Comey leaked "seven memos, four marked classified at the 'SECRET' or 'CONFIDENTIAL' levels.'

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Your meme is a lie. There is a HUGE difference between the classifications of "secret" and "classified". Your source merely says that 4 of them were secret or classified; meanwhile your #ty meme says that all four are classified.

Seriously, this isn't Facebook. Stop with the memes.

What does the meme matter? Does it negate Comey broke the law? Did the meme trigger you?

You shouldn’t be so touchy... not like you’re going to prison with them, are you?

Idiots before you used the race card every time people disagreed with them..
Now people like yourself, instead of race card, use the "you are just a snowflake", "triggered", "butthurt" card every time someone exposes your stupidity or questions the crap you post.
Hilarious.

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Well it did seem like that Krazy guy was going off about something that didn't much matter.

Like Secret and Confidential are both forms of Confidential material.

Both would be illegal to disseminate.

Seems it was a mountain out of a molehill does it not?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You made the statement, typically you can't back it up. No different than any other day or any "tradition" with you.

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Your meme is a lie. There is a HUGE difference between the classifications of "secret" and "classified". Your source merely says that 4 of them were secret or classified; meanwhile your #ty meme says that all four are classified.

Seriously, this isn't Facebook. Stop with the memes.

What does the meme matter? Does it negate Comey broke the law? Did the meme trigger you?

You shouldn’t be so touchy... not like you’re going to prison with them, are you?

Idiots before you used the race card every time people disagreed with them..
Now people like yourself, instead of race card, use the "you are just a snowflake", "triggered", "butthurt" card every time someone exposes your stupidity or questions the crap you post.
Hilarious.

Calling someone names is against T&C but obviously not above someone on the left like yourself.
I do find the hypocrisy in your one single post staggering.

You start out by calling me names while attempting to take some high road comparing me to racists because I merely pointed out another persons emotional reply to the OP. Then continue down the road of insulting people all while not contributing anything to the OP.

And you think I'm hilarious....

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You made the statement, typically you can't back it up. No different than any other day or any "tradition" with you.

And just like usual, you insult me instead of discuss with me like an adult. Then you wonder why I respond to you as I do.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
He leaked 4 of the 7. And 4 out of the 7 had classified info, so no matter what, at least ONE of the leaked memos contained classified info.

Actually, this sounds like its just "extreme carelessness"...move along, folks....nothing to see here...

James Comey may have leaked at least one classified memo to a friend shortly after he was fired as FBI director.

That’s an assessment from Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, who wrote a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Wednesday demanding answers about the handling of memos that Comey wrote following his conversations with President Trump.

Grassley noted that he and his staff recently reviewed seven memos that Comey wrote after his meetings with Trump. Four of those documents contained information classified as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “SECRET.”

In his letter, Grassley asked Rosenstein to clarify whether the DOJ or FBI have determined whether any of the memos that Comey sent to Richman contained classified information and which of the seven Comey memos had been provided to Richman.

The Republican also seeks details about how Comey transmitted the memos to Richman and whether the Justice Department has initiated an investigation into improper disclosure of classified information.

dailycaller.com...

Link to entire letter:
twitter.com...

DO THE MATH

If this were regular "joe agent" leaking fbi investigative material for a political purpose he would be in jail in short order. These unelected bureaucrats have forgotten they are not above the law.
If political tweets are enough to get senior fbi officials removed from a case and reassigned, why would leaking investigative material to a civilian then to the press for a purely political purpose be ok?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dude, you wigged out over a meme attacking a subject which I suspect you had just googled two seconds earlier.

You gotta give respect to get respect, and starting off by calling me a liar isn't gonna cut it.

Secret and Confidential are both forms of Classified information, is there any apology for calling me a liar?
From a lefty, I doubt it.

I hope you aren't always this triggered, and if you are, please stay in that mudpit forum.

Your meme is a lie. There is a HUGE difference between the classifications of "secret" and "classified". Your source merely says that 4 of them were secret or classified; meanwhile your #ty meme says that all four are classified.

Seriously, this isn't Facebook. Stop with the memes.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

People whose only source for statements is wikipedia dont have adult discussions. You still can not back up your statement with any real source.
Please by all means find an actual source to back up your bs.
Until then it is nothing but bs.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

When were the memos classified?

As we have learned with the Hillary email investigation, even emails that contained publicly-available info were classified when it came in to government hands once the investigation began.

That does not mean the info was classified at the time, nor does it mean that Comey violated any laws.

Please provide full context and not more propaganda.

You keep spouting this BS....I will keep correcting you forever.

www.wrc.noaa.gov...

Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere? Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized dis- closure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.

Actually, you are proving my point. Even info that is in the public domain and available to anyone can be considered classified once it comes in to government hands.

Now you have to prove why those memos were classified and if Comey tried to purposefully disseminate that info, knowing it was classified at the time.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

When were the memos classified?

As we have learned with the Hillary email investigation, even emails that contained publicly-available info were classified when it came in to government hands once the investigation began.

That does not mean the info was classified at the time, nor does it mean that Comey violated any laws.

Please provide full context and not more propaganda.

You keep spouting this BS....I will keep correcting you forever.

www.wrc.noaa.gov...

Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere? Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized dis- closure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.

Actually, you are proving my point. Even info that is in the public domain and available to anyone can be considered classified once it comes in to government hands.

Now you have to prove why those memos were classified and if Comey tried to purposefully disseminate that info, knowing it was classified at the time.

No sir...you have to prove that the information was not classified prior to being published.

Same as the person signing the 312.

Classified information that is publicly released is still classified. People who have clearances are instructed not to comment on newspaper/TV reports about classified information.

If you forward a newspaper article that contains classified information, and you comment about the article in a way that verifies the information, that is a secondary disclosure.

a reply to: RickinVa

No sir...you have to prove that the information was not classified prior to being published.

You've just proven that it doesn't matter when the info was classified, in relation to the media publishing their content.

What matters is if someone with a clearance verified that info through secondary disclosure.

So my original assertion stands: Now you have to prove why those memos were classified and if Comey tried to purposefully disseminate that info, knowing it was classified at the time.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

No sir...you have to prove that the information was not classified prior to being published.

You've just proven that it doesn't matter when the info was classified, in relation to the media publishing their content.

What matters is if someone with a clearance verified that info through secondary disclosure.

So my original assertion stands: Now you have to prove why those memos were classified and if Comey tried to purposefully disseminate that info, knowing it was classified at the time.

Nope.

For someone who supposedly demands proof before drawing a conclusion, you jump all over your theory without one single iota of proof...because it fits your narrative.

This thread is not about Hillary's emails so it is a mute point, and distracts from the OP.


Carry on as usual.

a reply to: RickinVa

Nope.

As usual, that is the average depth of your arguments.

For someone who supposedly demands proof before drawing a conclusion, you jump all over your theory without one single iota of proof...because it fits your narrative.

Actually, my theory states that you have to have a lot more info before you can come to any conclusion. Just as you have proven, we have to know more context.

This thread is not about Hillary's emails so it is a mute point, and distracts from the OP.

I can understand why you would not want to discuss classified info, period. You were proven to be completely wrong about classified info and had to eat the biggest handful of crow after your epic fail on the email issue.

Not sure how you can be so arrogant as to think you have any place to lecture us on this topic when you have proven to be not only verifiably incorrect, but ignorantly oblivious to the term "context".

Now you come in to this thread, proving my point that we need a lot more context and then want to revert to an ad hom to distract from your lack of an argument.

The best you have is "nope".

a reply to: RickinVa

Hey Rick,
As someone who has actual real life experience with the fbi, in your opinion are fired fbi employees allowed to take fbi material from the fbi when they are fired?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: RickinVa

Hey Rick,
As someone who has actual real life experience with the fbi, in your opinion are fired fbi employees allowed to take fbi material from the fbi when they are fired?

Be careful in using such logical fallacies. While trying to use an appeal to authority may sound good on the surface, our friend Rick here has been on record making conflicting statements about how long he has worked for the FBI and in other capacities.

At this point, he cannot be believed without evidence to corroborate his claims. Not to mention his lack of knowledge about classified material, statutes, etc, casts a lot of doubt on his ability to comment from a place of authority.

a reply to: introvert

Thanks for offering your unsolicited opinion of another member, and your opinion of their expertise of a subject matter. You should know that your opinion of anything is of no consequence to me in any way shape or form. Should you let me know it is raining outside, I would first walk outside to check prior to believing anything you post.

My opinion of the member you brought up varies vastly from your own. I find his analysis to be mostly accurate, and when he does not know something he states that he does not know.

All that aside do you have an opinion as to fired fbi employees and taking material that belongs to the fbi, or was this just another of your attempts to off topic this thread?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Thanks for offering your unsolicited opinion of another member, and your opinion of their expertise of a subject matter.

You are most welcome.

You should know that your opinion of anything is of no consequence to me in any way shape or form. Should you let me know it is raining outside, I would first walk outside to check prior to believing anything you post.

I completely understand. You're a confirmation bias kind of guy, not facts or truths. So I can see why you do not like my opinion.

My opinion of the member you brought up varies vastly from your own.

Of course. You don't mind being lied to and filled full of #.

I find his analysis to be mostly accurate, and when he does not know something he states that he does not know.

Sure...why don't you ask him about his accuracy record when it comes to classified info and the entire FBI-Hillary email issue.

All that aside do you have an opinion as to fired fbi employees and taking material that belongs to the fbi

Yes. My opinion is that your question is way too simple and obviously shows the lack of understanding of the importance of context.

or was this just another of your attempts to off topic this thread?

My posts have been on topic. Problem is, it does not serve to placate people's confirmation bias.

You guys don't want to know the truth or learn about context. You want to get covered in the "fruits" of your neighbor in another one of your idiotic circle jerks.

a reply to: introvert

www.thedailybeast.com...
You speak too soon about things you know nothing about.
But that is typical.

Yes. My opinion is that your question is way too simple and obviously shows the lack of understanding of the importance of context.

Asking about fired employees and property of the employer is "way too simple"? Sorry, just because you do not understand the responsibility that some of these positions hold, others actually do. It very well may come down to the employment agreements signed by Mr Comey at the outset of his employment. Something someone who has been employed by that employer would understand and have experience with.
There is no dispute Comey made notes from some of his meetings with Trump. There is no dispute Comey did not bring up any issues from such meetings to his boss.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Says the Daily Caller.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Says the Daily Caller.

Theres a link to the letter that Grassley sent in the OP, read it, it says the same thing.