FBI report: Hillarys emails...worse than we thought

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 01:41 AM)Vlad Wrote: Um ...this is not at all like Lois Lerner and the IRS targeting Conservative Republicans. The FBI doesn't care what party that piece of shit Hillary belongs to.

Exactly my point.  The FBI has not said she is guilty of any wrongdoing.

The only ones saying she is "obviously" guilty are from the right-wing echo chamber.

[fredtoast]

(02-02-2016, 09:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I will say I am convinced she received, forwarded, and sent classified emails from her home server. Are you?

No.  It was not classified at the time.

If they made Tylenol illegal tomorrow would you admit that you have been using illegal drugs for years?

[*bfine32*]

(02-03-2016, 01:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  It was not classified at the time.

If they made Tylenol illegal tomorrow would you admit that you have been using illegal drugs for years?

I'm gonna say you have just not been keeping up. Her own defense is that they were not marked as classified, pretty sure it has been shown that a lot of the information was indeed classified.

But just so i have your stance correctly:

Are you saying traffic that Hillary received, sent, and forwarded was not classified information at the time it was sent, received, and forwarded? Or are you going to go in a different direction now?

[Belsnickel]

(02-03-2016, 02:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm gonna say you have just not been keeping up. Her own defense is that they were not marked as classified, pretty sure it has been shown that a lot of the information was indeed classified.

But just so i have your stance correctly:

Are you saying traffic that Hillary received, sent, and forwarded was not classified information at the time it was sent, received, and forwarded? Or are you going to go in a different direction now?

Now we get into a bit of a philosophical question. Is the information classified if it only should be classified, or must it go through the classification process to be classified? If sensitive information has not undergone classification, is it classified?

[GMDino]

(02-03-2016, 08:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Now we get into a bit of a philosophical question. Is the information classified if it only should be classified, or must it go through the classification process to be classified? If sensitive information has not undergone classification, is it classified?

That was covered in a link I shared.

The US has a tic of classifying things for different reasons that may or may not have needed it.

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 02:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: But just so i have your stance correctly:

Are you saying traffic that Hillary received, sent, and forwarded was not classified information at the time it was sent, received, and forwarded? Or are you going to go in a different direction now?

Yes, this is the exact point I have been making all along.  here are two posts from thew first two pages of this thread.

(01-20-2016, 08:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Same old story from months ago.  This info was not classified when Clinton received it.

(01-20-2016, 11:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Let me give you the proper headline for this story.

Right-wing media censors fact that information was not classified at the time Hillary Clinton received it.

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 08:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Now we get into a bit of a philosophical question. Is the information classified if it only should be classified, or must it go through the classification process to be classified? If sensitive information has not undergone classification, is it classified?

But not all "classified" material is "sensative" material.

As the story GNDino posted proves information can get "classified" just because it passed through another source that deals with "classified" information.  This is exactly why Hillary hase dared then to release the E-mails.  Do you honestly think she would insist that the release sensitive information that makes her look bad?  Right now the only people crucifying Hillary are the ones claiming it was "obvious" that this was all top secret info that would have been dangerous to release.  

All I am saying wait until the investigation is complete.  The FBI has said NOTHING.  The source of all this information so far has been from the rigth-wing echo chamber.

[Belsnickel]

(02-03-2016, 09:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: That was covered in a link I shared.

The US has a tic of classifying things for different reasons that may or may not have needed it.

(02-03-2016, 10:19 AM)fredtoast Wrote: But not all "classified" material is "sensative" material.

As the story GNDino posted proves information can get "classified" just because it passed through another source that deals with "classified" information.  This is exactly why Hillary hase dared then to release the E-mails.  Do you honestly think she would insist that the release sensitive information that makes her look bad?  Right now the only people crucifying Hillary are the ones claiming it was "obvious" that this was all top secret info that would have been dangerous to release.  

All I am saying wait until the investigation is complete.  The FBI has said NOTHING.  The source of all this information so far has been from the rigth-wing echo chamber.

I get what you're saying, but that doesn't really address my question. If something would be classified if it were to go through the classification process, is it classified if it has yet to go through that process? Whether the material is sensitive or not is irrelevant to the question, that was just the words I chose to use.

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 01:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get what you're saying, but that doesn't really address my question. If something would be classified if it were to go through the classification process, is it classified if it has yet to go through that process? Whether the material is sensitive or not is irrelevant to the question, that was just the words I chose to use.

Well, I can see a difference between "sensitive" and "classified"?

She says she has not leaked any "classified" information that is also "sensitive" information.

If she really did leak any sensitive information then I would agree with the echo chamber folks who say she should be punished even if it was not technically "classified".  So far it is impossible to say what happened with out seeing the content of the emails.  And I just can't belkieve that hillary would agrue that everyone should be able to see the content if it really was sensitive and would prove her wrong.

[McC]

Interesting that nobody can come up with a single one of her accomplishments.

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 02:02 PM)McC Wrote: Interesting that nobody can come up with a single one of her accomplishments.

• She was also instrumental in the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.
• Successfully fought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and asthma at the National Institute of Health (NIH).
• She spearheaded investigations into mental illness plaguing veterans of the Gulf War; we now have a term for it – Gulf War Syndrome.
• At the Department of Justice, she helped create the office on Violence Against Women.
• She was instrumental in securing over $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment.
• Took a leading role in the investigation of health consequences of first responders and drafted the first bill to compensate and offer the health services our first responders deserve (Clinton’s successor in the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand, passed the bill).
• Was instrumental in working out a bi-partisan compromise to address civil liberty abuses for the renewal of the U.S. Patriot Act.
•  Proposed a revival of the New Deal-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to help homeowners refinance their mortgages in the wake of the 2008 financial disaster.
• Was a major proponent of sensible diplomacy which brought about a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and brokered human rights with Burma.
• Oversaw free trade agreements with our allies such as Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
• Was the most traveled Secretary of State to date.
• The Clinton Foundation, founded by her and her husband, has improved the living conditions for nearly 400 million people in over 180 countries through its Initiative program.
  

[McC]

Well, alright then.