Email Scandal: Hillary Clinton’s Last Defense Just Blew Up

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Indigo5

That is correct and it would spark a TK classification to be slapped on the email automatically. But we've been told that such things are classified at it's "birth".

How can that be if it was a NY Times article?

You lost me. Can you ask the question a different way and dumb it down for me?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Indigo5

That is correct and it would spark a TK classification to be slapped on the email automatically. But we've been told that such things are classified at it's "birth".

How can that be if it was a NY Times article?

Because the NY Times article was based on classified information they got from TK sources silly boy.


Goodness gracious, its been a great day messing with you fine folks, but now I must leave you to attend to business... have a great day and a better tomorrow.

As your future President Trump says.... "I love the poorly educated"

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5

Good luck in your venture for the truth, but you won't have to venture long...soon the FBI/DOJ will reveal their findings and life will go on, the world will not end... for most of us anyways... a very small group of people is about to find their way of life rudely interrupted by a dose of reality.

If I had to bet a million? Some minor players will get thumped for technicalities, but otherwise they will find no wrongdoing. This will be immediately followed by the far right going berserk.


If I was a conspiratorial fella...I'd explain that even the establishment GOP want Hillary over Trump...aka the devil you know vs. a madman. They might be actually working behind the scenes to claw back as much of the email attack plan as they can. Hell the CIA does not want Trump...the Military does not want him...

Be glad you are not one of the few the FBI is looking at right now.... compared to them, most of us are having a wonderful day!

Interesting view...The FBI might feel they have to at least show something for their investment of time and manpower...they might just thump on a couple of the folks that sent Hillary the most questionable material.

a reply to: Indigo5

No one knows what will happen.

All I know is this.....


IF a group of people fell under an FBI investigation into the mishandling of classified information, and IF one of the people in my group got handed an immunity deal... I would be very nervous and might try to reach out and make a deal for myself if possible.

IF I was the former boss of a group where every single one of my former high level players were being looked at for criminal charges related to mishandling of classified information and the FBI hasn't even talked to me about it yet.... I would be so scared I probably wouldn't be able to sleep.

But that's just me.

originally posted by: RickinVa



OMG...Chumlee got busted? Screw Hillary we got more important fish to fry!!!

Sad days...Do you think he will pawn his vintage sneaker collection for bail and lawyers fees? That would be a sad episode.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5

No one knows what will happen.

All I know is this.....


IF a group of people fell under an FBI investigation into the mishandling of classified information, and IF one of the people in my group got handed an immunity deal... I would be very nervous and might try to reach out and make a deal for myself if possible.

That presumes they are hiding guilt. I get what you are saying, but that presumes an existing criminal conspiracy.

IF I was the former boss of a group where every single one of my former high level players were being looked at for criminal charges related to mishandling of classified information and the FBI hasn't even talked to me about it yet.... I would be so scared I probably wouldn't be able to sleep.

You are thinking in terms of money laundering, drugs etc...This is politics...

You seem very emotionally invested in the outcome and repeatedly inferring certainty that the FBI is going to Cluster-eff Clinton..

I think the conclusion will be exactly the opposite...

Will be interested to see what reality says when they announce findings..

a reply to: zatara

People are not mostly against Hillary. She wouldn't be leading her party for nomination for President of the United States if that statement were even remotely true.
This particular community not withstanding. LOL.😺

a reply to: Indigo5

You are muddling it all up together... you can be innocent or guilty and have the trial determine something else.

You are basically directly quoting what I said... and blaming me for muddling it up.
I guess someone peed in your cornflakes this morning.
Try to be nice, what's it get you?
Whatever.

a reply to: RickinVa

Well thats not happening either.

a reply to: butcherguy

And before that they actually have to charge her with something.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

And before that they actually have to charge her with something.

Very good Sherlock.
We will arrange for a gold star on your civics paper.

a reply to: RickinVa

Because the NY Times article was based on classified information they got from TK sources silly boy.

How would you know? Officials never said which article it was or what it specifically contained.

It could have contained nothing classified whatsoever but since it pertained to a topic that falls under TK classification, aerial recon, it was classified. That in and of itself debunks your assertion that all TK information is derived from satellite imagery/transmission and that is was classified upon it's "birth".

As your future President Trump says.... "I love the poorly educated"

And apparently they love him as well.

a reply to: RickinVa

Stop now. You're the one lording your credentials about and saying others don't know what they are talking about.
Big bad govt man can dish it out in other words?

Your statement about me. ..beyond the pale.

a reply to: RickinVa

No but good point.She said it herself not gonna happen.
I'm still thinking it was a supportercthey may have been interviewing.

Don't you love auto correct.

That should be supporter they may have been interviewing.

a reply to: butcherguy


You're the one who said for her to be found guilty two things have to happen.
I'm just pointing out that one other thing has to happen and that one thing is pretty important.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5

You are muddling it all up together... you can be innocent or guilty and have the trial determine something else.

You are basically directly quoting what I said... and blaming me for muddling it up.
I guess someone peed in your cornflakes this morning.
Try to be nice, what's it get you?
Whatever.

My coffee did in fact suck this morning...If anyone peed in it, that would have been my wife and I don't discount the possibility given her opinion of me lately.

Apologies for the back and forth. We are on the same page here.

nevermind

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Sillyolme

Their reliance on the mistaken notion of 'retroactive classification' is what makes their statements moot.

Oh they're not mistaken. The exact order has even been posted for them, even having the specific paragraph identified and quoted for those unable to work out how to use a hyperlink.

No mistake involved whatsoever. Read into that what you will

originally posted by: introvert

It is false to say all TK information is classified upon "birth" and your assertion is flawed from the very beginning.

I've provided links to show that.

And the specific Executive Orders have been posted detailing that any originator of information who believes it may be classified, must treat it as classified until the relevant authority has been alerted and made a determination.

Admittedly, that's only a current EO published on a government website. As far as sources go, it's not quite as significant as Wikipedia.

originally posted by: Indigo5
...

(C) "she was the one who would have been responsible for marking it in the first place"...No...The Secretary of State is not the one responsible for reviewing material and marking it for classification.

Here is the question I think most reasonable people care about...Did she send any material that was marked classified by State at the time it was sent...vs. classified retroactively for general release to the public.

This is wrong and the specific legal basis for it being wrong has already been posted. And ignored. But definitely posted.

Clinton was the OCA - Original Classification Authority - for the Department of State. This meant that she was authorised to classify material from Top Secret down. She may not have handled many of the day to day decisions, but she was still at the top of the chain.

As OCA, she was obliged - specifically obliged by the wording of the EO relating to how classified material is to be handled - to ensure that material was properly classified as needed. If that information was (i) was in her possession, (ii) should have been classified, but (iii) she released it unclassified, then Clinton was specifically in breach of the protocols. Those breaches are capable of attracting a criminal penalty.

Even without this, if she believed that the material should have been classified, those same orders obliged her (and everyone else who deals with such material, in fact) to treat them as if they were classified until the relevant authority had made a decision about how to treat them.