Politically Motivated Benghazi Committee flings some more poo against the wall

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Wait, so for yourself you've qualified your statement that you couldn't "knowingly" have transmitted classified info and yet you don't afford that same excuse to Hilary?
Do you know what a hypocrite is?

I am not the secretary of state who obviously should know and be aware of what information she sends out, what is classified and what isn't. Further, she herself didn't qualify her statement (knowingly), she said she didn't send out classified information, which appears to be a lie.

Hypocrisy not found. Obviously someone who is not in a position to have classified information has different responsibilities than someone who handles classified information. Duh.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The FBI cares about her emails.

FBI Seizes Four State Department Servers in Clinton Email Probe

http://freebeacon.com/politics/fbi-seizes-four-state-department-servers-in-clinton-email-probe/

Makes it seem like a SWAT raid, huh?

Sensationalist media is like that & gullible right wing chowderheads never change, always seek confirmation of their bias.

The FBI is trying to figure out who is responsible for allowing information to crossover between the State Dept's secured & unsecured networks eventually landing in Hillary's inbox & likely others as well.

The fact that it's Hillary is tangential to what they're doing.

Way too easy, huh? I mean, where's the conspiracy in that?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,583
136
I am not the secretary of state who obviously should know and be aware of what information she sends out, what is classified and what isn't. Further, she herself didn't qualify her statement (knowingly), she said she didn't send out classified information, which appears to be a lie.

It would be impossible for her to have complete knowledge of what is classified or not. By your standard basically no adult person should ever say 'I didn't send out classified information' then, which renders that sort of question useless.

Wouldn't it make far more sense to interpret that as her saying she acted within the statutes and regulations about dissemination of classified information? Forget that she's the 'hildabeast' for a minute.

Hypocrisy not found. Obviously someone who is not in a position to have classified information has different responsibilities than someone who handles classified information. Duh.

What is the statutory basis for this? Are you saying that you are able to unknowingly disseminate classified information but people who handle classified information are not allowed to unknowingly disseminate it? I've never heard of this standard, but it sounds like bullshit to me.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I am not the secretary of state who obviously should know and be aware of what information she sends out, what is classified and what isn't. Further, she herself didn't qualify her statement (knowingly), she said she didn't send out classified information, which appears to be a lie.

Hypocrisy not found. Obviously someone who is not in a position to have classified information has different responsibilities than someone who handles classified information. Duh.

Yeh, and the SoS should obviously be all knowing, right?

You won't gain any credibility trying to backpedal on the head of a rhetorical pin.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
I am not the secretary of state who obviously should know and be aware of what information she sends out, what is classified and what isn't. Further, she herself didn't qualify her statement (knowingly), she said she didn't send out classified information, which appears to be a lie.

Hypocrisy not found. Obviously someone who is not in a position to have classified information has different responsibilities than someone who handles classified information. Duh.

Man, it just sucks that Kevin McCarthy told the whole world what the Benghazi investigation really is, and what sheep all the people that believe in it are. How embarassing.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Makes it seem like a SWAT raid, huh?

Sensationalist media is like that & gullible right wing chowderheads never change, always seek confirmation of their bias.

The FBI is trying to figure out who is responsible for allowing information to crossover between the State Dept's secured & unsecured networks eventually landing in Hillary's inbox & likely others as well.

The fact that it's Hillary is tangential to what they're doing.

Way too easy, huh? I mean, where's the conspiracy in that?
I state a fact without any commentary and you just can't help but to spin it to your liking...pathetic.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,613
4,066
136
Ok..ok..Outside of ATOT ive never heard a real living person talk about either of these stories...and im in KS...GOP heaven lol
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
It would be impossible for her to have complete knowledge of what is classified or not.

By your standard basically no adult person should ever say 'I didn't send out classified information' then, which renders that sort of question useless.

Baloney. Anyone who doesn't have access to classified information can - by definition - not knowingly send out classified information. Those who do have access to classified info have to make sure they handle it appropriately, which includes not placing it on a private server. Remember, the main issue here wasn't that she sent the classified info - she could have done that from the government server as well. The issue is that she was using a private server, and it had classified info on it. She denied denied denied and said she didn't send classified info from her personal server. If what Gowdy says is true, then she was lying. Period.

What is the statutory basis for this? Are you saying that you are able to unknowingly disseminate classified information but people who handle classified information are not allowed to unknowingly disseminate it?

I can't possibly knowingly disseminate classified information, which leaves unknowing as the only possibility. I can't mishandle classified information if I don't know what information is classified. Those who do handle classified information have the responsibility to do so within regulations that govern such classified information. Putting it on private servers is not a good way to do that, whether criminal / illegal or not.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,583
136
Baloney. Anyone who doesn't have access to classified information can - by definition - not knowingly send out classified information. Those who do have access to classified info have to make sure they handle it appropriately, which includes not placing it on a private server.

By this standard you (and everyone else with an internet connection) absolutely have access to classified information, as quite a bit of it has been leaked onto the internet in recent years. You absolutely have the ability to knowingly disseminate classified information. Period.

If she KNEW it was classified and did such that would certainly be an issue, but the whole point here is that the information wasn't known to be classified according to the information available. You can't have it both ways, either you're as 'guilty' as she is (most likely) or you recognize that Gowdy is full of shit.

Remember, the main issue here wasn't that she sent the classified info - she could have done that from the government server as well. The issue is that she was using a private server, and it had classified info on it. She denied denied denied and said she didn't send classified info from her personal server. If what Gowdy says is true, then she was lying. Period.

Again, only if you adopt such a pedantic definition as to render the question meaningless. You've likely committed the same 'offense' as you're claiming she did.

I genuinely can't think of a situation in which Gowdy tries to do this unless he is woefully ignorant or is trying to deceive.

I can't possibly knowingly disseminate classified information, which leaves unknowing as the only possibility. I can't mishandle classified information if I don't know what information is classified. Those who do handle classified information have the responsibility to do so within regulations that govern such classified information. Putting it on private servers is not a good way to do that, whether criminal / illegal or not.

You're actually proving my point here. You can't mishandle information that you don't know is classified, which is the whole point. If she didn't know it was classified then you're agreeing with me. Information that is not marked as classified and is available from multiple public sources would likely be interpreted as unclassified information by a reasonable person.

That should pretty much end it.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I state a fact without any commentary and you just can't help but to spin it to your liking...pathetic.

And now, playing innocent. There was plenty of spin in the linked piece. That's obviously true of any that quote Farrel of Judicial watch. He's Repubs' new version of Ken Starr, a spinmeister supreme.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
And now, playing innocent. There was plenty of spin in the linked piece. That's obviously true of any that quote Farrel of Judicial watch. He's Repubs' new version of Ken Starr, a spinmeister supreme.
Please provide a link on this particular issue that you find to be "acceptable" and I'll edit my post to suit you high-minded sensibilities. I was surprised at how little media attention this received...perhaps you can do better than I.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Please provide a link on this particular issue that you find to be "acceptable" and I'll edit my post to suit you high-minded sensibilities. I was surprised at how little media attention this received...perhaps you can do better than I.

Oh- you must mean half assed credible media. It's all over the propaganda outlets of the Right Wing- Fox, Breitbart, the Examiner & the American Stinker to name a few.

The rest have become wary of losing credibility in repeating bullshit about what McCarthy admitted was a partisan smear campaign. That doesn't stop Gowdy & others from spreading it around- that's his assignment.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,498
7,555
136
It doesn't mean that at all. There's a difference between lying and being mistaken.
Martha Stewart would like her jail time back and record fixed to reflect your new view on federal crimes.

Fact of the matter is the "gotcha" game has been used against many people whereby they grill you until you are mistaken and then thrown in jail and punished for the crime of speaking. The golden standard is being able to remember every single detail of every single document there ever was.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Baloney. Anyone who doesn't have access to classified information can - by definition - not knowingly send out classified information. Those who do have access to classified info have to make sure they handle it appropriately, which includes not placing it on a private server. Remember, the main issue here wasn't that she sent the classified info - she could have done that from the government server as well. The issue is that she was using a private server, and it had classified info on it. She denied denied denied and said she didn't send classified info from her personal server. If what Gowdy says is true, then she was lying. Period.



I can't possibly knowingly disseminate classified information, which leaves unknowing as the only possibility. I can't mishandle classified information if I don't know what information is classified. Those who do handle classified information have the responsibility to do so within regulations that govern such classified information. Putting it on private servers is not a good way to do that, whether criminal / illegal or not.
You're nuts. Receiving classified information is the same thing as "having access" to classified information. And if you know the information you received is classified and you send it to someone else, you've knowingly transmitted classified information.

There's a difference between having a security clearance and not having a security clearance. But regardless of whether or not you have a security clearance, you may or may not actually receive classified information. And if you receive classified information, you may or may not KNOW that the information you received is classified. Thus, regardless of whether or not you have a security clearance, you may or may not knowingly receive or transmit classified information.

This applies to you and this applies to Hillary.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
You absolutely have the ability to knowingly disseminate classified information. Period.

That is flat out wrong, and you know it. It is NOT POSSIBLE for me to KNOWINGLY send classified information because I have no knowledge of what is classified. If I can't possibly know what is classified then I can't possibly knowingly send it out. I could UNknowingly send it out, but not knowingly.

If she KNEW it was classified and did such that would certainly be an issue, but the whole point here is that the information wasn't known to be classified according to the information available.

The information should not have resided on a private server. Whether she knew it to be classified or not is a another issue.

You can't have it both ways, either you're as 'guilty' as she is (most likely) or you recognize that Gowdy is full of sh*t.

You seriously can't understand a distinction between my activities as someone who has no access to classified info vs the secretary of state with access to just about everything? There's no both ways about it. I can't knowingly send out anything classified, she can. I can't even knowingly possess classified info, she can. I can't knowingly put such information on a server, she can -- and did.

I genuinely can't think of a situation in which Gowdy tries to do this unless he is woefully ignorant or is trying to deceive.

There is no deception going on. These are simple factual yes/no questions. Did she or did she not house and send out classified information on a private server? Did she claim no classified info was on the server? Did she claim she never sent out classified information?

Information that is not marked as classified and is available from multiple public sources would likely be interpreted as unclassified information by a reasonable person.

Just like that reasonable person would not have used their own private server to hide the emails from FOIA and retention requirements.

The amount of spin in a sad attempt to "defend" the team is amazing. Why not simply accept the inescapable conclusion that she screwed up, she lied about it and move on? She isn't the first and won't be the last politician to get caught lying about stuff.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
You're nuts. Receiving classified information is the same thing as "having access" to classified information. And if you know the information you received is classified and you send it to someone else, you've knowingly transmitted classified information.

Just how would someone with no access to classified information know that the information is classified? At worst, I might suspect it, or I might believe it to be, but by definition I can't KNOW. Period.

you may or may not actually receive classified information. And if you receive classified information, you may or may not KNOW that the information you received is classified.

Wrong. You can't KNOW whether something is classified if you don't know what is classified.

This applies to you and this applies to Hillary.

No.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Just how would someone with no access to classified information know that the information is classified? At worst, I might suspect it, or I might believe it to be, but by definition I can't KNOW. Period.
Since you're making such a point stressing the word "know," why don't you tell us how Hillary could possibly "know" that an email was classified if she received it from someone outside the State Department and the email didn't have any classified markings? Remember, YOUR standard is "know," not "having a feeling."

Wrong. You can't KNOW whether something is classified if you don't know what is classified.
That means Hillary is off the hook,right? She can't possibly "know" what's classified if it comes in from some outside source. Is that what you mean by "know?" Or are you claiming that if a person has a security clearance, their brain is magically transformed and they instinctively "know" the difference between classified and unclassified information?


Really? If someone you knew was "inside" sent you an email and said "Be careful; this information is classified," you wouldn't "know?" if you were a part of an email chain discussing obviously-sensitive information about (say) discussions between US diplomats and officials of a country that you knew we had no official relations with (let's say North Korea), where the originator was "inside," you wouldn't "know?"

You're a fool.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,583
136
That is flat out wrong, and you know it. It is NOT POSSIBLE for me to KNOWINGLY send classified information because I have no knowledge of what is classified. If I can't possibly know what is classified then I can't possibly knowingly send it out. I could UNknowingly send it out, but not knowingly.

Of course you can. I get the impression that you've never worked with classified information, but generally it is quite clearly marked. It is 100%, undeniably possible for you to knowingly send classified information. Right now if you wanted to. For example, most of the information that Snowden leaked is in fact classified. Plenty of other things that have come out to wikileaks were classified. You can access much of this right now if you want to. There are likely excerpts from these that you have read that contain classified information, and you may have spoken or written about that to other people. That's all the transmission of classified information right there.

There is no arguing this, it's just a fact.

The information should not have resided on a private server. Whether she knew it to be classified or not is a another issue.

It's actually not another issue. If it's unclassified then it being on a private server is fine (at least for the purposes of this discussion).

You seriously can't understand a distinction between my activities as someone who has no access to classified info vs the secretary of state with access to just about everything? There's no both ways about it. I can't knowingly send out anything classified, she can. I can't even knowingly possess classified info, she can. I can't knowingly put such information on a server, she can -- and did.

As covered above, you can absolutely do all of those things. In addition, people with access to classified information don't have some way to magically know if any particular random piece of information that comes by is classified or not.

If you have any information she knew it was classified, then please share it. Otherwise the circumstances present indicate she wouldn't have known. (nor would anyone else who wasn't directly involved with that info)

There is no deception going on. These are simple factual yes/no questions. Did she or did she not house and send out classified information on a private server? Did she claim no classified info was on the server? Did she claim she never sent out classified information?

Those are only simple yes/no questions if you don't understand how this information works. You've actually clearly shown here that you didn't even realize that in your life you very well may have transmitted or improperly stowed classified information in your life. I would fully expect you to answer 'no' to that question as well. According to your standard you'd likely be a liar. (or if not you, plenty of other people in the US)

Just like that reasonable person would not have used their own private server to hide the emails from FOIA and retention requirements.

Not relevant to the current discussion.

The amount of spin in a sad attempt to "defend" the team is amazing. Why not simply accept the inescapable conclusion that she screwed up, she lied about it and move on? She isn't the first and won't be the last politician to get caught lying about stuff.

I think most people have accepted that she screwed up with having her own email server. That in no way means that the accusation here isn't hilarious bullshit. Why not accept that Hillary screwed up and may have lied about it and that Gowdy is most likely lying to you too?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Martha Stewart would like her jail time back and record fixed to reflect your new view on federal crimes.

Fact of the matter is the "gotcha" game has been used against many people whereby they grill you until you are mistaken and then thrown in jail and punished for the crime of speaking. The golden standard is being able to remember every single detail of every single document there ever was.

Please. Martha Stewart knowingly lied to FBI agents about her broker, kinda like Libby knowingly lied about the Plame affair.

Nobody other than the usual ravers have said that about Hillary.

RR invoked the gold standard long ago- "I don't recall." Not a thing. Honest.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Beyond Hillary, secretary OF STATE, WATCHING PEOPLE DIE, IN BEGHAZI., SOME MIGHT FOCUS ON HER EMAILS.

-John

Listen, if you literally are not smart enough to understand what the adults are saying, shut the fuck up and keep quiet.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
By this standard you (and everyone else with an internet connection) absolutely have access to classified information, as quite a bit of it has been leaked onto the internet in recent years. You absolutely have the ability to knowingly disseminate classified information. Period.

If she KNEW it was classified and did such that would certainly be an issue, but the whole point here is that the information wasn't known to be classified according to the information available. You can't have it both ways, either you're as 'guilty' as she is (most likely) or you recognize that Gowdy is full of shit.

Again, only if you adopt such a pedantic definition as to render the question meaningless. You've likely committed the same 'offense' as you're claiming she did.

I genuinely can't think of a situation in which Gowdy tries to do this unless he is woefully ignorant or is trying to deceive.

You're actually proving my point here. You can't mishandle information that you don't know is classified, which is the whole point. If she didn't know it was classified then you're agreeing with me. Information that is not marked as classified and is available from multiple public sources would likely be interpreted as unclassified information by a reasonable person.

That should pretty much end it.
Your defense is basically that Hillary is a mindless idiot who doesn't realize that classified information directly from the people who produce classified information is actually classified information. Nice. Have to admit though that at least this is more straightforward than pretending it's classified now but it wasn't when she sent it. I especially like the touch where you accuse literally everyone of doing the same thing. Usually when people claim "everybody does it!" they aren't referring to literally everybody.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,271
15,043
136
Let's see what you know and then apply your post to it. Can you tell us what sort of classified info was found in the emails? And yes, I'd like a link to your source.

Your defense is basically that Hillary is a mindless idiot who doesn't realize that classified information directly from the people who produce classified information is actually classified information. Nice. Have to admit though that at least this is more straightforward than pretending it's classified now but it wasn't when she sent it. I especially like the touch where you accuse literally everyone of doing the same thing. Usually when people claim "everybody does it!" they aren't referring to literally everybody.