Is she correct?

[J Cord]

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

Yes, but when we compare that to Trump blabbing about his security briefing on national TV, it really isn't anything. And now that Trump has openly declared his bromance with Putin, that becomes important. I see that as far more troublesome than anything Hillary has done.

So far Trump has denied any open homosexual relationship with Putin, but does think about Putin while taking a bath:

Donald Trump Strongly Denies Gay Putin Rumors

“I’d also be comfortable sharing a bed with him if we both wanted to save tax payers money,” Trump said.

Donald Trump has named Vladimir Putin as his favourite world leader and revealed he sometimes thinks about him while taking a bath.

EDIT: This is probably off topic, so I'll start another thread.

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

Please stay on topic

Please remember to stay on topic

Please stay on topic to the original discussion. If you want to discuss something else, please make a new thread.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[chevyontheriver]

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.

I could set up one fine email server for 5% of that cost, and have a hot backup standing by. There was a real error in judgment on her part if she spent $78,000 on hardware alone. I wasn't able to verify the cost. But even if it were from parts bought at Goodwill the idea of an unaccountability email server is just wrong.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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

Everybody at that level should be able to tell just by looking at the content of sensitive information that it SHOULD be classified and then classify it on the spot. Hillary has no excuse in saying she didn't know, or didn't understand. She knew and understood but got caught. Nobody in the Obama administration is gonna touch her, so all she has to do is bamboozle the public. She has been moderately successful with that.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Sensitive wireless systems like this are typically encrypted.

Of course. Hillary spends hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars to keep her communication private. Even the FBI can not seem to tap her conversations.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I could set up one fine email server for 5% of that cost, and have a hot backup standing by. There was a real error in judgment on her part if she spent $78,000 on hardware alone. I wasn't able to verify the cost. But even if it were from parts bought at Goodwill the idea of an unaccountability email server is just wrong.

It was a lot of money but no one got their hands on her emails.

Hillary has no excuse in saying she didn't know, or didn't understand.

That is just her legal jargon. They are trying to twist her words to use against her but they know what she was saying. She is telling them it is none of their business and they can not force her to answer that question.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It may not matter....the IT guy who deleted the emails was given immunity by DOJ. What we really want to know is who gave the order for it......that's the culprit.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It may not matter....the IT guy who deleted the emails was given immunity by DOJ. What we really want to know is who gave the order for it......that's the culprit.

No one is going to admit to anything and there is no reason why they should. What are they going to do beat her with rubber hoses to get the information out of her? Talk about a police state. The Supreme court is laughing at the whole thing, they think it is a big joke. Just remember every cell phone is now an active bug for the FBI to listen in on your private conversations.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?411385-1/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-presides-1984-mock-trial

 

[chevyontheriver]

It may not matter....the IT guy who deleted the emails was given immunity by DOJ. What we really want to know is who gave the order for it......that's the culprit.

We got the government we deserved. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along. ... Wrong Droids. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along.

 

[sdowney717]

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

She was saying 'C' was for part 'C' of multipart documents, so how come she never saw part A, B, D, E, F, etc...
So she was not worthy of part A, B, D, E, or F cause she saw only part 'C'.

She gets an F for lying flunky.
This stuff is so bad, hard to comprehend, but it so true.

 

[pescador]

Everybody at that level should be able to tell just by looking at the content of sensitive information that it SHOULD be classified and then classify it on the spot. Hillary has no excuse in saying she didn't know, or didn't understand. She knew and understood but got caught. Nobody in the Obama administration is gonna touch her, so all she has to do is bamboozle the public. She has been moderately successful with that.

The recipient of classified information is not the person who makes that determination. Hillary Clinton or anyone else who receives unclassified information cannot "classify it on the spot". That status is determined by various intelligence agencies based on specific rules. It is irresponsible to say that she knew and understood but got caught. If any material is not marked classified then guess what: it's NOT classified.

 

[pescador]

She was saying 'C' was for part 'C' of multipart documents, so how come she never saw part A, B, D, E, F, etc...
So she was not worthy of part A, B, D, E, or F cause she saw only part 'C'.

She gets an F for lying flunky.
This stuff is so bad, hard to comprehend, but it so true.

No it's not. You are making stuff up. Do you think that anyone will believe your hypothesis?

 

[tall73]

If any material is not marked classified then guess what: it's NOT classified.

No, even the agreement she signed indicates that it can be marked or unmarked. She signed that she understood the nature of classified information.


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

 

[tall73]

No it's not. You are making stuff up. Do you think that anyone will believe your hypothesis?

You will have to clarify your objection, perhaps it was taking literally the sarcastic reply on the ABC, etc. In any case, she did not know what the portion marking meant. This is from the interview summary the FBI posted:

 

[sdowney717]

No it's not. You are making stuff up. Do you think that anyone will believe your hypothesis?

It is true.

 

[tall73]

The recipient of classified information is not the person who makes that determination. Hillary Clinton or anyone else who receives unclassified information cannot "classify it on the spot". That status is determined by various intelligence agencies based on specific rules. It is irresponsible to say that she knew and understood but got caught. If any material is not marked classified then guess what: it's NOT classified.

Comey in his statement regarding the investigation:

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system


Comey during his testimony addressed this again. It is around the 1:30 mark:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?41231...tifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe&start=5447

Rep John Duncan: You said in your press conference, but even if information is not marked classified in an e-mail, particularly participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. Do you feel that Secretary Clinton knew or should have known that she was obligated to protect classified information?

Comey: Yes

 

[civilwarbuff]

The recipient of classified information is not the person who makes that determination. Hillary Clinton or anyone else who receives unclassified information cannot "classify it on the spot". That status is determined by various intelligence agencies based on specific rules. It is irresponsible to say that she knew and understood but got caught. If any material is not marked classified then guess what: it's NOT classified.

You are wrong on that; see #33.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The recipient of classified information is not the person who makes that determination. Hillary Clinton or anyone else who receives unclassified information cannot "classify it on the spot". That status is determined by various intelligence agencies based on specific rules. It is irresponsible to say that she knew and understood but got caught. If any material is not marked classified then guess what: it's NOT classified.

https://epic.org/open_gov/eo_12356.html
The SoS is an Original Classification Authority.....they have authority to classify anything they feel is necessary even if it comes to them unmarked. The SoS should be able to recognize classified material even if not marked classified and handle it accordingly.

 

[pescador]

No, even the agreement she signed indicates that it can be marked or unmarked. She signed that she understood the nature of classified information.


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

So the document supposedly shows that she acknowledges that she has received security indoctrination... And she has been supposedly advised that unauthorized disclosure, etc. could be harmful to the US. So what; even if it was valid that is just normal procedural language.

Why don't you show the complete document? I looked at it and there are no witness signatures so it's probably a forgery. Do you really think that a document like this would have no witnesses and be signed with "H R Clinton", not her full name?

Nice try, but we're not that stupid.

 

[pescador]

It is true.

Where is the proof? Your opinion is just that: your opinion. And it's clearly biased.