If you think criticism of Trump’s lies makes someone a “leftist,” you might be a Trump cultist.
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
You may want to read the FBI files. She correctly identified markings in relevant documents, when she was showed an UNCLASSIFIED document without a header or a footer but only a (C) in the middle of the page, she correctly thought it wasn't a marking.
Don't call others ignorant when you don't have the facts.
MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?
JAMES COMEY: No. [...]
MATT CARTWRIGHT: **According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?**
JAMES COMEY: **Correct.**
MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?
JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.
MATT CARTWRIGHT: **So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?**
JAMES COMEY:**That would be a reasonable inference.**
http://www.mediaite.com/online/fbi-...n-emails-were-not-properly-marked-classified/
So who is the ignorant one here? Stop reading Breitbart and think you know anything.
Boy you love to pick the nits out of a pile of horse dung don't you.
Why not add the rest?
For Clinton’s part, she told the FBI that "she did not know what the "(C)" meant at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," according to the bureau’s report. She also disputed the need for these particular paragraphs to be classified at all.
But he also has said she should have recognized by the topic of discussion that some of these emails did not belong on a non-classified system, given that 36 of these email chains had "secret" information and eight had "top secret" information.
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said in a July 5 statement.
Is there any question that Hillary mishandled classified information? Of course not, that's why the decision to not prosecute was based on intent, as irrelevant as that is to the case. That is why this matter is not quite put to rest.
Why not add the rest?
For Clinton’s part, she told the FBI that "she did not know what the "(C)" meant at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," according to the bureau’s report. She also disputed the need for these particular paragraphs to be classified at all.
But he also has said she should have recognized by the topic of discussion that some of these emails did not belong on a non-classified system, given that 36 of these email chains had "secret" information and eight had "top secret" information.
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said in a July 5 statement.
Is there any question that Hillary mishandled classified information? Of course not, that's why the decision to not prosecute was based on intent, as irrelevant as that is to the case. That is why this matter is not quite put to rest.
Because it was NOT a classified document and there were no headers or footers either. The (C) was incorrectly inserted as admitted by the state department, it was a call sheet, why would she think a reminder to call UN Secy General would be classified? She disputed correctly for those reasons and that was admitted by Comey. The document was NOT retroactively marked classified by the FBI.
So? She was RECEIVER of that information, others in the department didn't think it was top secret either, why should she be faulted for simply receiving information?
Again, nobody else in the department thought of it either, classification is in the eye of the beholder
So Hillary's intent was to intentionally retain classified information on her server and then give the content and the server for the government to review while no one unauthorized actually saw the content. Where exactly is the mishandling here? Was the information leaked? Did people without clearance see it and abuse it? What exactly should she be punished for? For receiving emails from people who didn't think it was classified? She should be punished for others not properly marking or handling the information? You do know that if she used the state.gov email system, it would have made no difference since that too is an unclassified system. So the only solution is that she should not have had any email account which is absurd.
Last edited:
exGOPer said:
So? She was RECEIVER of that information, others in the department didn't think it was top secret either, why should she be faulted for simply receiving information?
She sent it to others, 2 wrongs don't make a right in case you've forgotten.
Again, nobody else in the department thought of it either, classification is in the eye of the beholder
So Hillary's intent was to intentionally retain classified information on her server and then give the content and the server for the government to review Funny how the FBI retrieved thousands of emails that were no longer on the server. Yup, she turned over everything. You are such a Hillary mark. while no one unauthorized actually saw the content. Where exactly is the mishandling here? unmarked classified information should be treated the same as marked classified information.Was the information leaked? Did people without clearance see it Yes, see Anthony Weiner or Hillary's maid that printed out documents. and abuse it? What exactly should she be punished for? For receiving emails from people who didn't think was classified? She should be punished for others not properly marking or handling the information? unmarked classified information should be treated the same as marked classified information.You do know that if she used the state.gov email system, it would have made no difference since that too is an unclassified system. So the only solution is that she should not have had any email account which is absurd.
Oh my.
So? She was RECEIVER of that information, others in the department didn't think it was top secret either, why should she be faulted for simply receiving information?
She sent it to others, 2 wrongs don't make a right in case you've forgotten.
Again, nobody else in the department thought of it either, classification is in the eye of the beholder
So Hillary's intent was to intentionally retain classified information on her server and then give the content and the server for the government to review Funny how the FBI retrieved thousands of emails that were no longer on the server. Yup, she turned over everything. You are such a Hillary mark. while no one unauthorized actually saw the content. Where exactly is the mishandling here? unmarked classified information should be treated the same as marked classified information.Was the information leaked? Did people without clearance see it Yes, see Anthony Weiner or Hillary's maid that printed out documents. and abuse it? What exactly should she be punished for? For receiving emails from people who didn't think was classified? She should be punished for others not properly marking or handling the information? unmarked classified information should be treated the same as marked classified information.You do know that if she used the state.gov email system, it would have made no difference since that too is an unclassified system. So the only solution is that she should not have had any email account which is absurd.
Oh my.
As the OCA for the entire department, it was her absolute authority to determine what's classified and what's not.
She gave the server on demand, she didn't hide it and FBI recovered those emails. What exactly is the deception here??
IF the receiver thinks its classified, it's not the job of the SoS to review documents for classification
Weiner didn't see the emails, he only had a backup archive on his computers. Asking your subordinate to print documents which were not classified at the time is not a 'leak', do you have any evidence that the subordinate abused this info?
Give me a break, your guy gave highly classified info to Russians which was known to be highly classified - lock him up before you complain about information that no one without a clearance even saw. Oh ya, the maid printed out information, Hillary should go to jail for that. You guys are a joke.
So, your position is that despite the fact that the term gross negligence was used for the matter, later changed to extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information, no harm no foul and Hillary was just fortunate that the others who accessed the information had no nefarious intent.
Wonderful.
Wonderful.
Nobody has been prosecuted for the term gross negligence in a hundred years, doesn't matter if it was used, proving that the OCA was grossly negligent with information which she had complete authority over is impossible - and we have Trump's example to go by here when he gross negligently gave highly classified Israeli intelligence to Russians. Can he be prosecuted for it? No, for the same reason Clinton can't be.
Pure, unadulterated nonsense. There are over 2,000 Original Classification Authorities (OCAs). The notion that they can't be prosecuted for being grossly negligent with classified material they have classification authority over is absolutely insane. If that were true, then all 2,000+ OCAs could set up non-secure private servers as Hillary did and expose the nation's secrets with impunity. Give it a rest.
Great, then prosecute OCA Trump for his grossly negligent action of handing over highly classified intelligence to Russians and prove your case, what's the wait?