Thanks to Comey, most think HRC lied about not sending classfied data - what to do about that?

[Bill USA]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512253653#post14


Is anybody williing to fight disinformation and Big Lies so cheerfully abetted by the Corporate media sycophants of the GOP?

[MFM008]

1. She will have a chance to

go into that further. Something tells me it will come up in the debates.

[Thinkingabout]

2. The distrust and lies are RW products. This is what they are selling and we have

Recognize it for what it us. They can't tell the truth, it would show they are liars.

[Bill USA]

3. I'll take that as a "No".

[Doctor_J]

4. why do you consider a post consisting of a link to your own post with the exact same subject line

a "good read"?

[Bill USA]

6. on Good reads it will stay up on pg 1 longer, getting more views. GD: 2016 gets so many posts

trying to encourage people to post on web on this.

[elleng]

5. It's not 'thanks' to Comey,

he explained what he did and why. It's the media, and people who fail to pay close attention to events.

[Bill USA]

7. absolutely, the media is aiding and abetting GOP disinformation. Comey is not without blame

he kept saying their were emails with classified data in them. referring to the "c"s in the text of three emails. He knows, or sure as hell should know that the "classfied" header needs to be there to be considered classified.


I am trying to encourage people to post about this on more than just DU. the more we get the truth out there and criticize media for not reporting on this - the better.

[kristopher]

11. " the "classfied" header needs to be there to be considered classified." = False nt

[King_Klonopin]

8. He said he was recommending that the FBI not indict her

and then went on to indict her in his own court of personal opinion (unethical)
before a camera broadcasting on national cable TV.

His editorializing screwed her, and he knows it. That was the intention. They
knew she was not guilty of any of those accusations, but that doesn't stop
them from declaring guilt of some kind.

Trump has an aneurysm over Justice Ginsberg's comments and it makes
headlines. Comey's comments elicited yawns (except among people like us
here at DU)

Our political and electoral process is absolutely putrid.

[Bill USA]

10. I think most of all, the indictment should be of M$M who fear offending the GOP. In this case

They dutifully show Comey making his insinuations of wrongdoing, his statements that "there was classified information in Clinton's emails" but not showing Comey's answer to Cartwright's question about Classified Headers:


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/7/1546038/-Comey-tanks-key-GOP-talking-point-admits-classified-materials-were-not-properly-marked

"MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

JAMES COMEY:[font color="red"] No.[/font]

MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?

JAMES COMEY: Correct.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?

JAMES COMEY:[font color="red"] No. [/font]There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text,[font color="red"] but there was no header on the email or in the text.[/font]

Apparently, Mr. Comey has his own definition of "classified document/information" that does not require the "classified" header as does the Reg/Manual governing the transmitting classified information.


The result is millions of people have the idea that Clinton lied when she told Congress that she did not send or receive any emails marked a containing Classified information - as per the reg/manual.

By not giving the complete picture of what Comey was asked and his answers - Corporate media is feeding a Big Lie from the GOP. But without the Corporate media's PARTICIPATION IN THIS BIG LIE - it wouldn't be succeeding in bamboozling millions of voters.


Additionally, nobody in M$M has pointed out that in Comey's statement on the FBI recommendation, he said that NONE of the emails they examined had the Classified header on them.


https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. [font size="3"]Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received,..."

What the statement above means is that the emails in question did NOT have the Classified Header on them - otherwise it would not have been necessary to ask the 'owning agency' to "make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information".

M$M has not touched these statements by Comey because they show that CLINTON DID NOT LIE. But of course, drawing attention to these statements by Comey would not please the GOP.

I must admit that when I think of this sickening, duplicitous behavior of the GOP toadies in M$M and the threat they represent to our Democracy, I find myself fondly pondering the proclivities of Vlad the Impaler.

[kristopher]

12. You're confused.

If I read information in a document marked "Secret" it does not cease to be classified if I then turn around and send an email sans the "Secret" marking but containing the information in the body of the original doc.

So this paragraph you've written is simply incorrect.
"What the statement above means is that the emails in question did NOT have the Classified Header on them - otherwise it would not have been necessary to ask the 'owning agency' to "make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information".

[Bill USA]

13. always fun to see some typical internet expert's attempt at condescension, does it work for you? LOL

IF they had the classified header on them, the FBI would not need to ask the "owning agency" if they
contained classified information. The fact that they had to go to the owning agency to find out if there was classified information in them means that the classified header was not there.

I can't make it any simpler for you.

BTW, somebody should have asked Comey are they beginning investigations into how these emails were sent to Clinton without Classified Headers on them. I mean if Comey thinks the owning agency was not engaging in up-classification of them, then this should be investigated.

This is probably, a waste of my time, but check out the following excerpt:

Three facts that prove Clinton wasn't 'careless' with her emails
(emphases my own)

Third, Comey used the expression "extreme carelessness" [font size="+1"]because he said Clinton "should have known" that [font color="red"] more than 100 emails that were sent to her private server[/font] using nonsecure communications channels contained classified information, albeit[font color="red"] without any classification markings[/font][/font]. But what he did not say is that more than 300 State Department officials, including many longtime, nonpartisan career professionals and diplomats, also used the same nonclassified channels to send her these emails allegedly containing classified information.

If over 300 State professionals and experts didn't recognize classified information in the emails they sent to Clinton, and they used nonsecure channels to send them to her, then how can Clinton plausibly be accused, alone, of showing "extreme carelessness" because she "should have" known what 300-plus government professionals did not?

Note what Comey said when queried by Trey Gowdy

Gowdy, July 7: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think [font size="+1"]three [/font]of the documents.

NOTE that Comey identified THREE documents as marked with "portion markings". This would have been the time to say if 110 emails had the required Classified Info Headers on them. Note that He did NOT say 110 documents had the required Classfied information header on any of them. The "portion markings" he referred to were "c"s in various places in the text. This does NOT meet the required Classified header requirement.

Later Matt Cartwright asked Comey about the manual on how to transmit classified information:

Comey tanks key GOP talking point, admits classified materials were not 'properly marked'(emphases my own)

MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

JAMES COMEY: No. [...]

MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?

JAMES COMEY: Correct.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?

JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

I am not confused.

IF you can't understand the fairly straight-forward meaning of this I don't think I can help you.

[kristopher]

14. You continue to be wrong.

Last edited Sun Jul 24, 2016, 12:52 AM - Edit history (1)

My original remarks are accurate.
ETA: Be sure to reference your post #7 and my reply to it at post #11. It's the lynchpin of your reasoning and it is a false belief.

[Bill USA]

15. I recognize I don't know the Alternate Universe you & other Republicans prefer to the reality the

rest of us must make do with. I fully expect you to go on ad infinitum about that Alternate World you live in.

You are not bothered by my derision because any attention is better than being ignored.

Go on and enjoy yourself then.

[kristopher]

16. I don't see the basis for name calling...

Here is a link to a couple of posts I wrote months ago which explain my opinion on this matter in detail:

30. I read the NYT less carefully, but not wholly inaccurately.

He turned over the security logs to the FBI and told them (under threat of penalty for perjury?) that the logs were clean. While not definitive, the logs provide a good, first cut indication of the server's status.

So yes he was the source, but the information in the press seems to have some vetting by the FBI.

But I do get your point that his role is potentially very significant.

I know a lot of people here have worked with classified information so the general sense of what it's like is well known. I was in the loop for classified military intelligence information during the Iran hostage crisis. I was stationed overseas and the base had, in my last year there, turned on their military broadcast TV station.
I swear this is completely true.
It was the first time I'd seen US TV news coverage in several years and the first time I'd seen it under the influence of Turner's CNN. Anyway, it's the middle of crisis and I see I'm reading largely the same information in the classified intel as I'm watching on the TV. And it wasn't selective, either. You know how Breaking News is flashed? It was that kind of stuff just captured and spread through a system that was just secretive by nature. Think about the quantity too, at that time it was a lot of paper. Our paper shredder was the size of several dumpsters stacked up.
I guess what I'm saying is that you can, in fact, deal in two simultaneously operating spheres and the same information will legitimately be treated in completely different ways regarding its classified nature. My speculation is that she was very involved politically and professionally in the news cycle (just like we do here) but somewhere in the system someone was - then or later - tagging it as classified for some reason Clinton wouldn't have necessarily known anything about.
Anyway, that's what I hear when I hear her say it wasn't labeled classified.

Imagine if all of either of our writings on DU were examined against all the classified (and I really can't stress how much of everyday news reporting gets classified in some way) information in the system. I'd bet we'd both have more than she did because she would have been aware of the general flow of what was most sensitive and taken normal precautions when approaching boundaries.

I'm as Bernie as it gets, but I don't think the issue is criminal. I still don't think she speaks for me though. Not even a little bit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511441069#post30

Continued:

I don't think that's clear at all. For example....

...in my factually correct accounting of TV news airing undeniably "classified" information, were the news outlets guilty of mishandling classified information? If you hang your hat on freedom of the press in order to say "no" then what about people who were talking about the news on the street? Were they guilty of some sort of breach?


Of course they weren't because common sense tells you that the classification of information isn't a neat tidy affair where lines are drawn with clarity and precision.

Now maybe she did do something that isn't apparent in the available information. I think Hillary is very arrogant and that can certainly lead to the kind of judgement where a breach of security is opened. So I'm not prepared to exonerate her. I also don't like it at all that she is running without having cleared this up in an administrative fashion before the campaign started - she clearly is placing herself above the nation and the party. We see the same type of attitude in the $21M in speaking fees (read legal bribery) that she took knowing she was going to run for office.

But from what I can see of the server issue, there doesn't appear to be a crime involved.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511441069#post65

I hate that you are forcing me to defend Hillary, but not necessarily.

I see how you might think it's true, but the fact that something is classified isn't the end all be all of decision making.
Not knowing the specific circumstance I'll manufacture an example of how mission needs are always part of the judgement process.

Since this is State, let's say you are in possession of classified information that is crucial for Secretary Kerry in his negotiations with Iran and the nuclear enrichment deal. The information indicates that the Iranians have a site that no one has heretofore been aware of. You are in a location where there are no secure comm facilities.
What do you do?

You weigh the potential for harm that the public revelation of that classified information might cause against the potential for harm if Sec. Kerry doesn't receive it in a timely fashion.

If you decide that notification is most important, you then seek the most secure method of transmission that IS available - an nondescript email header is one thing you might do. So to me with 8 years of operational use of material classified at all levels, that is an indication that what was taking place was in accordance with this type of scenario.

That doesn't mean the Republicans won't have a field day with it. They are unquestionably going to be 1000X more dedicated to disbelieving a legitimate reason might exist than anyone on DU.

We must have Bernie as our nominee or we are going to get creamed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511441069#post67

[Bill USA]

18. personal attacks are not needed, especially when accusing me of something I didn't do. I did NOT

engage in "name calling" as you allege.

Name calling is abusive or insulting language referring to a person or group, a verbal abuse.

It's a childish and reprehensible thing to do. Your unfounded accusation was another attempt to cast me in an unflattering light, to denigrate me. So what you were accusing me of doing, you in fact, were guilty yourself. This is mean spirited, self serving and unacceptable behavior in honest discussions between grownups.

... It does, however, make for a good title line (or bumper sticker) making it appear as if you have a valid basis to accuse me of reprehensible behavior - when you did not.

What I did write:

I pointed out that your insistence on invoking your Alternate Universe, one not based on objective evidence and empirical data - which invariably ends up finding Hillary Clinton is the anti-Christ - in effect, places you with Republicans who are famous for indulging in that sort of thinking. This is a functional definition on my part. That is, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck .... it's probably a duck.

But this is a distinction which does not always conform to someone's political preferences. As everyone on this site knows, Bernie fans also embraced Magical Thinking re Hillary Clinton (possibly not ALL Bernie fans, but those who did, seemed to post more, and more offensively, than any who did not). But, I preferred to not mention that group, as the primary season is over and as Skinner advised, it's time to move beyond the alignments which held during that period. So I limited myself to referring to the Republicans. What's important to me is not the group but the manner of thinking - or ersatz "thinking".

Magical thinking is the attribution of causal or synchronistic relationships between actions and events which seemingly cannot be justified by reason and observation.

I was merely pointing out that your self indulgence of an Alternate Universe puts you in (functionally speaking) with a group well known for Magical Thinking.

BTW, making a false charge against someone of the very thing you in fact are doing is, dare I say it, a very Republican thing to do.

[Night Watchman]

9. First his Ass!

Preferably out of a submarine's missile tube.