Sidebar

Hillary's E-Mail Problem

M

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Tidewater said:
Of course, but when dealing with the Clinton's one must parse words carefully.
I have never received a document marked "Classified." I have received (on authorized systems) lots of classified documents.
Click to expand...
Marking emails is kind of tricky. One is SUPPOSED to put a max classification string in text in the subject, then above, and below the full text if I remember correctly. It is not like the only things marked with the classification are attachments that have something like a stamp, pulled from some document storage.

Let's just say she is as completely clueless as she wants us to believe. If that is the case there are a instances where someone is guilty of not marking the messages properly, mishandling classified information. She is throwing them under the bus.
 
ValuJet

ValuJet

Moderator
Sep 28, 2000
22,626
19
0
So when Shrillary says "I never sent or received e-mails that were marked 'Classified'", when is someone going to challenge her with "Did you ever send or receive documents that were marked "Secret", "Top Secret" or "Confidential?"

Didn't the media and pre-screened questioners at her Town Hall events learn anything from Monica and Bill?
 
A

AV8N

1st Team
Sep 18, 2013
751
0
35
Not only is classified information required to be marked with its classification level in a certain way, it also has to stay on the network that is intended for that classification level. So an email containing Secret info should never make it onto a non-secure network intended for Unclassified data - least of all a private server in someone's home.
There have been some allegations that she had staffers send files to her private email that were on a secure network because they contained classified material. The staffers entered the data but not the headers into non-secure emails sent to her private account. That's the kinda stuff that gets regular Joes sent to prison for a very long time.
I can see where a Secretary of State may deal with information real-time that, when the right people stop to look at it later they realize its disclosure could harm national security and therefore they determine it should be classified. But even unclassified data can be sensitive, hence the need to keep it on a state department server.
 
M

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
ValuJet said:
So when Shrillary says "I never sent or received e-mails that were marked 'Classified'", when is someone going to challenge her with "Did you ever send or receive documents that were marked "Secret", "Top Secret" or "Confidential?"

Didn't the media and pre-screened questioners at her Town Hall events learn anything from Monica and Bill?
Click to expand...
The same media that didn't call her on her snide "Wipe? You mean like with a cloth?" when asking about drive security?

I know we are rehashing some of the same stuff already covered in this thread At some point the FBI is going to do something. With what is public they just about have to for no other reason than appearances. I would be a little worried if I was a Clinton staffer at the time, even if my name was Huma Abedin.
 
Gr8hope

Gr8hope

All-American
Nov 10, 2010
3,408
1
60

Hillary's email scandal now potentially a matter of high treason

"It was not long ago that reports surfaced about Hillary's informal intel network and the Clinton tactic of securing patronage jobs in the intelligence community for promoting their own interests. This is why the intelligence source in the Fox News report said, "The bureau [FBI] does not waive its primacy in espionage cases."

The FBI appears to have moved from a criminal investigation into an espionage investigation."

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...telligence_and_the_great_uranium_follies.html

 
ValuJet

ValuJet

Moderator
Sep 28, 2000
22,626
19
0
Gr8hope said:

Hillary's email scandal now potentially a matter of high treason

"It was not long ago that reports surfaced about Hillary's informal intel network and the Clinton tactic of securing patronage jobs in the intelligence community for promoting their own interests. This is why the intelligence source in the Fox News report said, "The bureau [FBI] does not waive its primacy in espionage cases."

The FBI appears to have moved from a criminal investigation into an espionage investigation."

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...telligence_and_the_great_uranium_follies.html
Click to expand...
I always just assumed Shrillary kept everything on her private server because her duties as Sec of State were intermingled with her shakedowns for donations to the Clinton Family Foundation. I haven't heard much about that, though, or maybe it was but it's not on the front burner like the other stuff.
 
M

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
ValuJet said:
I always just assumed Shrillary kept everything on her private server because her duties as Sec of State were intermingled with her shakedowns for donations to the Clinton Family Foundation. I haven't heard much about that, though, or maybe it was but it's not on the front burner like the other stuff.
Click to expand...
My personal opinion is that she purposefully wants to keep as much off the public record as she can. She saw from a front row seat in the Nixon impeachment what happens when there is any kind of record. IMO she would much rather do all of her communicating in person so there is no way there is a trail. Her supposed joke about Instagram may not be far from her actual feelings.
 
Bama Reb

Bama Reb

Suspended
Nov 2, 2005
14,446
0
0
On the lake and in the woods, AL
ValuJet said:
I always just assumed Shrillary kept everything on her private server because her duties as Sec of State were intermingled with her shakedowns for donations to the Clinton Family Foundation. I haven't heard much about that, though, or maybe it was but it's not on the front burner like the other stuff.
Click to expand...
And of course she keeps the two separate.
 
M

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
crimsonaudio said:
This should be enough to automatically disqualify her for the presidency, imo.
Click to expand...
Yup, like I said earlier, pleading ignorance IMO just looks worse. Even if we take EVERYTHING she has said on the subject at her word (I admit with her that is difficult for me), IMO it is not all that difficult to tell what information should be classified. If she couldn't tell, or could and didn't do anything about it that's a pretty big hit on being qualified for any high level office much less our President.
 
Jon

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,648
12,574
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
mittman said:
Yup, like I said earlier, pleading ignorance IMO just looks worse. Even if we take EVERYTHING she has said on the subject at her word (I admit with her that is difficult for me), IMO it is not all that difficult to tell what information should be classified. If she couldn't tell, or could and didn't do anything about it that's a pretty big hit on being qualified for any high level office much less our President.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with this line of thinking
 
seebell

seebell

Hall of Fame
Mar 12, 2012
11,919
5,105
187
Gurley, Al
TIDE-HSV said:
It's interesting that the government now says those emails contained no classified material at the time they were sent but, in retrospect, have been determined to contain top secret material. Weird...
Click to expand...
You are right. None of these emails were classified at the time. They were classified retroactively. After they were requested by Congress I believe. The FBI has said they are not investigating Clinton but rather whether or not some one hacked her server. Sorry fellas.
 
Tide1986

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
seebell said:
You are right. None of these emails were classified at the time. They were classified retroactively. After they were requested by Congress I believe. The FBI has said they are not investigating Clinton but rather whether or not some one hacked her server. Sorry fellas.
Click to expand...
So, she should not be held accountable for her ability, or lack thereof, to discern what information is likely confidential?
 
Last edited:
ValuJet

ValuJet

Moderator
Sep 28, 2000
22,626
19
0
seebell said:
You are right. None of these emails were classified at the time. They were classified retroactively. After they were requested by Congress I believe. The FBI has said they are not investigating Clinton but rather whether or not some one hacked her server. Sorry fellas.
Click to expand...
It takes 150 agents to determine that? Why is the State Departnent dragging its feet in releasing the (reportedly) most damning e-mails until after the first few primary elections? I believe forensics tests on the server would expose if there were hacks to it. And it wouldn't take this long.
 
M

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
seebell said:
You are right. None of these emails were classified at the time. They were classified retroactively. After they were requested by Congress I believe. The FBI has said they are not investigating Clinton but rather whether or not some one hacked her server. Sorry fellas.
Click to expand...
So far the ONLY person that I have heard say this was the White House press secretary. There are a lot of people wondering where he got that from, because they are not hearing the same things. He may be correct, but it appears to be more like the FBI is not investigating her specifically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a> <br /> <!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \--> <p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.

Top Bottom