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

[Redfish]

and one from huffpuff post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html

all opinion pieces

... and not even about what that moron claims. He idiotically claimed the methodology of calculating the unemployment rate changed to lower the rate.

He's now posted 2 articles whining about how the U-6 rate should be considered and 1 article about how long term unemployment would be measured by 5 years instead of 2.

Meanwhile, his moronic claim that "they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work," remains a figment of his rightwing fervent imagination.

PRECISELY

He's posted NOTHING AT ALL to support his claim....trying to baffle us with his bull sh**

OK, fool, one more, this one from Forbes and Jack Welch. If you and your libtardian buddies are still unable to grasp it, there is nothing I can do for you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/10/16/why-jack-welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/#24234ceb3438

great speculation ... suits you to a T chumbag,

speculation? my great speculation was buying facebook at the IPO and almost tripling my money.

there is no speculation in the Welch article, he is stating facts. WTF is wrong with you libs? has the defective liberal gene destroyed all of your brain cells?

 

[pinqy]

all opinion pieces

... and not even about what that moron claims. He idiotically claimed the methodology of calculating the unemployment rate changed to lower the rate.

He's now posted 2 articles whining about how the U-6 rate should be considered and 1 article about how long term unemployment would be measured by 5 years instead of 2.

Meanwhile, his moronic claim that "they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work," remains a figment of his rightwing fervent imagination.

PRECISELY

He's posted NOTHING AT ALL to support his claim....trying to baffle us with his bull sh**

OK, fool, one more, this one from Forbes and Jack Welch. If you and your libtardian buddies are still unable to grasp it, there is nothing I can do for you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/10/16/why-jack-welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/#24234ceb3438

great speculation ... suits you to a T chumbag,

speculation? my great speculation was buying facebook at the IPO and almost tripling my money.

there is no speculation in the Welch article, he is stating facts. WTF is wrong with you libs? has the defective liberal gene destroyed all of your brain cells?

But it does NOT state that the methodology has changed. I posted a link to the 1982 report proving you wrong.

 

[bravoactual]

She doesn't have to be charged in order for her campaign to disintegrate.

Half a loaf, huh?

This thread has gotten awfully quiet...

This usually happens when the Cons learn that once again they have been had.

 

[Redfish]

... and not even about what that moron claims. He idiotically claimed the methodology of calculating the unemployment rate changed to lower the rate.

He's now posted 2 articles whining about how the U-6 rate should be considered and 1 article about how long term unemployment would be measured by 5 years instead of 2.

Meanwhile, his moronic claim that "they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work," remains a figment of his rightwing fervent imagination.

PRECISELY

He's posted NOTHING AT ALL to support his claim....trying to baffle us with his bull sh**

OK, fool, one more, this one from Forbes and Jack Welch. If you and your libtardian buddies are still unable to grasp it, there is nothing I can do for you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/10/16/why-jack-welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/#24234ceb3438

great speculation ... suits you to a T chumbag,

speculation? my great speculation was buying facebook at the IPO and almost tripling my money.

there is no speculation in the Welch article, he is stating facts. WTF is wrong with you libs? has the defective liberal gene destroyed all of your brain cells?

But it does NOT state that the methodology has changed. I posted a link to the 1982 report proving you wrong.

read the second bullet paragraph in the Forbes/Welch article. then you can apologize for your ignorance.

 

[bravoactual]

Hillary's IT requirements were NOT like everyone else's, as hers were required to obey a host of laws.

...and half the people in the govt aren't under investigation.

She broke the law, proven. The arguments about markings and the State Dept having cleared her of anything have been proven false.

Why aren't the people who sent her classified information under investigation?

Don't Republicans care about them?

they are, idiot. Do you live under a rock where there is no TV, radio, or newspapers?

When is the next congressional investigation?

I am sure Gowdy is rounding them up as we speak

Goober Gowdy has already said, "Nothing New Was Learned".

The U.S. State Department, The U.S. State Department's Diplomatic Security Service and the the U.S. State Department's Intelligence Service have stated for the record, "No classified material passed through", Hillary Clinton private non-secure server(s).

There are no mechanisms in place that would allow Classified Material held on or passed through a Governmental secure server to passed on to a non-secure server. Would not happen.

The material (emails) WERE NOT CLASSIFIED at the time they were held on or pass through the server(s) used by Hillary Clinton. The material in question was Classified after the fact and after the time the material which was no longer on the server(s) used Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton's attorney can make vague and non-specific statement about Hillary Clinton, but any specific statements regarding Hillary Clinton's prior actions would constitute a violation Attorney-Client Privilege and would constitute "Fruits of the tainted tree" and therefore be inadmissible. Not to mention leaving the attorney to disciplinary action by the American Bar Association. Therefore any comments by that attorney are at questionable at best.

Yet another in long list of Epic Failure by Hillary Hater's.

Thank you for playing grasping at straws.

 

[Redfish]

She doesn't have to be charged in order for her campaign to disintegrate.

Half a loaf, huh?

This thread has gotten awfully quiet...

This usually happens when the Cons learn that once again they have been had.

you libs took it off topic by talking about unemployment rates. The facts about Hillary and the FBI investigation are clear. Will she go to jail? probably not. would you or I go to jail if we did what she did? definitely yes.

why do you condone holding the Clintons above the laws that apply to the rest of us?

 

[Siete]

She doesn't have to be charged in order for her campaign to disintegrate.

Half a loaf, huh?

This thread has gotten awfully quiet...

This usually happens when the Cons learn that once again they have been had.

you libs took it off topic by talking about unemployment rates. The facts about Hillary and the FBI investigation are clear. Will she go to jail? probably not. would you or I go to jail if we did what she did? definitely yes.

why do you condone holding the Clintons above the laws that apply to the rest of us?

she didn't break any laws ... you're hoping she did, but she didn't.

 

[hadit]

You live in an alternative reality. We now know some of the emails were marked classified and the distinction isn't made that it's a requirement to not receive and/or pass them along on an unsecure system. Plus the director of the FBI says he doesn't give a flip about politics.

We also know her supporters don't care but chest pounding won't make it go away. Her shrill voice sounds like music to you but we don't all dance to the same tune.

except no one has claimed that the emails were marked classified or that the info in them were even classified at the time they were sent.

And one more time. You can't prosecute someone for RECEIVING emails, just sending them.

It's why Bradley Manning is in Leavenworth, and Julian Assange is at large.

1. Hillary had authority and responsibility to mark classified info as such and handle it appropriately.
2. I do not know of anyone who credibly can claim she did so.
3. She will not be prosecuted because she's too connected and knows where too many skeletons are buried.
4. She does not have to be prosecuted to become too toxic to get elected. Bubba was likable and could shrug off scandal. She's a terrible candidate, not likable, and only has the Clinton machine to bulldoze the opposition. Her biggest claim to the office is, "It's my turn". As McCain found out, that's not enough.

you said
1. Hillary had authority and responsibility to mark classified info as such and handle it appropriately. (BR)can you prove she didn't
2. I do not know of anyone who credibly can claim she did so. (BR)can you find any one wh said she didn't
3. She will not be prosecuted because she's too connected and knows where too many skeletons are buried (BR) thats and opinion not a fact... .
4. She does not have to be prosecuted to become too toxic to get elected. Bubba was likable and could shrug off scandal. She's a terrible candidate, not likable, and only has the Clinton machine to bulldoze the opposition. Her biggest claim to the office is, "It's my turn". As McCain found out, that's not enough. (BR) thats your opinion based on your biased remarks and hasn't any factual bases to it ..

the fact that you haven't taken any time to see what she has done whats she's actually done is your problem ... you post here is like all right wing nut jobs you state and opinion and call it factual

The answer is simple. She deliberately chose to send and receive classified information through her own homegrown, less secure solution instead of secured government channels. That's sloppiness and carelessness with national security and why she did not handle top secret information appropriately. If you do not see that as a problem, there is little hope for you. Get the first one right, then try to handle the others. Oh, and while you're at it, see if you can find someone who says she handled top secret information appropriately.

 

[Arianrhod]

No indictment yet?

 

[hadit]

No he wasn't bozo. Acquaint yourself with the words knowingly and willingly, as it pertains to the law.

You're defense is that Hillary was too stupid to realize things like our exact locations in hot zones were classified? And she never received or sent anything classified when all the email was on her system? And that deleting everything and claiming they were just personal wasn't a coverup?

Worst genuflecting I've ever seen. You guys really can put your heads up your asses.

the " State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email

The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office. Watchdog groups conceded that she may not have violated the text of the law, but they argue she violated the spirit of it.

You can't see bullshit if you fell face first into it. No, there's no law against federal employees using personal emails, they probably all have one. The problem is using it for official business.

you need to read the law ...

It needs to be read to her. And will be. What moron thinks it's OK to use personal email on an unsecured server for official business, especially when you are the SECRETARY OF STATE?

That one.

 

[pinqy]

PRECISELY

He's posted NOTHING AT ALL to support his claim....trying to baffle us with his bull sh**

OK, fool, one more, this one from Forbes and Jack Welch. If you and your libtardian buddies are still unable to grasp it, there is nothing I can do for you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/10/16/why-jack-welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/#24234ceb3438

great speculation ... suits you to a T chumbag,

speculation? my great speculation was buying facebook at the IPO and almost tripling my money.

there is no speculation in the Welch article, he is stating facts. WTF is wrong with you libs? has the defective liberal gene destroyed all of your brain cells?

But it does NOT state that the methodology has changed. I posted a link to the 1982 report proving you wrong.

read the second bullet paragraph in the Forbes/Welch article. then you can apologize for your ignorance.

So let me get this straight. Your claim is that "•In 1994, the BLS changed the way in which it counts “discouraged” workers for the U-3 index. If one is unemployed for more than 52 weeks, even if one continues to look for employment, one is dropped from the labor force," even though the official definitions say nothing of the sort and even though the BLS chart for duration A-35. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment clearly shows over a million people who have been unemployed longer than 52 weeks.

Again....Old Official Definiton (1967-1994): Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Source: Employment and Earnings July 1982

Current Definition: Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

What your source got garbled is that in 1994 the definition of Discouraged was changed so that only those who had looked for work in the previous 52 weeks would be considered discouraged. This had no effect on the UE rate because discouraged were never included.

 

[Redfish]

OK, fool, one more, this one from Forbes and Jack Welch. If you and your libtardian buddies are still unable to grasp it, there is nothing I can do for you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/10/16/why-jack-welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/#24234ceb3438

great speculation ... suits you to a T chumbag,

speculation? my great speculation was buying facebook at the IPO and almost tripling my money.

there is no speculation in the Welch article, he is stating facts. WTF is wrong with you libs? has the defective liberal gene destroyed all of your brain cells?

But it does NOT state that the methodology has changed. I posted a link to the 1982 report proving you wrong.

read the second bullet paragraph in the Forbes/Welch article. then you can apologize for your ignorance.

So let me get this straight. Your claim is that "•In 1994, the BLS changed the way in which it counts “discouraged” workers for the U-3 index. If one is unemployed for more than 52 weeks, even if one continues to look for employment, one is dropped from the labor force," even though the official definitions say nothing of the sort and even though the BLS chart for duration A-35. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment clearly shows over a million people who have been unemployed longer than 52 weeks.

Again....Old Official Definiton (1967-1994): Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Source: Employment and Earnings July 1982

Current Definition: Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

What your source got garbled is that in 1994 the definition of Discouraged was changed so that only those who had looked for work in the previous 52 weeks would be considered discouraged. This had no effect on the UE rate because discouraged were never included.

simple question: do you think the unemployment stats are accurate?

second question: would your answer be different if a republican was president.

you are such a partisan hack, zero credibility.

 

[pinqy]

great speculation ... suits you to a T chumbag,

speculation? my great speculation was buying facebook at the IPO and almost tripling my money.

there is no speculation in the Welch article, he is stating facts. WTF is wrong with you libs? has the defective liberal gene destroyed all of your brain cells?

But it does NOT state that the methodology has changed. I posted a link to the 1982 report proving you wrong.

read the second bullet paragraph in the Forbes/Welch article. then you can apologize for your ignorance.

So let me get this straight. Your claim is that "•In 1994, the BLS changed the way in which it counts “discouraged” workers for the U-3 index. If one is unemployed for more than 52 weeks, even if one continues to look for employment, one is dropped from the labor force," even though the official definitions say nothing of the sort and even though the BLS chart for duration A-35. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment clearly shows over a million people who have been unemployed longer than 52 weeks.

Again....Old Official Definiton (1967-1994): Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Source: Employment and Earnings July 1982

Current Definition: Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

What your source got garbled is that in 1994 the definition of Discouraged was changed so that only those who had looked for work in the previous 52 weeks would be considered discouraged. This had no effect on the UE rate because discouraged were never included.

simple question: do you think the unemployment stats are accurate?

As far as what? None of the complaints you've made have been about accuracy. But yes, the UE rate has a margin of error of about 0.2%. That's pretty accurate. The jobs data are usually off by no more than a tenth of a percent when benchmarked to a quarterly census.

The month to month changes for the household survey are not particularly accurate and can be off by +/- 1000% (though that's very rate). The official jobs numbers are quite accurate, though.

second question: would your answer be different if a republican was president.

Of course not. I was arguing these same points against Democrats when Bush was President.

you are such a partisan hack, zero credibility.

I cite the actual data. You cite opinion pieces and people who lie or are uninformed.

Point to where in the official definitions the changes you and your source claim.

 

[Redfish]

speculation? my great speculation was buying facebook at the IPO and almost tripling my money.

there is no speculation in the Welch article, he is stating facts. WTF is wrong with you libs? has the defective liberal gene destroyed all of your brain cells?

But it does NOT state that the methodology has changed. I posted a link to the 1982 report proving you wrong.

read the second bullet paragraph in the Forbes/Welch article. then you can apologize for your ignorance.

So let me get this straight. Your claim is that "•In 1994, the BLS changed the way in which it counts “discouraged” workers for the U-3 index. If one is unemployed for more than 52 weeks, even if one continues to look for employment, one is dropped from the labor force," even though the official definitions say nothing of the sort and even though the BLS chart for duration A-35. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment clearly shows over a million people who have been unemployed longer than 52 weeks.

Again....Old Official Definiton (1967-1994): Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Source: Employment and Earnings July 1982

Current Definition: Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

What your source got garbled is that in 1994 the definition of Discouraged was changed so that only those who had looked for work in the previous 52 weeks would be considered discouraged. This had no effect on the UE rate because discouraged were never included.

simple question: do you think the unemployment stats are accurate?

As far as what? None of the complaints you've made have been about accuracy. But yes, the UE rate has a margin of error of about 0.2%. That's pretty accurate. The jobs data are usually off by no more than a tenth of a percent when benchmarked to a quarterly census.

The month to month changes for the household survey are not particularly accurate and can be off by +/- 1000% (though that's very rate). The official jobs numbers are quite accurate, though.

second question: would your answer be different if a republican was president.

Of course not. I was arguing these same points against Democrats when Bush was President.

you are such a partisan hack, zero credibility.

I cite the actual data. You cite opinion pieces and people who lie or are uninformed.

Point to where in the official definitions the changes you and your source claim.

accurate as to the actual numbers of unemployed americans. Yes or No?

the cites I gave were reputable and explained quite clearly how the calculation methods have changed and how the Obama admin has manipulated the data to give a false narrative.

I really don't give a shit if you agree. The facts are the facts.

 

[pinqy]

But it does NOT state that the methodology has changed. I posted a link to the 1982 report proving you wrong.

read the second bullet paragraph in the Forbes/Welch article. then you can apologize for your ignorance.

So let me get this straight. Your claim is that "•In 1994, the BLS changed the way in which it counts “discouraged” workers for the U-3 index. If one is unemployed for more than 52 weeks, even if one continues to look for employment, one is dropped from the labor force," even though the official definitions say nothing of the sort and even though the BLS chart for duration A-35. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment clearly shows over a million people who have been unemployed longer than 52 weeks.

Again....Old Official Definiton (1967-1994): Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Source: Employment and Earnings July 1982

Current Definition: Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

What your source got garbled is that in 1994 the definition of Discouraged was changed so that only those who had looked for work in the previous 52 weeks would be considered discouraged. This had no effect on the UE rate because discouraged were never included.

simple question: do you think the unemployment stats are accurate?

As far as what? None of the complaints you've made have been about accuracy. But yes, the UE rate has a margin of error of about 0.2%. That's pretty accurate. The jobs data are usually off by no more than a tenth of a percent when benchmarked to a quarterly census.

The month to month changes for the household survey are not particularly accurate and can be off by +/- 1000% (though that's very rate). The official jobs numbers are quite accurate, though.

second question: would your answer be different if a republican was president.

Of course not. I was arguing these same points against Democrats when Bush was President.

you are such a partisan hack, zero credibility.

I cite the actual data. You cite opinion pieces and people who lie or are uninformed.

Point to where in the official definitions the changes you and your source claim.

accurate as to the actual numbers of unemployed americans. Yes or No?

For December the number was 7,542,000 plus or minus 246,000 (3.3%). Not great but not horrible. Adjusting for normal December fluctuations, it's 7,904,000 +/- 153,000. That's sample error. In October 2013, the unemployment number was known to be inaccurate due to government workers on furlough not correctly understanding the defintions and giving wrong answers.

the cites I gave were reputable and explained quite clearly how the calculation methods have changed and how the Obama admin has manipulated the data to give a false narrative. [/qutoe]
What did you do to confirm the accuracy? Your source was wrong...plain and simple. Can you not read the defintions yourself?

 

[jillian]

IF the material in question was "NOT MARKED", then what specific crime was committed? Unless or until documents are classified, they are by definition NOT CLASSIFIED.

What specific law was broken and when. Material classified after the fact doe not an illegal action make.

Are you not white until you are marked white? Not black until you are marked black? She knows what is classified without it being marked.

seriously? that is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.

a person's race is immutable. a document can be classified or not classified based on the action of another.

I understand rightwingnut wishful thinking makes you hope otherwise.

you can return to your rightwingnut blogosphere now.

 

[pinqy]

read the second bullet paragraph in the Forbes/Welch article. then you can apologize for your ignorance.

So let me get this straight. Your claim is that "•In 1994, the BLS changed the way in which it counts “discouraged” workers for the U-3 index. If one is unemployed for more than 52 weeks, even if one continues to look for employment, one is dropped from the labor force," even though the official definitions say nothing of the sort and even though the BLS chart for duration A-35. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment clearly shows over a million people who have been unemployed longer than 52 weeks.

Again....Old Official Definiton (1967-1994): Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Source: Employment and Earnings July 1982

Current Definition: Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

What your source got garbled is that in 1994 the definition of Discouraged was changed so that only those who had looked for work in the previous 52 weeks would be considered discouraged. This had no effect on the UE rate because discouraged were never included.

simple question: do you think the unemployment stats are accurate?

As far as what? None of the complaints you've made have been about accuracy. But yes, the UE rate has a margin of error of about 0.2%. That's pretty accurate. The jobs data are usually off by no more than a tenth of a percent when benchmarked to a quarterly census.

The month to month changes for the household survey are not particularly accurate and can be off by +/- 1000% (though that's very rate). The official jobs numbers are quite accurate, though.

second question: would your answer be different if a republican was president.

Of course not. I was arguing these same points against Democrats when Bush was President.

you are such a partisan hack, zero credibility.

I cite the actual data. You cite opinion pieces and people who lie or are uninformed.

Point to where in the official definitions the changes you and your source claim.

accurate as to the actual numbers of unemployed americans. Yes or No?

For December the number was 7,542,000 plus or minus 246,000 (3.3%). Not great but not horrible. Adjusting for normal December fluctuations, it's 7,904,000 +/- 153,000. That's sample error. In October 2013, the unemployment number was known to be inaccurate due to government workers on furlough not correctly understanding the defintions and giving wrong answers.

So it's not the most accurate measure, but it's more accurate than anything else available.

the cites I gave were reputable and explained quite clearly how the calculation methods have changed and how the Obama admin has manipulated the data to give a false narrative. [/qutoe]
What did you do to confirm the accuracy? Your source was wrong...plain and simple. Can you not read the defintions yourself?

 

[pinqy]

IF the material in question was "NOT MARKED", then what specific crime was committed? Unless or until documents are classified, they are by definition NOT CLASSIFIED.

What specific law was broken and when. Material classified after the fact doe not an illegal action make.

Information is classified regardless of whether it is marked as such. You can't remove classifications or write down classified material without classification marks and magically make it not classified. And no, it's not true that documents are unclassified until classified...whether or not something is classified is based on source and acquisition.

 

[Redfish]

IF the material in question was "NOT MARKED", then what specific crime was committed? Unless or until documents are classified, they are by definition NOT CLASSIFIED.

What specific law was broken and when. Material classified after the fact doe not an illegal action make.

Are you not white until you are marked white? Not black until you are marked black? She knows what is classified without it being marked.

seriously? that is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.

a person's race is immutable. a document can be classified or not classified based on the action of another.

I understand rightwingnut wishful thinking makes you hope otherwise.

you can return to your rightwingnut blogosphere now.

as usual your partisan bias caused you to completely miss the point. It is not the markings that make it classified, its the content. When a person has a security clearance they are charged with knowing what is classified and what is not. There is no gray area here. She violated federal law and allowed sensitive classified data to be put where it was not secure.

If you or I had done that we would be typing this in prison.

 

[daws101]

IF the material in question was "NOT MARKED", then what specific crime was committed? Unless or until documents are classified, they are by definition NOT CLASSIFIED.

What specific law was broken and when. Material classified after the fact doe not an illegal action make.

Are you not white until you are marked white? Not black until you are marked black? She knows what is classified without it being marked.

seriously? that is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.

a person's race is immutable. a document can be classified or not classified based on the action of another.

I understand rightwingnut wishful thinking makes you hope otherwise.

you can return to your rightwingnut blogosphere now.

as usual your partisan bias caused you to completely miss the point. It is not the markings that make it classified, its the content. When a person has a security clearance they are charged with knowing what is classified and what is not. There is no gray area here. She violated federal law and allowed sensitive classified data to be put where it was not secure.

If you or I had done that we would be typing this in prison.

False ! you'd be way too busy being somebody's girlfriend.