Hilary email

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Petraeus knowingly disclosed classified information, it's completely different. Had the info become public he'd have done time.

True, he knowingly shared classified stuff with someone he knew wasn't cleared.

But if she created a situation, where her staff knew that if they wanted her to review stuff she needed to see, that it would have to go to her personal server...and if she knew that some of the stuff sent to her personal server was going to be stuff that doesn't belong there...one might be able to make a compelling case of a crime.

She said she didn't want to be inconvenienced with carrying two devices, right? So how can she handle all that being President entails?

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

True, he knowingly shared classified stuff with someone he knew wasn't cleared.

But if she created a situation, where her staff knew that if they wanted her to review stuff she needed to see, that it would have to go to her personal server...and if she knew that some of the stuff sent to her personal server was going to be stuff that doesn't belong there...one might be able to make a compelling case of a crime.

She said she didn't want to be inconvenienced with carrying two devices, right? So how can she handle all that being President entails?

How many times did you type " if " ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

How many times did you type " if " ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's why we need investigations Nebe, not all criminals confess, particularly if your name is Clinton or Kennedy.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But if she created a situation, where her staff knew that if they wanted her to review stuff she needed to see, that it would have to go to her personal server...and if she knew that some of the stuff sent to her personal server was going to be stuff that doesn't belong there...one might be able to make a compelling case of a crime.

Jim, the rules regarding the handling of sensitive information were really no different between her personal server and a state.gov address which also is an unclassified system. You wouldn't knowingly put classified information on either...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, the rules regarding the handling of sensitive information were really no different between her personal server and a state.gov address which also is an unclassified system. You wouldn't knowingly put classified information on either...

Spence, I don't understand all the rules or the IT mumbo jumbo, nor do I care to.

I know that I posted a link last week, where the IG claimed that one of the emails was flagged as top secret (or higher) at the time it hit her server. You claimed I was confusing one email with another, or one link with another, or that I was confusing Hilary with Aldrich Ames or the WikiLeaks guy. All I did was quote the IG.

i don't think we know for sure, that material known to be classified, wasn't intentionally put on her server. If it was, she lied (once again).

You have to admit, you approach these things with a slight...shall we say...point of view.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I know that I posted a link last week, where the IG claimed that one of the emails was flagged as top secret (or higher) at the time it hit her server. You claimed I was confusing one email with another, or one link with another, or that I was confusing Hilary with Aldrich Ames or the WikiLeaks guy. All I did was quote the IG.

No, you didn't quote the IG. Did you even read the letter? It doesn't mention when the information was classified, only that that a few emails did contain classified information...when it was classified and for what reasons makes a big difference.

What's worse is that the info about drone strikes that led to all this "beyond top secret" hype was actually disclosed and reported on back in August. This IG letter was a trick played by Republicans to recycle already spent news. The conflict of interest here is big...it's a terrible abuse of authority.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This IG letter was a trick played by Republicans .

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, you didn't quote the IG. Did you even read the letter? It doesn't mention when the information was classified, only that that a few emails did contain classified information...when it was classified and for what reasons makes a big difference.

What's worse is that the info about drone strikes that led to all this "beyond top secret" hype was actually disclosed and reported on back in August. This IG letter was a trick played by Republicans to recycle already spent news. The conflict of interest here is big...it's a terrible abuse of authority.

"No, you didn't quote the IG. Did you even read the letter?"

See, maybe you are confused. I was not quoting the letter, I was quoting another comment from the IG, which was not part of the letter (I believe what I quoted was prior to the letter). Maybe you are ignoring the evidence that doesn't make her out to be a saint. Maybe there is more to the IG than just that one letter.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

See, maybe you are confused. I was not quoting the letter, I was quoting another comment from the IG, which was not part of the letter (I believe what I quoted was prior to the letter). Maybe you are ignoring the evidence that doesn't make her out to be a saint. Maybe there is more to the IG than just that one letter.

The IG is giving interviews now? Haven't seen any of those. Perhaps you're just reading what FOX is saying and assuming it's true?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The IG is giving interviews now? Haven't seen any of those. Perhaps you're just reading what FOX is saying and assuming it's true?

Nope, it wasn't the IG I was referring to, my bad there. It was a source from each of the 2 agencies (CIA and NGA) stating that the emails on her server, which they claim came from their respective agencies, were flagged as top secret when they hit her server.

This was Fox reporting this story. They have an ideological bias, clearly...as do you, just as clearly. If Fox made it up, they should go out of business. But I hope it gets looked into.

On what basis do you automatically dismiss this report, as untrustworthy?

"Perhaps you're just reading what FOX is saying and assuming it's true"

Nope, I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it needs to be investigated. You are the one making a declaration, that it is not true. Again, what's your source for that?

Perhaps, on the other hand, you are listening to what Hilary is saying and assuming it's all true.

Ask yourself why you give default credibility to the self-serving statements of a serial liar?