1/30/16 NY Times HRC's email scandal is a big fat nothing burger

[Botany]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/us/politics/22-clinton-emails-deemed-too-classified-to-be-made-public.html

The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the
nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level
of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server.

snip

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said in a statement that it made no sense to her that
“Secretary Clinton can be held responsible for email exchanges that originated with someone else.”

“The only reason to hold Secretary Clinton responsible for emails that didn’t originate with her is for political
points, and that’s what we’ve seen over the past several months,” she added.

snip

Mrs. Clinton, in an interview with NPR last week, suggested that at least one of the emails at issue included
an article from The New York Times about the administration’s classified drone programs. It was not clear
which article she was referring to; the use of drones has been the subject of numerous news reports and
books.

“How a New York Times public article that goes around the world could be in any way viewed as classified,
or the fact that it would be sent to other people off of the New York Times site, I think, is one of the
difficulties that people have in understanding what this is about,” she said.

[asuhornets]

1. I agree n/t

[Botany]

3. Even though it has been proven to be a lie that fact has not stopped ....

..... Fox News along w/JEB!, Rubio, Cruz, Trump, and so from pushing this
false meme every chance they get.

[leveymg]

2. This is Hillary's defense position. The classified materials originated with other agencies.

It doesn't matter whether the classified stamps were stripped off of the documents before transmission. The material was still Top Secret. She committed multiple felony counts. She should be prosecuted like anyone else would.

[Botany]

4. Oh please

One of those "top secret emails" had its contents published in the NY Times.

And what part of this don't you understand?

"Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification
at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server."

[leveymg]

5. Whether or not you think they should be classified, they still were. That's not an adequate defense

There are cases where that defense was raised -- a claim no harm to the national defense was done, and none intended -- and the defendant was still prosecuted. You should read the statute - 18 USC Sec. 793 (e) and (f) - prosecution under these subsections of the 1917 Espionage Act do not require intent or effect of harm. The mere fact that a classified document was mishandled is enough to convict. You can even lose a classified document and still be convicted under (f). Please, see, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

[Botany]

6. What part of the following don't you get?

"Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification
at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server."

BTW "Whether or not you think they should be classified, they still were."
R you kidding me? I am a landscaper in Ohio and decisions about the classification
of government documents is not in my job duties.

[leveymg]

7. Of course they weren't marked when sent. They were stripped of stamps beforehand.

She admitted instructing a subordinate to do just that. The State Dept spokesperson is using artful language. It's not up to State to decide whether a law was broken - the decision to prosecute is up the DOJ and is ultimately a political choice.