It was just in the last couple posts that I realized JSO has zero background knowledge on what he is talking aboutChizzang wrote:This thread...
Why? Because you can’t think of anything original to contribute?Chizzang wrote:This thread...
I can't find any original content on this entire thread...Ivytalk wrote:Chizzang wrote: Why? Because you can’t think of anything original to contribute?
Be objective for once on this board. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse - and a woman with her background as FLOTUS and US Senator KNEW the rules regarding classified information. Plain and simple - she was wrong but she got off where others have been fired and jailed for doing the same exact thing.JohnStOnge wrote:Trump IS more corrupt than Clinton ever was. And it's not even close. A lot of that stuff you just typed is conservative talking points that have been going on since Comey made his announcement.BDKJMU wrote: Trust Comey?
-You had the head of an investigative agency inappropriately hold a press conference (not his job to make such an announcement).
-Laid out the crimes that someone committed (the threshold of gross negligence was clearly met) as if he was making a closing argument.
-Said that he was recommending that person not be charged, mentioning that intent couldn't be proven (completely irrelevant since intent isn't part of the statute).
-Claimed that no prosecutor would bring charges in this case, when their was reportedly unanimity among the investigators & lawyers working the investigation that charges shouldn't be brought, with a # of former federal prosecutors later saying the same thing.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10 ... sider.html
But whether or not she knew her server had classified info is IRRELEVANT. Gross negligence is the standard, not intent. She either knew the server had classified info, or she would have had to have been incredibly incompetent not to have known. Either way she was violating the law:
"18 USC 793, paragraph F (1)
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Only 110 or whatever might have been marked classified at the time, but over 2000 contained classified material. You would have to suspend belief & have your head buried in the sand to think she didn't know her e-mails contained classified info.
Clinton e-mail lies:
Didn’t send or receive any e-mails that were classified "at the time".-Lie
Didn’t send or receive any e-mails “marked classified” at the time.- Lie
Turned over all of her work-related e-mails.- Lie
Claimed she only used 1 device- Lie
Claimed use of a private server and e-mail domain were legally permitted- Lie.
All her e-mails were immediately captured by @.gov addresses.-Lie
Claimed was never served a subpoena on her e-mail use.-Lie
And this is just one area of Clintons lies and corruption. But keep clinging to:
I don't think I should have said I trust Comey's judgement overall because I don't think it was good judgement to have a press conference instead of just letting the Justice Department know the FBI didn't recommend charges. Also I don't bringing up Weiner's computer 10 or so days prior to the election was good judgement.
What I should have said is that I trust his interpretation of the law and precedent. I was not surprised at all when he took the positions he did because I saw numerous talking head lawyers on TV before the fact saying basically the same thing he said.
Also, you don't know that Clinton lied about any of that stuff. In fact Comey pretty much said it's reasonable to think she didn't. There's no doubt that she made false statements. But, for instance, Comey said that it's very plausible that a person would not recognize that documents marked classified in the way associated associated with the Clinton case. If Clinton had lied to the FBI about any of that she'd have been charged with lying to the FBI.
We'll see what happens with Trump if he ever does get questioned by the FBI. For now he's never been through that. But we do know he will tell absolutely ridiculous and obvious lies. Like the thing where he said the NFL wrote him a letter expressing concern about the debates during the campaign. No, the subject matter of the lie wasn't important. But who does that sort of thing? You're going to have a hard time finding a situation in which you can be 100% certain that Clinton knowingly made false Statements. I'm pretty sure Trump knew the NFL didn't write him a letter. Or the Trump University thing where he made a video saying he hand picked the instructors then later admitted in a deposition that he didn't. Again: That's 100% certainty that he didn't just make a false statement. He lied.
To be certain that someone lied you have to establish that they made a false statement AND knew it was false. You're not going to find that with Ciinton. You're not going to have a problem finding that with Trump.
Finally, for now, it's not at all a stretch to say she didn't know anything she wrote in emails handled by her private server was classified. My understanding is that if she recognized something as classified she did use a government server. The very fact that there were tens of thousands of e mails and they only found 110 identified as containing classified information tells you...or should tell you...that she wasn't willy nilly using her private server to handle classified material. That is unless you think that as Secretary of State she handled so little classified material that only 110 out of tens of thousands of e mails contained some.
It's pretty clear that people can disagree on what should and should not be classified. It's not at all hard to believe that someone who handles tens of thousands of e mails could fail to recognize 110 of them as containing information that somebody else decided should be classified.
It's clear you've never worked with classified information. The fact that they weren't marked properly at the time of dissemination doesn't matter. The sender is supposed to be aware of what is and isn't sensitive or potentially sensitive. At the time they were sent - Clinton should've known that the information was sensitive. It's your job to protect sensitive information. I've been told that even you think something might be construed as sensitive - mark it classified. It's better to over classify something than under classify it.JohnStOnge wrote:It's a little confusing because of use of the terminology "up classified." But they were not "upgraded" to "classified." They were upgraded to "confidential."BDKJMU wrote:
/quote]
I don't think that accurately conveys the situation. Here is the statement from Comey's testimony posted at https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press ... ail-system:
In any case they were not either classified or confidential at the time they were sent.
The FBI investigated her and decided whatever she did was not sufficient to recommend charges. You and others don't agree with it so you're looking for boogeymen. You had a Republican FBI director who EVERYBODY said ahead of time was just the most reliable guy in the world leading the investigation then when conservatives/Republicans didn't get what they wanted all of a sudden he was awful.
That in spite of the fact that, as I've written before, the way he handled it couldn't have been better in terms of helping Trump.
I have always opposed Hillary Clinton's general philosophical outlook. But there has been, for decades, a flood of absolute nonsense in terms of conspiracy theories and exaggeration pertaining to the Clintons.CID1990 wrote:It was just in the last couple posts that I realized JSO has zero background knowledge on what he is talking aboutChizzang wrote:This thread...
I'm not sure if that's the norm or not
But if you're trying to normalize Clinton on ethical grounds you aren't too far from Pat Robertson trying to normalize Trump on moral grounds
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The main point is that it's completely plausible that when she said she did not handle classified information she thought that was true. There were 2000 e mails that were later deemed to contain "confidential" information. Not classified information. Out of 30,000 e mails 110 were deemed to contain classified information.Ibanez wrote:It's clear you've never worked with classified information. The fact that they weren't marked properly at the time of dissemination doesn't matter. The sender is supposed to be aware of what is and isn't sensitive or potentially sensitive. At the time they were sent - Clinton should've known that the information was sensitive. It's your job to protect sensitive information. I've been told that even you think something might be construed as sensitive - mark it classified. It's better to over classify something than under classify it.JohnStOnge wrote:
It's a little confusing because of use of the terminology "up classified." But they were not "upgraded" to "classified." They were upgraded to "confidential."
In any case they were not either classified or confidential at the time they were sent.
The FBI investigated her and decided whatever she did was not sufficient to recommend charges. You and others don't agree with it so you're looking for boogeymen. You had a Republican FBI director who EVERYBODY said ahead of time was just the most reliable guy in the world leading the investigation then when conservatives/Republicans didn't get what they wanted all of a sudden he was awful.
That in spite of the fact that, as I've written before, the way he handled it couldn't have been better in terms of helping Trump.
Tell me - what good excuse is there for me hiring an outside company to run a server out of my home so that I can do GOVERNMENT WORK instead of doing all such work through the existing government infrastructure? NIPRNET and SIPRNET existed before and during her tenure at State. There is no, valid excuse for it. None. And i'd say the same thing, regardless of sex, creed or political affiliation.
What conspiracy? Even ABC News, far from being a tool of conservatives, at the height of last year's Presidential campaign, put out a damning report of how Hillary used her position as Secretary of State to steer relief work and contracts, specifically around Haiti, to donors to the Clinton Foundation. It couldn't have been a clearer example of pay to play ever in recent memory in politics. It was brazen, it was completely in the open, it involved a ton of money and didn't result in help for Haiti, and it was completely unethical. And you know what, nobody on the left even did as much as yawn over it. There were two completely unethical and immoral candidates in last year's election and unfortunately, one of them had to win.JohnStOnge wrote:I have always opposed Hillary Clinton's general philosophical outlook. But there has been, for decades, a flood of absolute nonsense in terms of conspiracy theories and exaggeration pertaining to the Clintons.CID1990 wrote:
It was just in the last couple posts that I realized JSO has zero background knowledge on what he is talking about
I'm not sure if that's the norm or not
But if you're trying to normalize Clinton on ethical grounds you aren't too far from Pat Robertson trying to normalize Trump on moral grounds
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Like the Uranium One thing as one of the latest. People say $145 million was donated to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One owners in order to influence her as Secretary of State to approve the deal. But all but $4 million of that was donated by someone who sold their interest in Uranium one 18 months before Clinton became Secretary of State and before anybody had any idea that she would become Secretary of State. Also, anybody who takes the least bit of time to read about how the process works in general and how it worked in the Uranium One case knows that 1) The Secretary of State does not control the situation and 2) even if the Secretary of State did control the situation Clinton was not involved in the process in the Uranium One instance.
The conservative movement has got to stop this crap. Deal with the truth and quit the crap with the conspiracy theories.
And no the Clintons did not kill Vince Foster.
No Baghdad JSO, it’s not.JohnStOnge wrote:The main point is that it's completely plausible that when she said she did not handle classified information she thought that was true. There were 2000 e mails that were later deemed to contain "confidential" information. Not classified information. Out of 30,000 e mails 110 were deemed to contain classified information.Ibanez wrote: It's clear you've never worked with classified information. The fact that they weren't marked properly at the time of dissemination doesn't matter. The sender is supposed to be aware of what is and isn't sensitive or potentially sensitive. At the time they were sent - Clinton should've known that the information was sensitive. It's your job to protect sensitive information. I've been told that even you think something might be construed as sensitive - mark it classified. It's better to over classify something than under classify it.
Tell me - what good excuse is there for me hiring an outside company to run a server out of my home so that I can do GOVERNMENT WORK instead of doing all such work through the existing government infrastructure? NIPRNET and SIPRNET existed before and during her tenure at State. There is no, valid excuse for it. None. And i'd say the same thing, regardless of sex, creed or political affiliation.
I suspect that if she had been willly nilly dealing with what she knew to be classified information using that private server she, as Secretary of State, would've had a lot more than 110 out of 30,000 e mails containing classified information.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/pence ... iti-claim/GannonFan wrote:
What conspiracy? Even ABC News, far from being a tool of conservatives, at the height of last year's Presidential campaign, put out a damning report of how Hillary used her position as Secretary of State to steer relief work and contracts, specifically around Haiti, to donors to the Clinton Foundation.
This crap has got to stop. If conservatives are going to argue the conservative cause they have got to stop trying to do it by misleading people.The report by ABC News does show that there was close cooperation between the foundation and the State Department. However, the emails do not provide any evidence that the State Department helped the Clintons’ friends or foundation donors obtain recovery contracts.
BULLSHIT!’ She was the nations too diplomat. She should’ve known! Bull shit!!!!JohnStOnge wrote:The main point is that it's completely plausible that when she said she did not handle classified information she thought that was true. There were 2000 e mails that were later deemed to contain "confidential" information. Not classified information. Out of 30,000 e mails 110 were deemed to contain classified information.Ibanez wrote: It's clear you've never worked with classified information. The fact that they weren't marked properly at the time of dissemination doesn't matter. The sender is supposed to be aware of what is and isn't sensitive or potentially sensitive. At the time they were sent - Clinton should've known that the information was sensitive. It's your job to protect sensitive information. I've been told that even you think something might be construed as sensitive - mark it classified. It's better to over classify something than under classify it.
Tell me - what good excuse is there for me hiring an outside company to run a server out of my home so that I can do GOVERNMENT WORK instead of doing all such work through the existing government infrastructure? NIPRNET and SIPRNET existed before and during her tenure at State. There is no, valid excuse for it. None. And i'd say the same thing, regardless of sex, creed or political affiliation.
I suspect that if she had been willly nilly dealing with what she knew to be classified information using that private server she, as Secretary of State, would've had a lot more than 110 out of 30,000 e mails containing classified information.
JohnStOnge wrote:https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/pence ... iti-claim/GannonFan wrote:
What conspiracy? Even ABC News, far from being a tool of conservatives, at the height of last year's Presidential campaign, put out a damning report of how Hillary used her position as Secretary of State to steer relief work and contracts, specifically around Haiti, to donors to the Clinton Foundation.
This crap has got to stop. If conservatives are going to argue the conservative cause they have got to stop trying to do it by misleading people.The report by ABC News does show that there was close cooperation between the foundation and the State Department. However, the emails do not provide any evidence that the State Department helped the Clintons’ friends or foundation donors obtain recovery contracts.
JSO calling ABC News a conservative rag!!!! Just when you think JSO is an unrepentant buffoon he goes one step further into clown category. expansos is looking more rational than JSO at this point. I did not call ABC News a conservative rag. What I'm getting at is that ABC News did a story then it got spun by conservatives into stuff ABC News didn't say.GannonFan wrote:JohnStOnge wrote:
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/pence ... iti-claim/
This crap has got to stop. If conservatives are going to argue the conservative cause they have got to stop trying to do it by misleading people.
JohnStOnge wrote:I did not call ABC News a conservative rag. What I'm getting at is that ABC News did a story then it got spun by conservatives into stuff ABC News didn't say.GannonFan wrote:
There's nothing in the ABC article, at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fobs-hil ... d=42615379, saying that anything improper was done. What happened is that people like Mike Pence mischaracterized what the article said.
I think ABC News is a reliable source. FYI, the site I like to use for things like that has it as being "Left Center" on its bias continuum and having a "High" factual reporting rating. I think the story on the Clintons and Haiti is fair and should have been written. But it does not say that the reporters found any evidence that friends of the Clintons got favorable treatment with respect to awarding contracts.
Look, I am a conservative. I think anybody that has been familiar with me posting over the years knows that. But we have a problem right now with the conservative movement selling its soul and going completely beyond the pale with respect to distributing misinformation. I know both sides have been guilty of that to some extent for a long time. But it's really bad with the conservative side right now and if you are a conservative you should be willing to call that out.
I don't think that is correct. Here is a link to the text of Comey's statement:BDKJMU wrote: And those 110 weren’t just deemed to contain classified info. They were MARKED classified.
I don't see anything in the statement with a specific number of e mails that were "marked" classified. But I do see this: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. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
It's not 110 emails being "marked" classified. It's 110 out of 30,000 e mails that CONTAINED classified information.Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
Keep pumping JSOJohnStOnge wrote:I don't think that is correct. Here is a link to the text of Comey's statement:BDKJMU wrote: And those 110 weren’t just deemed to contain classified info. They were MARKED classified.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press ... ail-system
Here is a quote on the number of e mails containing classified information:
I don't see anything in the statement with a specific number of e mails that were "marked" classified. But I do see this: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. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
It's not 110 emails being "marked" classified. It's 110 out of 30,000 e mails that CONTAINED classified information.Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
Just wait, it only gets better!BlueHen86 wrote:Wow. Take a few year off, only to come back and find myself agreeing with JSO. Not sure what to make of this.
Don't forget about the 20,000 she deleted because they were Yoga related.JohnStOnge wrote:I don't think that is correct. Here is a link to the text of Comey's statement:BDKJMU wrote: And those 110 weren’t just deemed to contain classified info. They were MARKED classified.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press ... ail-system
Here is a quote on the number of e mails containing classified information:
I don't see anything in the statement with a specific number of e mails that were "marked" classified. But I do see this: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. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
It's not 110 emails being "marked" classified. It's 110 out of 30,000 e mails that CONTAINED classified information.Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
Oh I think she screwed up there. And I think she screwed up by deciding to use a private server to begin with. I think if she hadn't done that she'd be President right now.SeattleGriz wrote:Don't forget about the 20,000 she deleted because they were Yoga related.
Should be able to pull them off her old Blackberry...oh wait, she had her aide destroy all those with a hammer.
Nothing to see here.
You've just made a compelling argument for her incompetence.JohnStOnge wrote:Oh I think she screwed up there. And I think she screwed up by deciding to use a private server to begin with. I think if she hadn't done that she'd be President right now.SeattleGriz wrote:Don't forget about the 20,000 she deleted because they were Yoga related.
Should be able to pull them off her old Blackberry...oh wait, she had her aide destroy all those with a hammer.
Nothing to see here.
But I also think that all indications are that she didn't think anything she was handling through that private server was classified. I think that there is a lot of variation with respect to what people think should be classified and what shouldn't be. And I think that if she was routinely handling things on that private server that she knew to be classified we'd have seen a lot more than 110 out of 30,000.
And the bottom line is what we've got is conservatives attacking the FBI leadership because the FBI leadership didn't give them what they wanted.
There you go againJohnStOnge wrote:Oh I think she screwed up there. And I think she screwed up by deciding to use a private server to begin with. I think if she hadn't done that she'd be President right now.SeattleGriz wrote:Don't forget about the 20,000 she deleted because they were Yoga related.
Should be able to pull them off her old Blackberry...oh wait, she had her aide destroy all those with a hammer.
Nothing to see here.
But I also think that all indications are that she didn't think anything she was handling through that private server was classified. I think that there is a lot of variation with respect to what people think should be classified and what shouldn't be. And I think that if she was routinely handling things on that private server that she knew to be classified we'd have seen a lot more than 110 out of 30,000.
And the bottom line is what we've got is conservatives attacking the FBI leadership because the FBI leadership didn't give them what they wanted.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
I'm with you... She's far from incompetentCID1990 wrote:You've just made a compelling argument for her incompetence.JohnStOnge wrote:
Oh I think she screwed up there. And I think she screwed up by deciding to use a private server to begin with. I think if she hadn't done that she'd be President right now.
But I also think that all indications are that she didn't think anything she was handling through that private server was classified. I think that there is a lot of variation with respect to what people think should be classified and what shouldn't be. And I think that if she was routinely handling things on that private server that she knew to be classified we'd have seen a lot more than 110 out of 30,000.
And the bottom line is what we've got is conservatives attacking the FBI leadership because the FBI leadership didn't give them what they wanted.
