Is she correct?

[civilwarbuff]

Listen to hrc's explanation that classified material must be clearly marked. Is she correct or is it another hrc lie?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-...ssified-information-to-veteran-012914272.html

Edit: This is not a Trump thread; please go elsewhere to talk about him. Thanks

 

[joshua 1 9]

Listen to hrc's explanation that classified material must be clearly marked. Is she correct or is it another hrc lie?

The question is why would someone have a personal server just for her email? The server itself cost $78,000 plus the cost to hire people to set it up. It is no wonder they manage to burn though millions of dollars in their personal checking and trillions of dollars of tax payers money.

 

[J Cord]

Listen to hrc's explanation that classified material must be clearly marked. Is she correct or is it another hrc lie?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-...ssified-information-to-veteran-012914272.html

You don't need to guess at something that you have zero knowledge of.

Instead last night you watched Trump publicly discussing information, supposedly secret, from his security briefing. This isn't something you're making up, like what you've been saying about Hillary emails. This was blatant public blabbing of a security briefing:

Former intelligence officers alarmed by Trump's briefing readout

Donald Trump’s decision to offer up a politicized readout of his confidential national security briefings has set off alarm bells in the intelligence community, with some high-profile former officials warning the Republican nominee crossed a “red line.”

Oh, and what did you think of Trump's plan to purge the generals? LOL, the USA is going to be a Banana Republic after four years of Trump.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Why on earth was she wearing an earpiece? Was someone helping her with the answers?

 

[tall73]

Instead last night you watched Trump publicly discussing information, supposedly secret, from his security briefing.

And if you read the article you linked to it says he did not endanger any national security.


And while experts said Trump didn’t risk national security with his comments, they characterized his move to politicize the briefings as reckless.

They were upset that he used an intelligence briefing to make a political point.

 

[tall73]

Listen to hrc's explanation that classified material must be clearly marked. Is she correct or is it another hrc lie?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-...ssified-information-to-veteran-012914272.html

Of course her explanation is not accurate. Hillary signed a non-disclosure agreement that she would properly handle classified information including marked or unmarked material.

The entire document can be found here:

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/documents/hrc_ndas/1/doc_0c05833708/c05833708.pdf

 

[tall73]

And of course Hillary said she was very familiar with classified information, but this is not what she told the FBI:

CLINTON could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined. CLINTON stated there was a process at State before she arrived and she relied on the career foreign service professionals she worked with to appropriately handle and mark classified information. FD 302, Clinton, page 2

Which is why she blamed the other folks in the email chain. Of course Comey said any of them should have known that was not the place for such discussion.

The other issue is that discussion of a classified program could be classified even if no official classified documents were sent. This appears to be what Comey is referencing in regards to the Special Access Program material where she was both sending and receiving information as part of a discussion.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. Comey's Statement.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Clinton when presented with her emails with classified information, said she didn't see any problem with them.

The FBI provided Clinton with copies of her classified e-mails ranging from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET/SAP and Clinton said she did not believe the e-mails contained classified information. PG 26 of the first document for the Clinton investigation, released by the FBI.

The owning agencies on the other hand did. And even some of the released FBI notes had redacted information because of that, despite Clinton's reference to the release of the FBI notes.

 

[tall73]

Below is an exchange in which Comey indicates Clinton was not sophisticated in her approach to classified information. This is an exchange from the oversight committee hearings following Comey's statement. This exchange is right around the 1 hour mark in the video. Emphasis supplied.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?41231...s-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe

Rep. Ron DeSantis: This is information that clearly anybody who had knowledge of security information
would know that it would be classified. But I'm having a little bit of trouble to see how would you not then
know that that was something that was inappropriate to do?

Comey: Well, I just want to take one of your assumptions about sophistication. I don't think that our investigation established she was actually particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and the treatment, and so far as we can tell--

Rep. Ron DeSantis: Isn't she an original classification authority?

Comey: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Rep. Ron DeSantis: Good grief

 

[J Cord]

And if you read the article you linked to it says he did not endanger any national security.


And while experts said Trump didn’t risk national security with his comments, they characterized his move to politicize the briefings as reckless.

They were upset that he used an intelligence briefing to make a political point.

He wasn't making a political point, he was trying to make political gains by blabbing about a security briefing.

Trump’s Comments On Intelligence Briefings ‘Astonish’ Former Intel Officials

Paul Pillar, a former high-ranking CIA analyst who worked for 28 years in the intelligence community, said he “can’t remember any time where a candidate has said anything about” an intelligence briefing publicly.

“The proper, standard thing for any candidate to do would be to say nothing about it — to at most acknowledge a briefing happened,” he added. “It’s quite out of order to start talking about body language.”

LOL, the way Trump's talking about him, Trump's probably already phoned his bromance buddy Putin about the meeting anyways.

 

[Sistrin]

Listen to hrc's explanation that classified material must be clearly marked. Is she correct or is it another hrc lie?

It is another lie. The headers are on the exterior packet, each page is typically marked but not with individual headers.

 

[tall73]

He wasn't making a political point, he was trying to make political gains by blabbing about a security briefing.

I thought it was pretty plain by saying he was making a political point that he was trying to make political gains. He was asked directly about the briefing. He didn't raise the issue. And while some didn't like him trying to score political points, they admitted he didn't endanger national security. So that is not the same as Clinton's issue.

Now what is your view on Hillary's statement, which is the topic of the thread?

Her signed agreement clearly notes that classified information can include unmarked information.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Why on earth was she wearing an earpiece? Was someone helping her with the answers?

Could be. The people on the news have a earphone and someone talking to them.

 

[He is Risen 72]

So now not only do we have to worry about a sickly socialist security risk, we need to know who is behind the curtain feeding her the answers.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So now not only do we have to worry about a sickly socialist security risk, we need to know who is behind the curtain feeding her the answers.

The stealth earpiece operates on a bandwidth from 300 Hz to 4KHz. So maybe one of the reporters can tap into her conversation to hear what they are saying to her. Radio shack use to sell receivers / scanners that could tune into any frequency but some frequencies are banned now because the police use them and they do not want anyone to listen in on their conversation.

http://truepundit.com/nypd-hillary-...tealth-coaching-during-live-nbc-tv-town-hall/

 

[iluvatar5150]

The stealth earpiece operates on a bandwidth from 300 Hz to 4KHz. So maybe one of the reporters can tap into her conversation to hear what they are saying to her. Radio shack use to sell receivers / scanners that could tune into any frequency but some frequencies are banned now because the police use them and they do not want anyone to listen in on their conversation.

http://truepundit.com/nypd-hillary-...tealth-coaching-during-live-nbc-tv-town-hall/

Lol wow. No.

300Hz-4kHz refers to the audio bandwidth that the transducer can reproduce, or rather, the audio bandwidth of a traditional copper telephone line - which would not necessarily have anything to do with what this earpiece can reproduce (though it wouldn't surprise me if they were similar). The transmitter does not work on a carrier frequency that low. If it did, the antenna would be enormous (potentially many miles long) and the bandwidth would be terrible. But the range would be great.

Sensitive wireless systems like this are typically encrypted. Even getting info about the comm rigs the coaches use at the Super Bowl is tough. The Secret Service isn't going to use an unencrypted analog comm system.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You don't need to guess at something that you have zero knowledge of.

Instead last night you watched Trump publicly discussing information, supposedly secret, from his security briefing. This isn't something you're making up, like what you've been saying about Hillary emails. This was blatant public blabbing of a security briefing:

Former intelligence officers alarmed by Trump's briefing readout

Donald Trump’s decision to offer up a politicized readout of his confidential national security briefings has set off alarm bells in the intelligence community, with some high-profile former officials warning the Republican nominee crossed a “red line.”

Oh, and what did you think of Trump's plan to purge the generals? LOL, the USA is going to be a Banana Republic after four years of Trump.

This is not a Trump thread, if you want to talk about him, do it elsewhere.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

It is another lie. The headers are on the exterior packet, each page is typically marked but not with individual headers.

That has been my experience also, but it was 40 years ago so things may have changed. Classified info had a cover sheet; Secret had a wide red border around it inset about 1" from the paper edge with the word "Secret" printed in large red letters and it was heavier paper than the document itself. I don't recall the others offhand. I don't remember seeing "Secret" stamped on individual pages.

 

[J Cord]

This is not a Trump thread, if you want to talk about him, do it elsewhere.....

I was talking about Hillary. I was comparing her handling of sensitive material to Trumps.

With Hillary, you are guessing with zero actual knowledge. With Trump, we have evidence that he will blab about security briefings to anyone who will listen if he sees a personal advantage. He just did two nights ago.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I was talking about Hillary. I was comparing her handling of sensitive material to Trumps.

With Hillary, you are guessing with zero actual knowledge. With Trump, we have evidence that he will blab about security briefings to anyone who will listen if he sees a personal advantage. He just did two nights ago.

Yeah, we know all about hrc's "handling" of sensitive material. According to the FBI Director it was "careless".

 

[tall73]

I was talking about Hillary. I was comparing her handling of sensitive material to Trumps.

With Hillary, you are guessing with zero actual knowledge.

We have

a. The IG report
b. The Comey statement
c. The hearings in the oversight committee on the Comey statement and with the IG
d. Her own personal statements on the issue for months
e. The FBI released investigation files with redaction.
f. The FBI interview files with redaction.
g. The FOIA requested non-disclosure agreement
h. Blumenthal's released emails,with redactions
i. Clinton's released emails, with redaction


What do you mean by actual knowledge? Is your issue that we were not there with her when she was sending the emails?