Ravi
Diamond Member
It isn't irrelevant. For instance it could be following on the heels of a cable that listed names of people that were suspected of having ties to terrorism and saying instructions on what to look for coming in the next cable.There's no context, Kev. I have no idea what prompted that cable or who actually sent it.I don't know that it would be against board rules or copyright infringement, but I'm not going to copy and paste the entire cable, which is fairly long, regardless. However, it doesn't matter. I copied the relevant portions of the cable, if she can't form an opinion from what I've supplied she won't be able to form an opinion from the rest of the cable I don't think. As to why she doesn't want to go to the website I have no idea.
Details do matter.
What prompted the cable is irrelevant to the issue. There's nothing that could have prompted this cable that would somehow make stealing this information legal. As for who sent it, it's signed "CLINTON" and was sent from the office of the Secretary of State.
