"Hey these are very fake nuclear codes."
Holy....that was...quite a press conference.
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
"Hey these are very fake nuclear codes."
Lol, exactly. I bet they created fake codes just for him. You know, to protect a delusional man from doing harm to himself and others.
I bet you are having all those templates prepared so you quickly fill in at the hundreds of sites you apparently participate in. I don't even bother to fact check whether any of the alleged excerpts from FBI documents are actually real or fabricated by your kind. Why i don't bother? Because most anything coming from you is fabricated and lies.
Did you blow a gasket? WTF are you talking about? Templates? Take off the tinfoil hat. You are the "kind" that spreads fake news.
The website is FBI.GOV. Idiot. You have taken stupid to a new level. Just when I thought no one can be less intelligent that Fraudcurrents and then you come along and prove me wrong. Wow. I think that I may have inadvertently complemented fraudcurrents.
Way to go. Great illustration of libtardism.
Just like a libtard making up their own reality. Here is the link again.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Last edited:
Is this from the same FBI that Trump trashes on a daily basis?
That's technically true. I have years of experience with the government's classification system, and I am quite confident to say that it would in general be quite difficult to prosecute for too casual handling of communications marked confidential. A reprimand, or even being fired, depending on the level of embarrassment caused, and on who was embarrassed, would be more likely. It's the level of classifications above that that that could get one into real trouble. My point is that Hillary is not going to be prosecuted for having "confidential" emails on her server. Virtually everything is "confidential" if someone wants it to be, whether it should be or not.
My criticism of the classification system is two-fold. 1: anyone can classify a document with the stroke of a pen or a stamp, but it takes a committee to declassify it; 2: The primary use of "confidential" and to a lesser extent the next higher order of classification as well, is to keep one's communications and work from unfortunate scrutiny by those who might think they have a better idea, or be less enchanted with what you are doing than you are. You just don't want to be bothered or interfered with. And even though your research into How Earthworms Learn is of great scientific interest, it would be better if the public did not learn of it, as they wouldn't understand. This latter example nicely summarizes the main use of the confidential category, and it would apply to the State Department as well. In other words it would, generally speaking, be quite difficult, in general, to prove real harm in a court of law if one was accused of handling "confidential" information too casually. But of course, there are bound to be exceptions. You may have had a Q Clearance, or equivalent at some point in your career. If so, you can not fail to appreciate what I am pointing out here.
Have you by chance read Daniel Moynihan's* book, "Secrecy." If not I'm sure you would find it engrossing -- not so much the too long intro by R.G. Powers, but the main body by Moynihan. Anyone who is a U.S. citizen who hasn't read it yet, should.
_________________
*Moynihan was the guy Ford had to fire from his cabinet --said Moynihan, Ford said it differently. Moynihan, who knew more about the Soviet Union than the rest of the cabinet put together, insisted that the Soviet Union was in the process of self destructing and all we had to do was to do nothing and the Soviet "threat" was going to resolve itself. This ran counter to the prevailing "wisdom", embarrassed the rest of the cabinet who disagreed, and made Moynihan hugely unpopular with the U.S. war industry. Moynihan had to go. Of course, as we now know, Moynihan was right!
You have repeatedly included LINKS of credible sources in your post but then pasted text that you suggested was extracted from such links which, however, contained completely different and untrue information that was newer reflected in the content behind such links. Repeatedly. Multiple times. Maliciously amd intentionally.
Well I'm not stating it, not in so many words, but I'm not ruling it out either.
You might be using an unreliable reference point.