• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Indictments coming...

Page 122 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
zinfamous said:
Dude, I handled a classified document.

I handled 36 of them.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Jhhnn said:
Heh. The way the rabid right goes on about the buttery males you'd think she won the election or something. They seem to need to talk about it incessantly, to somehow reassure themselves that Trump isn't a huge mistake because Hillary.

Meanwhile, the tsunami of slime emanating from the Trump white house takes on a surreal, almost supernatural character.

Indictments? We ain't seen nothin' yet, and none of them will be about Hillary...
Click to expand...

I'm sure that Paratus is the party that dragged up Hillary.


Paratus said:
Or even after the facts or known.

Unless there’s a Clinton involved of course:
Click to expand...
 
uclaLabrat said:
So basically the whole article says, yeah, she basically acted completely in good faith and the system sucks.
Click to expand...
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.
 
IJTSSG said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
IJTSSG said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.​
 
fskimospy said:
I worked in radio central for almost my entire naval career
Click to expand...
Oh you were Navy, now it all makes sense 😀

I have a lot of experience with the type of news that is and is not classified. If you handled classified information for 20 years and didn’t know that you’re only responsible for information you know to be classified you were grossly mistrained.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
fskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
vi edit said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)".
 
Amused said:
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.​
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
 
Last edited:
IJTSSG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Behold the shield of But Hillary! It wards off all evil! Carry it before you everywhere!
 
IJTSSG said:
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.
Click to expand...
Since this is indictment thread, I feel it's appropriate to ask...

So, when is Hillary going to be indicted for her numerous crimes?
 
IJTSSG said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Commodus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 was more like Choice A) Meh or Choice B) Fuckstick von Circus Clown.
Meh was a safer bet if you just want to hunker down and maintain status quo for 4 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top