Did anyone just watch the email discussion on MSNBC Live?

[Skwmom]

Jonathan Capehart was discussing the issue. One of the women interviewed said that it was the obligation of the person writing the email with classified info (and you would know what type of info should be classified) to mark the email as classified. But I think she said that it couldn't be marked/labeled as classified b/c of the type of private server/system that was being used.

Jonathan got all flustered and referred everyone to an article written by someone. I don't think she'll be a guest again. Someone on a REAL news show (not a member of MMM - aka manipulate the masses media) should book her for an interview.

On edit: Let me clarify. Jonathan seemed flustered/rattled b/c the negative info about Hillary got out. He quickly ended the interview and rattled off about the article people should read.

I like the guy, but I'm sure he wants to keep his job with the corporate media.

UPDATE: When you use an UNSECURED private server, information MARKED CLASSIFIED (secret, top secret) CANNOT be sent or received because that can only happen when a SECURED GOVERNMENT Server is used. So Clinton was right in saying she did not receive or send anything MARKED classified. However, you CAN send and receive classified information that is not marked. When you create an email that contains classified information, that email is classified UPON creation. However, it can't be properly marked as such (and secured) unless you are using a secured government server. This isn't brain surgery so why wasn't proper procedure followed?

[DURHAM D]

1. Jonathan did not handle the email thing well yesterday either.

He just doesn't get the basics. Howard Dean was on to school him but it didn't take.

I didn't see it today but it sounds like the woman is a creative liar.

[Skwmom]

2. Jonathan got the basics. He's a smart guy. But he seemed flustered b/c the woman actually got out

info that was negative to Hillary.

All of this - the corporate media hates Hillary is laughable. When Ed Shultz was fired, I thought Chris Matthews was going to have a meltdown in trying to so rabidly defend Hillary.

[DURHAM D]

4. I didn't say Jonathan hates Hillary.

I said he doesn't understand the basic issues. Even after Howard schooled him yesterday he was still confused (making incorrect assertions) about the inter-agency fight.

Are you claiming that Chris got Ed fired?

[Skwmom]

6. No, Ed got fired b/c he did not toe the corporate line. That sent a strong message to the other

talking heads and immediately thereafter, Chris Matthews acted insane trying to come to Hillary's defense. I guess he wants to keep his show.

The Clinton people constantly say the media is attacking Hillary, which is laughable. If they were after Hillary, her unfavorable rating would be a lot higher.

[moobu2]

11. Ed was campaining for Bernie Sanders but I dont think that's why he was let go.

He had a boring show nobody watched.

They've been attacking Hillary for months. All I ever see is negative stories about her. Corporate media and Republicans want Bernie Sanders to win the nomination because he would be easier to beat in the General.

[Skwmom]

13. If corporate media wanted Bernie to win, they would have around the clock positive Bernie coverage.

In regards to Bernie Sanders, for the most part it is:

Ignore him
or disparage him.

Ed had Bernie on his show and let him talk. If the Corporate Media wanted Bernie to win they would have not fired Ed.

[Gloria]

3. Meanwhile, the judge releases emails that are now "classified"

but weren't then, so who the hell knows which end is up?

If they're now "classified" then why are they released. If they are heavily redacted, which some are, then OK, but are they doing it to all of them? Unfortunately, I am not able to go through 7,000 emails....

And, ironically, we've got gov't systems being cyber attacked like crazy, yet the private server used by Clinton apparently was never hacked.

I saw most of the segment and am as confused as ever, but thinking it's all bullshit.

You know what really offends me? How Jebbie tried to screw the FL state library into deleting all the stuff from the 2000 election.

CRICKETS on that one from the GOP, etc etc.

[Skwmom]

5. I wasn't confused. It made perfect sense. If a SOS is writing an email, and including

sensitive info, they should classify the email and send it through a secured system. Since Hillary is such a "brilliant" woman I'm just stunned that as SOS she had NO idea what info should be classified. That would seem to be a requirement of the job and surely any "brilliant" woman would be able to do so. It is not brain surgery.

[Metric System]

8. Have you seen some of the things that have been retroactively classified? It's not as simple as you

seem to think.

[Skwmom]

9. Well, if a whole message is redacted, I think that is one that you could call a no brainer

Plus, from what I've heard there are certain TYPES of info that are naturally classified. Anyway, it would make sense to err on the side of caution where national security is involved. Hard to imagine how TOP SECRET info would not have been identified as classified in some way....

[Evergreen Emerald]

14. Some things are redacted for public release that are not classified.

People sure are quick to make shit up and then run with it.

[Skwmom]

15. I was looking at the FOIA exceptions.

Hmm... that even opens up more questions.

http://www.foiadvocates.com/exemptions.html

[Metric System]

7. The media LOVES Hillary! My sides hurt from laughing.

[AgingAmerican]

12. Maybe if she picked up her sleepwalking pace

...and spoke to groups larger than a PTA meeting, there would be something for the MSM to notice?

[AgingAmerican]

10. MSNBC is no longer watchable

Since Sanders announced, MSNBC has devolved into a quasi-right wing Trump obsessed tabloid 'news' station. Zero objectivity, bumbling and fumbling for Hillary.

[HappyPlace]

16. Agreed. NT