General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsState Dept confirms FBI got it wrong, none of Hillary Clinton’s emails were classified at the time
By Daily News Bin | July 6, 2016
Hillary Clinton insisted all along that none of the emails she sent or received on her private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State was marked classified at the time. That was contradicted by the Director of the FBI yesterday when he claimed that a very small number of her emails were in fact classified at the time. The New York Times then determined that that number was just two. And now the State Department has confirmed that the two emails in question werent actually classified at the time, and had merely been marked incorrectly during the course of the investigation.
In yet another development which helps make clear that Clinton did nothing demonstrably wrong with her email, the two emails sent to her by her aides in 2012 were harmless in nature. Both were merely used to schedule phone calls with foreign leaders, and on their face, clearly could not have possibly been classified at the time. Sure enough, a spokesman for the State Department has confirmed that they were not classified.
This comes just hours after CBS News reported that Hillary Clinton had asked the NSA for a secure smartphone for her email immediately upon taking office as Secretary of State, and had been turned down. One by one, the details coming out are making clear that despite having spent so many months running an investigation and despite having been given full cooperation by Clinton and her team, the conclusions made by the FBI Director yesterday were far removed from the actual facts involved.
With Hillary Clinton now having been fully cleared of any potential charges, this may be a moot point in terms of the outcome; shes off the hook and she remains the clear frontrunner in the 2016 presidential race. But these new details surfacing today make clear that the FBI Director didnt come close to getting his facts right when he personally criticized her email usage yesterday. Heres more on the story.
###
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/state-dept-now-says-fbi-got-it-wrong/25101/
Orrex
(63,212 posts)hertopos
(833 posts)Sorry, after hearing too many Republican's sh*ts, I became rather sensitive.
Hertopos
Orrex
(63,212 posts)MynameisBlarney
(2,979 posts)Night Watchman
(743 posts)still_one
(92,190 posts)lapucelle
(18,261 posts)OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)great, now I have to stop by the grocery store on the way home and get some.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I'm running a little hide-heavy at the moment, so I probably shouldn't rock the boat with any subversive siglines just now...
Dr. Strange
(25,921 posts)One for knocking the awesome literature that is Dune.
One for knocking the music of the holy triumvirate, Rush.
And one for posting the Brazillion joke.
Orrex
(63,212 posts)The Brazillion joke is a pure good, and I'll hear nothing said against it.
Dr. Strange
(25,921 posts)Pity you had to turn it down, what with Skinner's stringent pants-wearing requirement for administrators.
Orrex
(63,212 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)This is will take on a life of its own with Trump, other Republicans, talk radio, Morning Joe, et al., regardless of what the reality is. Only Democrats are fact-based--and not even all Democrats. Fortunately, Trump sucks.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)FBI Director Comey indicted Hillary with his personal opinions about her emails in a manner in which HRC has no due process to defend. These Personal Opinions about her emails were beyond his duty, unprofessional and hopefully will in time come back and bite him on the ass.
FBI is suppose to be an apolitical agency and should have delivered it report within the bounds of whether there were any laws violated worthy of an indictment, nothing more or less
Zoonart
(11,866 posts)When was the last time the FBI director gave a personal dressing down on nation television to someone who was NOT being charged?
OUTRAGEOUS!
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)and won't he have to supply this new information? Do any democrats get to ask questions in those interviews?
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... it seems she is lucky that is all she got.
One of the most abrupt about faces I've ever seen from a public official.
Cosmocat
(14,564 posts)this man was a deputy special counsel on the Senate Whitewater Committee.
He was not willing to be a complete hack and try to advance it for prosecution, but he absolutely had ever intention of lighting her up to provide the right wing with ample fodder to "prosecute" her in any way possible, and for the POS media to willingly go along for the ride.
kentuck
(111,097 posts)What was Mr Comey thinking ??
n/t
tavernier
(12,388 posts)Why shouldn't Comey be obligated to return to the podium and admit his mistake and his scolding?
malaise
(269,004 posts)Rec
Zoonart
(11,866 posts)I mean...just WOW! The FBI got it wrong in front of the cameras when Comey dressed Hillary down and set her up for a news pile-on that was disgusting in it's vehemence.
I knew something like this would pop up after the fact. After the MSM had skinned her alive for NOTHING!
My niece works in IT for the Gov. and she has told me that the IT infrastructure for the entire Government... all departments is a F*ing mess of antiquated hardware and software patches that would be shameful in a mid-range business, let alone an infrastructure that is supposed to be protecting national security. Do you know why? Most of you can guess. It's because of forty years of NO NEW TAXES and hollowing out the beast. When they bragged about "Drowning the Government in the bathtub" this is what they meant. Letting the infrastructure decline to the point of collapse.
Folks are conditioned by television and Hollywood to think that our offices in the government are full of the newest computers and special gadgets like in the BOURNE movies. The real picture is actually run down and sad.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)Garbage hardware and software, no funding for state-of-the-art security. Her server was probably safer than the govt. computer systems.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)leaked like a sieve -- it experienced multiple, large-scale hacks.
And as if that wasn't bad enough, it also didn't save emails. During 2011, for example, it only preserved 61K emails out of a billion. Only .0006%.
Hillary preserved almost all of hers. Yes, from a political perspective, she made a mistake. But from a functional standpoint, she chose the better system.
Laser102
(816 posts)Night Watchman
(743 posts)(Too many great paragraphs to choose from!)
markj757
(194 posts)Let's stop demonizing the FBI and Director Comey for doing their job. The FBI Director did not get it wrong, the emails were MARKED classified and the State Dept spokesman admitted that fact. The State Dept spokesman said the info should have been declassified, but it wasn't, and they were still MARKED classified and should not have been sent to her personal email server. I'm voting for Hillary, but let's not be like Republicans and bury our head in the sand about the facts. Obama himself has said she was careless in how she setup the server, and Hillary Clinton said it was a mistake and she shouldn't have done it. And Obama said that before the FBI completed their investigation. He probably would now agree as well after all the evidence that was presented it was extremely careless. And although it could not be proven, she may have jeopardized National Security with her actions, regardless of how minor of an incident it could have been. I can assure you, a low level State Dept employee would have most likely lost their security clearance for doing the exact same thing. I've had a high level security clearance before, and I know how serious of an incident this actually is.
I believe Comey had a right to reveal more information in that press conference because Attorney General Lynch put him and the FBI in an unfortunate situation by meeting with Bill Clinton privately, and now the public deserved to know more details regarding the FBI investigation and its recommendations. Hillary should be grateful she got off with just a public rebuke for her actions, because even though "any reasonable prosecutor" would not have indicted, she could have easily had an unreasonable one. And her campaign would have went down in flames.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Republicans and the Republican-controlled U.S. M$M are making. Good going there, markj757.
Oh, and your concern is noted.
markj757
(194 posts)Do you really want to take a position that just because Republicans say it, that makes it wrong. How about letting the facts of what happened stand on their own. In this case, Republicans do have a point but as I mentioned, Obama said it as well. Let's not become like them and take comfort in being ignorant of the facts. That's how they ended up with Trump as their nominee.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)another tactic used by Republicans. Perhaps you need to go back and read exactly what he said about this, and do this in context. He never said she "was careless" in setting up a private server. That's what you make of it. He said she made a mistake to use a private e-mail account. And keep in mind that Bush and Cheney deleted 22 million e-mails before leaving office, and that the highly respected Colin Powell used his private AOL account all during a time of war, and later deleted that entire account.
Now you want to give this hyper-partisan political Party that exercises abuse of power over and over again whenever in power actual credibility?? On what grounds? Belief? Hope? Playing devil's advocate? Because on the facts, Republicans have always been wrong when it comes to persecuting Democrats - especially the Clintons - on taxpayers' dime, yet you're willing to give them the benefit of the doubt while, at the same time, giving Hillary Clinton none?
I'll repeat my statement and stand by it...your concern is noted.
markj757
(194 posts)about the extremely careless actions of his former Secretary of State is the best you can do to defend your position, then I will just let my comments speak for itself. Your concern is noted as well.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)how many times you attempt to deflect with your hollow and meaningless statement that 'Actually, you prove my point'
Most DU'ers aren't as gullible as you'd like to believe. And you are not as clever as you think you are.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)under FBI investigation, mind you - while completely and totally dismissing the pertinent statement he made right after: "This is not a situation in which Americas national security was endangered" is the best you've got to indict HRC and impugn her character while excusing away this Republican politically motivated, taxpayer money-wasting witch-hunt, then everyone on this Democratic Party-supporting site should seriously take notice of your concern.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)Democrats. It is manipulative and intellectually dishonest bullshit.
markj757
(194 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 7, 2016, 12:52 PM - Edit history (1)
what you just posted. If I state facts and express reasonable opinions based on those facts, I have to read ignorant comments like yours that have no basis in fact. I don't promote GOP talking points against Democrats, because I am a Democrat. I just happen to have well informed opinions contrary to yours, which based on your ignorant comment, doesn't surprise me at all. I'm not going to whitewash Hillary Clinton serious misjudgments regarding protecting classified information because she is our nominee. I am an American citizen who loves this country first and foremost, who is also proud to be a Democrat.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 7, 2016, 02:08 PM - Edit history (1)
Listen, you are new here and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
However your posts echo perfectly DU posters who were so fucking sure 'Clinton will be indicted' because they either gullibly believed Fox News 'reporting' and the GOP Hacks posing as 'experts' or they were disingenuous liars.
They brought every right-wing slime website here and every spurious article they could to lie about and demonize HRC and other Democratic politicians.
If you are a Democrat, you will work to elect Democrats. You will recognize right-wing witch hunts for what they are rather than consciously or unconsciously promoting them. I look forward to your posts.
Comey testifies to Congress: Hillary Clinton did not lie to FBI
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-james-comey-fbi-emails-campaign-election
------
ABC News: FBI Dir Comey asked if Clinton broke the law regarding emails: "My judgement is that she did not"
https://mobile.twitter.com/ABC/status/751061307068035073
-----
Well, one congressman fessed up.
Representative John Mica (R-Florida) just admitted why this interrogation is happening. He said its because he and hisrepublican colleagues have to go home this weekend and splain to their donors why the Republican director of the FBI couldnt be brought on board for the witch hunt, and Republicans HATE having to be accountable to anyone for anything.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027985892
----
FBI director says Clinton did not lie, break law in email handling
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141511536
markj757
(194 posts)where we disagree is when you attack me for mine. If you look at the history of my comments, you will see I'm not a right-wing nutjub spewing Republican bullshit. But what Hillary did was actually extremely careless, and the FBI did an exceptional job of getting to the bottom of what happened. Why is me stating that so controversial? Its not a right wing talking point, its just the truth. There is nothing I want more than for Hillary Clinton to win, but I won't hesitate to express my opinion if she shows poor judgement, especially on issues regarding our national security.
By the way, I may look new, but I have been reading DU for years, just never posted comments until recently, and in order to post comments, I had to sign-up.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)Yes, carelessness, and she's apologized for using a private server.
FBI did get to the bottom of it. My issue with your posts is that you were spinning Comey's statements in the worst way possible. You seemed to ignore the bottom line - no evidence supporting an indictment, no evidence she lied.
That's why you were getting getting push-back on your posts.
I too understand that is because of your passion and I respect that as well.
So I'm happy to admit that I took the anger I feel over other posters who used rightwing sources to smear to gleefully smear HRC and other Democrats out on you.
I apologize for doing that and over-reacting. It was not fair at all, and I'm sorry.
As I said and I meant it sincerely, I'm looking forward to your posts. I'm glad you decided to start posting.
p.s.
If you research further you are going to find that the CIA claimed vague general emails about drone strikes (including an email quoting a publically available article from the NYT) should have been classified but they weren't. IMHO, a bunch of CIA butt-hurt.
markj757
(194 posts)I appreciate you taking the time to apologize and explain your reasoning in more detail. I thoroughly enjoy serious thoughtful debate, and I'm looking forward to reading your post in the future as well. I can definitely say we both feel passionately about our party, and the future of this great country.
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)Feels like you're pretty firmly entrenched in reality without letting your biases cloud your judgement. Thanks for sharing.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)Or is your beef with the actual act of discussing it?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Or is your beef with the actual act of discussing it?
Again...read the subthread. I've discussed it.
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)... smacked in the face with by the security lawyer the other day.
They had MARKINGS on them but not marked classified
The others were DEEMED classified by their depts but not clearly MARKED classified
markj757
(194 posts)The State Dept Spokesman said in a press briefing, they were MARKED classified, although they should have been declassified because they were call sheets and she had already called them. Your entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)... please follow closer the information and the words that are used here.
radical noodle
(8,000 posts)one would expect to see.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... but the lack of a classification marking is not a mitigiating factor.
It just added an extra requirements to those viewing it.
Something else they should have done and didn't. In the same way, I am responsible to report and deal with a Soldier who is talking about a sensitive topic on an unsecure system.
7962
(11,841 posts)Asked point blank about it, he answered "yes". But it was a small number.
Regardless, you're supposed to KNOW when you're sending out info what level of confidentiality the enclosed info carries. Just not marking it doesnt clear you of fault. Which is what Comey said yesterday & again today.
Now we're splitting hairs here on DU
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)... "markings" isn't good enough to rise to the level of CLEARLY MARKED classified.
You guys are using the MSM words
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)... lawyer said that's not good enough for a proseuction
7962
(11,841 posts)Marked or unmarked, it doesnt matter. Anyone at her level or her assistants SHOULD KNOW that the information contained was sensitive. Thats enough for punishment under the rules anyone working in government is taught.
Since youre DVRing it, check back at his statements around 1120am or so about not knowing what a classified marking is.
Just as egregious to me, is the statement under oath that all emails had been turned over when in fact they hadnt. But it is what it is. A week from now trump will have said or done something none of us believes ANYONE would do, and that will be the news of the day!!
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)uponit7771
(90,339 posts)... a sophisticated person would know about the (C) classified would indicated that it was classified.
We're narrowing it down to a couple of documents that even Comey is saying that people wouldn't know it was classified
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)... classified.
I wish he would've said this the other day
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)One would think that the TOP OFFICIAL would be someone who SHOULD know what it meant. But Whether she did or SHOULD know what a "C" meant or not, Anyone in her position is required to know the level of sensitivity of information contained in any communication & treat it as such. If you're not sure, always default to the more secure level. Anyone working in government gets this training. I've had it. Millions have had it.
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)... marked classified meaning a header on the top of the email saying classified they had some (c)'s in the body of the emails which still weren't the proper markings for classifiied.
Also, he said he questions the sophistication of the people in the depts in regards to how to treat classified data so you're holding her to a higher standard now than what Comey is holding people in the depts to... his statements on peoples sophistication is clear... he said at the beginning of the investigation he would've thought they were sophisticated but now he doesn't know.
I'm listening to his remarks relative to his statements in the presser and I'm gob smacked that he left all the other information about the level of sophistication the dept staffs had in regards to classified information and that NONE of the documents that he spoke of that had "markings" were even properly marked classified.
Finally the other 100 emails were deemed classified from the senders and had NO markings on them at all..
This was a witch hunt
haele
(12,655 posts)Working in the government, I've seen the roster for a department volleyball team marked For Official Use Only (FOUO)- a recognized official classified handling marking, probably because two of the players handled Secret classified materials and knowledge of when they wouldn't be on duty could be used to extrapolate movements or timing of activities.
For heaven's sakes, anyone can Google PowerPoint briefings on military systems that are still marked FOUO - which is a classified marking.
Haele
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)... the government and Clinton wasn't a sophisticated technical person.
lapucelle
(18,261 posts)But your concern is duly noted.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
markj757
(194 posts)But I would normally absolutely agree with your point, that Comey's job is to make recommendations based on the law which is what he did. And I would normally have a problem with his press conference as well, if not for Attorney General Lynch's private meeting with Bill Clinton, and her making the statement after that meeting that she would simply follow the recommendations of the FBI. So because of the special circumstances, I tend to give Comey the benefit of the doubt on that issue of how much information to divulge, but I can understand why others do not. I'm glad he gave me more information rather than less.
uponit7771
(90,339 posts).. in which the MSM is trumpeting
GaYellowDawg
(4,447 posts)How do the revelations by the NYT that only two emails were categorized classified, and a further clarification by the State Department that they were incorrectly categorized as classified, affect your viewpoint?
markj757
(194 posts)that should have been declassified. That's definitely a good thing for our national security. I think it reinforces the gist of what Hillary has been saying, is that she made a good faith attempt to protect classified information, and that's probably why she wasn't prosecuted. It just doesn't let her off the hook for her serious lapse in judgement, just like it wouldn't let a lower level State Dept employee off the hook, if they committed the same act with the same serious lapse in judgement.
GaYellowDawg
(4,447 posts)I also consider it to be a lapse in judgement, but I have a hard time thinking of it as a serious national security breach. And I don't think of it as a disqualifying lapse in judgement for election to the presidency. I guess that's a call that everyone has to make for themselves, though. But I was interested in hearing your followup opinion, and thanks for replying.
markj757
(194 posts)I also agree its not something that is a disqualifying lapse in judgement for election to the presidency. The reason this is an important issue that I feel passionately about, is that anyone here who has been in the military or worked as a civilian with a security clearance like I have, know that people careers can be ruined for this type of lapse in judgement because they can loose their security clearance. At a minimum, their security clearance most likely would have been immediately suspended once the investigation or probe began. It has nothing to do with being republican or democrat. It is a very serious offense when you are entrusted with the protection of classified information, and you make this type of mistake. And I just don't want us to sweep this under the rug, as Republican BS like the whole Benghazi issue. This is a serious lapse in judgement. Just like Bill Clinton's private meeting with AG Lynch was a serious lapse in judgement.
librechik
(30,674 posts)I'll bet. They didn't have any evidence, so they made some up. And they were incompetent at that.
It's what the FBI does.
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)SNIPPET:
While [Comey] did not identify any, he was evidently referring to two emails that one of Mrs. Clintons close aides, Monica R. Hanley, sent to prepare her for telephone calls with foreign leaders, according to a State Department official familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss classified information. One email, dated Aug. 2, 2012, noted that Kofi Annan, the former secretary general of the United Nations, was stepping down as special envoy trying to mediate the war in Syria. A second one, sent in April 2012, discussed Mrs. Clintons call to the newly inaugurated president of Malawi.
So it appears that the only two emails that were marked classified (or to be more precise bore markings indicating the presence of classified information) in Hillarys tens of thousands of emails were erroneously marked as such.
Ultimately, this entire email story comes down to the conclusion, from the New York Times, that Comey did not claim that Mrs. Clintons behavior had compromised any program or operation.
The Times quotes Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, as saying, There was no assertion of damage to national security because of this episode.
No assertion of damage and no evidence of damage.
Most importantly, no bad intent on Hillarys part. None whatsoever. Simply a mistake she regrets making. And a lot of bluster over something that could have happened but didnt.
UPDATE: Its officially over.
http://bluenationreview.com/revelation-of-classified-marking-error-supports-hillary-on-emails/
Rafale
(291 posts)Yes, I read the article. Things are getting really crazy.
wishstar
(5,269 posts)WASHINGTON (AP) The State Department says human error was responsible for a pair of Hillary Clinton emails the FBI identified as marked classified when they were sent.
Describing a somewhat opaque internal process, spokesman John Kirby says officials often mark "call sheets" at the confidential level when the secretary of state is considering whom he or she will call. Once the secretary decides to make the call, the call sheets would be no longer classified.
Kirby says the markings on the Clinton emails mentioned by FBI Director James Comey "were no longer necessary or appropriate" as Clinton already had decided to make the calls.
The call sheets prepare officials for diplomatic discussions. Kirby said Wednesday that the classification is designed to protect "the idea of the call itself."
Cass
(2,600 posts)He should be censured publicly for presenting inaccurate information and editorializing in his remarks.
He is no stranger to Clinton political controversy either, having served as deputy special counsel on the Senate Whitewater Committee and also having investigated the pardon by President Bill Clinton of donor Marc Rich. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/james-comey-fbi-hillary-clinton-decision/
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)except with Republicans and the Republican-controlled U.S. M$M.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Post removed
Jarqui
(10,125 posts)due to so many false and misleading stories (really propaganda), I'm inclined to believe the opposite of whatever they are spinning.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)As they are bastions of TRUTH for DU's 'She will be indicted' brigade.
<sarcasm>
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Jarqui
(10,125 posts)because you're making up stuff I didn't say.
Paul Ryan, Fox News and Breitbart are only worse because they support the GOP. In terms of reliability, I think FOX is handily more reliable than David Brock and I hate FOX News.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Democrats were right and Republicans/Bernie-or-Busters were dead-ass wrong about the indictment thing?
Btw, note that the fine 'progressives' at JPR are citing Judicial Watch and John "Box Turtle" Cornyn as their authorities why Hillary should be in jail these days. And you come here and complain about Democratic websites lacking credibility?
Jarqui
(10,125 posts)As for commenting on mainstream media, etc. I gave you my position here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1508437
Nothing that has happened has changed my view. Hillary broke the law. The FBI decided not to recommend criminal indictment. DOJ agreed with them. It's a little fuzzy how much someone has their thumb on that scale. Having said that, I'm not suggesting a big conspiracy theory. I think Comey and Lynch are pretty straight up.
Now, as I've said before, the GOP will examine perjury. As the perjury effort dries up, around the middle of the general election if Hillary is lucky, the Clinton Foundation attacks will heat up (some of those ads are already in the can) but I suspect the House will have hearings about it and that will drip, drip, drip throughout the election.
I'm also not sure the email scandal is over. Someone may pop copies of deleted emails as an October surprise.
If you think I take any delight in presenting those thoughts, you're wrong. We should be in discussions about the future. Instead, we're going to get into full blown mudslinging trying to make our candidate the better of two covered in mud. That risks the GOP getting the White House. I can't think of much good that will come of that. If the GOP hang on to the House & Senate, much of what we worked for under Obama may be lost. The whole thing is ugly and disheartening - polar opposite in some ways to 2008 for me.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)position.
As a matter of law you are delusionally wrong when you claim she broke the law. The FBI director said she didn't.
There is literally nothing you're arguing that isn't sourced from Breitbart etc
People actively trying to help Trump defeat Clinton belong at JPR not here.
Jarqui
(10,125 posts)First of all, I haven't followed Chaffetz. I can't tell you anything about him.
Issa is someone I dislike more than nearly everybody in Washington. I can't stand him. He's a poster boy for what is wrong with the GOP.
Predicting what the GOP will do is just providing an opinion for what I think they'll do next. Just because I provide that opinion, does not mean I support anything they do. And I don't. I never have.
Now I had also kicked around the notion of contempt of congress with the email deletions and lies.
As a matter of law you are delusionally wrong when you claim she broke the law.
Nope. I still feel she broke this law:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924
She had classified material stored on an unauthorized server in her home. It's against the law. Period. She can pretend she didn't know it and make it difficult to prove but she had to have known it. She lied her head off to avoid the trouble.
Now, whether they indict someone for what she did is another debate. There are many who still think she should be indicted.
We have a duty in democracy. You see something that seems off, you speak up. I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend stuff that is going on around me isn't going on. You want to do that ? Go for it. I think kicking this stuff around gives people a heads up.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)on the law.
Stamping your feet and pretending your hatred of Hillary Clinton is a matter of principle does not change that.
Your argument that he and Lynch declined to prosecute because of a thumb on the scale is Palinesque conspiracy babble.
Comey understands the law. You do not.
Your babbling about her facing perjury charges is also Fox News nonsense.
You and the Republicans are wrong.
Jarqui
(10,125 posts)to the US government on your unauthorized home computer about things like drone strikes, secret identities of people helping the US, etc.
Mix in a little politics and you get a very lax view of the law by director Comey.
I guarantee you the marines who are under orders to fight to the death to protect that very same information at embassies feel a little differently on the issue. They know what would happen to them if they got caught with information like that on their home computer - unknowingly, inadvertent or otherwise. It wouldn't be a free pass like Hillary is getting because it is against the law.
State trooper pulls a car over for speeding. Although the offender doesn't have much of an excuse, for whatever reason, the trooper settles for giving them a warning. No ticket. No court date. But the person speeding broke the law. That's how I see what happened here.
Hillary had intent. Her intent was to protect her private emails. She placed the security of her private emails ahead of the security of the United States.
It has nothing to do with hatred. Whether one likes a person or not doesn't change those facts.
Many media organizations have cited Hillary for lying on this. Associated Press. NY Times. WaPo gave her three Pinocchios. You can't blame FOX News for Hillary's lying. You can try to shoot whatever messenger you want. Again, it won't change the facts or the real story. Hillary lied about her emails which leaves the door ajar for the GOP to go after her for perjury. That's not my fault. Doesn't mean I like it. It's what is happening. If Hillary has told the truth, she has nothing to worry about but a lot in the media say she didn't tell the truth.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Jarqui
(10,125 posts)you can back up what you claim.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)regurgitating the content provided by The National Review and Breitbart.
That's not supporting an argument.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-wages-of-derp-are-derp-lots-of-it
So why the press coverage? I think it's a combination of reasons. The most irreducible and perhaps most significant is simply prestige reporter derp and general ignorance of the legal system. Second is journalists' perennial inability to resist a process story. And third, let's be honest, wingnut page views.
As I've said, the political calculus and potential political damage is a different matter altogether. There is little doubt that this whole on-going controversy, along with stuff in the background about the Clinton Foundation, have hurt Clinton badly on public estimations of her honesty and trustworthiness. But again, on the possibility of an indictment, most of this chatter is just plain ridiculous - a mix of ignorance and tendentiousness.
Those who actually understand law and stuff knew she wasn't going to be indicted. That's why we made fun of all the derp-peddlers who idiotically thought she would be.
Jarqui
(10,125 posts)you did not have access to the evidence against her.
Therefore, you made a guess - not a reasoned legal analysis of the evidence. We still haven't seen all of the evidence.
We know from all parties that she had classified material on her unauthorized home server and that is against the law. She broke the law. Those facts are beyond debate.
Response to Jarqui (Reply #117)
geek tragedy This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)FBI says this. PBO says that. HRC says this. NYTimes says that. State Dept says this.
This is so politicized by so many people that none seem credible to me.
None of it is changing how I vote.
Gene Debs
(582 posts)Ilsa
(61,695 posts)GaYellowDawg
(4,447 posts)Not only that, but conceptually stupid, implying that an ex-President almost 20 years out of office has enough influence to make the entire State Department join a conspiracy and cover for his spouse.
Stupid.
Useless.
Horseshit.
7962
(11,841 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Quote of the week: "Have you no decency?"
allan01
(1,950 posts)and they want to shut down the guv again? they ruined the economy in the area where i live as yo semite is a big draw for this county and the national forests around it . and yes i am sick and tired of her goddamed fucking emails , how about justice for the black men?
portlander23
(2,078 posts)No right wing sources, and no astroturf sources. This makes us look like we want to live in a left wing version of a Fox News bubble.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Gene Debs This message was self-deleted by its author.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)The markings aren't what makes a document classified.
7962
(11,841 posts)Your simple statement says it all. You must have had experience in government & had to go through the same training I did
Mr. Sparkle
(2,932 posts)I would like to see someone clear that up. Because if it was just those 2 emails, then she would be completely exonerated.
wishstar
(5,269 posts)AP Headline: "State Dept. says 2 Clinton emails were marked classified by mistake"
"WASHINGTON (AP) The State Department says human error was responsible for a pair of Hillary Clinton emails the FBI identified as marked classified when they were sent.
Describing a somewhat opaque internal process, spokesman John Kirby says officials often mark "call sheets" at the confidential level when the secretary of state is considering whom he or she will call. Once the secretary decides to make the call, the call sheets would be no longer classified.
Kirby says the markings on the Clinton emails mentioned by FBI Director James Comey "were no longer necessary or appropriate" as Clinton already had decided to make the calls.
The call sheets prepare officials for diplomatic discussions. Kirby said Wednesday that the classification is designed to protect "the idea of the call itself."
Mr. Sparkle
(2,932 posts)marked classified which is slightly ad odds with just 2 emails.
I feel we are getting closer to the truth and i have a feeling that this email scandal is going to turn out to be a nothing burger.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Gothmog
(145,252 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Last night, the guy substituting to Rachel Maddow wouldn't even let the Hillary surrogate speak. He kept interrupting her, and was relentless on the attacks on Hillary.
Comey's lies need to be clarified ASAP
lapfog_1
(29,205 posts)is that within the federal government security agencies (CIA, DOD, DOE, NSA, etc) nobody, but nobody, trusts the State Department. They assume that almost anything given to the State Department is going to be compromised.
markj757
(194 posts)I worked in two of the agencies mentioned in your post....and that simply is not true. There is a reason the Secretary of State who represents the State Dept is the top cabinet official in the line of Presidential succession after the VP and two Congressional office holders.
lapfog_1
(29,205 posts)but the rank and file of the diplomatic core are, generally, thought to be exposed.
And I worked at two of those agencies as well. And I ran cyber security for another (not security related) agency.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)to knock State down a notch or two.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Will they report all that State has to say? If they call Hillary back to show them up again? Will the media report All the info?
They are about to overreach again
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)So much Dumbassery. So much. This email bullshit has been a fail for the ages,
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Comey said that very few (turns out to be two?) were marked classified at the time she sent them. The State Department has debunked this.
But that is completely different than saying "She sent no emails that were classified at the time they were sent or received"
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.
Just because they weren't marked classified doesn't mean they weren't classified. I don't blame Hillary nearly to the extent that I blame her staff, who knowingly moved classified information down to an unclassified system.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)the "owning agency" and State doesn't feel it needs to classify it.
For example, Intelligence wants to claim "ownership" of all info regarding drones -- the topic of most of those "sensitive" emails. However, much info about our drones is freely available to anyone who reads European newspapers, and it's ludicrous for Intelligence to tell State it has to classify emails which pass along those newspaper accounts.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)doesn't make it correct.