Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What an idiot. ^Yes.Watched the whole thing live, and have viewed several parts of it since.Didn't listen to Comey, did you?
Seems like you're the one who didn't watch it.
Did you watch this part?
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received," Comey said at his press conference Tuesday. "Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent."
How's that indictment coming along?
Oh, just a FYI:
Who will win the presidency?
Chance of winning
Hillary Clinton
87.8%
Donald Trump
12.2%
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
I think those were about the same percentages for Brexit, the week before the vote.......
Clinton went on to say that while the classification system of sensitive emails was "too complicated to explain to people," what is clear is that Clinton and her colleagues were never being careless with national security.
Where's the indictments then?She was Secretary of State and it was part of her job to decide which documents should be classified. You are trying to defend her against charges of corruption by arguing she wasn't competent to do her job.It is true. Other agencies get involved w/ regard to FOIA requests.That's simply not true. The FOIA request was to the State Department and it was the State Department that classified the documents. If it is true that he Kerry State Department decided these emails contained information that should have been classified and the Clinton State Department didn't, then what you are claiming is that Hillary wasn't corrupt, just incompetent, however, there is abundant information that both are true.Bill is saying this in the same spirit in which he once said, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Clinton first claimed that while some of the emails contained information that was later classified, they weren't classified at the time she sent them, but as you point out, since she had the power to classify them and subsequently did classify them, she knew at the time she sent them they would be classified, so Hillary didn't sent classified information in her emails in the same sense that Bill did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky.
No. It was not her who classified the unmarked ones. It was another intel agency as they were to be released as part of a FOIA request, years after she had left.
Time to pull this one out again: Five myths about classified information - The Washington Post
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ R E A D I T ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<SNIP>
"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. "
"none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server." These were emails later upgraded by another agency.
Nothing marked classified. How many times does this have to be explained to you?You have an awful hard time following a conversation, don't you?Watched the whole thing live, and have viewed several parts of it since.
Seems like you're the one who didn't watch it.
You watched Comey, and you think Comey said her e-mails were always secure? You're a complete fucking idiot
You can't even follow your own argumentLet's start from the top, birdbrain:You have an awful hard time following a conversation, don't you?Watched the whole thing live, and have viewed several parts of it since.
Seems like you're the one who didn't watch it.
You watched Comey, and you think Comey said her e-mails were always secure? You're a complete fucking idiot
You can't even follow your own argument
She had a separate system to send and receive classified info.. Called a SCIF. Her whole office was a SCIF.
Her house had a SCIF as well. You should ...as they say ...look it up.
Do you understand that?
Comey said they found a bunch of e-mails that were classified on her private server. You keep stating facts that have nothing to do with what happened. She put classified e-mails on her private server. So what difference does that make?
Nothing marked classified. How many times does this have to be explained to you?You have an awful hard time following a conversation, don't you?You watched Comey, and you think Comey said her e-mails were always secure? You're a complete fucking idiot
You can't even follow your own argumentLet's start from the top, birdbrain:You have an awful hard time following a conversation, don't you?You watched Comey, and you think Comey said her e-mails were always secure? You're a complete fucking idiot
You can't even follow your own argument
She had a separate system to send and receive classified info.. Called a SCIF. Her whole office was a SCIF.
Her house had a SCIF as well. You should ...as they say ...look it up.
Do you understand that?
Comey said they found a bunch of e-mails that were classified on her private server. You keep stating facts that have nothing to do with what happened. She put classified e-mails on her private server. So what difference does that make?
The two that had "bore markings" (c) were not properly labeled, and it was determined to have been put there in error. Comey did not know that at the time of his testimony in the morning, but in later he was informed of that and had to revise.
As to the other 52 chains -- (which represent less than .001% of all the email she sent or rec'd) the best he had was she "should have known" the unmarked threads were classifiable. That's not good enough, and why he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Was she careless? Yes. Did she make a mistake? She said she did. Nothing was criminal -- and furthermore, many experts from different agencies disagree on classification status. In-fighting goes on all the time with this.
As it regards the marked classified material, she handled that all the time, through her secure SCIFs.
Get it now?
"Experts say the story here is more about the dysfunction of government classification than about how Clinton regularly handled sensitive information.
Agencies regularly disagree over what should be classified or not. As the email story has unfolded, the State Department has squabbled with the intelligence community over whether certain emails should be classified today and if it was classified back when it was sent during Clinton’s tenure.
"The decision to mark a document is more art than science and leads to bureaucratic in-fighting on whether something should be classified or not," said Gary Bass, Bauman Foundation executive director and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.
Also, transparency advocates say the government regularly classifies more than it needs to. The government classifies incorrectly 70 percent of the time, according to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel.
Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University said some of the classified material the FBI identified might not be particularly sensitive." There is not a line in any of Mrs. Clinton's emails that meets the smell test of classification, which is their release would be damaging to our national security," he said.
Given these concerns, it’s reasonable to give Clinton a little benefit of the doubt regarding how she treated classified information that landed in her inbox unlabeled, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.
"If it had been marked as classified and she or her staff transmitted it through non-secure email anyway, that would have been an overt violation of procedures," Aftergood said. "If it wasn't marked as classified, then it could easily have been handled in good faith as unclassified."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...indings-tear-holes-hillaryclintons-email-def/
Dude. It's over.Nothing marked classified. How many times does this have to be explained to you?You have an awful hard time following a conversation, don't you?
You can't even follow your own argumentLet's start from the top, birdbrain:You have an awful hard time following a conversation, don't you?
You can't even follow your own argument
She had a separate system to send and receive classified info.. Called a SCIF. Her whole office was a SCIF.
Her house had a SCIF as well. You should ...as they say ...look it up.
Do you understand that?
Comey said they found a bunch of e-mails that were classified on her private server. You keep stating facts that have nothing to do with what happened. She put classified e-mails on her private server. So what difference does that make?
The two that had "bore markings" (c) were not properly labeled, and it was determined to have been put there in error. Comey did not know that at the time of his testimony in the morning, but in later he was informed of that and had to revise.
As to the other 52 chains -- (which represent less than .001% of all the email she sent or rec'd) the best he had was she "should have known" the unmarked threads were classifiable. That's not good enough, and why he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Was she careless? Yes. Did she make a mistake? She said she did. Nothing was criminal -- and furthermore, many experts from different agencies disagree on classification status. In-fighting goes on all the time with this.
As it regards the marked classified material, she handled that all the time, through her secure SCIFs.
Get it now?
Nothing marked classified. How many times does this have to be explained to you?
Marked or not, you're not supposed to have classified material on a private server.
Dude. It's over.Nothing marked classified. How many times does this have to be explained to you?You can't even follow your own argumentLet's start from the top, birdbrain:You can't even follow your own argument
She had a separate system to send and receive classified info.. Called a SCIF. Her whole office was a SCIF.
Her house had a SCIF as well. You should ...as they say ...look it up.
Do you understand that?
Comey said they found a bunch of e-mails that were classified on her private server. You keep stating facts that have nothing to do with what happened. She put classified e-mails on her private server. So what difference does that make?
The two that had "bore markings" (c) were not properly labeled, and it was determined to have been put there in error. Comey did not know that at the time of his testimony in the morning, but in later he was informed of that and had to revise.
As to the other 52 chains -- (which represent less than .001% of all the email she sent or rec'd) the best he had was she "should have known" the unmarked threads were classifiable. That's not good enough, and why he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Was she careless? Yes. Did she make a mistake? She said she did. Nothing was criminal -- and furthermore, many experts from different agencies disagree on classification status. In-fighting goes on all the time with this.
As it regards the marked classified material, she handled that all the time, through her secure SCIFs.
Get it now?
Nothing marked classified. How many times does this have to be explained to you?
Marked or not, you're not supposed to have classified material on a private server.
You lost.
Suck it up, sucker.
Nothing marked classified. How many times does this have to be explained to you?You have an awful hard time following a conversation, don't you?You watched Comey, and you think Comey said her e-mails were always secure? You're a complete fucking idiot
You can't even follow your own argumentLet's start from the top, birdbrain:You have an awful hard time following a conversation, don't you?You watched Comey, and you think Comey said her e-mails were always secure? You're a complete fucking idiot
You can't even follow your own argument
She had a separate system to send and receive classified info.. Called a SCIF. Her whole office was a SCIF.
Her house had a SCIF as well. You should ...as they say ...look it up.
Do you understand that?
Comey said they found a bunch of e-mails that were classified on her private server. You keep stating facts that have nothing to do with what happened. She put classified e-mails on her private server. So what difference does that make?
The two that had "bore markings" (c) were not properly labeled, and it was determined to have been put there in error. Comey did not know that at the time of his testimony in the morning, but in later he was informed of that and had to revise.
As to the other 52 chains -- (which represent less than .001% of all the email she sent or rec'd) the best he had was she "should have known" the unmarked threads were classifiable. That's not good enough, and why he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Was she careless? Yes. Did she make a mistake? She said she did. Nothing was criminal -- and furthermore, many experts from different agencies disagree on classification status. In-fighting goes on all the time with this.
As it regards the marked classified material, she handled that all the time, through her secure SCIFs.
Get it now?
Nothing marked classified. How many times does this have to be explained to you?You have an awful hard time following a conversation, don't you?
You can't even follow your own argumentLet's start from the top, birdbrain:You have an awful hard time following a conversation, don't you?
You can't even follow your own argument
She had a separate system to send and receive classified info.. Called a SCIF. Her whole office was a SCIF.
Her house had a SCIF as well. You should ...as they say ...look it up.
Do you understand that?
Comey said they found a bunch of e-mails that were classified on her private server. You keep stating facts that have nothing to do with what happened. She put classified e-mails on her private server. So what difference does that make?
The two that had "bore markings" (c) were not properly labeled, and it was determined to have been put there in error. Comey did not know that at the time of his testimony in the morning, but in later he was informed of that and had to revise.
As to the other 52 chains -- (which represent less than .001% of all the email she sent or rec'd) the best he had was she "should have known" the unmarked threads were classifiable. That's not good enough, and why he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Was she careless? Yes. Did she make a mistake? She said she did. Nothing was criminal -- and furthermore, many experts from different agencies disagree on classification status. In-fighting goes on all the time with this.
As it regards the marked classified material, she handled that all the time, through her secure SCIFs.
Get it now?
Nothing marked classified. How many times does this have to be explained to you?
Marked or not, you're not supposed to have classified material on a private server.
Dude. It's over.Nothing marked classified. How many times does this have to be explained to you?You can't even follow your own argumentLet's start from the top, birdbrain:You can't even follow your own argument
She had a separate system to send and receive classified info.. Called a SCIF. Her whole office was a SCIF.
Her house had a SCIF as well. You should ...as they say ...look it up.
Do you understand that?
Comey said they found a bunch of e-mails that were classified on her private server. You keep stating facts that have nothing to do with what happened. She put classified e-mails on her private server. So what difference does that make?
The two that had "bore markings" (c) were not properly labeled, and it was determined to have been put there in error. Comey did not know that at the time of his testimony in the morning, but in later he was informed of that and had to revise.
As to the other 52 chains -- (which represent less than .001% of all the email she sent or rec'd) the best he had was she "should have known" the unmarked threads were classifiable. That's not good enough, and why he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Was she careless? Yes. Did she make a mistake? She said she did. Nothing was criminal -- and furthermore, many experts from different agencies disagree on classification status. In-fighting goes on all the time with this.
As it regards the marked classified material, she handled that all the time, through her secure SCIFs.
Get it now?
Nothing marked classified. How many times does this have to be explained to you?
Marked or not, you're not supposed to have classified material on a private server.
You lost.
Suck it up, sucker.
"Who can classify information?As Secretary of State it was her responsibility to see that documents were properly classified, so you are effictively arguing that she was an incompetent administrator who couldn't appoint the right people to do the job. If she wasn't, as you argue, competent to run the State Department, it is impossible to imagine she would be competent to run the presidency.
The State Department does not classify documents. You keep repeating that Hillary was incompetent at classifying documents, but it was not her function nor was it the Department's function, so that line of reasoning isn't valid. She was a very competent and well-respected Secretary of State with a public approval rating of 66% when she left the job.
It was only when she announced that she was running for President that Republicans started painting her as the Wicked Witch of the Left, and calling her a criminal.
Yes. You lost.Dude. It's over.Nothing marked classified. How many times does this have to be explained to you?Let's start from the top, birdbrain:
She had a separate system to send and receive classified info.. Called a SCIF. Her whole office was a SCIF.
Her house had a SCIF as well. You should ...as they say ...look it up.
Do you understand that?
Comey said they found a bunch of e-mails that were classified on her private server. You keep stating facts that have nothing to do with what happened. She put classified e-mails on her private server. So what difference does that make?
The two that had "bore markings" (c) were not properly labeled, and it was determined to have been put there in error. Comey did not know that at the time of his testimony in the morning, but in later he was informed of that and had to revise.
As to the other 52 chains -- (which represent less than .001% of all the email she sent or rec'd) the best he had was she "should have known" the unmarked threads were classifiable. That's not good enough, and why he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Was she careless? Yes. Did she make a mistake? She said she did. Nothing was criminal -- and furthermore, many experts from different agencies disagree on classification status. In-fighting goes on all the time with this.
As it regards the marked classified material, she handled that all the time, through her secure SCIFs.
Get it now?
Nothing marked classified. How many times does this have to be explained to you?
Marked or not, you're not supposed to have classified material on a private server.
You lost.
Suck it up, sucker.
I lost? Because Hillary broke the law?
She didn't do that. You dumbass.Nothing marked classified. How many times does this have to be explained to you?You have an awful hard time following a conversation, don't you?
You can't even follow your own argumentLet's start from the top, birdbrain:You have an awful hard time following a conversation, don't you?
You can't even follow your own argument
She had a separate system to send and receive classified info.. Called a SCIF. Her whole office was a SCIF.
Her house had a SCIF as well. You should ...as they say ...look it up.
Do you understand that?
Comey said they found a bunch of e-mails that were classified on her private server. You keep stating facts that have nothing to do with what happened. She put classified e-mails on her private server. So what difference does that make?
The two that had "bore markings" (c) were not properly labeled, and it was determined to have been put there in error. Comey did not know that at the time of his testimony in the morning, but in later he was informed of that and had to revise.
As to the other 52 chains -- (which represent less than .001% of all the email she sent or rec'd) the best he had was she "should have known" the unmarked threads were classifiable. That's not good enough, and why he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Was she careless? Yes. Did she make a mistake? She said she did. Nothing was criminal -- and furthermore, many experts from different agencies disagree on classification status. In-fighting goes on all the time with this.
As it regards the marked classified material, she handled that all the time, through her secure SCIFs.
Get it now?
The idiocy your argument boils down to.
That documents are not all perfectly marked does not make it OK to take them out of a classified system. THAT IS WHY YOU DO NOT REMOVE THEM.
Dumb ass. You are way partisanship sucks. You turn off your brain for the sake of a political party, it's completely pathetic
Where, indeed! Clearly, there were grounds to indict her for intentionally mishandling classified information and clearly the integrity of the Justice Department has been compromised by political considerations. This case cries out for a special prosecutor.Where's the indictments then?She was Secretary of State and it was part of her job to decide which documents should be classified. You are trying to defend her against charges of corruption by arguing she wasn't competent to do her job.It is true. Other agencies get involved w/ regard to FOIA requests.That's simply not true. The FOIA request was to the State Department and it was the State Department that classified the documents. If it is true that he Kerry State Department decided these emails contained information that should have been classified and the Clinton State Department didn't, then what you are claiming is that Hillary wasn't corrupt, just incompetent, however, there is abundant information that both are true.Bill is saying this in the same spirit in which he once said, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Clinton first claimed that while some of the emails contained information that was later classified, they weren't classified at the time she sent them, but as you point out, since she had the power to classify them and subsequently did classify them, she knew at the time she sent them they would be classified, so Hillary didn't sent classified information in her emails in the same sense that Bill did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky.
No. It was not her who classified the unmarked ones. It was another intel agency as they were to be released as part of a FOIA request, years after she had left.
Time to pull this one out again: Five myths about classified information - The Washington Post
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ R E A D I T ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<SNIP>
"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. "
"none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server." These were emails later upgraded by another agency.
No. Not clearly.Where, indeed! Clearly, there were grounds to indict her for intentionally mishandling classified information and clearly the integrity of the Justice Department has been compromised by political considerations. This case cries out for a special prosecutor.Where's the indictments then?She was Secretary of State and it was part of her job to decide which documents should be classified. You are trying to defend her against charges of corruption by arguing she wasn't competent to do her job.It is true. Other agencies get involved w/ regard to FOIA requests.That's simply not true. The FOIA request was to the State Department and it was the State Department that classified the documents. If it is true that he Kerry State Department decided these emails contained information that should have been classified and the Clinton State Department didn't, then what you are claiming is that Hillary wasn't corrupt, just incompetent, however, there is abundant information that both are true.No. It was not her who classified the unmarked ones. It was another intel agency as they were to be released as part of a FOIA request, years after she had left.
Time to pull this one out again: Five myths about classified information - The Washington Post
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ R E A D I T ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<SNIP>
"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. "
"none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server." These were emails later upgraded by another agency.
She didn't do that. You dumbass.Nothing marked classified. How many times does this have to be explained to you?You can't even follow your own argumentLet's start from the top, birdbrain:You can't even follow your own argument
She had a separate system to send and receive classified info.. Called a SCIF. Her whole office was a SCIF.
Her house had a SCIF as well. You should ...as they say ...look it up.
Do you understand that?
Comey said they found a bunch of e-mails that were classified on her private server. You keep stating facts that have nothing to do with what happened. She put classified e-mails on her private server. So what difference does that make?
The two that had "bore markings" (c) were not properly labeled, and it was determined to have been put there in error. Comey did not know that at the time of his testimony in the morning, but in later he was informed of that and had to revise.
As to the other 52 chains -- (which represent less than .001% of all the email she sent or rec'd) the best he had was she "should have known" the unmarked threads were classifiable. That's not good enough, and why he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Was she careless? Yes. Did she make a mistake? She said she did. Nothing was criminal -- and furthermore, many experts from different agencies disagree on classification status. In-fighting goes on all the time with this.
As it regards the marked classified material, she handled that all the time, through her secure SCIFs.
Get it now?
The idiocy your argument boils down to.
That documents are not all perfectly marked does not make it OK to take them out of a classified system. THAT IS WHY YOU DO NOT REMOVE THEM.
Dumb ass. You are way partisanship sucks. You turn off your brain for the sake of a political party, it's completely pathetic
You're just proving you didn't watch the hearings.
Lie.She didn't do that. You dumbass.Nothing marked classified. How many times does this have to be explained to you?Let's start from the top, birdbrain:
She had a separate system to send and receive classified info.. Called a SCIF. Her whole office was a SCIF.
Her house had a SCIF as well. You should ...as they say ...look it up.
Do you understand that?
Comey said they found a bunch of e-mails that were classified on her private server. You keep stating facts that have nothing to do with what happened. She put classified e-mails on her private server. So what difference does that make?
The two that had "bore markings" (c) were not properly labeled, and it was determined to have been put there in error. Comey did not know that at the time of his testimony in the morning, but in later he was informed of that and had to revise.
As to the other 52 chains -- (which represent less than .001% of all the email she sent or rec'd) the best he had was she "should have known" the unmarked threads were classifiable. That's not good enough, and why he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Was she careless? Yes. Did she make a mistake? She said she did. Nothing was criminal -- and furthermore, many experts from different agencies disagree on classification status. In-fighting goes on all the time with this.
As it regards the marked classified material, she handled that all the time, through her secure SCIFs.
Get it now?
The idiocy your argument boils down to.
That documents are not all perfectly marked does not make it OK to take them out of a classified system. THAT IS WHY YOU DO NOT REMOVE THEM.
Dumb ass. You are way partisanship sucks. You turn off your brain for the sake of a political party, it's completely pathetic
You're just proving you didn't watch the hearings.
You're just showing you're a mindless sheep. Even Hillary admitted she lied about what Comey said when she said he said she always told the truth. All he said was she didn't lie to the FBI
