Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A link to the complete document is posted on this thread. The rest of your comment belongs on the conspiracy theory forum......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?
Are you an expert at detecting forgeries?I looked at it and there are no witness signatures so it's probably a forgery.
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
It is not private; it can only be viewed by those with the appropriate clearance and a general "need to know".Obviously, anyone with a security clearance knows that classified information is private. Duh!
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.
I linked to the full document. You quoted the link.Why don't you show the complete document?
I looked at it and there are no witness signatures so it's probably a forgery.
Obviously she knew that she was obligated to protect classified information. That is entirely different than saying the material was classified. Obviously, anyone with a security clearance knows that classified information is private. Duh!
So Comey said, "Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information." So was Hillary Clinton supposed to be a clairvoyant, deciding that unmarked e-mails were classified?
You're just fishing, like so many other Clinton-haters. She wasn't guilty found guilty of any crime. Case closed!
Obviously she knew that she was obligated to protect classified information. That is entirely different than saying the material was classified.
It shows that classified material can be marked, unmarked and even oral.
Did you miss that part? It was highlighted.
I linked to the full document. You quoted the link.
Do you want to explain why this "forgery" is residing on the servers of the US State department?
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/documents/hrc_ndas/1/doc_0c05833708/c05833708.pdf
I got some more Kool-Aid if you are thirsty.....classified material can be marked, unmarked and even oral.
Correct, so how is anyone including Hillary Clinton able to discern what is classified and what isn't? Clairvoyance?
Do you really think that the US State Department publishes an authentic document that is a) crude, b) highlighted in yellow (even though the linked document doesn't show that), c) has no witness signatures, and d) doesn't require the full name of the signer? Really? You fall for that obvious forgery?
For example why is the date of the document 12-31-0000?
If you can't do that you should not be SoS.....or POTUS either.....Correct, so how is anyone including Hillary Clinton able to discern what is classified and what isn't?
classified material can be marked, unmarked and even oral.
Correct, so how is anyone including Hillary Clinton able to discern what is classified and what isn't? Clairvoyance?
Do you really think that the US State Department publishes an authentic document that is a) crude, b) highlighted in yellow (even though the linked document doesn't show that), c) has no witness signatures, and d) doesn't require the full name of the signer? Really? You fall for that obvious forgery?
For example why is the date of the document 12-31-0000?
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.
wikileaks Assange says he has thousands of cables where Hillary, herself, signed a "c" for classified.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...d-c-classified-yet-told-fbi-didnt-know-meant/
If you admit that is correct then you undercut her statement that it must have a header.
I see you completely dodged the question of why it is on the State Department website. And of course it had no yellow highlighting, that was to point out the part you eventually got, that classified material can be either marked or unmarked.
Apparently this "forgery" fooled the Washington Post as well. It links to the same document.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ret-emails-end-up-on-hillary-clintons-server/
So how did it wind up on the state department page?
It indicates unclassified on 11/5/15 and was dated January 22, 2009. The date on the foia doc info is something you can ask the State Department about.
Well find the same thing on another link. The video where Wikileaks is showing the documents with Hillary's "c" is all over the internet, not just that link.You consider thegatewaypundit.com to be a reliable, neutral source of information? You're joking. They totally support Trump and twist the truth, just as he does.
Well find the same thing on another link. The video where Wikileaks is showing the documents with Hillary's "c" is all over the internet, not just that link.
What difference would it make? I will admit I dislike Hillary more than Trump, but it makes no difference in the information how I might feel. Like I said the video is all over the internet.That doesn't nullify the fact that you chose a tabloid-type web site as proof.
What difference would it make? I will admit I dislike Hillary more than Trump, but it makes no difference in the information how I might feel. Like I said the video is all over the internet.
No, you said that.
classified material can be marked, unmarked and even oral.
Correct......
Clinton had been given permission to handle SAP programs, and was expected to know how to handle them. The notion that she didn't know that an SAP program was classified is hardly believable. And there were multiple conversations in which she both received and sent information about them.I pointed out the absurdity of saying someone violated secrecy rules by their own judgment of what is classified and what isn't. If something is classified it plainly says so.
Again, I place no trust in a fuzzy copy of a document that has no witnesses, no government acceptance, and a dubious signature.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?