later date some other department determines the security level. The secretary of state determines the security level themselves.

Not the greatest example below. Will find something later as well.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top