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

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2016, 11:26 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You say that you are in favor of marking information as classified and then you turn around and say there is nmo need to do it at all because somehow everyone down the line is supposed to be aware of the original source of the info.

These e-mails to hillary were not from the media.  The receiver could not know the original source of the info or how wide spread the info was.  And that is why they have a system where classified information is marked as classified.

BTW you know I am not a fan of Hillary, so why keep acting like am am just defending her for the sake of defending her?  These claims have been out in the open for minths.  they have been covered in the main steam media.  A republican controlled Congress has not been able to come up with any legitimate basis for punishing her.  They might in the future, but right now this seems like another Benghazi like situation where the right wing echo chamber squeals about how clear it is that she failed, but after seven full investigations they don't come up with anything.  Same with the donations to the Clinton Fund.

If they do come up with solid grounds to charge her with something then I will not defend her.  as you know she is not one of my favorites anyway.

Nowhere have I said there is no need to mark and safeguard classified material appropriately.

When this very first started I said what Hillary did was ignorant at best, criminal at worst. her supporters better hope she is just ignorant.

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 11:49 AM)bfine32 Wrote: When this very first started I said what Hillary did was ignorant at best, criminal at worst. her supporters better hope she is just ignorant.

Hate to break this two you, but just because you think there are only two options does not mean it is true.

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2016, 11:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Hate to break this two you, but just because you think there are only two options does not mean it is true.

The are more than two; that's why I said "at best, at worst".

For instance there is an arrogance that leads one to think they are not required to follow the rules.

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 12:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The are more than two; that's why I said "at best, at worst".

Well excuse me then.

Just because you think "ignorant" is the best option does not mean it is true.  Unless by "ignorant" you just mean she was not informed.  In that case she would have done nothing wrong.  

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2016, 02:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well excuse me then.

Just because you think "ignorant" is the best option does not mean it is true.  Unless by "ignorant" you just mean she was not informed.  In that case she would have done nothing wrong.  

Only if you consider not being aware of the parameters required to execute your duties correctly as doing nothing wrong.

But this most likely will not stop her from getting the DNC nod. Good luck with that.

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 03:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Only if you consider not being aware of the parameters required to execute your duties correctly as doing nothing wrong.

I don't think you are following my argument.

It is not 100% clear that should could have identified information as "classified" just by the content.  If this was the way it worked then there would be no need to label any information as "classified".

If it is shown that from the content she should have known it was classified then I will agree, but right now none of us have seen the content.  A piece of information that appears to address strictly classified information could have been pulled from the internet.  And just because an e-mail was regarding a classified program it could contain only administrative information like salaries or something like that.

I am not a big Hillary fan, so if she is wrong then I will agree she has to be punished.  So far there has been intense investigation by a Republican controlled Congress and they have done nothing.  And people like you are just leaping to conclusions without seeing the evidence for no reason other than you hate Hillary.

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2016, 03:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And people like you are just leaping to conclusions without seeing the evidence for no reason other than you hate Hillary.

I don't hate Hillary; I've actually shared my story of an encounter with her in the past.

I just disagree with her politics and question the judgement of a Secratary of State that received, forwarded, and sent emails that contain National Security issues from a private server at her home. Especially when she now whats to elevate her level of responsibility and accesss to such materials.

[Vas Deferens]

(01-21-2016, 12:52 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Check this out..

http://williamsondailynews.com/news/3030/community-stands-against-mchs-cuts[url=http://http://williamsondailynews.com/news/3030/community-stands-against-mchs-cuts][/url]

the young lady at the podium is my step daughter.  Brilliant girl.

Told you so.  Very cool.  btw, link in your org had an extra http: Corrected it here.

Nice work. 

[*bfine32*]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/01/official-withheld-clinton-emails-contain-operational-intel-put-lives-at-risk.html?intcmp=hpbt2

Quote:Highly classified Hillary Clinton emails that the intelligence community and State Department recently deemed too damaging to national security to release contain “operational intelligence” – and their presence on the unsecure, personal email system jeopardized “sources, methods and lives,” a U.S. government official who has reviewed the documents told Fox News.

The official, who was not authorized to speak on the record and was limited in discussing the contents because of their highly classified nature, was referring to the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails that the State Department announced Friday it could not release in any form, even with entire sections redacted........

"There is no way that someone, a senior government official who has been handling classified information for a good chunk of their adult life, could not have known that this information ought to be classified, whether it was marked or not,” he said. "Anyone with the capacity to read and an understanding of American national security, an 8th grade reading level or above, would understand that the release of this information or the potential breach of a non-secure system presented risk to American national security."

Hope we trust her with more secrets.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(02-01-2016, 10:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/01/official-withheld-clinton-emails-contain-operational-intel-put-lives-at-risk.html?intcmp=hpbt2


Hope we trust her with more secrets.

22 out of 35,000? I think we can give her a pass this time around

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2016, 10:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/01/official-withheld-clinton-emails-contain-operational-intel-put-lives-at-risk.html?intcmp=hpbt2

Hope we trust her with more secrets.

I love when mind readers make appearances on cable news networks, especially unnamed ones.

I do have to say, I can't believe the DNC is still trying to hitch their wagon to her for this race.

[*bfine32*]

(02-01-2016, 11:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I love when mind readers make appearances on cable news networks, especially unnamed ones.

I do have to say, I can't believe the DNC is still trying to hitch their wagon to her for this race.

Actually the unnamed "mind reader" simply pointed to how damaging the information it the email(s) is. Those that point to the fact that Hillary should have known better we more than happy to share their names.

You can add me to the ones that think a sitting Secretary of State should be able to identify classified information by more that just a warning label. 

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2016, 11:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually the unnamed "mind reader" simply pointed to how damaging the information it the email(s) is. Those that point to the fact that Hillary should have known better we more than happy to share their names.

You can add me to the ones that think a sitting Secretary of State should be able to identify classified information by more that just a warning label. 

Well, a 'U.S. official' said, and I am paraphrasing here, that there is no way someone with Clinton's background could not have known. That is an opinion, not fact, and would require knowledge of Clinton's mind in a more intimate way than anyone but her would have.

[*bfine32*]

(02-01-2016, 11:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, a 'U.S. official' said, and I am paraphrasing here, that there is no way someone with Clinton's background could not have known. That is an opinion, not fact, and would require knowledge of Clinton's mind in a more intimate way than anyone but her would have.

Quote:Separately, Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who sits on the House intelligence committee, said the former secretary of state, senator, and Yale-trained lawyer had to know what she was dealing with."There is no way that someone, a senior government official who has been handling classified information for a good chunk of their adult life, could not have known that this information ought to be classified, whether it was marked or not,” he said. "

As I've told Fred: The ignorance alibi might work for those that have never dealt with such data. 


Sometimes we have to use the reasonable person model. 

[Vlad]

FBI "super pissed off".

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/01/reporter-doj-fbi-super-pissed-off-at-obama-white-house-over-clinton-investigation-video/

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2016, 11:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I've told Fred: The ignorance alibi might work for those that have never dealt with such data. 

Sometimes we have to use the reasonable person model. 

Once again, opinion. I am not in the habit of taking people's words for things like this coming from unnamed officials and political opponents during election years involving candidates. Just seems like there is a high probability of hyperbole being involved.

[*bfine32*]

(02-01-2016, 11:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Once again, opinion. I am not in the habit of taking people's words for things like  this coming from unnamed officials and political opponents during election years involving candidates. Just seems like there is a high probability of hyperbole being involved.

The person gave his name:

Quote:Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who sits on the House intelligence committee, said the former secretary of state, senator, and Yale-trained lawyer had to know what she was dealing with.

How is that "coming from unnamed officials and political opponents"?


Are you taking Hillary's word that she didn't know? If you are not "in the habit of taking people's words for things like this"; how do you resolve this issue, just dismiss it? 

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2016, 11:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The person gave his name:

How is that "coming from unnamed officials and political opponents"?

Are you taking Hillary's word that she didn't know? If you are not "in the habit of taking people's words for things like this"; how do you resolve this issue, just dismiss it? 

Well, let's see, with the divisive nature of things in Washington right now, anyone with an R is an opponent of anyone with a D. Then there is the unnamed official that was unauthorized to speak on the record. So how was my description as unnamed officials and political opponents inaccurate?

The only thing we know is that a small number of emails contained classified information on her private server, and they were not flagged as classified. Those are the facts, any speculation about what she did or didn't know is just that, speculation, until an investigation is concluded. I am not dismissing anything, I just want to wait until things shake out before preparing the noose.

[*bfine32*]

(02-02-2016, 12:11 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, let's see, with the divisive nature of things in Washington right now, anyone with an R is an opponent of anyone with a D. Then there is the unnamed official that was unauthorized to speak on the record. So how was my description as unnamed officials and political opponents inaccurate?

The only thing we know is that a small number of emails contained classified information on her private server, and they were not flagged as classified. Those are the facts, any speculation about what she did or didn't know is just that, speculation, until an investigation is concluded. I am not dismissing anything, I just want to wait until things shake out before preparing the noose.

Once again: The unnamed "mind reader" pointed to the damage the damage the emails could cause. The source(s) that spoke to what Clinton should have known clearly identified themselves; so that is how your description was inaccurate.

But your not forming an opinion until everything shakes out approach has been noted. Seen any terrorists lately?

[Belsnickel]

(02-02-2016, 12:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: But your not forming an opinion until everything shakes out approach has been noted. Seen any terrorists lately?

I see what you're trying to do, but given threats of violence were made and the movement was an attempt to coerce, I maintain my stance based on the FBI definition.