Development on Clinton Email Probe?

[Starbuck1975]

As has already been explained (and you seemed to have ignored), the three emails that were marked classified, not only were improperly marked but they were incorrectly marked, as in they were marked "classified" in error.

And just in case you missed it, because you seem to have missed s whole lot of things about this "scandal", but the head of the FBI said no reasonable prosecutor would push for an indictment.

I didn't ignore it. Improper classification does not relieve you of the obligation to protect it as marked. Those entrusted with protecting classified information are responsible for handling it under the classification as received. There are procedures to reclassify and quarantine information as necessary if mishandled, although admittedly those procedures are confusing and bureaucratic when working across agencies. The negligence narrative from Comey indicates that Clinton and her staff irresponsibly ignored those protocols. The punishment for such negligence for that level of classification is typically administrative and involved revoking of clearances.

If the guard falls asleep at his post and forgets to raise the drawbridge, do we not reprimand the guard just because that particular night no one raided the castle?

No reasonable prosecutor would push for indictment because there is limited precedence for indicting on gross negligence alone. The difference between extremely careless and gross negligence is semantics.

 

[ivwshane]

I didn't ignore it. Improper classification does not relieve you of the obligation to protect it as marked. Those entrusted with protecting classified information are responsible for handling it under the classification as received. There are procedures to reclassify and quarantine information as necessary if mishandled, although admittedly those procedures are confusing and bureaucratic when working across agencies. The negligence narrative from Comey indicates that Clinton and her staff irresponsibly ignored those protocols. The punishment for such negligence for that level of classification is typically administrative and involved revoking of clearances.

If the guard falls asleep at his post and forgets to raise the drawbridge, do we not reprimand the guard just because that particular night no one raided the castle?

No reasonable prosecutor would push for indictment because there is limited precedence for indicting on gross negligence alone. The difference between extremely careless and gross negligence is semantics.

What part of "incorrectly marked" are you having an issue with?

 

[buckshot24]

Buckshit lying again. How Christian of you.

What was a lie? I'll stop it if you can show me that something I said was a lie.

 

[wetech]

What part of "incorrectly marked" are you having an issue with?

You keep bringing this up. Is your belief that "incorrectly marked" means that it shouldn't have been marked?

 

[buckshot24]

Hillary is supposedly a reasonable person, she should have known this information was highly sensitive but she gave access to it to her legal staff, who wasn't cleared to read it, and her server people.

 

[ivwshane]

What was a lie? I'll stop it if you can show me that something I said was a lie.

Are you following this thread or are you just posting random thoughts? I'm not here to repeat myself because you are too lazy to follow along.

 

[ivwshane]

Hillary is supposedly a reasonable person, she should have known this information was highly sensitive but she gave access to it to her legal staff, who wasn't cleared to read it, and her server people.

You are lying again.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/james...7/comey-clinton-classified-information-225245

 

[ivwshane]

You keep bringing this up. Is your belief that "incorrectly marked" means that it shouldn't have been marked?

That's not my belief, that's a fact of the matter. An email was that was found to be classified wasn't marked properly and it was later determined that the email was incorrectly marked anyway.

 

[buckshot24]

You are lying again.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/james...7/comey-clinton-classified-information-225245

You should be careful, I didn't say they actually read it. She gave them access is what I said. Did the server staff gain clearance? The 2 to 10 people Comey estimated?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You keep bringing this up. Is your belief that "incorrectly marked" means that it shouldn't have been marked?

https://mediamatters.org/video/2016...edia-talking-heads-claims-bias-clinton/211424

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D-MD): I don't know whether your family's watching this, but I hope that they are as proud of you as I am, because you are the epitome of what a public servant is all about. Sacrificing over and over and over again, trying to do the right thing, sometimes coming under ridicule, but again still doing the right thing. So I hope they are proud of you. The second thing I hope is that no matter what has happened in this hearing, I hope that you know that your reputation is still intact. And so I conclude by summarizing that I think some of our -- some of our key findings today. First, the director testified that his entire team of 15 to 20 FBI investigators and analysts unanimously agreed on the recommendation not to prosecute Secretary Clinton. Second, Director Comey made crystal clear that Republican claims, some of the talking heads' claims of bias are completely false. He testified that he would treat John Doe the same way he would treat Hillary Clinton, that he was very forceful on that point. Third, on the claim that Secretary Clinton sent or received e-mails that were marked as classified, that claim has now been significantly undercut. Those documents were not classified, and those markings were not proper. Finally, Republicans have repeatedly cried foul about a double standard when it comes to secretary Clinton's e-mails. But director Comey testified that the real double standard would have been to prosecute her with this completely inadequate -- with this completely inadequate evidence.

 

[ivwshane]

You should be careful, I didn't say they actually read it. She gave them access is what I said. Did the server staff gain clearance? The 2 to 10 people Comey estimated?

Try fucking reading for once.

 

[buckshot24]

Try fucking reading for once.

I read it tough guy. You're wrong, I didn't lie.

 

[wetech]

https://mediamatters.org/video/2016...edia-talking-heads-claims-bias-clinton/211424

Comey stated that there were "portion markings" on the documents indicating that a particular paragraph contained classified information. They were "improperly" marked in that they didn't also contain a classification header.

 

[ivwshane]

Comey stated that there were "portion markings" on the documents indicating that a particular paragraph contained classified information. They were "improperly" marked in that they didn't also contain a classification header.

No. They were improperly marked due to human error.

 

[buckshot24]

No. They were improperly marked due to human error.

Does she need proper markings or is she a reasonable person?

 

[ivwshane]

I read it tough guy. You're wrong, I didn't lie.

Then obviously you are just fucking stupid.

From the article you claimed to have read:

But Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon tweeted, “To be clear, the lawyers who sorted through Clinton's emails had Top Secret-level clearance."

Clinton’s personal attorney David Kendall said last August that he received Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance from the Justice Department in November 2013 and a Top Secret clearance from State in the year that followed. In the same letter, Kendall said that his law partner, Katherine Turner, received State clearance in September 2014.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Comey stated that there were "portion markings" on the documents indicating that a particular paragraph contained classified information. They were "improperly" marked in that they didn't also contain a classification header.

https://twitter.com/brianefallon/status/751076789200547841

Here are two of the 'marked' emails. State has said both were marked in error https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DO...-2015-08637HCE10/DOC_0C05796118/C05796118.pdf … https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_NovWeb/267/DOC_0C05791537/C05791537.pdf …]

The e-mails in question for all of the world to see.

Edit: More detail:
https://bluenationreview.com/revelation-of-classified-marking-error-supports-hillary-on-emails/

 

[buckshot24]

Then obviously you are just fucking stupid.

From the article you claimed to have read:

HAHA Brian Fallon said so! That is an assertion, not a fact dummy. Comey said otherwise. Are you really that stupid to believe anything her campaign says about this after the last year of lies?

 

[ivwshane]

HAHA Brian Fallon said so! That is an assertion, not a fact dummy. Comey said otherwise. Are you really that stupid to believe anything her campaign says about this after the last year of lies?

I'm quoting this so other people who read the link I posted and who have been following this thread can have a good laugh at you. Because if you feel the tiniest bit of shame you will end up editing your post.

 

[ivwshane]

https://twitter.com/brianefallon/status/751076789200547841

The e-mails in question for all of the world to see.

Edit: More detail:
https://bluenationreview.com/revelation-of-classified-marking-error-supports-hillary-on-emails/

Wtf man!! That's top secret super classified emails you are posting right there! Do you not care about America's security!?

For christs sake man, wtf is wrong with you!!!






/S

 

[buckshot24]

https://twitter.com/brianefallon/status/751076789200547841

The e-mails in question for all of the world to see.

Edit: More detail:
https://bluenationreview.com/revelation-of-classified-marking-error-supports-hillary-on-emails/

Haha, how does this help her? Is Hillary a reasonable person or not? I guess you think she isn't a reasonable person.

 

[Starbuck1975]

What part of "incorrectly marked" are you having an issue with?

I don't have an issue with it. Incorrectly marked means incorrectly marked at the point of origin. As the recipient, you have to accept the marking as received or clarify with the point of origin if you believe the marking is incorrect. Ignoring or making assumptions about what the marking should be is never an option. Hence Comey's comments around extremely irresponsible. It is extremely irresponsible to ignore or be ignorant of those marking, even if the markings are incorrect.