Hilary email

[Jim in CT]

Spence, here is the link I referred to, which makes no mention of the IG letter...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...challenge.html

From the article...there were 2 emails on her server, 1 with data from the CIA, 1 with data from the NGA. The article states that officials from both agencies confirmed that each email was top secret when it hit her server. The State Department is challenging that. The 2 agencies consider it a closed matter.

The CIA can gather its own intelligence and decide what classification to give it. What it cannot do (and thi sI know for sure) is modify the classification that another agency gives to its own data. Only the agency that generated th edata, can do that.

Somehow, you have concluded that she did nothing wrong. Let's see what the investogation turns up.

And why did the IG, appointed by Obama, work in secret with the GOP, as you claim?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, here is the link I referred to, which makes no mention of the IG letter...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...challenge.html

From the article...there were 2 emails on her server, 1 with data from the CIA, 1 with data from the NGA. The article states that officials from both agencies confirmed that each email was top secret when it hit her server. The State Department is challenging that. The 2 agencies consider it a closed matter.

The CIA can gather its own intelligence and decide what classification to give it. What it cannot do (and thi sI know for sure) is modify the classification that another agency gives to its own data. Only the agency that generated th edata, can do that.

Somehow, you have concluded that she did nothing wrong. Let's see what the investogation turns up.

And why did the IG, appointed by Obama, work in secret with the GOP, as you claim?

Jim, we've discussed this before. The State Department was gathering information in parallel from different sources that didn't require classification.

Sen. Feinstein has also confirmed that no emails were marked top secret.

“As someone who regularly reviews classified material, I can say that those documents are always clearly marked as containing classified information,” she said. “Every official who writes classified material, whether in email or on paper, must mark the information as classified. They would also be required to use a separate classified email system to transmit the information. The emails identified did not contain these markings.”

What will be interesting is that the IG was supposed to be reviewing email practices from the last 5 Secretaries of State.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, we've discussed this before. The State Department was gathering information in parallel from different sources that didn't require classification.

Sen. Feinstein has also confirmed that no emails were marked top secret.



What will be interesting is that the IG was supposed to be reviewing email practices from the last 5 Secretaries of State.

"The State Department was gathering information in parallel from different sources that didn't require classification."

The State Dept is entitled to gather its own intelligence, and to classify data as it sees fit. But how do you know that's what too kplace, in the case of these 2 emails? Other than taking her word for it, what else you got?

"Sen. Feinstein has also confirmed that no emails were marked top secret."

How does she know?

Let's let the investigation pan out, how about that?

According to you, everyone who defends her is credible, everyone who hints she acted improperly, is a partisan hack, including Obama's IG. We get it.

"What will be interesting is that the IG was supposed to be reviewing email practices from the last 5 Secretaries of State"

yes, that will be interesting.

Spence, what of her response to the question, "did you wipe the server?", and she said "what, you mean with a cloth?" Is that a presidential answer to a fair question?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The State Dept is entitled to gather its own intelligence, and to classify data as it sees fit. But how do you know that's what too kplace, in the case of these 2 emails? Other than taking her word for it, what else you got?

That's what the State Department said, I don't have any reason to doubt them.

How does she know?

She's been a chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. I'd say she's as well positioned to know as anyone.

According to you, everyone who defends her is credible, everyone who hints she acted improperly, is a partisan hack, including Obama's IG. We get it.

You have that nagging feeling I'm right don't you?

Spence, what of her response to the question, "did you wipe the server?", and she said "what, you mean with a cloth?" Is that a presidential answer to a fair question?

Bad attempt at humor, likely suggested by an aid.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That's what the State Department said, I don't have any reason to doubt them.


She's been a chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. I'd say she's as well positioned to know as anyone.


You have that nagging feeling I'm right don't you?


Bad attempt at humor, likely suggested by an aid.

"That's what the State Department said, I don't have any reason to doubt them."

But you have reason to doubt the CIA and the NGA? What would that be?

"She's been a chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. I'd say she's as well positioned to know as anyone"

And Clinton was secstate. What they said is true, but if the guy I saw was correct, what they said also proves nothing. Because he said it was not possible for her to have marked emails on her personal server. So Hilary could also have said "I am not 10 feet tall", and while that's true, I'm not sure it's all then enlightening, is it?

"You have that nagging feeling I'm right don't you?"

I have no idea. That's why I want an investigation.

Spence, have her past lies diminished her credibility in your eyes, at all?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Bad attempt at humor, likely suggested by an aid.

Now how could you know that it was suggested by an aide, and not something she came up with? What do you base that on?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Now how could you know that it was suggested by an aide, and not something she came up with? What do you base that on?

Intuition.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Sen. Feinstein has also confirmed that no emails were marked top secret..

Oh. What Feinstein said, is what Hilary has been saying, that the emails "were not marked as top secret".

There was a guy on TV last week addressing this. He said it's meaningless, because security measures would prohibit an email marked as top secret from being sent to an unclassified server, meaning, it's physicaly impossible for her server to have emails flagged as top secret. Meaning, if those emails were on her server (as the CIA and NGA claim they were) but not "marked", it means either someone removed the mark so the emails could be sent to her server, or that someone made an unsecure, unmarked, copy of those emails, and sent those to her server.

Either way, if this IT guy was correct, it means NOTHING that she had no 'marked' emails on her server, because that was not physically possible.

She is parsing her words very carefully, isn't she? I wonder why?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Either way, if this IT guy was correct, it means NOTHING that she had no 'marked' emails on her server, because that was not physically possible.

Your IT guy is likely describing a secure environment where record attributes and user credentials control information behavior. Yes, an unsecure system wouldn't have these, but documents or email content could unless it was deliberately removed which would be a crime. Note though there's been no evidence of this happening.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Your IT guy is likely describing a secure environment where record attributes and user credentials control information behavior. Yes, an unsecure system wouldn't have these, but documents or email content could unless it was deliberately removed which would be a crime. Note though there's been no evidence of this happening.

You mean a properly secure environment that has all the needed safeguards and monitoring in place, an Environment contained behind proper firewalls with filters in place to make sure certain data is kept from leaving the enclave.....

Unlike Hillary's E-mail server..

Is that what you mean?

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You mean a properly secure environment that has all the needed safeguards and monitoring in place, an Environment contained behind proper firewalls with filters in place to make sure certain data is kept from leaving the enclave.....

Unlike Hillary's E-mail server..

Is that what you mean?

No, I mean a system designed to compartmentalize classified information. State.gov doesn't even meet this criteria.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

No, I mean a system designed to compartmentalize classified information. State.gov doesn't even meet this criteria.

State.gov does on the classified side. On the unclassified side they still have better mechanisms at State than on the bathroom side.