Yep, and I read about classified drone war shit right on the front page of the NYT, just like Hillary. But it's still classified, for reasons... At least I didn't talk about it via email...
Yep, and I read about classified drone war shit right on the front page of the NYT, just like Hillary. But it's still classified, for reasons... At least I didn't talk about it via email...
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 22,260
- 4,944
- 136
Not even close.
1.It says there were hundreds if not thousands of emails that contained classified information and that she, and her staff, should have known they were classified.
2. The excuse that only the paragraphs were marked is complete and utter bullshit. Anyone who has ever handled classified knows exactly what those markings mean, headers or no headers. They chose to ignore them.
I've never said I thought she should go to jail but she certainly knowingly mishandled classified. If an individual working at some defense contractor somewhere would have done what her and her staff did, DSS would probably suspend if not revoke their clearance and that person would probably lose their job. If a company did what they did, setting up that server, having classified on it, not telling anyone there was classified, etc., that company's facility clearance would be in serious jeopardy and their chances of getting anymore classified contracts would be severely diminished.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
Wrong.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
The State Department confirmed July 6 that it was aware of two emails that were marked confidential, the lowest level of classification, when they were sent. An aide sent the two emails to Clinton to prepare her for phone calls with foreign leaders, according to the New York Times.
State Department spokesman John Kirby said call sheets are often classified when they are prepared. But then at some point before the call is made, someone with the appropriate authority will declassify them. These two call sheets sent to Clinton unnecessarily retained their confidential markings due to human error, Kirby said.
Even though just two emails out of many thousands were marked classified at the time they were sent, it’s more than the number Clinton cited: zero.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,171
- 18,807
- 146
What the actual fuck? Do you just make shit up? Or is this a lie you've been told so often by your echo chamber you maintain it even in the face of contradictory information you fucking posted???
It’s important to remember that only "a very small number" of her emails, two, were marked classified when they were first sent, and just 110 out of the 30,000 she turned over were classified but unmarked. Evidence seems to indicate that Clinton generally dealt with classified information in an appropriate manner.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
Oh you were Navy, now it all makes sense
This really is the whole point. I had to handle classified emails at a time when the technology was still relatively new and there were no established protocols. Yet even as a rank and file peon, I knew not to throw my then AOL email account into the mix. This was before mobile devices, which meant a lot of late nights sitting around monitoring an email account on a secure system. Convenience never factored into my thinking. It did for Clinton.
Diligence around classification levels was of paramount importance despite the admitted tendency to over classify everything.
The FBI cleared Clinton of criminal intent, but it was her negligence that forced the hand of the FBI to investigate. It was the NY Times that shone the spotlight on emailgate, not Fox News.
Criminal intent was not necessary for those buttery emails to clog the arteries of her campaign.
Oh you were Navy, now it all makes sense
This really is the whole point. I had to handle classified emails at a time when the technology was still relatively new and there were no established protocols. Yet even as a rank and file peon, I knew not to throw my then AOL email account into the mix. This was before mobile devices, which meant a lot of late nights sitting around monitoring an email account on a secure system. Convenience never factored into my thinking. It did for Clinton.
Diligence around classification levels was of paramount importance despite the admitted tendency to over classify everything.
Well right, but that's not what she did. I'm not sure how long ago you were in but in my time (1999-2006) everyone handling classified email had a SIPRNET account (classified email) and NIPRNET account (unclassified). What she did was essentially to take her NIPRNET account and host it herself. It would have been grossly illegal (and indictable I would hope) if she were forwarding her SIPR mail to her email account but she was really just replacing one unclassified account with another. It's a shitty way to avoid cumbersome government IT policy and it also hides records that should be public. I don't support it, but the whole controversy wasn't really about classified material. Also, I can't help but notice that numerous public officials before her and (more importantly) AFTER her have engaged in similar activity and nobody cares. The truth is nobody cared about her email server, it was just a useful electoral ploy.
She certainly made an error but the people I really blame for this was the media. We knew at the time, and even more now, that Republicans didn't actually care about her email server but the media pretended to believe them for more than a year out of a desire to avoid appearing biased.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
No argument here. You also cannot deny that, right or wrong, there’s been a long running narrative around Clinton’s trustworthiness. Obama used that very narrative to defeat her. I fail to understand how Democrats to this day cannot comprehend that emailgate was a HUGE liability, and fed that narrative like an all you can eat buffet.
We have reached an accord. I blame the media for normalizing Trump and forcing a horse race. There is other blame to pass around.
It was never truly about the emails themselves. It was around transparency and controlling the narrative. In another thread you called me out for challenging the notion of executive presence. This is precisely what I am talking about. Competent chief executives get in front of situations and gain control of them. Those that are unable to fail.
Pens1566
Lifer
- Oct 11, 2005
- 13,538
- 10,977
- 136
And, IIRC, the marking was a "C)" which out of context would usually be taken as a bullet point in an ordered list. Let alone, that it's not correct paragraph marking for a confidential document which would be "(C)".
Well, yeh, but she wasn't perfect. Therefore she must be burned! Trump, otoh, was perfect to begin with, so he gets a pass on everything.
It's important to realize that all discussions uncomfortable to Trumpsters will be redirected to the buttery males. That's a given, like sunrise. It's a magical rhetorical shield to ward off inconvenient truths. It's also a concern trolling technique.
Don't fall for it. There is no "there" there & never has been. It's a topic unworthy of discussion, which is why they always want to talk about it.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
UNCjigga
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2000
- 25,467
- 10,061
- 136
Butter Uranium?
Nope. http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...ump-for-inaccurate-claims-on-uranium-one-deal
Butter Foundation?
Nope. https://www.snopes.com/tag/clinton-foundation/
Butter Benghazi?
Nope. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...e-files-final-report-and-shuts-down/95336692/
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
The Hillary taint cleaners and apologists are out in full force this morning. Federal regulations are only for the peons, it just wasn't convenient and the media blew it out of proportion.
IS3 says it was nothing more than her hosting her own NIPR account, he knows everything so we're moving on.
Good job!
IS3 says it was nothing more than her hosting her own NIPR account, he knows everything so we're moving on.
Good job!
Last edited:
Behold the shield of But Hillary! It wards off all evil! Carry it before you everywhere!
fleshconsumed
Diamond Member
- Feb 21, 2002
- 6,486
- 2,363
- 136
Since this is indictment thread, I feel it's appropriate to ask...
So, when is Hillary going to be indicted for her numerous crimes?
Commodus
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2004
- 9,215
- 6,820
- 136
Her behavior was flawed; it's just that most American voters were smart enough to know that inappropriate email handling pales in comparison to the gross corruption, incompetence and bigotry of Trump. You don't fix one problem by creating another problem that's much worse.
I always found it interesting how conservatives derided Clinton for being corrupt and then voted for the guy who had to pay out $25 million dollars because he defrauded thousands of people with a scam university.
It'll never happen. The buttery males bullshit is too good a mind fuck to give up, ever.
Speaking of possible indictments-
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-cohen-resigns-rnc-committee-post/story?id=56033406
Odds are that he'll roll like a marble... he knows that he can't trust Trump.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-cohen-resigns-rnc-committee-post/story?id=56033406
Odds are that he'll roll like a marble... he knows that he can't trust Trump.
When the choices are Shit (Rev.A) and Shit (Rev. B) you write in Snoopy and hope for better next time.
hal2kilo
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2009
- 25,780
- 12,100
- 136
Why would the RNC keep him on the payroll up until now? I guess knowing what a cheep skate chisler Trump is, he was using it as a backdoor way to keep Mikey close.
Commodus
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2004
- 9,215
- 6,820
- 136
Ah yes, the classic equivocation maneuver: when faced with the unquestionable truth that you backed the wrong horse, pretend the other horse was just as bad so you can sleep at night.
UNCjigga
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2000
- 25,467
- 10,061
- 136
I just want to point this out again:
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ed-me-about-tease-of-surprise-before-election
Giuliani was questioned by the FBI yesterday about his promise of an "October surprise". Let's see where this leads.
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ed-me-about-tease-of-surprise-before-election
Giuliani was questioned by the FBI yesterday about his promise of an "October surprise". Let's see where this leads.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter