PDA

View Full Version : Oh dear, when will it all end - more emails turn up



Rum_Pirate
09-26-2015, 07:15 AM
Now MORE Hillary Clinton emails surface – between her and disgraced general David Petraeus – after she swore she turned over 'all of them'

Hillary said Sunday on CBS that she had 'provided all of' her emails to the State Department, but new ones surfaced on Friday

Messages were with Gen. David Petraeus and were about personnel matters
Petraeus emails were first discovered by the Defense Department and begin when Clinton (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/hillary_clinton/index.html) began tenure as secretary of state in January 2009
But the emails she turned over to State don't begin until March, two months later
Republican Party slams Hillary and says she was 'under penalty perjury' when she claimed she had produced everything


By ASSOCIATED PRESS (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Associated+Press) and DAVID MARTOSKO, US POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=David+Martosko,+Us+Political+Editor+Fo r+Dailymail.com)
PUBLISHED: 15:26 EST, 25 September 2015 | UPDATED: 16:10 EST, 25 September 2015
The Obama administration has discovered a chain of emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/hillary_clinton/index.html) failed to turn over when she provided what she said was the full record of work-related correspondence as secretary of state, officials said Friday, adding to the growing questions related to the Democratic presidential front-runner's unusual usage of a private email account and server while in government.
The messages were exchanged with retired Gen. David Petraeus when he headed the military's U.S. Central Command, responsible for running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They began before Clinton entered office and continued into her first days at the State Department.
They largely pertained to personnel matters and don't appear to deal with highly classified material, officials said, but their existence challenges Clinton's claim that she has handed over the entirety of her work emails from the account.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249528/Now-Hillary-Clinton-emails-surface-disgraced-general-David-Petraeus-swore-turned-them.html#ixzz3mqWYMBVm

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 07:19 AM
I AM surprised that Bill would let her get caught being Hillary. So much for familial loyalty :)

CWSmith
09-26-2015, 07:26 AM
I saw this on the news. It's so unnecessary. She shoots herself in the foot and reloads!

Rich Jones
09-26-2015, 08:38 AM
Biden's looking better all the time....
I believe Hillary would make a good president if she can stop shooting herself in the foot. Bill was a great president and ruined his legacy by not being able to keep his pants zipped. Now Hillary is headed down the same path by making a really stupid decision.

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 09:14 AM
Hillary and the email thing will go down in history as the biggest waste of time, the biggest nontroversy ever.


Has anyone, ever, seen or even heard of an actual email, even just one, that is about something Hillary would hide? Has there ever been any indication that something Hillary is supposedly guilty of, that has or ever will, come up in an email. Don't you think that pillorying Hillary for using email—with absolutely zero indication, let alone evidence of any wrongdoing, is almost as stupid as inverstigating Benghazi one more time?

Hillary is guilty as hell—of using email. That's it. Guess what? It isn't a crime.

Dogwhistle.

didn't she pillory McCain? maybe what goes around comes around?

ljb5
09-26-2015, 09:20 AM
didn't she pillory McCain? maybe what goes around comes around?

Huh?

ljb5
09-26-2015, 09:25 AM
Let's see... fewer than ten emails, on a conversation originating before she was in office, none of them containing any classified information... and most of them were not even on her own server!

It sounds like you guys really don't know what you're talking about. You just start hyperventilating every time you hear the word "email" because you think that "email" is a synonym for "scandal."

So Hillary used email. Big whoop.

Honestly, the biggest thing that has been revealed in this whole kerfuffle is that you guy are really gullible, naive consumers of information. You let Breitbart and Murdoch lead you around by the nose and you never take a moment to reflect and say, "Wait.... what is this all about?"

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 09:30 AM
Hey, they gotta yell, "the sky is falling" about something.

Lew Barrett
09-26-2015, 09:37 AM
Exactly. What a sham.

Gerarddm
09-26-2015, 09:44 AM
There may be no there there, but the optics are bad and play into the meme of her being untrustworthy.

As the Romans knew, Caesar's wife must not just be pure, she must be perceived to be pure.

bobbys
09-26-2015, 10:00 AM
Biden's looking better all the time....
I believe Hillary would make a good president if she can stop shooting herself in the foot. Bill was a great president and ruined his legacy by not being able to keep his pants zipped. Now Hillary is headed down the same path by making a really stupid decision.
.

Biden is already interviewing campain people.

The rubber will meet the road if Obama unleashes the FBI..

Course my opinion is just that but I think JB has a much better chance then Hillary..

Thing is do are a whole lot of democrats..

Sept glen lol

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 10:09 AM
Thing is do are a whole lot of democrats..

Sept glen lol

Ah, the art of being cryptic, how nice, confusing but, nice bobbys!

John Smith
09-26-2015, 10:34 AM
I have no crystal ball. Unlike others who seem to KNOW where this will lead, I'll wait.

There is a possibility this issue will carry some weight. Might even be a real problem. We'll see.

If this is a real issue, the GOP may find themselves wishing they hadn't pursued all the previous non issues with such vigor. They're the boy who cried "Wolf!"

There are three things this can lead to. It may dent Hillary, but who knows how big a dent it will be. It may have no impact. It may help her.

Meanwhile one FACT seems in place. What she did was legal and broke no rules. Some will use it to question her judgment. Not sure how that works, as government servers have been hacked. Hers, far as I know, was not, so it may have been more secure than the alternative.

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-26-2015, 11:16 AM
What the congressional Republicans have unearthed is more about the mechanics of classification of state secrets and less about Hillary's e-mails. According to Friday's New York Times the FBI investigation has boiled down to which version of "classified" is the correct version for a given instance. One e-mail that was flagged contained information about North Korea's nuclear program. It was a boiled down message compiled by Mrs. Clinton's staff. Some in the intelligence community said it could only have come from the Talent -Keyhole sattelite network which is totally classified. Others knowledgeable in the ways of intelligence said the stuff was available from public or unclassified government sources. Then there is the question of who can be held responsible. Mrs' Clinton as Secretary of State got e-mails from a wide variety of sources some of whom were probably knowledgeable about classification and some who weren't. Trying to blame Mr's Clinton when she was only on the receiving end is certainly a stretch. With some 30,000 or more e-mails to peruse this investigation may outlast this congress and maybe the next.

bobbys
09-26-2015, 11:26 AM
Let's see... fewer than ten emails, on a conversation originating before she was in office, none of them containing any classified information... and most of them were not even on her own server!

It sounds like you guys really don't know what you're talking about. You just start hyperventilating every time you hear the word "email" because you think that "email" is a synonym for "scandal."

So Hillary used email. Big whoop.

Honestly, the biggest thing that has been revealed in this whole kerfuffle is that you guy are really gullible, naive consumers of information. You let Breitbart and Murdoch lead you around by the nose and you never take a moment to reflect and say, "Wait.... what is this all about?"
.

Gimmie a break , if it was Sarah Palin or a Conservitive they would be in jail by now.

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 11:30 AM
.

Gimmie a break , if it was Sarah Palin or a Conservitive they would be in jail by now. Thank heaven she hasn't figured out how to text yet!

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 11:31 AM
.

Gimmie a break , if it was Sarah Palin or a Conservitive they would be in jail by now.

it's the standard double standard... it's a good thing it wasn't 18 minutes of blank tape

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 11:34 AM
it's the standard double standard... it's a good thing it wasn't 18 minutes of blank tape I don't think Hillary is Nixon.

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 11:38 AM
I don't think Hillary is Nixon.

you would if she was the much hated republican

now, let us get back to your double standard

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 11:40 AM
you would if she was the much hated republican

now, let us get back to your double standard She's not hated, you love that word, she's entertaining!

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 11:40 AM
She's not hated, you love that word, she's entertaining!

there is obviously much hate in your corner

ccmanuals
09-26-2015, 11:42 AM
.

Gimmie a break , if it was Sarah Palin or a Conservitive they would be in jail by now.

Give me a break. The Bush administration "lost" millions of emails and the press didn't even bat an eye let alone send someone going to jail. Get real.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/juan-williams/media-reaction-george-w-bushs-email-controversy/

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 11:42 AM
If I'm into hate, I would join the GOP again.

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 11:44 AM
I'm sure you can find hate in both extremes.

in your case, you seem to have carried it with you when you changed sides

bobbys
09-26-2015, 11:46 AM
Give me a break. The Bush administration "lost" millions of emails and the press didn't even bat an eye let alone send someone going to jail. Get real.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/juan-williams/media-reaction-george-w-bushs-email-controversy/
.

It has to be a strange world to live in when Bush is the ever present bench mark .

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 11:47 AM
I'm sure you can find hate in both extremes.

in your case, you seem to have carried it with you when you changed sides If you say so. I do hate intolerance though.

ccmanuals
09-26-2015, 11:47 AM
.

It has to be a strange world to live in when Bush is the ever present bench mark .

Even stranger when Sarah Palin is your bench mark.

SullivanB
09-26-2015, 12:14 PM
It's a big mistake to believe that this email thing is of no or little consequence. It only adds to the already widely held perception that Clinton is untrustworthy. It also demonstrates that she's capable of exercising bad judgment on the most basic and important of national security matters, for her decision to use a private communications system outside official channels and whatever official security measures they offered was ill advised. It also reflects her willingness to exclusively utilize an "off the grid" system whereby the American government and people could never be assured that the information/documents she was creating and distributing could be retrieved. Intentionally or not, it tended to make her unaccountable or less accountable, something that is not tolerable in a free society.

That these emails keep turning up as the campaign drags on hurts the Party's chances and helps the opposition. It's that simple. It's damaging to the Party's chances, and it was brought on by Clinton herself. The best thing she has going for her in all this is the illegitimacy of the Republicans. It's their profound offensiveness and the thought of having them in power that causes otherwise politically astute and responsible Dems, including some at the highest levels, to ignore or minimize it all. And that is, as I said, a big mistake, another unforced error that puts the Party, and not just Clinton, in greater jeopardy.

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 12:32 PM
I agree in part, "trust worthiness" but, even C. Powell stated that he used non gov. emails as S of State too. In some cases what wasn't classified when sent, apparently has been classified by the currant standards today. Sounds like one cannot be accused of sending classified emails when one sent them at the time they were sent.

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 12:35 PM
It's a big mistake to believe that this email thing is of no or little consequence. It only adds to the already widely held perception that Clinton is untrustworthy. It also demonstrates that she's capable of exercising bad judgment on the most basic and important of national security matters, for her decision to use a private communications system outside official channels and whatever official security measures they offered was ill advised. It also reflects her willingness to exclusively utilize an "off the grid" system whereby the American government and people could never be assured that the information/documents she was creating and distributing could be retrieved. Intentionally or not, it tended to make her unaccountable or less accountable, something that is not tolerable in a free society.

That these emails keep turning up as the campaign drags on hurts the Party's chances and helps the opposition. It's that simple. It's damaging to the Party's chances, and it was brought on by Clinton herself. The best thing she has going for her in all this is the illegitimacy of the Republicans. It's their profound offensiveness and the thought of having them in power that causes otherwise politically astute and responsible Dems, including some at the highest levels, to ignore or minimize it all. And that is, as I said, a big mistake, another unforced error that puts the Party, and not just Clinton, in greater jeopardy.

thank you for something that most of us knew but may have lacked the ability to articulate... the annoying part is that some of her defenders DO have that ability and ignore the obvious

oznabrag
09-26-2015, 12:45 PM
It's a big mistake to believe that this email thing is of no or little consequence. It only adds to the already widely held perception that Clinton is untrustworthy. It also demonstrates that she's capable of exercising bad judgment on the most basic and important of national security matters, for her decision to use a private communications system outside official channels and whatever official security measures they offered was ill advised. It also reflects her willingness to exclusively utilize an "off the grid" system whereby the American government and people could never be assured that the information/documents she was creating and distributing could be retrieved. Intentionally or not, it tended to make her unaccountable or less accountable, something that is not tolerable in a free society.

That these emails keep turning up as the campaign drags on hurts the Party's chances and helps the opposition. It's that simple. It's damaging to the Party's chances, and it was brought on by Clinton herself. The best thing she has going for her in all this is the illegitimacy of the Republicans. It's their profound offensiveness and the thought of having them in power that causes otherwise politically astute and responsible Dems, including some at the highest levels, to ignore or minimize it all. And that is, as I said, a big mistake, another unforced error that puts the Party, and not just Clinton, in greater jeopardy.

Nah.

This is the classic 'bait' in the bait and switch.

The Rs are getting themselves into a lather over this, along with Benghazi, Whitewater, etc., etc., etc. and they will continue with their rabid, baseless poop-flinging until it's time for the Democratic National Convention and they realize that Hilly was never really in the race. She's just a red shirt, served up for them to spend all their energy on while Bernie, Liz and/or Joe actually win the Presidency.

LeeG
09-26-2015, 12:52 PM
Remember BENGHAZI!!

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 12:53 PM
Remember BENGHAZI!! How could we forget!:)

ccmanuals
09-26-2015, 12:55 PM
Nah.

This is the classic 'bait' in the bait and switch.

The Rs are getting themselves into a lather over this, along with Benghazi, Whitewater, etc., etc., etc. and they will continue with their rabid, baseless poop-flinging until it's time for the Democratic National Convention and they realize that Hilly was never really in the race. She's just a red shirt, served up for them to spend all their energy on while Bernie, Liz and/or Joe actually win the Presidency.

Yep, the reds have made lots of advances from their days of swiftboating in the art of the "smear."

John Smith
09-26-2015, 12:59 PM
.

Gimmie a break , if it was Sarah Palin or a Conservitive they would be in jail by now.

That's why Cheney and company are all in jail? If that's the best you've got, you better surrender.

John Smith
09-26-2015, 01:01 PM
it's the standard double standard... it's a good thing it wasn't 18 minutes of blank tape

The only double standard I see is from the GOP. They've shown NO problem with the outing of a CIA undercover operative, invading a nation that had done nothing to us, lying about ground zero air quality and denying medical treatment to those who got ill from working in that rubble.

They got their panties all yanked up over 4 dead in Benghazi. THAT'S a real double standard.

John Smith
09-26-2015, 01:02 PM
I'm sure you can find hate in both extremes.

in your case, you seem to have carried it with you when you changed sides

Extremes? Hate for Hillary is mainstream GOP.

John Smith
09-26-2015, 01:04 PM
It's a big mistake to believe that this email thing is of no or little consequence. It only adds to the already widely held perception that Clinton is untrustworthy. It also demonstrates that she's capable of exercising bad judgment on the most basic and important of national security matters, for her decision to use a private communications system outside official channels and whatever official security measures they offered was ill advised. It also reflects her willingness to exclusively utilize an "off the grid" system whereby the American government and people could never be assured that the information/documents she was creating and distributing could be retrieved. Intentionally or not, it tended to make her unaccountable or less accountable, something that is not tolerable in a free society.

That these emails keep turning up as the campaign drags on hurts the Party's chances and helps the opposition. It's that simple. It's damaging to the Party's chances, and it was brought on by Clinton herself. The best thing she has going for her in all this is the illegitimacy of the Republicans. It's their profound offensiveness and the thought of having them in power that causes otherwise politically astute and responsible Dems, including some at the highest levels, to ignore or minimize it all. And that is, as I said, a big mistake, another unforced error that puts the Party, and not just Clinton, in greater jeopardy.

My problem is the "untrustworthy" thing is pretty much the result of all those investigations. Given they all ended up to be without merit, the people we ought to deem untrustworthy are those who keep them going.

ljb5
09-26-2015, 01:04 PM
.

It has to be a strange world to live in when Bush is the ever present bench mark .

You're the one who invited the comparison to Republicans.

It's not our fault that you're totally ignorant of the situation.

The Bush administration was far more secretive, deleted many more emails, outed a CIA agent, failed to stop an attack on U.S. soil, lied about WMDs, invaded the wrong country, cost thousands of Americans' lives, spent trillions of dollars and lied abou all of it.

Hillary exchanged emails with coworkers and associates.

This is not a comparison that is going to work well for you. The more you struggle to make this comparison, the more it highlights how absurd your position is.

Right now, it seems you can't even articulate your position, other than being anti-Hillary. What's the point of this thread? Fewer than ten emails of no significance were recovered from an email account that wasn't even on her personal server? How is that a scandal?

bobbys
09-26-2015, 01:17 PM
You're the one who invited the comparison to Republicans.

It's not our fault that you're totally ignorant of the situation.

The Bush administration was far more secretive, deleted many more emails, outed a CIA agent, failed to stop an attack on U.S. soil, lied about WMDs, invaded the wrong country, cost thousands of Americans' lives, spent trillions of dollars and lied abou all of it.

Hillary exchanged emails with coworkers and associates.

This is not a comparison that is going to work well for you. The more you struggle to make this comparison, the more it highlights how absurd your position is.
.

If I accept Yer premise , it's as this.

No matter what hillary does that is wrong, libs will ignore it or point to Bush/CHENEY/war/oil as she is not as bad as those.

Every "debate" with a lib ends up in a strawman argumeant, look at bush.

One would ponder why Hillary cannot stand on her own merits and why she has been ordained sainthood by liberals..

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 01:21 PM
.

If I accept Yer premise , it's as this.

No matter what hillary does that is wrong, libs will ignore it or point to Bush/CHENEY/war/oil as she is not as bad as those.

Every "debate" with a lib ends up in a strawman argumeant, look at bush.

One would ponder why Hillary cannot stand on her own merits and why she has been ordained sainthood by liberals..Wrong? What or where has she been wrong as in illegal. Now, if you say that she's been stupid or not smart to do what she's accused of, I tend to agree.

ljb5
09-26-2015, 01:23 PM
.

If I accept Yer premise , it's as this.

No matter what hillary does that is wrong, libs will ignore it or point to Bush/CHENEY/war/oil as she is not as bad as those.

Every "debate" with a lib ends up in a strawman argumeant, look at bush.

One would ponder why Hillary cannot stand on her own merits and why she has been ordained sainthood by liberals..

Again: you're the one who invited the comparison to Bush and Cheney. Don't blame us if we took you up on it.

And if you think Hillary has done something wrong, you'll need to make that case. But this thread just says she exchanged fewer than ten emails of no significance on an email account that was not on her personal server, and before she became Secretary of State.

Normal use of email among coworkers and associates is not a crime.

And if you're trying to puff it up into a scandal, that says far more about you than it does about her or me or any of her supporters.

SullivanB
09-26-2015, 01:39 PM
Nah.

This is the classic 'bait' in the bait and switch.

The Rs are getting themselves into a lather over this, along with Benghazi, Whitewater, etc., etc., etc. and they will continue with their rabid, baseless poop-flinging until it's time for the Democratic National Convention and they realize that Hilly was never really in the race. She's just a red shirt, served up for them to spend all their energy on while Bernie, Liz and/or Joe actually win the Presidency.

An interesting theory and possibly a winning strategy, though I suspect it ain't so. Too Orwellian/Republican for the Dems, I think. Not saying I don't like it. :p

SullivanB
09-26-2015, 02:00 PM
My problem is the "untrustworthy" thing is pretty much the result of all those investigations. Given they all ended up to be without merit, the people we ought to deem untrustworthy are those who keep them going.

John,

I couldn't agree more that the way the R's have run the Benghazi thing has been a disgrace and an abuse of power, and that they've well earned our distrust as the result. Frankly, I think Benghazi has worked to her advantage. But to lay all or even most of Clinton's trustworthiness unfavorables on the R's is just plain inaccurate. If it were just the R's, I think she'd be in far better stead with the country. Most understand what's been happening there.

But the reputation problem is something that the Clintons, as a pair, have earned over the years. And Hillary's individual conduct, during and even before this campaign, has added largely to the problem. This email stuff, including how she's dealt with it all, is just part of the overall problem. I'm afraid that most people understand that, as well, and I think it's a serious problem for the Party.

LeeG
09-26-2015, 02:51 PM
She uses email!!

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 02:52 PM
Oh, my Mr. SB... you will soon be attacked for being from Texas... good luck

oznabrag
09-26-2015, 03:31 PM
Oh, my Mr. SB... you will soon be attacked for being from Texas... good luck

'Sa'ight, Sully.

I got yer back.

Osborne Russell
09-26-2015, 03:52 PM
Take her to court. Or STFU.

The whole deal is traceable to a foolish consistency hobgoblin of small minds erroneous syllogism type deal, as I see it.

For them, the lesson of Nixon is, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up; therefore prove a cover-up and you needn't prove or even suggest a crime.

Why there would be a cover-up of nothing doesn't seem to trouble them.

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 04:35 PM
same tired old arguments :)

CWSmith
09-26-2015, 04:41 PM
Hillary has never done anthing except be a person the Rs have wanted to smear.

That is largely true. The values of the Rs were made clear in the first few years of the (first :)) Clinton administration when the Rs went after their daughter with ugly comments about her not being pretty, etc.

However, there are 3 reasons why this story is not entirely trivial. First, she knew they were gunning for her and yet she did something stupid that gave them ammunition even if they are firing blanks. Second, it reveals that she, like her husband, seems to have an almost pathological inability to say "I made a mistake." People don't like that. Third, and this is the most serious, as Secretary of State she often handled material BEFORE it was reviewed and made secret. She knew and should have anticipated that she would get messages with information that would later be made secret. For this reason, she should have used an official State Department server so that sensitive material (albeit, not yet made secret) would not be stored in an insecure location. She should have shown better judgement. I'm not saying it's a reason not to vote for her, especially given what the GOP is offering, but it shows poor judgement.

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 04:42 PM
same tired old arguments :) The "same old arguments" are the same as the same old witch hunts.

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 04:52 PM
The "same old arguments" are the same as the same old witch hunts.

yes... same old witch hunts... I see you're coming around to a clearer line of thinking

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 04:54 PM
Yup, The reps are on the same old witch hunt. I've said that or others have for a while. I can't understand why the arguments would be any different? They've succeeded quite a few times in the past.

bobbys
09-26-2015, 04:54 PM
Again: you're the one who invited the comparison to Bush and Cheney. Don't blame us if we took you up on it.

And if you think Hillary has done something wrong, you'll need to make that case. But this thread just says she exchanged fewer than ten emails of no significance on an email account that was not on her personal server, and before she became Secretary of State.

Normal use of email among coworkers and associates is not a crime.

And if you're trying to puff it up into a scandal, that says far more about you than it does about her or me or any of her supporters..

The chi Coms, Russ knocks, North Koreans any kid in his PJs could hack into classified info from Hillarys server.

Her responce was stall, lie, blame the right wing, come up with a mocking , What wipe it with a cloth, a throw away sorry, , All this from the supposedly smartest woman in America, One should trust her to be President?.

It's only a matter of time before a song bird sings and is granted immunity, Obama throws her under the bus for Joe or she drops out for "heatlh reasons".

ccmanuals
09-26-2015, 05:33 PM
No. Doing a thing that others have done, for good reason, and not illegal or immoral or unethical or anything else, but to have to anticpate that the Rs would launch a tizzy over it? Bull. It is not a thing. It absolutely doesn't constitute bad judgement. It was okay then, it is okay now. Thge bulk of the State Department's business is not secret or classified. It is about entertaining the embassador, or negotiating mineral extraction, or hosting stuff for show, ceremonies, etc.

Your comment about things being classified after the fact is a thin stretch. It is absolutely common for people working in a field where classified material exists to understand, in the moment, what is classified and why .Not all State Department business is classified, or needs to be. There is not an arbitrary classification department that chooses what things Hillary might or might not get in an email.

What I remember about classificaion of sensitive material from when I was in the Air Force, working daily with classified material, is that material is classified according to it's effect on national security if it is not kept secret, or in other words, if it becomes known to anyone outside the secure milieu. The phrase for top secret material is 'the release of which may result in grave damage to the country.' It isn't arbitrary. If it is already public information, it won't be classified, obviously, like the fact that the embassy at Benghazi was attacked. What is classified is the fact of how many CIA or other clandestine operatives are on site, etc. If the NSA, or any of the service branches intelligence operations, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA, the FBI, etc. are working it, it probably is classified. The reality is that somewhat more data and information than really needs to be, is classified, as a function of an overabundance of caution regarding security. The vast majority of such information, or data, are classified correctly or even above what is needed. Every day, every shift, workers all around the globe use rubber stamps to mark paperwork that happens to be in a secure facility. It is stamped at the appropriate level, top secret, secret, or confidential. It also stamped as to who can see it, for instance, certain 'eyes only.'

Anything that is actually classified, is already classified and marked before it gets disseminated to places like the State Department. Once something is classified, it remains classified for years or decades, even if it's release is no longer significant. Or until someone requests information under the freedom of information act. And then it depends. Just because some private citizen activist files such a request doesn't mean the threat if it is released is necessarily over, and the request can be denied on that basis.

Alot of folks don't realize that classified emails are not even sent over unclassified networks. Their are secure gov't networks set up specifically for the transmission of classified email. It as already been determined by the FBI that she did not receive any emails marked classified on her personal server.

CWSmith
09-26-2015, 05:47 PM
No. Doing a thing that others have done, for good reason, and not illegal or immoral or unethical or anything else, but to have to anticpate that the Rs would launch a tizzy over it? Bull. It is not a thing. It absolutely doesn't constitute bad judgement. It was okay then, it is okay now. ...

Try that argument with your dentist or your surgeon. I'm sure you'll enjoy that old-fashioned medicine.

Everything you say seems wrong to me. Every State Department official is expected to use official servers. Don't you think there is a reason for this?

Please don't say nonsense statements like, "Not all State Department business is classified, or needs to be." I never said "all". One is already too much. It's the definition of being a professional and respecting the craft.

The Secretary of State handles material that is potentially secret long before it gets reviewed. She set a bad example for every employee of the State Department who is required to do better.

CWSmith
09-26-2015, 05:50 PM
Alot of folks don't realize that classified emails are not even sent over unclassified networks. Their are secure gov't networks set up specifically for the transmission of classified email. It as already been determined by the FBI that she did not receive any emails marked classified on her personal server.

Here is a hypothetical: A government leader tells her confidentially he might agree to this or that if it were done right, but his opposition must not know. It's not secret (officially), so she sends it over her personal server. Later, this is judged highly confidential and made secret because to betray that leader might lead to their downfall and ruin the chance of a negotiation. Information that was not then, but is now, secret exists on an unsecured server. Is it sufficient just to day "It was not secret at the time."?

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 06:06 PM
Here is a hypothetical: A government leader tells her confidentially he might agree to this or that if it were done right, but his opposition must not know. It's not secret (officially), so she sends it over her personal server. Later, this is judged highly confidential and made secret because to betray that leader might lead to their downfall and ruin the chance of a negotiation. Information that was not then, but is now, secret exists on an unsecured server. Is it sufficient just to day "It was not secret at the time."?

a sec of state who does not know the value of silence ain't much of a s of s

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 06:08 PM
Baloney. There is nothing to stop classified information from being emailed, tweeted or otherwise distributed insecurely, other than rules. . . which Hillary and her staff ignored.



Link please.

Then please provide proof her aides didn't email summaries of classified comms to her insecure private server.

The importance of Hillary's email boo-boos is not whether or not she broke any laws. The importance is in the appearance of dishonesty, which will continue to be reinforced right up to and through the primary process.

appearance of dishonesty? really? just the appearance?

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 06:22 PM
Donn, wouldn't she had been arrested if the FBI found her guilty if she had leaked classified material

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 06:33 PM
http://www.cristyli.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hillary-E-Mail-Controversy.jpg

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 06:39 PM
http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/10/2014/05/12/148402_600.jpg

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 06:57 PM
And now on to emails!

The truth is that House Republicans have wasted tens millions of dollars on Obamacare, Benghazi, and IRS investigations. They are doing this because they refuse to pass any legislation of substance, so this is their way of looking busy while pretending to do something.
The same Republicans who say that the nation can’t afford a jobs program for veterans and an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed are wasting tens of millions of dollars investigating a conspiracy with no evidence of wrongdoing by the White House. Tell Republicans that this must stop now.
House Republicans owe the American people $14 million, and it is time for them to shut up and pay up.

Rum_Pirate
09-26-2015, 07:13 PM
Yup, The reps are on the same old witch hunt. I've said that or others have for a while. I can't understand why the arguments would be any different? They've succeeded quite a few times in the past.


Hmm the reps are on the same old witch hunt, and here was I reading it was (from quote in OP) the :


. . . The Obama administration has discovered a chain of emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/hillary_clinton/index.html) failed to turn over when she provided what she said was the full record of work-related correspondence as secretary of state, officials said Friday

Rum_Pirate
09-26-2015, 07:14 PM
http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/10/2014/05/12/148402_600.jpg

Sad to see people belittling the loss of four lives, especially on this forum that the four were American lives.

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 07:17 PM
http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/10/2014/05/12/148402_600.jpg

why would she put those signs all over herself?

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 07:34 PM
Jeeeez!

http://wallpaperpassion.com/upload/2004/nuclear-blast-explosion-wallpaper.jpg

ljb5
09-26-2015, 07:46 PM
.

The chi Coms, Russ knocks, North Koreans any kid in his PJs could hack into classified info from Hillarys server.

If there had been any classified information, which apparently there was not. Remember, this thread is about fewer than 10 emails which were not considered classified or sensitive.

Try to keep that fact in mind.




Her responce was stall, lie, blame the right wing, come up with a mocking , What wipe it with a cloth....]

You are misinformed. She turned over the server and something like 55,000 emails.

That's probably more emails than any other Secretary of State in history.

If she'd been a Republican, she would have refused to turn any over.... And you'd love it.

ljb5
09-26-2015, 07:57 PM
it just occurred to me that this whole issue is just one big misunderstanding.

After almost 30 years, our Republican friends are finally upset about the person who deleted emails, lied to Congress and armed Iran.

It's just that, in all their confusion, they got mixed up between Hillary Clinton and Ollie North.

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 08:00 PM
Now that's actually funny!

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 08:46 PM
Yup, sure, I'll give them each 50' when they jump off a 60' building.

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 08:58 PM
I certainly would not like him to usurp that exalted position from you. |;)

Oh, my... :)

pipefitter
09-26-2015, 09:58 PM
You would think the Democrats would be so much better at this by now.

Please. . . . no more Clintons or Bushes.

ShagRock
09-27-2015, 03:30 AM
Hillary is boring, her e-mails likely follow suit, and this thread is more boring than the whole lot put together.

slug
09-27-2015, 04:37 AM
Clinton will never be able to mount the throne

she was sucked into a cash vortex. She cant escape.

Emails are insignificant .

http://s13.postimg.org/tsb2crcef/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/go5i02kcj/full/)
subir imagenes gratis (http://postimage.org/index.php?lang=spanish)

Phillip Allen
09-27-2015, 07:18 AM
Hillary is boring, her e-mails likely follow suit, and this thread is more boring than the whole lot put together.

so, how are you enjoying the party? :)

John Smith
09-27-2015, 07:21 AM
.

If I accept Yer premise , it's as this.

No matter what hillary does that is wrong, libs will ignore it or point to Bush/CHENEY/war/oil as she is not as bad as those.

Every "debate" with a lib ends up in a strawman argumeant, look at bush.

One would ponder why Hillary cannot stand on her own merits and why she has been ordained sainthood by liberals..

That's an extremely biased view. The problem I have, speaking for myself, is those who got so outraged at four deaths in Benghazi, but were not in the least outraged at the many deaths G.W. caused, have no credibility.

John Smith
09-27-2015, 07:27 AM
John,

I couldn't agree more that the way the R's have run the Benghazi thing has been a disgrace and an abuse of power, and that they've well earned our distrust as the result. Frankly, I think Benghazi has worked to her advantage. But to lay all or even most of Clinton's trustworthiness unfavorables on the R's is just plain inaccurate. If it were just the R's, I think she'd be in far better stead with the country. Most understand what's been happening there.

But the reputation problem is something that the Clintons, as a pair, have earned over the years. And Hillary's individual conduct, during and even before this campaign, has added largely to the problem. This email stuff, including how she's dealt with it all, is just part of the overall problem. I'm afraid that most people understand that, as well, and I think it's a serious problem for the Party.

And I disagree. Bill was also cleared by Starr on all but the Monica thing. Pay attention, this is complex.

The Paula Jones' attorneys gave the court a definition of 'sexual relations". The judge accepted it and gave it to Clinton. This is the definition he had to work from. IT DID NOT INCLUDE RECEIVING ORAL SEX. So when he was asked if he had sexual relations with Monica, under that definition, he had not, so "no" was the honest answer.

Here's where it gets more complex: If those attorneys only mission was their client, they would have simply asked Clinton if he had received oral sex from Miss Lewensky. If he had answered "yes" it would have served their purpose, but would have destroyed Starr's mission. If he had answered "no", they had the blue dress to prove he lied. Trouble is, they were doing Starr's work for him.

John Smith
09-27-2015, 07:30 AM
That is largely true. The values of the Rs were made clear in the first few years of the (first :)) Clinton administration when the Rs went after their daughter with ugly comments about her not being pretty, etc.

However, there are 3 reasons why this story is not entirely trivial. First, she knew they were gunning for her and yet she did something stupid that gave them ammunition even if they are firing blanks. Second, it reveals that she, like her husband, seems to have an almost pathological inability to say "I made a mistake." People don't like that. Third, and this is the most serious, as Secretary of State she often handled material BEFORE it was reviewed and made secret. She knew and should have anticipated that she would get messages with information that would later be made secret. For this reason, she should have used an official State Department server so that sensitive material (albeit, not yet made secret) would not be stored in an insecure location. She should have shown better judgement. I'm not saying it's a reason not to vote for her, especially given what the GOP is offering, but it shows poor judgement.

That's an argument with some merit. However, since what she did was done by others, I suspect if she used the official server, she'd be taking heat for that. "If it was good enough for........it should have been good enough for her. Something of that nature.

John Smith
09-27-2015, 07:32 AM
It will be interesting when she testifies next month. If this investigation comes to a screeching halt, how will that play. Will this then be viewed as a clever trap for the GOP to fall into?

oznabrag
09-27-2015, 10:26 AM
It will be interesting when she testifies next month. If this investigation comes to a screeching halt, how will that play. Will this then be viewed as a clever trap for the GOP to fall into?

The PHBP (Pitiful, Has Been Party) is already in the trap. They just haven't eaten all the bait, yet.

LeeG
09-27-2015, 10:32 AM
I can feel RP's distress

SullivanB
09-27-2015, 12:05 PM
And I disagree. Bill was also cleared by Starr on all but the Monica thing. Pay attention, this is complex.

The Paula Jones' attorneys gave the court a definition of 'sexual relations". The judge accepted it and gave it to Clinton. This is the definition he had to work from. IT DID NOT INCLUDE RECEIVING ORAL SEX. So when he was asked if he had sexual relations with Monica, under that definition, he had not, so "no" was the honest answer.

Here's where it gets more complex: If those attorneys only mission was their client, they would have simply asked Clinton if he had received oral sex from Miss Lewensky. If he had answered "yes" it would have served their purpose, but would have destroyed Starr's mission. If he had answered "no", they had the blue dress to prove he lied. Trouble is, they were doing Starr's work for him.

I don't think we need to go back to that period to deal with the reputation and trustworthiness questions. We'll likely hear more of this before the convention but if Clinton is the nominee, the money machine that Hill and Bill have created and run, especially as it connects with her time and tenure as Secretary of State, will be front and center and constantly in the news. We'll be reading about all those spectacular speeches given, the notably more spectacular fees they were paid, and who was paying them that kind of money for an hour of their time. Even more interesting to the American people (and it will get their attention) will be all that speculation as to why in the world those foreign powers and corporations and other big money folks were so keen on paying that kind of money to the Clintons and/or the Clinton foundation for essentially nothing of real value in return.

Then there will be all those emails between Bill and his representatives, and the State Department while Hill was running the show there. They do exist and some of them are out there already. It'll give you some idea of what the American people will be constantly seeing and hearing and thinking about, going into the election. Some of that stuff might even pop up in this current email thing. Many still wonder why it was that Clinton felt the need to wipe her server with that towel, when so many were so interested in what was there.

What it's going to produce in Washington and around the country is, at the very least, a really bad smell. There's this thing called "conflict of interests" that manages to trip up so many of our public officials. And there's this thing called "the appearance of a conflict of interests" that is best avoided for good reason. Even just the appearance of a conflict might be enough to turn the public off. If Clinton is the nominee, we'll be bombarded with the interplay between the Clinton money making machine and our government aka the State Department. Yes, it may be the Republicans constantly beating the bushes (the press will be there, as well), but the facts will have been created by the Clintons themselves.It sure ain't gonna help her, or the Dems, in the "trustworthy department".

There are a million reasons to stick up for Hillary when it comes to the Republicans. But considering the total package that is Hillary Clinton, I continue to feel the her candidacy will have a net negative impact on the Party's chances to stay in the White House and to maintain at least some semblance of sanity in our government. Trustworthiness and reputation are real issues and I fear that they'll be real problems for Clinton.

ljb5
09-27-2015, 12:44 PM
It's a sad commentary on the American political system that we are told we must never question why a corporation or special interest group contributes to a PAC, but we must question why they donate to a charity engaged in humanitarian relief in an impoverished country after a natural disaster.

The Clintons do not derive any personal income from the charity that bears their name. Indeed, they donate quite a lot to it in the form of speaker fees and such.

They do, of course, derive some intangible benefit in the form of name recognition and notoriety for their good works, but since when is it wrong for a person to be recognized for good work they actually did?

The Clinton Family Foundation is a charity. since when is that a scandal?

Everyone has interests they pursue in their spare time. Jimmy Carter builds houses, Dick Cheney kills hundreds of birds and shoots the occasional lawyer, the Clintons raise money to rebuild Haiti.

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 12:48 PM
ljb, when the repubnuts think it is!:)

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2015, 02:13 PM
I can feel RP's distress


. . . to the full extent of it? :ycool: