DONE - GOING TO JAIL! -- Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release'

[daws101]

republicans are not pursuing anyone. The FBI is doing it, and they are looking at both senders and receivers. once again, it doesn't matter if the data is labeled or not, its the content that makes it classified and anyone holding a security clearance is charged with understanding what is classified and what is not. HRC as SecState should have known what kinds of data were classified.

So are you saying she was stupid or that she did not care? it has to be one or the other.

FBI is investing a potential security breach in response to Republican grandstanding

Republicans have had numerous Congressional investigations on the breach.
Why haven't they called those who actually SENT the questionable emails?

You're either delusional or a liar. The FBI doesn't investigate anything without a valid, legitimate lead / reason, and the current head of the FBI - Obama's hand-picked guy - doesn't give a damn about politics...just the law.

RW and his sock jake snarkey are both delusional and liars.

OK

Suppose I take a SECRET memo, strip the headers off of it and send it to you

Who should be prosecuted......You or me?

Since Hillary's subordinate have already stated HILLARY ordered classified markings be stripped, Hillary and the sender both would be accountable for breaking the law. The cecipient should be intelligent enough to recognize such highly classified info.

link?

 

[leftwinger]

She was authorized to use a personal server

This I do not understand? She is/was the HEAD of the Agency? How can you say somebody "authorized" her to do this? Some IT nerd said it was OK? enough already.

 

[Redfish]

that is not true. its not the markings that make it classified, its the content of the document.

I had clearances up to SAP, I know the rules on this. Hillary violated the law, If I had done what she did I would be posting from a jail cell at Leavenworth.

Very true

It is up to the sender to be sure information is not classified. However, there is no way for Sec Clinton to know that unclassified information may be reclassified five years later

So you're saying the woman placed in charge of the state dept, people's lives, and entrusted with our national security was so incompetent, so stupid, she couldn't identitfy information so classified that none of it can be released publicly without causing serious damage to our national security?

...and you / liberals argue that she competent enough to serve as President...

Absolutely

There is no way for a Sec of State to know the potential security implications of the thousands of documents that cross your desk

That is why they need to be properly labeled. Why aren't Republicans pursuing the senders of those documents?

Let me tell you this one more time. Now listen closely. Some documents were Top Secret "at Birth", which means that Hillary actually initiated some of those TS memos herself but neglected to mark the TOP Secret, or SAP. That is a big problem for her.

Then of course there were other TS documents that were so secret she allowed Huma Abedin read them and told Jake Sullivan to take of the TS heading so they could send it in an unsecured server. Both actions illegal.
Your statement:
"There is no way for a Sec of State to know the potential security implications of the thousands of documents that cross your desk" Are you going to go with the "Incompetent" angle? What in the hell was her job if it was not to read the thousands of documents that crossed her desk over the years.

Come to think about it, I believe Hillary should leave the country and hide. She's not getting out of this one. The WH is coming down on her as we speak.

But keep defending her. It's what you do, not well, mind you , but...you try.

What part of NOT marked Classified don't you republicans get?
The emails were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but were "were upgraded at the request of the intelligence community," State Department spokesman John Kirby said.

what part of "it doesn't matter if they were marked" don't you dem/libs get? The content makes it classified, not the markings.

 

[paperview]

There is a difference in having committed a crime and not going to hail for it. Patraeus and Holder are both examples.

hail?
getting a little sloppy in your zeal..

Go easy on her. She's just a few moments from her next Benghazim.

she? " I am flattered by your infatuation / 'man crush', but I don't roll that way. I am sure there are lots of liberals out there who do, and I'm sure you will find one that suits you. I will, however, have to ask you to stop stalking me / coming on to me. It's getting creepy. If you don't I am afraid I will have to get a restraining order against you. Have a nice day, and good luck with finding a suitable partner."- queasy 65

??

 

[paperview]

She was authorized to use a personal server

This I do not understand? She is/was the HEAD of the Agency? How can you say somebody "authorized" her to do this? Some IT nerd said it was OK? enough already.

5 myths about classified information

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Read it!

 

[Redfish]

Absolutely

There is no way for a Sec of State to know the potential security implications of the thousands of documents that cross your desk

That is why they need to be properly labeled. Why aren't Republicans pursuing the senders of those documents?

republicans are not pursuing anyone. The FBI is doing it, and they are looking at both senders and receivers. once again, it doesn't matter if the data is labeled or not, its the content that makes it classified and anyone holding a security clearance is charged with understanding what is classified and what is not. HRC as SecState should have known what kinds of data were classified.

So are you saying she was stupid or that she did not care? it has to be one or the other.

FBI is investing a potential security breach in response to Republican grandstanding

Republicans have had numerous Congressional investigations on the breach.
Why haven't they called those who actually SENT the questionable emails?

You're either delusional or a liar. The FBI doesn't investigate anything without a valid, legitimate lead / reason, and the current head of the FBI - Obama's hand-picked guy - doesn't give a damn about politics...just the law.

RW and his sock jake snarkey are both delusional and liars.

OK

Suppose I take a SECRET memo, strip the headers off of it and send it to you

Who should be prosecuted......You or me?

both if you had a security clearance. me if you did not.

 

[oreo]

The State Department reiterated Friday that "these documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent," something the Clinton campaign has been arguing the whole time. Her campaign also pushed back against what is sees as "overclassification run amok."

Friday evening's email dump contained far fewer documents than normal — just about 1,000 pages. There were no blockbuster revelations in them...

6 Takeaways From The New Hillary Clinton Emails

What part of the above do the resident extremist rw hacks don't unnerstand

Agreed--Hillary wants these 22 emails released--which is a very good indication that she's not worried about them. The Reich wing of the party has always had a reading comprehension problem.

 

[rightwinger]

republicans are not pursuing anyone. The FBI is doing it, and they are looking at both senders and receivers. once again, it doesn't matter if the data is labeled or not, its the content that makes it classified and anyone holding a security clearance is charged with understanding what is classified and what is not. HRC as SecState should have known what kinds of data were classified.

So are you saying she was stupid or that she did not care? it has to be one or the other.

FBI is investing a potential security breach in response to Republican grandstanding

Republicans have had numerous Congressional investigations on the breach.
Why haven't they called those who actually SENT the questionable emails?

You're either delusional or a liar. The FBI doesn't investigate anything without a valid, legitimate lead / reason, and the current head of the FBI - Obama's hand-picked guy - doesn't give a damn about politics...just the law.

RW and his sock jake snarkey are both delusional and liars.

OK

Suppose I take a SECRET memo, strip the headers off of it and send it to you

Who should be prosecuted......You or me?

Since Hillary's subordinate have already stated HILLARY ordered classified markings be stripped, Hillary and the sender both would be accountable for breaking the law. The cecipient should be intelligent enough to recognize such highly classified info.

Interesting .....please provide the testimony

 

[paperview]

I'll get you started:

1. Information can be “classified,” even if no one has classified it.

Many news reports and commentators have suggested that “information is classified by (its) nature” (as Sean Davis writes in The Federalist), even if no agency or official has classified it yet. These accounts treat “classified” as a quality rather than an action — one that is inherent, immutable and self-evident. If information is sensitive enough, it’s classified, no matter what.

When it comes to “original classification” — the initial decision to classify information — that portrayal is simply wrong. Under the executive order that governs classification, the 2,000-plus officials who have this authority “may” classify information if its disclosure reasonably could be expected to damage national security. The determination of harm is often highly subjective, and even if an official decides that disclosure would be harmful, he or she is not required to classify.

Information provided by foreign governments in confidence is different. The executive order cautions that the release of such information is “presumed” to harm national security; agency rules provide that such information “must be classified.” There is a difference, however, between “must be classified” and “is classified.” After all, when an official receives information, its source and the circumstances of its disclosure may not be apparent. This category of information is not self-identifying, let alone self-classifying.

An official who transmits that information without classifying it has violated agency rules. But the recipient now possesses information that someone else should have classified — not classified information. (Of course, classifying the information, then sending it through unclassified channels to a private email account also would be impermissible. Emails released by the State Department show that some of Clinton's correspondents dealt with this by asking to set up conversations over secure telephone lines.)

2. It’s easy to figure out whether information has been classified.

There is a common refrain that Clinton “should have known” there was classified information in emails she got, even if it wasn't marked. As commentator Andrew McCarthy put it, “Classified information ... is well known to national security officials to be classified — regardless of whether it is marked as such or even written down.”

The classification rules treat this myth as if it were true. Once information has been classified by an authorized official, anyone who retransmits it must mark it as classified, even if it was not marked when received. This is called “derivative classification,” and it can be performed by any of the 4.5 million individuals who are eligible to access classified information. They rely on “classification guides” — a kind of index of original classification decisions, mostly kept on secure Web sites — to determine what information has been classified and therefore must be marked.

Derivative classification is intended to be a straightforward, ministerial task. But the system breaks down in practice. The categories of information listed in guides are sometimes so broad or vague that they leave officials to guess whether any given piece of information has been classified. In 2009, President Obama ordered agencies to review their guides and purge outdated material, but his directive did not address the lack of specificity.

And while the number of original classification decisions is on the wane, there were still almost 50,000 new secrets created last year – on top of the 2 million created in the 10 previous years.

3. Anything classified is sensitive.

Many discussions of Clinton’s email assume that all classified information deserves to be classified, often using the terms “classified” and “sensitive” interchangeably, and that every leak of classified information is dangerous. Officials frequently make blanket statements that “unauthorized disclosure of classified information jeopardizes national security.”

In fact, the classification system is marked by discretion (intended) on the front end and uncertainty (unintended) on the back end. This lack of clear boundaries opens the door to a huge amount of unnecessary classification.

There are multiple incentives, unrelated to national security, to classify. It is easier and safer for busy officials to classify by rote rather than to pause for thought. Classification is a way for officials to enhance their status or protect agencies' turf. It can hide embarrassing facts or evidence of misconduct. There are no countervailing disincentives, as classification decisions normally go unreviewed, and agencies do not punish overclassifying. The result is massive overclassification.

4. Any mishandling of classified information is illegal.

5. Our classification system protects us from harm.
Rest at link:
5 myths about classified information

 

[rightwinger]

republicans are not pursuing anyone. The FBI is doing it, and they are looking at both senders and receivers. once again, it doesn't matter if the data is labeled or not, its the content that makes it classified and anyone holding a security clearance is charged with understanding what is classified and what is not. HRC as SecState should have known what kinds of data were classified.

So are you saying she was stupid or that she did not care? it has to be one or the other.

FBI is investing a potential security breach in response to Republican grandstanding

Republicans have had numerous Congressional investigations on the breach.
Why haven't they called those who actually SENT the questionable emails?

You're either delusional or a liar. The FBI doesn't investigate anything without a valid, legitimate lead / reason, and the current head of the FBI - Obama's hand-picked guy - doesn't give a damn about politics...just the law.

RW and his sock jake snarkey are both delusional and liars.

OK

Suppose I take a SECRET memo, strip the headers off of it and send it to you

Who should be prosecuted......You or me?

both if you had a security clearance. me if you did not.

Again, what crime are you guilty of if I sent you classified material that is not marked as such

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I really think that this is kind of pointless because neither republicans or democrats want to deal with this issue. You are right that this should be a slam dunk but because of political alliances neither party is going to let Hillary go down but if this happen to be Trump they would both go after him with a vengence. It is a real sad thing in our country when political power has superceded any sense of justice in this country.

 

[leftwinger]

Because my guess is, it's probably something that has been on Wikileaks for years

She was new in the job, would have been getting new stuff daily. Much of it would be sensitive. What the heck would they need with two year old stuff on WikiLeaks?

 

[OldLady]

Siete, you DO know that Hillary was required by law to turn over EVERY single State Department-related e-mail and document when she left the State Dept, was NOT allowed to keep any classified, and that ever e-mail containing such at the LEAST represents 1 count of 'negligence under the Espionage Act, right? Since there are over 1,000 such e-mails now that means there are possibly over 1,000 charges against Hillary....

But YOU know that the State Department said none of the 22 e-mails were classified at the time she received them, right? I understand your excitement, but so far, there is no evidence she did anything illegal.

 

[Siete]

The State Department reiterated Friday that "these documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent," something the Clinton campaign has been arguing the whole time. Her campaign also pushed back against what is sees as "overclassification run amok."

Friday evening's email dump contained far fewer documents than normal — just about 1,000 pages. There were no blockbuster revelations in them...

6 Takeaways From The New Hillary Clinton Emails

What part of the above do the resident extremist rw hacks don't unnerstand

Agreed--Hillary wants these 22 emails released--which is a very good indication that she's not worried about them. The Reich wing of the party has always had a reading comprehension problem.

calls for a new thread ,,

lol

 

[rightwinger]

I really think that this is kind of pointless because neither republicans or democrats want to deal with this issue. You are right that this should be a slam dunk but because of political alliances neither party is going to let Hillary go down but if this happen to be Trump they would both go after him with a vengence. It is a real sad thing in our country when political power has superceded any sense of justice in this country.

The sad thing is that someone like Trump would start to receive classified information

Scary, freakn scary

 

[leftwinger]

the info was properly handled all along,

uh-huh. the IT geeks at the server farm all had SAP clearence to view any and all. They were not snooping around the internal network at the server farm up late nights partying right? you folks is so close-minded it is stunning. a Disk drive sitting off in private company is hardly military grade security.

That is why they have internal GOVT IT departments. so they can keep some sort of control over who has access to what.

 

[leftwinger]

Who should be prosecuted......You or me?

The boss who asked you to strip off the classification and send it anyway.

 

[daws101]

There is a difference in having committed a crime and not going to hail for it. Patraeus and Holder are both examples.

hail?
getting a little sloppy in your zeal..

Go easy on her. She's just a few moments from her next Benghazim.

she? " I am flattered by your infatuation / 'man crush', but I don't roll that way. I am sure there are lots of liberals out there who do, and I'm sure you will find one that suits you. I will, however, have to ask you to stop stalking me / coming on to me. It's getting creepy. If you don't I am afraid I will have to get a restraining order against you. Have a nice day, and good luck with finding a suitable partner."- queasy 65

??

queasy 65 is a guy.

 

[oreo]

Very true

It is up to the sender to be sure information is not classified. However, there is no way for Sec Clinton to know that unclassified information may be reclassified five years later

So you're saying the woman placed in charge of the state dept, people's lives, and entrusted with our national security was so incompetent, so stupid, she couldn't identitfy information so classified that none of it can be released publicly without causing serious damage to our national security?

...and you / liberals argue that she competent enough to serve as President...

Absolutely

There is no way for a Sec of State to know the potential security implications of the thousands of documents that cross your desk

That is why they need to be properly labeled. Why aren't Republicans pursuing the senders of those documents?

Let me tell you this one more time. Now listen closely. Some documents were Top Secret "at Birth", which means that Hillary actually initiated some of those TS memos herself but neglected to mark the TOP Secret, or SAP. That is a big problem for her.

Then of course there were other TS documents that were so secret she allowed Huma Abedin read them and told Jake Sullivan to take of the TS heading so they could send it in an unsecured server. Both actions illegal.
Your statement:
"There is no way for a Sec of State to know the potential security implications of the thousands of documents that cross your desk" Are you going to go with the "Incompetent" angle? What in the hell was her job if it was not to read the thousands of documents that crossed her desk over the years.

Come to think about it, I believe Hillary should leave the country and hide. She's not getting out of this one. The WH is coming down on her as we speak.

But keep defending her. It's what you do, not well, mind you , but...you try.

What part of NOT marked Classified don't you republicans get?
The emails were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but were "were upgraded at the request of the intelligence community," State Department spokesman John Kirby said.

what part of "it doesn't matter if they were marked" don't you dem/libs get? The content makes it classified, not the markings.

If a document was NOT classified as Classified when it was sent--then there is no charges applicable. A document can always be reclassified as Classified (later on) or after the fact.

This is what Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated. Hillary Clinton wants these 22 emails released--so obviously they were NOT shown as CLASSIFIED documents when she had them. That's the point.

 

[paperview]

There is a difference in having committed a crime and not going to hail for it. Patraeus and Holder are both examples.

hail?
getting a little sloppy in your zeal..

Go easy on her. She's just a few moments from her next Benghazim.

she? " I am flattered by your infatuation / 'man crush', but I don't roll that way. I am sure there are lots of liberals out there who do, and I'm sure you will find one that suits you. I will, however, have to ask you to stop stalking me / coming on to me. It's getting creepy. If you don't I am afraid I will have to get a restraining order against you. Have a nice day, and good luck with finding a suitable partner."- queasy 65

??

queasy 65 is a guy.

Ah. He writes like a premenstrual teenage chick.