Clinton emails continue to be non-scandal, disappointing Republicans

I'm not even allowed to send an unclassified email, with PII (personally identifiable information, such as my SSN), to other .mil addresses without first encrypting them. Obviously, I can't send classified stuff on my unclassified server account. If I am on the classified NORAD Enterprise Network (NEN) server, I can't send US Only stuff, because that is a server releasable to foreigners (in this case, Canadians).
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why not just admit you don't care if she lied, you just want her to be your president......
Click to expand...

If You Accuse Hillary Clinton of Lying, You Should Be Careful With the Truth Yourself

2. "A federal court has helped uncover more emails related to the Benghazi raid that were withheld from congressional investigators. Clinton has insisted she turned over all her work-related email and complied with congressional subpoenas. Again, she hasn’t been telling the truth."

This is flatly false. The linked Politico story says nothing about Clinton not turning over all her work emails. It says only that the State Department has claimed executive privilege for a few documents—something with no relation at all to Hillary Clinton. From Politico: "The FOIA lawsuits provide a vehicle to force the agency to identify those emails, although the substance of the messages is not disclosed."

...It's been months now, and there's simply no evidence of anything other than unwise email practices and an unfortunate but instinctive defensiveness from Clinton over trivial matters. At some point, when nothing more comes up, it becomes clear that this is just the usual Clinton Derangement Syndrome at work. We passed that point a while ago.
Fournier has all but shouted that he's never trusted the Clintons and never will, and that's why he's so obsessive about this stuff. We all need a hobby, I guess. Still, he's a reporter. Deliberately distorting his descriptions of news accounts in the hope that no one will bother clicking on them is a bridge too far. He repeatedly claims that Hillary is lying, but Fournier is living in a glass house.
 
christiefan915 said:
"While we were all busy laughing about how insecure Donald Trump is about the size of his manhood, the New York Times released this story, the latest development in the case of Hillary Clinton’s emails:

A former aide to Hillary Clinton has turned over to the F.B.I. computer security logs from Mrs. Clinton’s private server, records that showed no evidence of foreign hacking, according to people close to a federal investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails. The security logs bolster Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that her use of a personal email account to conduct State Department business while she was the secretary of state did not put American secrets into the hands of hackers or foreign governments.

The former aide, Bryan Pagliano, began cooperating with federal agents last fall, according to interviews with a federal law enforcement official and others close to the case. Mr. Pagliano described how he set up the server in Mrs. Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and according to two of the people, he provided agents the security logs. What does this tell us? Although it’s possible there will be some future discovery, it appears that whether Clinton’s emails were vulnerable to hacking or not, they weren’t actually hacked. That’s good news! The closest thing they’ve found is some attempts at phishing scams, which means that Clinton’s email is just like every other email address on earth.

  1. Clinton set up a personal email account and used it for work. Even though previous Secretaries of State did the same thing, and even though thousands of people in government use personal emails for work, she still shouldn’t have done it. She may have violated department policies, but there’s no evidence she broke any laws.
  2. Clinton has said it was a mistake and apologized for it.
  3. There were concerns that her email server could have been vulnerable to hacking from a foreign power. But it does not appear to have been hacked.
  4. None of the work-related emails she sent and received were marked classified at the time. However, some 200 of them were retroactively classified. This is now the subject of a spat between the State Department and the intelligence community, which classifies many things that people elsewhere in the government think are absurd to classify.
  5. For Clinton to be charged with mishandling classified information, she would have had to knowingly passed such information to someone not authorized to have it — like David Petraeus showing classified documents to his mistress — or acted with such gross negligence that people without authorization were bound to see it. According to what we know, neither of those things happened.
  6. The FBI is investigating the matter, but has said that Clinton herself is not a target of that investigation, meaning that they don’t suspect that she committed any crime.
  7. That former aide, Bryan Pagliano, has been granted immunity by the Justice Department and is working with them as they complete their investigation, which will probably conclude this spring.
Now let’s be honest. When this story broke, Republicans were desperately hoping that we would learn that some criminal wrongdoing or catastrophic security breach had taken place, so they could then use that against Clinton in her run for the White House. But that turns out not to be the case. So the next best thing from their perspective is that there’s some vaguely-defined “scandal” that the public doesn’t really understand, but that voters will hold against her if you just repeat the words “Clinton email scandal” often enough.

They may have gotten that. I’ve certainly seen plenty of voters quoted in press accounts saying some version of, “I don’t trust Clinton, ’cause you know, that email thing.” I’m sure 99 percent of them couldn’t tell you what they think Clinton actually did that’s so awful, but they know that there was something about emails, and it was, like, a scandal, right?

I don’t [...] justify Clinton’s original decision to set up the private server. She shouldn’t have done that, not only because it was against department policy, but also because she should have been extra careful, knowing her history, to make sure she minded her Ps and Qs on everything like this. She should have known that once she started running for president there were going to be FOIA requests and lawsuits and investigations of everything she did as Secretary of State. So yes, that was an error in judgment. But it wasn’t a crime — and it appears that no bad consequences for the country came of it — so we shouldn’t treat it like it was."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-to-be-non-scandal-disappointing-republicans/
Click to expand...

That's a damn shame!!

Of course, Republicans have never let a lack of FACTS stop one of their partisan witch hunts in the past, so no reason why we can't assume the same will happen here.
 
christiefan915 said:
This is flatly false.
Click to expand...

I don't care what color you try to paint it, Chrispie, it isn't false....she stated that she had turned over all emails except some personal emails which had been destroyed on several occasions in the first half of 2015.......after that, examination of the server showed hundreds of state department emails which had not previously been turned over or destroyed....

stop denying what everyone, including her staff, knows to be true.......
 
PostmodernRacist said:
I don't care what color you try to paint it, Chrispie, it isn't false....she stated that she had turned over all emails except some personal emails which had been destroyed on several occasions in the first half of 2015.......after that, examination of the server showed hundreds of state department emails which had not previously been turned over or destroyed....

stop denying what everyone, including her staff, knows to be true.......
Click to expand...

Cling cling cling... So silly. Typical conservative.
 
Scandal ? No, never was a scandal just illegal.
No guarantee it was not hacked only that it was not noticed. Hacked or no it was at risk.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I don't care what color you try to paint it, Chrispie, it isn't false....she stated that she had turned over all emails except some personal emails which had been destroyed on several occasions in the first half of 2015.......after that, examination of the server showed hundreds of state department emails which had not previously been turned over or destroyed....

stop denying what everyone, including her staff, knows to be true.......
Click to expand...

I'm not painting anything, the experts are doing that. Just because you hate Hillary doesn't mean you can shoehorn her into charges that don't apply.

And getting back to Powell, why isn't he being investigated for having classified info on a personal account?

"...Colin Powell — who served as secretary of state under President George W. Bush — used personal email to conduct some business during his tenure.In fact, he was found to have classified information in his personal email as well — which was discovered during a State Department investigation into Clinton's emails. Powell, too, says the information was classified retroactively, and released an angry statement disputing the timing of the classification.

"If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share," Powell said in the statement, published by ABC News.

http://mashable.com/2016/03/05/hillary-clinton-email-indictment/#3X42YA9OKgqi
 
christiefan915 said:
I'm not painting anything, the experts are doing that. Just because you hate Hillary doesn't mean you can shoehorn her into charges that don't apply.

And getting back to Powell, why isn't he being investigated for having classified info on a personal account?

"...Colin Powell — who served as secretary of state under President George W. Bush — used personal email to conduct some business during his tenure.In fact, he was found to have classified information in his personal email as well — which was discovered during a State Department investigation into Clinton's emails. Powell, too, says the information was classified retroactively, and released an angry statement disputing the timing of the classification.

"If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share," Powell said in the statement, published by ABC News.

http://mashable.com/2016/03/05/hillary-clinton-email-indictment/#3X42YA9OKgqi
Click to expand...

Powell RECEIVED email from 2 Amb. overseas....information was not classified when it was generated nor when it was received.....it has since been labeled "Confidential," ( the lowest tier of classification.)The emails were on a gov. computer in his gov. office, not in his bathroom at home on a private server.....2 emails, not 1600....
"They’re fairly innocuous and very benign and neither ambassador classified them at the time. As would have THEIR decision if they considered the information 'confidential'....

labeled confidential, not secret and top secret like a few of Clintons....not exposed to aides or co-workers and certainly not in the hands of his personal lawyer, like is the case with Clinton....are you that desperate that you're seriously gonna try to compare him to her....?

Anything else you need explained to you ?
 
Last edited:
1. Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 13526, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 13526, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government.

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf

It clearly states classified marked or unmarked.

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924
 
christiefan915 said:
I'm not painting anything, the experts are doing that. Just because you hate Hillary doesn't mean you can shoehorn her into charges that don't apply.

And getting back to Powell, why isn't he being investigated for having classified info on a personal account?

"...Colin Powell — who served as secretary of state under President George W. Bush — used personal email to conduct some business during his tenure.In fact, he was found to have classified information in his personal email as well — which was discovered during a State Department investigation into Clinton's emails. Powell, too, says the information was classified retroactively, and released an angry statement disputing the timing of the classification.

"If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share," Powell said in the statement, published by ABC News.

http://mashable.com/2016/03/05/hillary-clinton-email-indictment/#3X42YA9OKgqi
Click to expand...

they are the factless


that is why a large dose of agent orange CHEMOTHERAPY is here in a combover package
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top