State department: Hillary did not comply with policies

[Bowfinger]

It's funny you calling this partisan propaganda considering my political party of choice.

Oh, it's absolutely partisan propaganda. If you, a purported Democrat, are embracing it, it's clearly quite effective propaganda.

Maybe I just think Clinton is just a terrible fucking candidate?

Which has absolutely ZERO to do with sticking to the facts instead of spreading innuendo and speculation. Clinton isn't my choice either, but I don't see that as an excuse to lie about her, or even to "merely" distort the truth with innuendo and misleading comments.

Your posts contain no content or retort, just random babbling "partisan hack!" and "partisan propaganda!" without addressing the claims or admitting it's correct. Your head is firmly planted in the sand.

If only I expected this...

Yawn. You mean my posts contain no content you want to consider. I certainly did address the claims. I specifically acknowledged Clinton had classified email on her server, including "20-some" that were considered top secret. Perhaps you should read all the words next time.

I also pointed out that none of these emails were labeled as classified when Clinton received them, at least according to official sources. I pointed out exactly how your posts were misleading, and explained how the government misuses the "classified" label to restrict all sorts of benign stuff.

Furthermore, P&N wasn't created when you deigned to bless us with your presence. This is hardly the first thread about Clinton's email. I have posted dozens of detailed posts about exactly what we do and do not know about them, including many links to actual source documents, the emails themselves, etc. It gets boring refuting the same misinformation over and over, so you'll have to forgive me for not repeating the pages of real information I've already posted.

 

[Bowfinger]

lol The vast right wing conspiracy strikes again. At this point it includes pretty much everyone except you, Jhhnn, ivwshane, and Hillary herself.

Po' baby. If the dunce cap fits, wear it.

 

[Bowfinger]

BTW, look at the first quote from that "old news omitted" link (from 2 days ago), it addresses the issue that she should have turned over all the records after she left office. By not doing that she violated the policy keeping in line with the FRA. Days? Sure, that's OK, but she was out almost 3 years and still had access. Seriously, there's no gray area on that point.

First, sweetie, the issues about what Clinton did and did not turn over, when she did it, and how she did it, have been reported for ages, and discussed here again and again. That's not new. The only thing new is the IG's take on it. More to my point, however, it's "old news" in the sense that it's already been covered in this thread. You pasting it all again added nothing new.

 

[Bowfinger]

The egregious part is keeping them on the unsecured, unauthorized server with security holes big enough to drive a mac truck through. ...

More speculation and innuendo, by the way. I assume you will again refuse to cite a credible source for your allegation, but will instead backpedal with a diversion. (Hint: Grucifer is NOT a credible source and offered no evidence whatsoever to support his claims.)

On a side note, I find it amusing when the usual hacks criticize the horrible vulnerability of Clinton's private server while ignoring the fact that State's own email was successfully invaded at least twice. That doesn't change the fact that Clinton using a personal server was inappropriate, but allegedly weak security is a really poor argument.

 

[waggy]

lol i love the pro hilary tap dancing.

I think all this bullshit is hurting her. NOT that she actually did what people claim. but the fact of how her and the DNC are handling it.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
I think all this bullshit is hurting her. NOT that she actually did what people claim. but the fact of how her and the DNC are handling it.

I agree it is hurting her, at least for now. I think the timing is wrong to do much lasting damage, however. Unfortunately, it's too late to help Sanders much. It is too early to matter much in the general election; Americans have the attention span of goldfish.

 

[waggy]

I agree it is hurting her, at least for now. I think the timing is wrong to do much lasting damage, however. Unfortunately, it's too late to help Sanders much. It is too early to matter much in the general election; Americans have the attention span of goldfish.

naa nothing can help sanders. All of this is HELPING Trump though.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/friday-must-reads-clinton-email-fallout-694118467903


hell it's bad when MSNBC says the same damn thing.

 

[michal1980]

If that were true, she'd already be busted. Therefore it's not true, no matter how many times you claim that it is.

When would Obama bust one of his own?

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Repubs in Congress must be trying very very hard to make a connection between Hillary's email security lapses and what happened at Benghazi.

Curious: What would you think if it were to come out that the attack at Benghazi had been based on actionable intelligence that the terrorists had obtained from Hillary's compromised email server?

Because it is entirely possible that her unsecure messages denying increased security at the Benghazi consulate and also at the CIA armory in Benghazi made the enemy aware of the vulnerable state of those facilities, thus encouraging the attack.

 

[Bowfinger]

Curious: What would you think if it were to come out that the attack at Benghazi had been based on actionable intelligence that the terrorists had obtained from Hillary's compromised email server?

Because it is entirely possible that her unsecure messages denying increased security at the Benghazi consulate and also at the CIA armory in Benghazi made the enemy aware of the vulnerable state of those facilities, thus encouraging the attack.

That's an awesome parody of the sort of moronic innuendo and speculation coming from the right. Great job! You nailed them perfectly.

Oh, wait. You were serious.

 

[Subyman]

Curious: What would you think if it were to come out that the attack at Benghazi had been based on actionable intelligence that the terrorists had obtained from Hillary's compromised email server?

Because it is entirely possible that her unsecure messages denying increased security at the Benghazi consulate and also at the CIA armory in Benghazi made the enemy aware of the vulnerable state of those facilities, thus encouraging the attack.

Shit would hit the fan, obviously.

 

[Jhhnn]

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels,” said the IG letter to lawmakers with oversight of the intelligence community and State Department. “According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”

Did you notice how carefully & how vaguely that was worded? Apparently not. Iirc, we know, for example, that Hillary was forwarded a link to the NYT story about drones & discussed it among her aides. That story was "derived from classified IC element sources" outside the State Dept.

Therefore, the discussion was apparently classified after the fact per the rules because that discussion was derived from the same sources.

 

[Jhhnn]

Is this selective naivete?

I don't think Comey would sacrifice the integrity of the FBI. Her use of the server is a surface fact, right there on the top of the pile. The FBI knew that the day they complied with the IG request for a security review. That was nearly a year ago, iirc. Then notion that they've been mulling over the legality of that all this while is very far fetched. If she could be busted for that it would have been done long ago.

That's the only way it makes sense to me. The only reason it's still part of the attack is to muddy the waters.

Beyond that, it's clear that the whole thing has been overblown for partisan purposes. Of over 50,000 emails, fewer than 200 have been found to have information sensitive enough to be redacted by a huge bevy of security pinheads all trying to show who has the biggest dick. That's better than 99.6% accuracy in determination. Given the nature of the work & the obvious backbiting, that's damned good.

Conservatives, however, apparently demand perfection from their political opponents that they never demanded of themselves.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Of over 50,000 emails, fewer than 200 have been found to have information sensitive enough to be redacted...

If I had done that at my job, I would be in jail.

 

[Jhhnn]

If I had done that at my job, I would be in jail.

Probably not, because your job likely isn't subject to classification after the fact or discussion of matters of state. It's not like Tony Blair will send you an electronic birthday card, either. You'll never be in the same position. For people who work with classified information at a lower level it's black & white. This stuff over here is classified & we don't talk about it, ever. Or the whole thing is classified & we can't even talk about it at all.

The office of the SoS has never operated quite that way nor can it, not if we want them to do their jobs. A lot of information comes in from a lot of places that may end up being classified for the purposes of the FOIA. None of it is marked as classified. It's vital that the SoS & their staff have the freedom to discuss it among themselves in order to formulate responses to developing events.

In the broader context of what we want from our public servants the whole thing is ridiculously picayune. Chickenshit is really a better word for it.

 

[Phoenix86]

More speculation and innuendo, by the way. I assume you will again refuse to cite a credible source for your allegation, but will instead backpedal with a diversion. (Hint: Grucifer is NOT a credible source and offered no evidence whatsoever to support his claims.)

On a side note, I find it amusing when the usual hacks criticize the horrible vulnerability of Clinton's private server while ignoring the fact that State's own email was successfully invaded at least twice. That doesn't change the fact that Clinton using a personal server was inappropriate, but allegedly weak security is a really poor argument.

Who said anything about as Grucifer as the source? Now who's speculating?

There was a published report in 2012 that had the data.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/467f...ap-clinton-server-ran-software-risked-hacking

Here's the source data if you want it.

http://internetcensus2012.bitbucket.org/download.html

 

[Phoenix86]

First, sweetie, the issues about what Clinton did and did not turn over, when she did it, and how she did it, have been reported for ages, and discussed here again and again. That's not new. The only thing new is the IG's take on it. More to my point, however, it's "old news" in the sense that it's already been covered in this thread. You pasting it all again added nothing new.

It was buried in the past, now it's not. Now that the OIG report is out, combined with the activity in the FBI investigation it's suddenly a big deal. I don't expect you to understand the nuances.

 

[compuwiz1]

I don't think Comey would sacrifice the integrity of the FBI. Her use of the server is a surface fact, right there on the top of the pile. The FBI knew that the day they complied with the IG request for a security review. That was nearly a year ago, iirc. Then notion that they've been mulling over the legality of that all this while is very far fetched. If she could be busted for that it would have been done long ago.

That's the only way it makes sense to me. The only reason it's still part of the attack is to muddy the waters.

Beyond that, it's clear that the whole thing has been overblown for partisan purposes. Of over 50,000 emails, fewer than 200 have been found to have information sensitive enough to be redacted by a huge bevy of security pinheads all trying to show who has the biggest dick. That's better than 99.6% accuracy in determination. Given the nature of the work & the obvious backbiting, that's damned good.

Conservatives, however, apparently demand perfection from their political opponents that they never demanded of themselves.

You're still believing the security review bullshit that Hillary has been spewing, I see. Did you miss the part where Comey said he doesn't know what a security review is because they don't call it that, it's an investigation? You really aren't going to wake up, are you? You'll just keep defending crooked Hillary to the end.

 

[Jhhnn]

It was buried in the past, now it's not. Now that the OIG report is out, combined with the activity in the FBI investigation it's suddenly a big deal. I don't expect you to understand the nuances.

It's called stirring a vat of bullshit with a canoe paddle. Or, SSDD.

Is there some activity in the FBI investigation that hasn't been there all along?

 

[LegendKiller]

You're still believing the security review bullshit that Hillary has been spewing, I see. Did you miss the part where Comey said he doesn't know what a security review is because they don't call it that, it's an investigation? You really aren't going to wake up, are you? You'll just keep defending crooked Hillary to the end.

The amount of info coming out about how either clueless, or wantonly dismissive, of security is piling up. Now we find out she didn't use passwords, took an unsecured blackberry overseas, had a separate, unsecured, computer setup in the State Dep't so she could access her unsecured email, all from an employee internally that apparently (and quite ridiculously) didn't know she was using a private email address.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...n-email-case-reveals-she-did-not-use-password

This blatant disregard for protocol and simple security is unbecoming and should automatically disqualify her.

 

[OutHouse]

Probably not,

Im pretty sure CaptGN knows the rules of his job a lot more than you. By the way have you ever been trained and responsible for classified?

 

[Phoenix86]

It's called stirring a vat of bullshit with a canoe paddle. Or, SSDD.

Is there some activity in the FBI investigation that hasn't been there all along?

When the server originally hit the news there was no investigation. You seriously don't notice the difference in the reporting between then and now? Keep that head planted firmly in the sand...

 

[Phoenix86]

I don't think Comey would sacrifice the integrity of the FBI. Her use of the server is a surface fact, right there on the top of the pile. The FBI knew that the day they complied with the IG request for a security review. That was nearly a year ago, iirc. Then notion that they've been mulling over the legality of that all this while is very far fetched. If she could be busted for that it would have been done long ago.

The only person who ever said it was a "security review" was Clinton and her supporters. The FBI had to come out and say "we don't do reviews, we do investigations". They don't investigate for that long spinning their wheels, they do it because they are building a case. If they found nothing the investigation would have been done a long time ago and they wouldn't have offered immunity to anyone.

You don't offer immunity to people if you don't plan on prosecuting. That's just not how it works.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're still believing the security review bullshit that Hillary has been spewing, I see. Did you miss the part where Comey said he doesn't know what a security review is because they don't call it that, it's an investigation? You really aren't going to wake up, are you? You'll just keep defending crooked Hillary to the end.

Don't be obtuse. I defended the integrity of Comey & the FBI. Quite frankly, I think it would show dereliction of duty if they were to indict her today on the basis of facts they had in hand a year ago. Comey isn't like that. Therefore, the legality of her server is a dead issue & has been for a very long while.

For her to be indicted it would have to be on the basis of something else.

Dragging it into the discussion at all is a complete & stinking red herring of sorts. OTOH, the whole moral outrage angle doesn't work nearly as well without it.

 

[Phoenix86]

Don't be obtuse. I defended the integrity of Comey & the FBI. Quite frankly, I think it would show dereliction of duty if they were to indict her today on the basis of facts they had in hand a year ago. Comey isn't like that. Therefore, the legality of her server is a dead issue & has been for a very long while.

For her to be indicted it would have to be on the basis of something else.

Dragging it into the discussion at all is a complete & stinking red herring of sorts. OTOH, the whole moral outrage angle doesn't work nearly as well without it.

The FBI gave the server admin immunity in early march.