Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41

Thread: Clinton Lies : "Emails were not classified when I sent them"

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default Clinton Lies : "Emails were not classified when I sent them"

    she's still lying ..she's unable to address this matter without constant lying:
    ++

    on Sunday said her email communications were not classified when she sent them while secretary of State.


    "There were discussions and decisions made to classify retroactively certain emails," Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, said on "Fox News Sunday" of her use of a personal email server while secretary of State.
    "Director Comey said my answers were truthful and consistent," with what she's said in the past, she added.

    Clinton has said she never sent classified material over her personal email server, but some argue FBI Director James Comey contradicted her claim in comments to Congress earlier this month.

    "I was communicating with over 300 people in my emails. They certainly did not believe and had no reason to believe what they were sending was classified," she said.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...en-i-sent-them

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    Clinton Reiterates Stance

    Just hours after meeting with FBI investigators in Washington on July 2, Clinton stuck to her oft-repeated version of events.

    "Let me just repeat what I have repeated for many months now," she said in the interview on "Meet the Press." "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified, and there is a process for the review of material before it is released to the public, and there were decisions made that material should be classified. I do call that retroactively classifying."

    What the FBI Investigation Found

    Clinton is only partially right: There were certain documents and emails that were made classified after being sent — which Comey referred to as being "up-classified." There were about 2,000 cases of that.

    But there were also 110 emails that Comey described as being classified at the time they were sent. Moreover, Clinton appeared to contradict her claims of never having sent anything marked classified. Comey indicated that there was "a very small number of the emails... [that] bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information."
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...en-i-sent-them

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    Clinton Defends Server in Presidential Debate

    In a debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders on Feb. 4, 2016, in New Hampshire, Clinton said she had "absolutely no concerns about" the investigation.

    "I never sent or received any classified material," she said.

    What the FBI Investigation Found

    Comey said today that 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to contain some form of classified information at the time they were sent.

    He went on to specify that Clinton was on seven of those chains that were classified as top secret.

    (constant lying)

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic State
    Posts
    26,917
    Thanks
    3,256
    Thanked 5,373 Times in 4,319 Posts
    Groans
    1,505
    Groaned 2,440 Times in 2,029 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    she's still lying ..she's unable to address this matter without constant lying:
    ++

    on Sunday said her email communications were not classified when she sent them while secretary of State.


    "There were discussions and decisions made to classify retroactively certain emails," Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, said on "Fox News Sunday" of her use of a personal email server while secretary of State.
    "Director Comey said my answers were truthful and consistent," with what she's said in the past, she added.

    Clinton has said she never sent classified material over her personal email server, but some argue FBI Director James Comey contradicted her claim in comments to Congress earlier this month.

    "I was communicating with over 300 people in my emails. They certainly did not believe and had no reason to believe what they were sending was classified," she said.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...en-i-sent-them
    I said she fit the definition of a sociopath, typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others, goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused—it is done to get one’s way).

    I think she also fits the disscription of a compulsive liar too, ...defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right.

    She fits both sicknesses very well.....
    Its she now calling Comey a liar as she called the Benghazi mother....or is she claiming she is too stupid and incompetant to know what information is classified secret without someone else labeling it for her....
    And what the pinheads can't seem to grasp is the FACT that by sidestepping the government, her communications COULD NOT BE MARKED
    CLASSIFIED.....they never saw them.....

    Either way, shes not fit to be president.....
    Put blame where it belongs
    ATF decided it could not regulate bump stocks during the Obama administration.
    It that time," the NRA wrote in a statement. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
    The ATF and Obama admin. ignored the NRA recommendations.


  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NOVA View Post
    I said she fit the definition of a sociopath, typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others, goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused—it is done to get one’s way).

    I think she also fits the disscription of a compulsive liar too, ...defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right.

    She fits both sicknesses very well.....
    Its she now calling Comey a liar as she called the Benghazi mother....or is she claiming she is too stupid and incompetant to know what information is classified secret without someone else labeling it for her....
    And what the pinheads can't seem to grasp is the FACT that by sidestepping the government, her communications COULD NOT BE MARKED
    CLASSIFIED.....they never saw them.....

    Either way, shes not fit to be president.....
    she was part of email "chains" where she rec'd and sent classified.
    I get them too. I won't send them on unless I verify what's in there.

    as Sec of State she had to power to mark anything classified -in fact she was expected to.

    Yes she s a sociopath, and she gets away with it because there is no consequences for her actions/
    Not by the FBI, the Dems, not the electorate.

    For all the talk about Trump -Clinton is the real danger to democracy

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,833
    Thanks
    13,240
    Thanked 40,780 Times in 32,146 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    Clinton Defends Server in Presidential Debate

    In a debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders on Feb. 4, 2016, in New Hampshire, Clinton said she had "absolutely no concerns about" the investigation.
    amoral people have no concerns about anything......

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    21,174
    Thanks
    3,418
    Thanked 7,931 Times in 5,908 Posts
    Groans
    9
    Groaned 444 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    She was busted on this. That she persists in the lie simply demonstrates her disregard for the truth, her belief that citizens are stupid and utter lack of qualification for public office.
    "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." Joseph Stalin
    The USA has lost WWIV to China with no other weapons but China Virus and some cash to buy democrats.

  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,833
    Thanks
    13,240
    Thanked 40,780 Times in 32,146 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celticguy View Post
    her belief that citizens are stupid
    approximately 40% of them have proved they are......

  9. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celticguy View Post
    She was busted on this. That she persists in the lie simply demonstrates her disregard for the truth, her belief that citizens are stupid and utter lack of qualification for public office.
    absolutely. She sent both Email chains and documents with a "c" on them.. Those were specifically marked classified.
    100's of Top Secret "at the time" (Comey)

    She sent a lot more - 100's to 100-0's with classified info; and as Sec of State she more then anyone there should recognize such.
    she has willful disregard for security, the server itself shows that.

    She's sociopath. The press won't call her out -they are the enablers to a sociopath to power.

  10. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

  11. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-co..._11074304.html






    Jeffrey Fields, University of Southern California - Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences


    Last week FBI director James Comey publicly rebuked Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information while she was secretary of state. This came at the conclusion of the FBI’s investigation of her use of a personal email server. He subsequently testified on the matter before the House Oversight Committee. Comey reported that of more than 30,000 emails sent and received by Clinton, 110 contained classified information with eight email chains containing “information that was top secret at the time they were sent.” Comey concluded that Clinton and her aides were “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”


    How could the secretary of state and her aides be so careless with classified information?


    What information is classified in the first place and by whom?


    How does that information get transmitted?


    The answer to the first question partly lies in the way sensitive information is handled and classified at the State Department and other U.S. government agencies.


    An important thing to understand is that the determination of what information is classified is subjective. This means reasonable people can disagree about the relative sensitivity of particular information.


    Before coming to academia, I worked for many years as an analyst at both the State Department and the Department of Defense. I held a top secret clearance and worked on issues related to weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation. Debates and arguments about whether certain information should be classified were frequent. More often than not the debates centered on why something was classified in the first place. This is why determining whether Secretary Clinton was careless is not a cut and dried issue.



    FBI Director James Comey. REUTERS/Gary Cameron




    Classification levels and what gets classified



    The U.S. government uses three levels of classification to designate how sensitive certain information is: confidential, secret and top secret.


    The lowest level, confidential, designates information that if released could damage U.S. national security. The other designations refer to information the disclosure of which could cause “serious” (secret) or “exceptionally grave” (top secret) damage to national security.


    At the top secret level, some information is “compartmented.” That means only certain people who have a top secret security clearance may view it. Sometimes this information is given a code word so that only those cleared for that particular code word can access the information. There are several other designators restricting access even to cleared personnel. For example, only those holding a secret or top secret clearance and the critical nuclear weapon design information designation are allowed to access information related to many aspects of the operation and design of nuclear weapons.


    It is common for documents to contain information that is classified at different levels as well as unclassified information. Individual paragraphs are marked to indicate the level of classification. For example, a document’s title might be preceded with the marker (U) indicating the title and existence of the document is unclassified.


    Within a document, paragraphs might carry the markers “S” for secret, “C” for confidential or “TS” for top secret. The highest classification of any portion of the document determines its overall classification. This approach allows for the easy identification and removal of classified portions of a document so that less sensitive sections can be shared in unclassified settings.


    This is what Clinton was trying to do with the “nonpaper” that she instructed her aide Jake Sullivan to fix so that it could be sent over a nonsecure fax machine.



    Not quite confidential



    Below the confidential level, there are varying terms for information that is not classified but still sensitive.


    Government agencies use different terms for this category of information. The State Department uses the phrase “sensitive but unclassified,” while the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security use “for official use only.” These markers are often seen in the headers and footers of documents just like classified designations.



    Who decides what is classified?



    Executive Order 13256 spells out who specifically may classify information.


    Authority to take certain pieces of information, say the existence of a weapons program, and classify it top secret is given only to specific individuals including the president and vice president, agency heads and those specifically designated by authorities outlined in the executive order. Information that is being retransmitted or integrated into other documents retains its original classification level. Inserting one sentence that is classified secret into an otherwise unclassified document makes the entire document secret.


    Some things clearly need to be kept secret, like the identity of covert operatives or battle plans. Other issues are not as obvious. Should the mere fact that the secretary of state had a conversation with a counterpart be classified? In fact, different agencies disagree about issues like this all the time. In the Clinton case, the State Department disagreed with the intelligence community about whether certain emails contained information that should be classified.


    When Secretary Clinton began turning over emails as part of an investigation into the Benghazi, Libya attacks, the inspector general (IG) for the intelligence community assessed that information in several of them was classified and should not have been transmitted over an open email system.


    But the State Department disagreed with the IG’s assessment.



    Handling classified information



    Media sometimes erroneously refer to Clinton as having shared classified documents. This is not something she is accused of. It is extremely difficult to share a classified document electronically over email. Most government agencies, including the State Department, maintain separate systems precisely to make it all but impossible to electronically pass information between classified and unclassified systems.


    One cannot simply view a document on a classified network and email it to someone on an unclassified system even within the same agency. This is partly why Clinton and her aides say so assuredly that they did not knowingly email classified materials.


    The issue is whether she and her aides should have known that matters discussed in emails were classified or sensitive. In fact, in several of the released emails she and aides take pains to avoid discussing classified matters.


    In discussing normal business, it may not be evident that certain specific topics are classified. Is the entire conversation the secretary has with a foreign leader classified? Are parts of it? Is the fact that the conversation took place classified? It depends on subject matter and context, and the assessment is subjective. In the normal course of business, however, a government employee may decide that the subject matter is not sensitive and discuss the conversation over an unclassified system.


    But other more complicated issues arise. For example, the U.S. government cannot acknowledge drone strikes carried out by the CIA. That information remains classified even if revealed in the media. Thus, discussing them over an unclassified system would not be allowed. However, drone strikes carried out by the Department of Defense are not subject to such restrictions. This distinction may be one of the key contentions the intelligence community has with some information in the Clinton emails.


    The fact is government officials inadvertently send classified details over unclassified email systems all the time. Considering the amount of information dealt with on a daily basis, it is inevitable. Classified details are accidentally revealed in casual conversations and media interviews. We may not hear about it because it’s not in the interviewee’s interest to point that out after the fact.


    A colleague and former CIA analyst tells his students he would never knowingly but almost certainly will inadvertently relate in the classroom a tidbit that is classified. The classic example is when Senator David Boren accidentally revealed the name of a clandestine CIA agent. Boren at the time was no less than chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.


    In that light, Clinton may have been careless, but she’s certainly not alone

  12. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    110 emails that Comey described as being classified at the time they were sent



    prove this with actual testimony
    When you have the WaPo giving her four Pinocchio's for this comment you know its bad.

  13. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

  14. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

  15. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    who owns wopo
    this should be good, please share with us the importance

Similar Threads

  1. It's "highly" classified
    By stoned in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-09-2022, 04:44 PM
  2. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-06-2016, 03:19 PM
  3. "I have people who will retrieve those emails"
    By Cancel 2020.1 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: 05-31-2016, 09:52 AM
  4. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 03-07-2016, 08:40 AM
  5. Bill Clinton: Purdum a "Sleazy" "Slimy" "Scumbag"
    By blackascoal in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-03-2008, 07:56 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •