WP76 wrote:

martin wrote:

WP76 wrote:^^^ Read the FBI report and the Congressional testimony by the Director of the FBI; it's all there. I'm out.

how about you cite a source that says exactly what you seem to think you are writing about. Dip in, lay down some opinion, but skirt out? That's not how informed discussion works.

I wanted to be done with this discussion but, since you asked, here you go (from the FBI Director's James B. Coney's Congressional testimony on July 5, 2016)

"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."

Source: 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

This is what you came back with? This is basically a lot of fluff. More important info was lost in the KNOWN hack of government servers. There is no evidence of harm to U.S. Security from this Email witch hunt. NONE!!! This has been the most overhyped fake scandal. Just like most of the stuff they try to get Hillary on. It always ends in a big fat dud.

At his July 5 press conference, FBI Director James Comey said a “very small number” of emails sent and received by Hillary Clinton over her private server “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information” — contradicting Clinton’s claims that she “never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.”

But now we are learning more about those emails from Comey, who testified before the House Oversight Committee on July 7, and State Department spokesman John Kirby, who addressed these emails at press briefings on July 6 and 7:

Comey said three emails had “portion markings” on them indicating that they were classified, but they were not properly marked and therefore could have been missed by Clinton. He said the emails were marked as classified with the letter “C” in the body of the email.

Kirby said the State Department believes that at least two of the emails were mistakenly marked as confidential. He could not speak to the third email, saying ​the department didn’t have​ “all of the records and documents that the FBI used in their investigation.”

Comey told the committee he is “highly confident” that FBI investigators consulted with the State Department about the marked emails. But he said he did not know that the department believes that any of them were marked in error.

The issue is a bit complicated, but important, because it provides Clinton with a stronger defense against claims that she sent and received material that was marked as classified over her private server when she was secretary of state.

At a State Department briefing on July 6, Kirby addressed a report in the New York Times that Comey was “evidently referring to two emails that one of Mrs. Clinton’s close aides, Monica R. Hanley, sent to prepare her for telephone calls with foreign leaders.” The Times report was based on interviews with anonymous State Department officials.

New York Times, July 5: 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. Clinton’s call to the newly inaugurated president of Malawi.

Each was marked with a small notation, “(C),” indicating it contained information classified as “confidential.”

Other paragraphs in the note about Mr. Annan’s resignation were marked “(SBU),” for “sensitive but unclassified.” That designation appears in more than 1,000 of the 30,000 work-related emails that Mrs. Clinton turned over to the State Department, including some later “upgraded” to higher levels of classification. The official said that the notations were part of “a standard process” when preparing a phone call, which would be “confidential” until it occurred and then considered unclassified.

Kirby confirmed the Times report but then said it appears that in both instances the markings were the result of “human error” during the development of “call sheets,” which are memos that contain information that can be used when talking to foreign leaders. The department marks a portion of the call sheets as “confidential” — the lowest level of classified information — until the secretary makes a decision whether or not to call the foreign leaders. He explained that this is done to give the secretary time to make a decision and to avoid potential embarrassment if it turns out that the secretary decides not to call the foreign leader.

Kirby said based on the email traffic, it appears that Clinton had already made the decision to call then Malawi President Joyce Banda and Annan, so the “confidential” markings should have been removed when Hanley sent the emails. (He made his remarks at about the 12-minute mark.)

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

WP76 wrote:^^^ To anyone who's worked with classified material, I can tell you it's incredibly serious and hardly the "fluff" you seem to want to believe. As I stated earlier, such action--especially repeatedly--would have resulted in criminal conviction (at worst) or the loss of career for anyone else. It was her job to know about security classifications and to treat such documents in accordance with the law and federal statutes, just as it is the job of anyone who handles such documents.

All "Classified Material" is not created equal. There's a TON of over classification going on. Yes it CAN be a serious issue but details do matter. Nothing we're talking about here raises to the level of serious concern. It's just a dumb thing she did that is now being used to bash her over the head but in the end there's really nothing much to it. No one can point to some major Security Issue that resulted from this. Just tons of partisan speculation.

WP76 wrote:^^^ To anyone who's worked with classified material, I can tell you it's incredibly serious and hardly the "fluff" you seem to want to believe. As I stated earlier, such action--especially repeatedly--would have resulted in criminal conviction (at worst) or the loss of career for anyone else. It was her job to know about security classifications and to treat such documents in accordance with the law and federal statutes, just as it is the job of anyone who handles such documents.

Man I hate defending Hillary...

Ok..Doesn't "intent" have to be established before you can assess criminality??..The server was initially set up so that she could personally correspond with people outside of the state department, so those correspondence would not be part of government or public record. Obviously the account morphed into more than just that type of account. But highly sensitive information was not sent to that particulate email address. The documents labeled Classified or Confidential, etc which was boldly marked as a header, was sent to her state department email address. Thus the reason why criminality couldn't be established..Because of the 30k emails, only 100 or so had sensitive information in the body of the emails and just 3 was labeled with the small (c) on the side of the document..The share volume of emails alone versus the amount of sensitive emails establishes the account was not set up for that for sensitive governmental correspondence. What it establishes is that she and her people were careless to let sensitive information to be sent to that server. So 0.003% of the emails on that server were deemed sensitive...Criminality can't be established here...

I'm just so tired of the republican establishment latching on the the damn the emails for dear life, and it drowns of the substance of the campaigns...The uninformed aren't hearing the real issues...

I think the republicans are scheduled to have more hearings on emails in a few weeks...Waste of tax payer money...

WP76 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

WP76 wrote:^^^ To anyone who's worked with classified material, I can tell you it's incredibly serious and hardly the "fluff" you seem to want to believe. As I stated earlier, such action--especially repeatedly--would have resulted in criminal conviction (at worst) or the loss of career for anyone else. It was her job to know about security classifications and to treat such documents in accordance with the law and federal statutes, just as it is the job of anyone who handles such documents.

Man I hate defending Hillary...

Ok..Doesn't "intent" have to be established before you can assess criminality??..The server was initially set up so that she can personally correspond with people outside of the state department, so those correspondence would not be part of government or public record. Obviously the account morphed into more than just that type of account. But highly sensitive information was not sent to that particulate email address. The documents labeled Classified or Confidential, etc which was boldly marked as a header, was sent to her state department email address. Thus the reason why criminality couldn't be established..Because of the 30k emails, only 100 or so had sensitive information in the body of the emails and just 3 was labeled with the small (c) on the side of the document..The share volume of emails alone versus the amount of sensitive emails establishes the account was not set up for that for sensitive governmental correspondence. What it establishes is that she and her people were careless to let sensitive information to be sent to that server. So 0.003% of the emails on that server were deemed sensitive...Criminality can't be established here...

I'm just so tired of the republican establishment latching on the the damn the emails for dear life, and it drowns of the substance of the campaigns...The uninformed aren't hearing the real issues...

I think the republicans are scheduled to have more hearings on emails in a few weeks...Waste of tax payer money...

Actually, in most military and civil service cases, intent is largely irrelevant. I found it interesting that the FBI Director brought "intent" into the discussion. I hadn't considered it but, I suppose, has to be considered with such a high ranking official. Democrats will say it's because of fairness and republicans will say it's pure politics. Pick an argument based on your political leanings.

However, in the military/civil service world of classified information--if you're careless or sloppy or don't perform your due diligence (especially in more than one instance) it's "game over" for your career, if not worse. People who haven't had to deal routinely with classification mechanisms and regulatory safeguards simply cannot know the amount of effort that's involved.

[I truly am walking away from this issue to go back to talking about the Knicks. I've been guilty of engaging in the biggest waste of time on the planet which is debating a political topic on a sports message board. Seriously, when has anyone ever changed their mind or changed anyone else's mind as a result of these particular discussions? I'm thinking the answer is pretty close to "never."]

So you mean more African Americans aren't voting for Trump as a result of this thread???

I plan to vote for Hillary but I do not think she will win. The South and red necks will vote for him because they think Trump will put minority s in place. But you remember that Trump want his legacy will be for him to try to be the best president ever. He wont get there if he thinks racists will get him to support them but there is no hero in that He is using the right wing republican party.

Bonn1997 wrote:

WP76 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

WP76 wrote:^^^ To anyone who's worked with classified material, I can tell you it's incredibly serious and hardly the "fluff" you seem to want to believe. As I stated earlier, such action--especially repeatedly--would have resulted in criminal conviction (at worst) or the loss of career for anyone else. It was her job to know about security classifications and to treat such documents in accordance with the law and federal statutes, just as it is the job of anyone who handles such documents.

Man I hate defending Hillary...

Ok..Doesn't "intent" have to be established before you can assess criminality??..The server was initially set up so that she can personally correspond with people outside of the state department, so those correspondence would not be part of government or public record. Obviously the account morphed into more than just that type of account. But highly sensitive information was not sent to that particulate email address. The documents labeled Classified or Confidential, etc which was boldly marked as a header, was sent to her state department email address. Thus the reason why criminality couldn't be established..Because of the 30k emails, only 100 or so had sensitive information in the body of the emails and just 3 was labeled with the small (c) on the side of the document..The share volume of emails alone versus the amount of sensitive emails establishes the account was not set up for that for sensitive governmental correspondence. What it establishes is that she and her people were careless to let sensitive information to be sent to that server. So 0.003% of the emails on that server were deemed sensitive...Criminality can't be established here...

I'm just so tired of the republican establishment latching on the the damn the emails for dear life, and it drowns of the substance of the campaigns...The uninformed aren't hearing the real issues...

I think the republicans are scheduled to have more hearings on emails in a few weeks...Waste of tax payer money...

Actually, in most military and civil service cases, intent is largely irrelevant. I found it interesting that the FBI Director brought "intent" into the discussion. I hadn't considered it but, I suppose, has to be considered with such a high ranking official. Democrats will say it's because of fairness and republicans will say it's pure politics. Pick an argument based on your political leanings.

However, in the military/civil service world of classified information--if you're careless or sloppy or don't perform your due diligence (especially in more than one instance) it's "game over" for your career, if not worse. People who haven't had to deal routinely with classification mechanisms and regulatory safeguards simply cannot know the amount of effort that's involved.

[I truly am walking away from this issue to go back to talking about the Knicks. I've been guilty of engaging in the biggest waste of time on the planet which is debating a political topic on a sports message board. Seriously, when has anyone ever changed their mind or changed anyone else's mind as a result of these particular discussions? I'm thinking the answer is pretty close to "never."]

This is all just partisan hypocrisy. Is this worse than the Bush Administration having a private server and 22 million e-mails were missing?! Is it worse than lying us into a war?

Politics are impossible to discuss in this country. People generally pick their candidate for one reason or vote against the other for one reason. Abortion, gun control, gay marriage (or preventing it)... people pick the one thing that matter than they just drink the partisan koolaid on everything else.

holfresh wrote:

nixluva wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:You folks that watched the forum last night: how do you think Hillary did? Heard that 1/3rd of her time was spent on the email controversy. To BRIGGS original "where is Hillary" post — maybe if she wasn't hiding from press conferences, she wouldn't constantly have to address this now. Unforced errors, man.

I watched some recap videos from my usual lefty YouTube sources — looks like Matt Lauer is getting called out for not being very journalistic with lack of follow ups to low hanging fruit. Hopefully gets future moderators to up their game.

The format of the Forum was a bit to blame too. Lauer was very concerned about time and since Hillary was giving full in depth answers it ate into the time and he feared he wouldn't get to all of his questions. With Trump he was just talking nonsense and wasn't showing any depth of knowledge. He often didn't answer the question at all. Lauer let him get away with lame answers and lies. Moderators have to do a better job of pinning Trump down, cuz he squirms our of answering all the time.

Hillary may be flawed but at least she actually knows what she's talking about and you know she can do the job. We know she can negotiate with foreign leaders and understand the very serious issues. Her depth of knowledge is vast compared to Trump. Trump was cracking under the pressure last night and putting out word salads. When he did have a clear thought it was often frighteningly wrong.

Matt Lauer isn't good in this particular medium..Trump took advantage of him..Also Trump was able to listen to Hilary's questions an rebut once it was his turn for questioning..So clearly the evening didn't favor Hillary although I thought she had much more depth and command of the topics...

Lauer missed a lot of opportunities..

-With the audience of military personnel and Commander in chief/foreign policy..How could Lauer not ask about Trump's comments about John McCain being captured..

-When sexual harassment came up in the military..Lauer never asked about Roger Ailes advising his campaign who was accused of sexual harassment..

-Trump was hinting at contents of his classified briefings..Which didn't turn out to be true but unheard of..I have never seen that..

-Trump said Putin was a better leader than Obama..Lauer pointed out the bad things Putin has done..Trump said do you want me to tell you the stuff that Obama did, seemingly defending Putin accusing Obama of illegal activities which Lauer never followed up...

Good point about not bringing up the McCain quote. When his campaign survived that "I like people who weren't captured" we entered a new fun house mirror of politics. Issues that took down previous candidates like the Swift Boat Vets against Kerry or Dean's scream look like pattycake compared to that. I will never understand what about Trump let's him get away with that.

WP76 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

WP76 wrote:^^^ To anyone who's worked with classified material, I can tell you it's incredibly serious and hardly the "fluff" you seem to want to believe. As I stated earlier, such action--especially repeatedly--would have resulted in criminal conviction (at worst) or the loss of career for anyone else. It was her job to know about security classifications and to treat such documents in accordance with the law and federal statutes, just as it is the job of anyone who handles such documents.

Man I hate defending Hillary...

Ok..Doesn't "intent" have to be established before you can assess criminality??..The server was initially set up so that she can personally correspond with people outside of the state department, so those correspondence would not be part of government or public record. Obviously the account morphed into more than just that type of account. But highly sensitive information was not sent to that particulate email address. The documents labeled Classified or Confidential, etc which was boldly marked as a header, was sent to her state department email address. Thus the reason why criminality couldn't be established..Because of the 30k emails, only 100 or so had sensitive information in the body of the emails and just 3 was labeled with the small (c) on the side of the document..The share volume of emails alone versus the amount of sensitive emails establishes the account was not set up for that for sensitive governmental correspondence. What it establishes is that she and her people were careless to let sensitive information to be sent to that server. So 0.003% of the emails on that server were deemed sensitive...Criminality can't be established here...

I'm just so tired of the republican establishment latching on the the damn the emails for dear life, and it drowns of the substance of the campaigns...The uninformed aren't hearing the real issues...

I think the republicans are scheduled to have more hearings on emails in a few weeks...Waste of tax payer money...

Actually, in most military and civil service cases, intent is largely irrelevant. I found it interesting that the FBI Director brought "intent" into the discussion. I hadn't considered it but, I suppose, has to be considered with such a high ranking official. Democrats will say it's because of fairness and republicans will say it's pure politics. Pick an argument based on your political leanings.

However, in the military/civil service world of classified information--if you're careless or sloppy or don't perform your due diligence (especially in more than one instance) it's "game over" for your career, if not worse. People who haven't had to deal routinely with classification mechanisms and regulatory safeguards simply cannot know the amount of effort that's involved.

[I truly am walking away from this issue to go back to talking about the Knicks. I've been guilty of engaging in the biggest waste of time on the planet which is debating a political topic on a sports message board. Seriously, when has anyone ever changed their mind or changed anyone else's mind as a result of these particular discussions? I'm thinking the answer is pretty close to "never."]

For me, this is quite the shame. I've never thought the intent of a subject like the above was to change someone else's mind but rather to inform the best we can and then let the chips fall where they may. You offer a unique perspective, one that should be held at a high level and digested and remembered and questioned so that we - the rest of us - can be informed; I don't think any of us have handled classified material and can offer that perspective.

Democrats will say it's because of fairness and republicans will say it's pure politics. Pick an argument based on your political leanings.

I think the above is too broad a statement, or in the least it's too dumbed down. Hilary has been investigated, there are obviously a TON of nuances that the typical civilian won't know about, and there is an obvious distinction between how classified material is considered between what you have experienced and what other political civilians experience. Let's make a judgement after considering those facts.

It is also clear that from Colin Powell forward, other Secretary of States (and mostly likely a TON of others) used non Gov't email accounts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/08/these-61-words-dont-make-colin-powell-look-good-in-the-clinton-email-controversy/
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/colin-powell-defends-personal-email-227889