Hilary email

[JohnR]

Spence you keep saying that there is nothing wrong here.

A lot of that stuff was born classified. People actively had to make this stuff go to her system from another. Nobody does this on their own freewill.

I agree Rock - as some one a little right of center (and a former registered Democrat) there is nobody I can vote for there.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, you're saying that as one agency got that data and classified it as above top secret, State got the same infor and classified it as "nothing to see here, show it to the world".

I think that's merely your opinion, and in a stunning coincidence, it is an opinion which clears her of any wrongdoing.

That's what was reported.

The IG report states clearly, that after the email was discovered on her server, State tried to re-classify another agency's intelligence. That request was rejected.

We will see.

"But the info as sent to Clinton's server was not market Top Secret nor did the originator believe it was classified at the time"

The IG report disputes your claim here. They say it was top secret (or higher) at the time it hit her server.

You're mixing up your email reports again, I was talking about the two allegedly top secret emails from your second link.

All the IG provided (first link) was a letter that asserts there is currently classified information contained in old emails. This is classic political smear...the IG got ticked off and is now colluding with Republicans to offer them vague or old news in a convenient leakable form. It's leak crack for FOX News.

If it was classified as top secret by the agency that developed it, the originator doesn't get to make that call.

Like I said, the determination in this case (pay attention, second link here) was made by two agencies who derived the same info from different sources. There is now negotiation between the agencies on how to handle releasing the information.

[Jim in CT]

Spence, from my second link...

"The sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, told Fox News that while the emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Clinton’s server, one of them remains “top secret” to this day -- and must be handled at the highest security level. The second email is still considered classified but at the lower “secret” level because more information is publicly available about the event."

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, from my second link...

"The sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, told Fox News that while the emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Clinton’s server, one of them remains “top secret” to this day -- and must be handled at the highest security level. The second email is still considered classified but at the lower “secret” level because more information is publicly available about the event."

I've read your links and have already responded to this assertion.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Spence you keep saying that there is nothing wrong here.

A lot of that stuff was born classified. People actively had to make this stuff go to her system from another. Nobody does this on their own freewill.

I believe the vast majority of classified emails in question were not born classified, they are being classified as part of the release process. If you released all of Colin Powell's emails from his time at state you'd likely see the exact same pattern. Oh, and he didn't use state.gov either...

Certainly this entire affair has highlighted the risks of lose standards, but the impression that the State department was recklessly pumping known classified information through her server is simply not justified given what's public knowledge today.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've read your links and have already responded to this assertion.

Right. That she didn't do it. Unless she did do it, in which case the IG is only making hay of it because they are angry...gotcha.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Right. That she didn't do it. Unless she did do it, in which case the IG is only making hay of it because they are angry...gotcha.

What has the IG accused Clinton of?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

What has the IG accused Clinton of?

The way I read it, they have accused her of having emails on her server, that were top secret at the time they were received by her server.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The way I read it, they have accused her of having emails on her server, that were top secret at the time they were received by her server.

Holy #^&#^&#^&#^&!!! Are you sure?!?!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The way I read it, they have accused her of having emails on her server, that were top secret at the time they were received by her server.

The letter from the IG simply states that analysts believe there is classified information in some emails. It doesn't say anything about when the information was classified.

Why be so vague? Because it's LEAK CRACK.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The letter from the IG simply states that analysts believe there is classified information in some emails. It doesn't say anything about when the information was classified.

Why be so vague? Because it's LEAK CRACK.

I'm not talking about the letter, I am talking about what Fox says was leaked to them. Which, of course, may turn out to be b.s. Or not.

[scottw]

ha ha ha ha...

Clinton Campaign Accuses Obama-Appointed IG of Conspiring with GOP on E-mail Report


http://www.nationalreview.com/node/430061/print


she's a special sort of insane...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

ha ha ha ha...

Clinton Campaign Accuses Obama-Appointed IG of Conspiring with GOP on E-mail Report


http://www.nationalreview.com/node/430061/print


she's a special sort of insane...

Spence, from Scott's link...

"The Politico report Fallon (Clinton spokesman) cites claimed that intelligence sources had determined that no “top secret” e-mails were discovered on Clinton’s e-mail server. It was immediately challenged by intelligence-community officials, and Politico itself backtracked in a December 15 story, admitting that two e-mails were, in fact, considered “top secret” at the time they were sent and retained by Clinton. Fallon offered no new evidence to contradict that assertion."

Listen to the bell, Spence, it tolls for thee she.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

The letter from the IG simply states that analysts believe there is classified information in some emails. It doesn't say anything about when the information was classified.

Spence, did they simply state that Hilary deleted 34,000 e mails that she deemed personal?

Guess she had a lot of yoga classes.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, from Scott's link...

"The Politico report Fallon (Clinton spokesman) cites claimed that intelligence sources had determined that no “top secret” e-mails were discovered on Clinton’s e-mail server. It was immediately challenged by intelligence-community officials, and Politico itself backtracked in a December 15 story, admitting that two e-mails were, in fact, considered “top secret” at the time they were sent and retained by Clinton. Fallon offered no new evidence to contradict that assertion."

Listen to the bell, Spence, it tolls for thee she.

Issue already addressed in multiple posts above.

[JohnR]

Actually, rule #1 she broke was she created, authorized, and used an unsafe and unregulated system for storing classified information setup and supported by people/organizations that were unauthorized, trained, or properly equipped to maintain such a system.

Even if it was legal (it was not) the simple fact of her running the situation the way she did on a home private email server allowed lots of bad guys to read our mail. Maybe Obama would have had great foreign policy of the Russians and Socialist Chinese were not reading our mail.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Actually, rule #1 she broke was she created, authorized, and used an unsafe and unregulated system for storing classified information setup and supported by people/organizations that were unauthorized, trained, or properly equipped to maintain such a system.

You're assuming she intended to store classified information which she clearly didn't intend to nor does it appear that she did.

Even if it was legal (it was not) the simple fact of her running the situation the way she did on a home private email server allowed lots of bad guys to read our mail. Maybe Obama would have had great foreign policy of the Russians and Socialist Chinese were not reading our mail.

Well, I believe the Justice Department has already said it wasn't illegal. I've not hear anyone claim it was hacked although it's certainly possible. But if she was using secure systems for classified communications it's not even clear if they could have gained meaningful insights.

Here's the thing that most people are missing. Had she not been using her personal server she would have been using state.gov. All this inter-agency squabbling over classification would have been exactly the same...and they've been having a terrible time keeping the Russians out of that system.

While I agree it would have been proper to use the work system for work, there' doesn't appear have been any legal or otherwise damage done. We'll see what the Feds say...

[ecduzitgood]

Step back and look at who you are supporting and forget the party affiliation. Is this really the person you want to hold the highest position in our government? My grandmother isn't a corrupt lying sack of _hit but I still wouldn't have wanted her in charge of the country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

Step back and look at who you are supporting and forget the party affiliation. Is this really the person you want to hold the highest position in our government? My grandmother isn't a corrupt lying sack of _hit but I still wouldn't have wanted her in charge of the country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course Spence wants her , she will continue the policy's he holds dear and can also parden herself so he can say " I was right , no jail time , move along "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

While I agree it would have been proper to use the work system for work, there' doesn't appear have been any legal or otherwise damage done. We'll see what the Feds say...

Agree, we will have to wait, however being she said the only reason she used
her own server was for her convenience, used only for personal reasons, wedding plans etc. and NEVER contained classified info, she still deleted 34,000 e mails while 1300 others were reported classified and 4 reported top secret.
She is a serial liar and how can she be trusted when she changes her story?
Does she know what integrity is?

[Nebe]

I'll just leave this here as a lesson on how a pathological liar operates.

http://youtu.be/fJaic2ek8aY
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

Step back and look at who you are supporting and forget the party affiliation. Is this really the person you want to hold the highest position in our government? My grandmother isn't a corrupt lying sack of _hit but I still wouldn't have wanted her in charge of the country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yet Politifact say that EVERY Reb. candidate has lied more than her.

[PaulS]

Were all the emails in question sent by someone else or where they created by Hillary?

[DZ]

Whether she put the emails on the server or someone else did is not the issue. She as head of the DOS is ultimately responsible for what is on the server. In government responsibility goes up the chain of the command and blame often goes down the chain. Think about how many department heads over the years were forced to resign when something happened on their watch even though they were not directly responsible.

What is troubling to me is that her campaign continues to state that there is no FBI investigation about her server or emails at all. I'm stumped by that.

[PaulS]

So if someone had sent top secret files to Colin Powell's private email account, it would have been the same thing?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So if someone had sent top secret files to Colin Powell's private email account, it would have been the same thing?

Yes.

As I understand it, she created the situation where everything needed to be sent to her personal server. Thus, she forced others to send classified material to her personal server. If they had to modify the files in such a way to remove the "top secret" mark so that they could be sent to her server, that's even worse, and she would have to know that people were doing that, in order to send that stuff to her.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by DZ

What is troubling to me is that her campaign continues to state that there is no FBI investigation about her server or emails at all. I'm stumped by that.

Spence said that here, and I was baffled by it. I saw a Hilary apologist on TV last night who said the same thing, she claimed that the FBI has declared that Hilary is not the subject of an investigation.

So what are those 100 FBI agents doing all day?

[DZ]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence said that here, and I was baffled by it. I saw a Hilary apologist on TV last night who said the same thing, she claimed that the FBI has declared that Hilary is not the subject of an investigation.

So what are those 100 FBI agents doing all day?

Not sure - I'm starting to wonder about the veracity of that statement. I would have thought there would have been a statement by the FBI to that effect but I haven't seen it. Just reporters stating their sources are FBI employees.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes.

As I understand it, she created the situation where everything needed to be sent to her personal server.Did not know that. Thus, she forced others to send classified material to her personal server. If they had to modify the files in such a way to remove the "top secret" mark so that they could be sent to her server, that's even worse, and she would have to know that people were doing that, in order to send that stuff to her.

Thanks

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Thanks

Sure.

One of those deals where Democrats are saying she did nothing wrong, and Republicans are making her out to be the WikiLeaks guy. The truth is likely somewhere in between. Hopefully the investigation is fair and non-political.

It won't stop many Democrats from voting for her, it won't get any Republicans to vote for her. What will it do to the independents? WHo the heck knows.