IG: Some Emails on Clinton's Server Were Beyond Top Secret

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes I'm 100% serious, it is a random issue you selected. You're engaging in classic defensive behavior where someone doesn't want to accept inconvenient information.

You're the one who has trouble accepting inconvenient information. Snopes completely ignored Obama's blatant lie regarding the gender pay gap...but seems to have plenty of time to fact check whether or not an obituary from Donald Trump's recently-deceased cousin implores the public not to vote for the GOP presidential contender....or time to check if Ted Cruz really said that businesses should exercise their right to turn away gay customers. Both false by the way. Snopes does decent fact checks...but the fact checks they choose to conduct indicates bias.

 

[stormkroe]

I backed up my claim just fine. If you want to believe that the Snopes people were saying that the major majority of urban legend information that came into them to check was from conservative sources but they happened to check out at higher rates that would overcome this disparity you're welcome to do so. I see absolutely no evidence from their statements that they think such a disparity exists.

This is not an accurate statement. You said you read that a vast majority of [bold]dis [/bold]information came from conservative sources, but your link only says that more letters are anti-liberal. It doesn't make mention of their validity anywhere, which would be necessary to back up your claim of 'disinformation'. Also, while my first example was tied to the 'rate' of right to wrong, my second example is about volume (it also happens to be the one I mostly believe). Or are you going to double down and say that conservatives don't complain more than progressives? Hell, I don't believe that and I'm the most conservative person on this board.
tl;dr, not necessarily disagreeing with you, just pointing out that your link does not speak to claim validity rates.
conservatives can cry a well as most and better than lots.
and haha! I guess.

 

[fskimospy]

This is not an accurate statement. You said you read that a vast majority of [bold]dis [/bold]information came from conservative sources, but your link only says that more letters are anti-liberal. It doesn't make mention of their validity anywhere, which would be necessary to back up your claim of 'disinformation'. Also, while my first example was tied to the 'rate' of right to wrong, my second example is about volume (it also happens to be the one I mostly believe). Or are you going to double down and say that conservatives don't complain more than progressives? Hell, I don't believe that and I'm the most conservative person on this board.
tl;dr, not necessarily disagreeing with you, just pointing out that your link does not speak to claim validity rates.
conservatives can cry a well as most and better than lots.
and haha! I guess.

Yes, there is an implicit assumption that urban legends are approximately equally likely to be false regardless of political persuasion. Again, I see no indication that is not the case. It's possible that they aren't, but when you have people from a legend debunking site say 'we see way more of this stuff from conservative sources', the idea that conservatives are subject to more disinformation is not an unreasonable inference.

As to whether or not conservatives are more likely to create those sort of letters...that's the whole point.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The Gospel according to Snope. Did he even link to the snopies saying this?

Nope. He apparently believes that his recollection of an interview with one of the Snopes founders provides ample basis in "fact". Now he's making other assertions without any basis in fact as well.

Providing credible facts does not appear to be eskimospy's strong suit lately.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Looks like some other folks wanted to use Hillary's email server for "convenience" as well!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...top-secret-intel-on-server.html?intcmp=hplnws

The official said the accounts include not only Clinton’s but those of top aides – including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines – as well as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy and others. There is no public evidence they were authorized to receive the intelligence some of which was beyond Top Secret.

A second source not authorized to speak on the record said the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server.

Two unnamed sources...take it for what it's worth.

 

[fskimospy]

You're the one who has trouble accepting inconvenient information. Snopes completely ignored Obama's blatant lie regarding the gender pay gap...but seems to have plenty of time to fact check whether or not an obituary from Donald Trump's recently-deceased cousin implores the public not to vote for the GOP presidential contender....or time to check if Ted Cruz really said that businesses should exercise their right to turn away gay customers. Both false by the way. Snopes does decent fact checks...but the fact checks they choose to conduct indicates bias.

Even if that were true, and it's not, that's entirely irrelevant as they were describing the INPUTS to them, not what they chose to check.

Next attempt at denial?

 

[fskimospy]

Nope. He apparently believes that his recollection of an interview with one of the Snopes founders provides ample basis in "fact". Now he's making other assertions without any basis in fact as well.

Providing credible facts does not appear to be eskimospy's strong suit lately.

By 'recollection' you mean 'direct quote from the paper of record for the United States', of course. 😉

 

[Jhhnn]

This is not an accurate statement. You said you read that a vast majority of [bold]dis [/bold]information came from conservative sources, but your link only says that more letters are anti-liberal. It doesn't make mention of their validity anywhere, which would be necessary to back up your claim of 'disinformation'. Also, while my first example was tied to the 'rate' of right to wrong, my second example is about volume (it also happens to be the one I mostly believe). Or are you going to double down and say that conservatives don't complain more than progressives? Hell, I don't believe that and I'm the most conservative person on this board.
tl;dr, not necessarily disagreeing with you, just pointing out that your link does not speak to claim validity rates.
conservatives can cry a well as most and better than lots.
and haha! I guess.

You don't have to rely on Snopes to figure it out. Simply remember the outcomes of every Repub sponsored "scandal" slime attack since 2008. Birtherism. Fast & Furious. Benghazi. IRS. Hillary's email now fading to obscurity. Dishonest videos attacking ACORN, Shirley Sherrod & PP.

That stuff is just the tip of the iceberg. We can go back a little further to the FUD campaign in the wake of 9/11 leading up to the invasion of Iraq or talk about the raving currently in vogue about Syrian refugees or about how right wing FUD created the Bundy militia.

Nothing among Liberals vaguely compares to that stupendous pile of bullshit.

 

[stormkroe]

You don't have to rely on Snopes to figure it out. Simply remember the outcomes of every Repub sponsored "scandal" slime attack since 2008. Birtherism. Fast & Furious. Benghazi. IRS. Hillary's email now fading to obscurity. Dishonest videos attacking ACORN, Shirley Sherrod & PP.

That stuff is just the tip of the iceberg. We can go back a little further to the FUD campaign in the wake of 9/11 leading up to the invasion of Iraq or talk about the raving currently in vogue about Syrian refugees or about how right wing FUD created the Bundy militia.

Nothing among Liberals vaguely compares to that stupendous pile of bullshit.

I'm going to try one more time because the point is being lost.
I'm NOT disagreeing with anything you just said in my posts. The ONLY thing I'm saying is that eskimospy stated that he recalled snopes claiming a higher rate of disinformation from conservatives, but his link only said that most of their letters were anti-liberal. It didn't say anything about the rate of accuracy. The only thing that link supports is that most of their workload is anti-liberal. There is no claim either way of true/false ratios.
If I distill it any further it will be 100% carbon.
Thanks

 

[werepossum]

FFS, you cannot possibly be this dense. Can you? Why does the concept of things changing over time so confound righties? The rules that are now in effect are irrelevant to the way things were in the past, when Clinton was SoS. "Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office..."

You think him telling you the rules weren't in effect when Clinton was sos is a matter of opinion?
I don't quite know what to say there. Bizzaro world indeed.

<sigh> THOSE rules were not in effect. Not NO rules were in effect.

Let's try a simple example. Congress passes a law adding a mandatory ten year prison sentence for murders committed with a fire arm. Does this mean:
A. Prior to that, there were no laws governing murdering people with a fire arm.
B. Prior to that, there likely were other laws governing murdering people with a fire arm in existence, just not this particular law.

Let's try another. President Obama makes a rule that all official documents must be properly archived within twenty days. Does this mean:
A. Prior to that, there were no laws governing retention of official documents.
B. Prior to that, there likely were other laws governing retention of official documents in existence, just not this particular law.

At least we can see why you guys find the meaning of the word "is" to be some mysterious arcane thing beyond human understanding.

I'm going to try one more time because the point is being lost.
I'm NOT disagreeing with anything you just said in my posts. The ONLY thing I'm saying is that eskimospy stated that he recalled snopes claiming a higher rate of disinformation from conservatives, but his link only said that most of their letters were anti-liberal. It didn't say anything about the rate of accuracy. The only thing that link supports is that most of their workload is anti-liberal. There is no claim either way of true/false ratios.
If I distill it any further it will be 100% carbon.
Thanks

lol I award you the Oscar for heroic effort in a losing cause. (Please note that if you are not white you may have to settle for a SAG Award instead, 'cause apparently that's a thing now.)

 

[fskimospy]

<sigh> THOSE rules were not in effect. Not NO rules were in effect.

Let's try a simple example. Congress passes a law adding a mandatory ten year prison sentence for murders committed with a fire arm. Does this mean:
A. Prior to that, there were no laws governing murdering people with a fire arm.
B. Prior to that, there likely were other laws governing murdering people with a fire arm in existence, just not this particular law.

Let's try another. President Obama makes a rule that all official documents must be properly archived within twenty days. Does this mean:
A. Prior to that, there were no laws governing retention of official documents.
B. Prior to that, there likely were other laws governing retention of official documents in existence, just not this particular law.

At least we can see why you guys find the meaning of the word "is" to be some mysterious arcane thing beyond human understanding.


lol I award you the Oscar for heroic effort in a losing cause. (Please note that if you are not white you may have to settle for a SAG Award instead, 'cause apparently that's a thing now.)

I would award that to basically everyone trying to reason with you in this thread. I've lost track of how many different justifications you've tried to use for maintaining the same position. No matter how many facts are thrown in your face you just blindly declare that you know how this is supposed to work (while admitting you have no knowledge of how this stuff works).

 

[Jhhnn]

Looks like some other folks wanted to use Hillary's email server for "convenience" as well!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...top-secret-intel-on-server.html?intcmp=hplnws



Two unnamed sources...take it for what it's worth.

That's bullshit. If an aide wanted to send an email to Hillary, it went thru Hillary's server & vice-versa. The article does not claim they had accounts on the server, at all.

The top aides to any SoS obviously have top security clearances or they wouldn't be there. "No public record" is just a bullshit way to cast aspersions to the contrary.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

By 'recollection' you mean 'direct quote from the paper of record for the United States', of course. 😉

Where does it say "urban legend misinformation is much more prevalent on the right than on the left"? You're so full of shit it isn't even funny anymore...it's now getting downright pathetic.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's bullshit. If an aide wanted to send an email to Hillary, it went thru Hillary's server & vice-versa. The article does not claim they had accounts on the server, at all.

The top aides to any SoS obviously have top security clearances or they wouldn't be there. "No public record" is just a bullshit way to cast aspersions to the contrary.

The sources certainly implied that the accounts were on the server, but I agree that it wasn't explicitly stated.

The official said the accounts include not only Clinton&#8217;s but those of top aides &#8211; including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines &#8211; as well as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy and others. There is no public evidence they were authorized to receive the intelligence some of which was beyond Top Secret.

A second source not authorized to speak on the record said the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server.

 

[fskimospy]

Where does it say "urban legend misinformation is much more prevalent on the right than on the left"? You're so full of shit it isn't even funny anymore...it's now getting downright pathetic.

lol, nice attempt at deflection. Now instead of it being my 'recollection' you're disputing the conclusions from it. More desperate attempts at avoiding uncomfortable information.

So far we have:
1. Disputing the source's existence.
2. Claiming accused political bias of the outputs has an effect on the inputs (??)
3. Claiming selection bias (incorrect usage)
4. Claiming disproportionate rates of 'rightness' for conservative letters.

This is desperate flailing. There is no evidence that the conservative letters they got were more likely to be correct than the liberal ones they got. It is a reasonable inference if they got a larger volume of conservative inputs they have observed a larger volume of conservative misinformation.

Seriously, talk about pathetic. Just stop digging.

 

[VRAMdemon]

I really haven't followed this, but I'm struggling to reconcile the focus on e-mail servers and classification here with the Valery Plame affair. In the Plame affair, no criminal charges were filed for leaking classified information - the only criminal charges were for lying to investigators. In other words, recent history would suggest that even the deliberate release of classified information to journalists would not result in criminal prosecution (as long as you don't lie about it).

Does anything that Mrs. Clinton is accused of even rise to the level of deliberately disclosing classified information to the media? An act itself which apparently isn't worthy of criminal prosecution.

The bottom line, it seems is that most of the controls and penalties in place for the handling of classified information are administrative in nature and handled within each Department. Here's the relevant document for classifying / declassifying material from the DoS. However, any criminal element is much less clear cut as previous cites have shown.

Wasn't it Dick Cheney who said, paraphrasing here - that he couldn't be accused of releasing classified information, since if he released it, by definition he must be declassifying it? Actually - here's some more information on Cheney's views and a broader discussion of handling classified material at the highest levels (Congress and the White House).

So again - I struggle with a disconnect. Apparently it's quite bad for Mrs. Clinton to store classified information in a way that could lead to its release. But not so bad for the actual release of classified information - at least when done by others.

If there was genuine concern that criminal activity had taken place, Congress would have revived the office of the special prosecutor. The FBI generally doesn't handle investigations into top-level executive branch officials because of the inherent conflict of interest.

And the same GOP-controlled Congress that has held dozens of hearings on Clinton's alleged wrongdoing, and is not taking any serious action because...?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

lol, nice attempt at deflection. Now instead of it being my 'recollection' you're disputing the conclusions from it. More desperate attempts at avoiding uncomfortable information.

So far we have:
1. Disputing the source's existence.
2. Claiming accused political bias of the outputs has an effect on the inputs (??)
3. Claiming selection bias (incorrect usage)
4. Claiming disproportionate rates of 'rightness' for conservative letters.

This is desperate flailing. There is no evidence that the conservative letters they got were more likely to be correct than the liberal ones they got. It is a reasonable inference if they got a larger volume of conservative inputs they have observed a larger volume of conservative misinformation.

Seriously, talk about pathetic. Just stop digging.

I quoted your exact words and you've provided NOTHING which explicitly substantiates your claim. Sorry, but that's the cold hard reality here. I'm done talking about it...except to say that you're better than this.

 

[Perknose]

Wasn't it Dick Cheney who said, paraphrasing here - that he couldn't be accused of releasing classified information, since if he released it, by definition he must be declassifying it? Actually - here's some more information on Cheney's views and a broader discussion of handling classified material at the highest levels (Congress and the White House).

So again - I struggle with a disconnect. Apparently it's quite bad for Mrs. Clinton to store classified information in a way that could lead to its release. But not so bad for the actual release of classified information - at least when done by others.

If there was genuine concern that criminal activity had taken place, Congress would have revived the office of the special prosecutor. The FBI generally doesn't handle investigations into top-level executive branch officials because of the inherent conflict of interest.

And the same GOP-controlled Congress that has held dozens of hearings on Clinton's alleged wrongdoing, and is not taking any serious action because...?

I will be keenly interested to see how our resident Hilary haters respond to your trenchant, reality-based analysis. 😎

 

[MagickMan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html

The chickens, they've come home and they're roosting.

 

[MagickMan]

I will be keenly interested to see how our resident Hilary haters respond to your trenchant, reality-based analysis. 😎

She's no better than Dick Cheney?! D: Bloody hell, he's the worst kind of scumbag.

 

[ivwshane]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html

The chickens, they've come home and they're roosting.

Oh yeah? What do you think it is you've stumbled on to?

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh yeah? What do you think it is you've stumbled on to?

A bit more well timed juicy gossip.

There will be an endless supply until the FBI finishes their investigation, bet on that.

 

[Fern]

The best part of all of this is the quixotic nature of the Hillary hate quest, the notion that she'll be busted for something, anything, RSN.

If the private server were illegal she'd already be busted, so it's safe to scratch that.

She's also safe from the rest of it because the SoS is the highest classification authority in the State Dept. Their decisions wrt information are only subject to review for public release & not before. Unless she can be shown to have transferred information from the secure network to the open internet she's home free & anybody not in thrall to the bullshit figured that out a long time ago.

Feel free to entertain the usual Benghazi fantasies.

Generally true, however that applies to info originating from the State Dept.

If it originated in another dept/agency the SoS has no authority wrt: to it's classification.

So no, she's not "safe from the rest of it".

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

Generally true, however that applies to info originating from the State Dept.

If it originated in another dept/agency the SoS has no authority wrt: to it's classification.

So no, she's not "safe from the rest of it".

Fern

How about if it originated in the New York Times? Who has declassification authority then?

 

[Bowfinger]

I would award that to basically everyone trying to reason with you in this thread. I've lost track of how many different justifications you've tried to use for maintaining the same position. No matter how many facts are thrown in your face you just blindly declare that you know how this is supposed to work (while admitting you have no knowledge of how this stuff works).

I'm not sure he even knows what point he's trying to make any more, beyond "Hillary evil." He just loves to argue with us.