Clinton Emailed Classified Information AFTER Leaving State Dept.

a reply to: butcherguy

Context: which emails are being discussed in the snippet of the conversation you're trying to troll on?

That will give you the answer.

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: Gryphon66

I guess your not keeping up....
Just ask the state department’s spokesman John Kirby , another protector of the Queen..... he is not the only one who seen them.

You guess? Is that another psychic prediction?

Perhaps you'll link to some evidence for your claim, rather than your Karnak routine?

I won't hold my breath.

It's not an issue because it wasn't classified.

Appears it is now. Again Comey stated it does not have to be marked to be classified. Comey stated she should have known how to handle classified info.

It's not an issue because no information was mishandled.

It is an issue as it is another example of classified info sent on a non secure server. So is it incompetence or more "carelessness"?

It's not an issue because the partisan attempt to make something out of nothing on these emails has caused far more damage to the security of the United States that Clinton's "private server" ever did.

This is only an issue because hillary either does not understand FOIA or she chose to destroy info covered by FOIA ;which is it?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

Context: which emails are being discussed in the snippet of the conversation you're trying to troll on?

That will give you the answer.

pdf

a reply to: bknapple32

It's only pointless because her supporters will forgive anything she does

a reply to: shooterbrody

Comey also stated that was his opinion, and further, that there wasn't any actionable wrong-doing, and that to do so would be a miscarriage of justice.

You, and others routinely, hear what you want to hear.

It's not incompetent, careless or mishandling. In fact, in light of the routine hacking of government email servers, it probably represents an effort on Mrs. Clinton's part to safeguard the information.

Clinton understands FOIA. I'll bet you she also understands the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy.

As do I.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

Context: which emails are being discussed in the snippet of the conversation you're trying to troll on?

That will give you the answer.

pdf

Wow.

Awesome.

Did that help you answer your pointless question?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Here is your evidence.... those emails will not be seen till she is long gone and buried.
You can thank the State Dept.

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: Gryphon66

Here is your evidence.... those emails will not be seen till she is long gone and buried.
You can thank the State Dept.

A picture of Hillary Clinton with her phone?

Yes, that does prove everything.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

Context: which emails are being discussed in the snippet of the conversation you're trying to troll on?

That will give you the answer.

pdf

Wow.

Awesome.

Did that help you answer your pointless question?

That the email was classified only since it was found does not answer the question.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: IAMTAT

It's not uncommon for people who were involved in a project to touch base even after it is no longer in their hands. She may have been clarifying points made verbally during negotiations in response to a query, for example. No crime in that.

Where are you at ? You dont do that even just leaving a business. Much less the State Department .

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

Context: which emails are being discussed in the snippet of the conversation you're trying to troll on?

That will give you the answer.

pdf

Wow.

Awesome.

Did that help you answer your pointless question?

That the email was classified only since it was found does not answer the question.

More obfustication.

You butted in and asked me a question about which emails shooterbrody and I were discussing. The context of our conversation was obvious. Now, you're trying to attach your pointless question to something I haven't addressed, but that you think "proves" something.

Your "PDF" has no context and no bearing on anything I was discussing. If you feel that it speaks to some larger issue ... send your "evidence" to the FBI.

See where it goes.

All you're doing here is trying to make something out of nothing, not to mention, misrepresent what I've stated.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Comey also stated that was his opinion, and further, that there wasn't any actionable wrong-doing, and that to do so would be miscarraige of justice.

So his opinion is ok when it was to not recommend charges but, not when he said she was careless?

So if it was not incompetent or careless or mishandling what did hillary apologize for? What was her "mistake"?


More relevant to the op do you have any info as to if this particular email was in the closed investigation?

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: IAMTAT

It's not uncommon for people who were involved in a project to touch base even after it is no longer in their hands. She may have been clarifying points made verbally during negotiations in response to a query, for example. No crime in that.

Where are you at ? You dont do that even just leaving a business. Much less the State Department .

So, in your ... mind ... Clinton was supposed to ignore any questions that the government asked her after she "left her job"?

She was supposed to act like she left employment at Wal*Mart and not as the third most important official in the Executive Branch?

The naivete on display here is stunning.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

Context: which emails are being discussed in the snippet of the conversation you're trying to troll on?

That will give you the answer.

pdf

Wow.

Awesome.

Did that help you answer your pointless question?

That the email was classified only since it was found does not answer the question.

More obfustication.

You butted in and asked me a question about which emails shooterbrody and I were discussing. The context of our conversation was obvious. Now, you're trying to attach your pointless question to something I haven't addressed, but that you think "proves" something.

Your "PDF" has no context and no bearing on anything I was discussing. If you feel that it speaks to some larger issue ... send your "evidence" to the FBI.

See where it goes.

All you're doing here is trying to make something out of nothing, not to mention, misrepresent what I've stated.

I will ask you a question.

See if you can answer it.

Concerning the email that I linked to:

Does it contain classified information?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

Comey also stated that was his opinion, and further, that there wasn't any actionable wrong-doing, and that to do so would be miscarraige of justice.

So his opinion is ok when it was to not recommend charges but, not when he said she was careless?

So if it was not incompetent or careless or mishandling what did hillary apologize for? What was her "mistake"?


More relevant to the op do you have any info as to if this particular email was in the closed investigation?

Comey's opinion is his opinion. One is based on his understanding of the law, one is based on supposition.

Ask Hillary what she considers her mistake to be; unlike you and others here, I don't pretend to read other people's minds.

I asked the OP if they had any information about the email they're crying about, they chose to be insulting.

Ask them. Apparently, they have no information beyond the Moonie Times article.

a reply to: butcherguy

I've answered all your questions that have meaning.

You're now desperately trying to spin your assinine question about what shooterbrody and I were discussing into something else.

I am not a specialist in currently classified materials. Are you?

Are you asking me for reasonable information that I or anyone else here (including you) actually has?

Or are you doing the equivalent of the Carnac routine as well?

(I'm betting on the latter.)

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: Gryphon66

Here is your evidence.... those emails will not be seen till she is long gone and buried.
You can thank the State Dept.

This post literally contained no evidence relevant to the OP or... anything really.

And you followed it up with an overreaction, exaggerated opinion-dressed-as-fact.

We can thank the State Dept. for your opinion?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Man, these threads have become exhausting. It's a never ending barrage of ignorance.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You answered the question.
Thanks.