Holy....that was...quite a press conference.

Zzzz1 said:
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.
More...
That is an absolute fabrication. Complete fucking lie. You can call me names or say whatever you want but that is a malicious unfounded attack.

Proof it!

Show once when I have done that. Just one fucking time!!!!!
 
piezoe said:
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!
More...
So, did Hillary compulsively lie or not?
 
WeToddDid2 said:
You are obfuscating. There is nothing to debate about regarding the emails. You are simply refusing to believe the truth. Just stop with the up-classification.


Read below WHEN THEY WERE SENT OR RECEIVED!

The following are a quotes from Comey's statement:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 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. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent;

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Let me quote some of that again just to make sure you get it. You are really having a hard time.
  1. "at the time they were sent or received."
  2. "Top Secret at the time they were sent"
  3. "Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received."
  4. "we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail(that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails)."
It just can't get clearer than that. Do you get it now? Even several liberal news outlets begged Hillary to stop lying regarding emails and you are still regurgitating her spin propaganda from her campaign.

But, you are trying to make the argument that Trump is delusional or has some sort of cognitive impairment because in your subjective opinion he is lying. Obama lied constantly. Obama stated on numerous occasion that Obamacare will lower premiums on average by $2,500. Anyone that believed that or stated that has shit for brains or is/was delusional. Furthermore, Hillary clearly lied or is as you say delusional with respect to her emails.
More...
Well, I agree. It is clear! Here is what's missing. There is no where in his report where it is stated directly that there were emails on her server that were marked "secret" or "top secret." The closest they came to that was this, which has to be read very carefully:

seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. ​
In other words, and apparently, those emails on Clinton's server were about aspects of matters that where classified as Top Secret, but the emails themselves were perhaps not classified as top secret. When a document is classified, for example "Top Secret", it is because it contains Top Secret information somewhere in its body. Once that top secret information or statement is redacted, the remainder of the document could be, in many cases. down classified to confidential or even unclassified. Therefore is is quite possible to have an unclassified communication about a matter with highly classified aspects. The other thing that caught my eye was the "intelligence community" business. What this means is that in the opinion of others, some of the communications on Clinton's server should have been classified. But this is opinion. Individuals, not the "intelligence community", classify documents, often it's the originator.
Hillary may have been telling the "legal" truth all along. She is after all a lawyer, and her husband did famously fall back on the meaning of "is".

If there were emails on that server marked Secret or Top Secret, why didn't Comey just say so directly? Why beat around the bush? Why the circumspect language "concerning matters"?? I think we can begin to understand why Comey said there is nothing that can be successfully prosecuted here.
 
Last edited:
You do it all the time. Each time you link to a source of content you foundationally disagree with you falsify the content and past erroneous content in your post that is not reflected in the link you pasted. I am not sure which is better Russian hacking or what you are doing.

WeToddDid2 said:
That is an absolute fabrication. Complete fucking lie. You can call me names or say whatever you want but that is a malicious unfounded attack.

Proof it!

Show once when I have done that. Just one fucking time!!!!!
More...
 
This is what I call a pretty unbiased viewpoint. Fair reflection of reality. What the right wing extremists here stare is that she lied where it is unproven she lied. But in the same sentence they claimed Trump fired Flynn because he "mistalked or misrepresented to Pence". No, he maliciously lied to Pence else Trump would have never fired him

piezoe said:
She has a history of embellishment. Such as the running for cover upon landing story. So it wouldn't be unprecedented for her to mis-remember. She may have lied!
More...
 
piezoe said:
You should be able to answer your own question.
More...

Ok. sure. The so called main stream media is informed by leaked information by the intelligence community. In this respect they are no different from a state controlled media. The main stream media (NYT, WP, LAT, etc) are in collusion with the intelligence community.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top