Hillary, Hillary, Hillary

[SunsetBengal]

(08-11-2015, 10:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: No, no I'm not.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-personal-email-use-came-before-recent-rule-changes-1425415233

Quote:A State Department spokeswoman said the agency was in the process of updating its records preservation policies to bring them in line with the 2013 National Archives guidance. “We have no indication that Secretary Clinton used her personal email account for anything but unclassified purposes,” the spokeswoman added.

Evidently, there must be some indication that improprieties occurred, otherwise we would be having this conversation.  Right?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-11-2015, 10:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Could this be the beginning of the end of Hillary?  With Sanders getting punked by the Black lives matter crowd, this could really spell dire times for the Democrat party..

Doubtful. 

They've got 40% in the bag regardless of who the candidate is.  Hell, Obama could have ordered a nuclear strike on San Fran a week before the election in 2012 and he still would have won California LOL.

[*bfine32*]

(08-11-2015, 10:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Could this be the beginning of the end of Hillary?  With Sanders getting punked by the Black lives matter crowd, this could really spell dire times for the Democrat party..

Depends. General Petraus was forced to resign for sharing classified information with another Federal Employee that held a Top Secret clearance. There are reports that Hillary gave her Lawyer, who does not posses any type of Government clearance a thumb drive containing TS material.

Reardless what some may think; the government is pretty much a stickler about communication security. I believe they call it COMSEC.

[BmorePat87]

(08-11-2015, 10:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Could this be the beginning of the end of Hillary?  With Sanders getting punked by the Black lives matter crowd, this could really spell dire times for the Democrat party..

BLM protestors aren't going to hurt Bernie. Calling himself a socialist will. 

[GMDino]

(08-11-2015, 10:38 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Evidently, there must be some indication that improprieties occurred, otherwise we would be having this conversation.  Right?

Well there are two other factors at work here besides that:

1) The GOP controls congress

2) Clinton is running for President and the GOP wants that too.

Doesn't mean its not worth looking in to...just means there ARE some other reasons.

[BmorePat87]

(08-11-2015, 10:41 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Doubtful. 

They've got 40% in the bag regardless of who the candidate is.  Hell, Obama could have ordered a nuclear strike on San Fran a week before the election in 2012 and he still would have won California LOL.

Assuming Bernie doesn't run as an Independent, that 40% is about right. 30% of Americans call themselves Democrats and 19% are Independents who lean to the left. If he Bernie runs as a 3rd candidate, he's going to turn that 40% to 30%. 

What matters is that roughly 15% of Americans who are Independent but do not lean R or D. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-11-2015, 10:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Assuming Bernie doesn't run as an Independent, that 40% is about right. 30% of Americans call themselves Democrats and 19% are Independents who lean to the left. If he Bernie runs as a 3rd candidate, he's going to turn that 40% to 30%. 

What matters is that roughly 15% of Americans who are Independent but do not lean R or D. 

Another big factor is turnout, which is tied to enthusiasm. 

I really hope Hillary gets the nod, because even her own people despise her.  She's seriously a beeotch, and there won't be hardly anyone having trouble sleeping the night before because they can't wake up to go vote for her. 

[StLucieBengal]

(08-11-2015, 09:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Good for Kerry to use a .gov address. Any government business should be conducted via  a .gov address. 

You got that right.

Especially when their schesules are TS

Kudos for Kerry. Glad he takes his job serious .

[fredtoast]

It could be hard to fault Hillary when none of this information was labelled as classified or "top secret" when she received it. However without seeing the information it is impossible to tell. And they are never going to release the information.

[BoomerFan]

A friend of mine predicts that we get some political gossip out of her emails that give a candid look into her opinions but nothing that destroys her. I tend to agree. Another friend told me that when he worked at the state department in 2008 one of the things they were briefed on was the care and transport of classified documents. They were advised that Secretary Rice's personal home was considered a secure location. He also asked how common that was and was told it was pretty standard for the Secretary to get unique exceptions like that.

Still, if you accuse Hillary of enough things, you might hurt her enough to keep her from winning. She's the odds on favorite by far right now in Vegas though (50% chance she wins compared to Jeb Bush's 30% chance):

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=791149

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2015, 10:19 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It could be hard to fault Hillary when none of this information was labelled as classified or "top secret" when she received it.  However without seeing the information it is impossible to tell.  And they are never going to release the information.

I suppose ignorance could be used as an excuse for the Secretary of State.

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2015, 10:49 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose ignorance could be used as an excuse for the Secretary of State.

Not using "ignorance" at all.  It would not have been Hillary's fault if some information was not classified by the person that sent it to her and you could not tell if it was classified based on the content.  In that case it would be the fault of the person who sent it to her with marking it as classified.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2015, 10:52 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Not using "ignorance" at all.  It would not have been Hillary's fault if some information was not classified by the person that sent it to her and you could not tell if it was classified based on the content.  In that case it would be the fault of the person who sent it to her with marking it as classified.

The situation you are refering to is called "spillage" and it is the responsibility of the recipient to report it immediatly.
Like I said: I suppose she could plead ignorance and suggest that she was unaware that what she was reading was classified. Not sure how good that looks on someone fulfilling the duties as SOS. 

[GMDino]

(08-12-2015, 10:52 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Not using "ignorance" at all.  It would not have been Hillary's fault if some information was not classified by the person that sent it to her and you could not tell if it was classified based on the content.  In that case it would be the fault of the person who sent it to her with marking it as classified.

Fred give up.  Larry wants to portray Hillary as stupid ("ignorant" in his words) or having deliberately put top secret items at risk.

It doesn't matter if she did or didn't.  It doesn't matter if the rules was in place or not.  All that matters is it is Hillary and she has a (D) next to her name.

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2015, 11:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The situation you are refering to is called "spillage" and it is the responsibility of the recipient to report it immediatly.
Like I said: I suppose she could plead ignorance and suggest that she was unaware that what she was reading was classified. Not sure how good that looks on someone fulfilling the duties as SOS. 

If it was not labeled as classified then she might not be able to tell if it is classified or not.

It has nothing to do with ignorance.  You can not always tell how widely information has been disseminated just by the content of the message.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2015, 12:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If it was not labeled as classified then she might not be able to tell if it is classified or not.

It has nothing to do with ignorance.  You can not always tell how widely information has been disseminated just by the content of the message.

It doesn't matter how widely it has been disseminated. If she were the only person to receive it and it was sent via an unsecure server, unencrypted, and/or improperly classified she has the responsibility to report it.

And as I've said: she can state that she didn't know (was ignorant of) what constituted classified material. If that is the case I just hope the current and future SOS have a better grasp of the difference between TS and routine traffic.

I do not see how you can say "she may not have known" and claim it has nothing to do with ignorance. You do know what ignorance means don't you?

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2015, 12:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It doesn't matter how widely it has been disseminated. If she were the only person to receive it and it was sent via an unsecure server, unencrypted, and/or improperly classified she has the responsibility to report it.

And as I've said: she can state that she didn't know (was ignorant of) what constituted classified material. If that is the case I just hope the current and future SOS have a better grasp of the difference between TS and routine traffic.

I do not see how you can say "she may not have known" and claim it has nothing to do with ignorance. You do know what ignorance means don't you?

If I am told that my neighbor has a rare disease I have no way of knowing if that is classified or not.  That is why information is supposed to be labeled as classified BY THE SENDER. 


You can't blame Hillary for not knowing if information was classified if the person who sent it to here did not tell her it was not classified.  The fact that she was ignorant of the fact was not her fault.  I know what ignorance means.  And that is why I know that ignonrance is a completely justified explanation.  Ignorance has nothing to do with whose fault it is.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2015, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If I am told that my neighbor has a rare disease I have no way of knowing if that is classified or not.  That is why information is supposed to be labeled as classified BY THE SENDER. 


You can't blame Hillary for not knowing if information was classified if the person who sent it to here did not tell her it was not classified.  The fact that she was ignorant of the fact was not her fault.  I know what ignorance means.  And that is why I know that ignonrance is a completely justified explanation.  Ignorance has nothing to do with whose fault it is.

If you think that someone authorized to send and receive Top Secret information cannot be held accountable for not reporting reciept of improperly transmitted documentation simply because they say "I didn't know"; then we will just have to disagree on this one.

Feel free to rely on your years of experience in the matter.

[Rotobeast]

(08-12-2015, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If I am told that my neighbor has a rare disease I have no way of knowing if that is classified or not.  That is why information is supposed to be labeled as classified BY THE SENDER. 


You can't blame Hillary for not knowing if information was classified if the person who sent it to here did not tell her it was not classified.  The fact that she was ignorant of the fact was not her fault.  I know what ignorance means.  And that is why I know that ignonrance is a completely justified explanation.  Ignorance has nothing to do with whose fault it is.

I'd imagine THE SENDER was ignorant of the insecure server, assumed protocol was being followed, and believed the SOS wouldn't pass along their communications in an unprofessional manner.

[BoomerFan]

From a friend of mine on another message board:

When I worked at the state department in 2008 one of the things we were briefed on was the care and transport of classified documents.  We were advised that Secretary Rice's personal home was considered a secure location and, as I recall, had retrofitting done.  I also asked how common that was and was told it was pretty standard for the Secretary to get unique exceptions like that.