Hillary, Hillary, Hillary

[Belsnickel]

(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.

Well, actually, that is ignorance. Not knowing is ignorance.

[GodHatesBengals]

(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?

LOL.

You beat your wife. Obviously I would not be having a conversation about it if there was zero evidence of impropriety. Right?

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2015, 10:52 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Not using "ignorance" at all. 

(08-12-2015, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And that is why I know that ignonrance is a completely justified explanation.

OK?

[Belsnickel]

What I find interesting about all of this is when the news first came out about this controversy, I remember several of us more moderate types saying that this was no big deal unless it was discovered she used it for classified information. We were told that there was no way that was the case by some on the board, saying that wasn't how access to such information worked and that it could not have happened.

I wish I could remember who had said that on the other board. Open mouth, insert foot, eh?

[StLucieBengal]

Moderate types?


Haha

[JustWinBaby]

Obama's DOJ is investigating....so nothing to see here, right?

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2015, 01:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

How could she report something she kjnew nothing about.  How could she know it was top secret information.

Like I said before, the burden is on the sender to identify information as classified or top secret.  The receiver may have no idea how secret the information was.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2015, 09:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How could she know it was top secret information.

Maybe because she was the SOS.

As I have said her best excuse is ignorance and apparently there are those more than willing to accept this as a viable excuse.

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2015, 09:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Maybe because she was the SOS.

As I have said her best excuse is ignorance and apparently there are those more than willing to accept this as a viable excuse.

It is a very solid excuse if it is true.

Just because she is SOS does not mean she already knows everything.  If she was omniscient then no one would every be sending her any new information.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2015, 09:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is a very solid excuse if it is true.

Just because she is SOS does not mean she already knows everything.  If she was omniscient then no one would every be sending her any new information.

If the reports are true, we are not talking about close hold information, we are not talking about FOUO information, we are not talking about confidential information, hell we are not even talking about Secret information; we are talking about information that has the highest level of classification. It is classified as causing "excessively grave damage" to National Security if made publicly available.

It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest she, as the SOS, would not know the difference between TS and routine communications. There are entry level HRAs that know you don't send as much as a Social Security Number unencrypted. But folks are freely willing to accept the SOS saying "I didn't know".

[Belsnickel]

(08-12-2015, 09:08 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Moderate types?


Haha

Just because the "conservative" views in this country make centrists look like left wing liberals, doesn't make it so. There is a reason some folks in other developed countries just view us as having two conservative parties.