Hillary's team came up with the cover phrase "Marked Classified"

[OKTexas]

Again, it shouldn't take nearly a year to "investigate" something that is clear cut as you say it is. If it takes a year to determine if a crime was committed, most reasonable people aren't going to think one was.

Well the reason it's taken so long is because Clinton has simply obfuscated and failed to cooperate with the investigation. It's the typical Clinton game plan. Stall, delay, make up excuses, claim you've turned everything over, make them prove you haven't, stall and delay some more, try to run as much clock as you can, turn over bits and pieces, claim you need more time... then eventually you can claim, after enough time has passed, that no one really cares about it because it's "old news" and we need to move on.

And hey... We already KNOW what the story line from Clinton and her sycophants will be.... this is all that "right wing conspiracy" stuff, ginned up by those who have a political grudge. Even if she is frog-marched away in shackles you'll never forgive us for bringing such a good woman down. We'll hear that shit for the next 20 years.

Was it Hillary that stalled on releasing information to the public? Or was it Kerry's State Dept. You don't find it odd that the decision to keep the 22 e-mails classified was made within days of Obama meeting with the two Democratic front-runners, to talk--among other things--about their respective views on foreign policy? And that, days before the Iowa Caucus?

So now you're claiming some kind of a conspiracy between more than 150 FBI agents, really?

 

[JoeB131]

Dept of State hasn't released all the emails yet, so the investigation is still ongoing. What you fail to understand, is the improper storage and allowing access to classified information is a violation of law even if done through neglect. Each document, and at this point there are 1300+ individual documents found improperly stored on an unsecured server, is a violation of law. Considering the hildabitches high profile, the FBI will take what ever time is necessary to make sure every (i) is dotted and every (t) is crossed before they release their report to the AG for prosecution. BTW, the FBI doesn't indict, that is left to the AG.

Pulling a tag off a couch is a violation of federal law. Guy, you are moving well past "legitimate concern" and into "Trying to **** over someone you don't like on a technicality." I think most reasonable people would see the injustice in that.

if the FBI really wants to get an indictment that will stick, they should be able to show clear wrongdoing and malice, not the kind of bureaucratic laziness that probably takes place 1000 times a day across government and the private sector.

Funny, none of that happened to me. I wonder what the difference is, could it possibly have been I made better decisions? Every point in my life, when things got tough financially, can be traced to a poor decision I made, I learned and moved on. I didn't blame anyone else and today, even in retirement, I don't owe anyone anything.

The difference is you're a lying sack of shit. There was NO ONE who didn't get fucked over by Bush's incompetence. Just dumb shit like you who thank him when he bones you up the ass.

 

[OKTexas]

Who decides which State Dept. emails are classified? Would it be the Secretary of State, by any chance? Or do underlings have more authority?

The agency that originally generated the information.

 

[OKTexas]

Dept of State hasn't released all the emails yet, so the investigation is still ongoing. What you fail to understand, is the improper storage and allowing access to classified information is a violation of law even if done through neglect. Each document, and at this point there are 1300+ individual documents found improperly stored on an unsecured server, is a violation of law. Considering the hildabitches high profile, the FBI will take what ever time is necessary to make sure every (i) is dotted and every (t) is crossed before they release their report to the AG for prosecution. BTW, the FBI doesn't indict, that is left to the AG.

Pulling a tag off a couch is a violation of federal law. Guy, you are moving well past "legitimate concern" and into "Trying to **** over someone you don't like on a technicality." I think most reasonable people would see the injustice in that.

if the FBI really wants to get an indictment that will stick, they should be able to show clear wrongdoing and malice, not the kind of bureaucratic laziness that probably takes place 1000 times a day across government and the private sector.

Funny, none of that happened to me. I wonder what the difference is, could it possibly have been I made better decisions? Every point in my life, when things got tough financially, can be traced to a poor decision I made, I learned and moved on. I didn't blame anyone else and today, even in retirement, I don't owe anyone anything.

The difference is you're a lying sack of shit. There was NO ONE who didn't get fucked over by Bush's incompetence. Just dumb shit like you who thank him when he bones you up the ass.

if the FBI really wants to get an indictment that will stick, they should be able to show clear wrongdoing and malice, not the kind of bureaucratic laziness that probably takes place 1000 times a day across government and the private sector.

Malice when it comes to classified information is not required, intent is not required, simple negligence can put her away for many, many years.

The difference is you're a lying sack of shit. There was NO ONE who didn't get fucked over by Bush's incompetence. Just dumb shit like you who thank him when he bones you up the ass.

Really, I own my home, haven't bought or sold one in almost 20 years. I worked all through the Bush administration, I shut one business and started another because there was more money in the second one. I retired in Sep 2010 and am in the best financial shape of my life. I usually stay up late and never get up early unless I or my father has a doctors appointment. Your calling a stranger a liar is just another demonstration of your pure ignorance. Another one of your bad decisions.

 

[JoeB131]

Really, I own my home, haven't bought or sold one in almost 20 years. I worked all through the Bush administration, I shut one business and started another because there was more money in the second one. I retired in Sep 2010 and am in the best financial shape of my life. I usually stay up late and never get up early unless I or my father has a doctors appointment. Your calling a stranger a liar is just another demonstration of your pure ignorance. Another one of your bad decisions.

I find it hard to beleive that you retired in 2010 when the stock market absolutely went into the toilet in 2008-9.

Liar.

Malice when it comes to classified information is not required, intent is not required, simple negligence can put her away for many, many years.

Again, find me a case where someone was put into prison for negligence in handling supposedly classified information. Because muck like the perjury in a civil case, you guys never seem to find these things.

 

[OKTexas]

I find it hard to beleive that you retired in 2010 when the stock market absolutely went into the toilet in 2008-9.

Well, when you consider I've never owned a stock a day in my life, the stock market doesn't affect me, I was taught to never put my future in the hands of a stock broker. Guess you didn't get such sound advice.

Again, find me a case where someone was put into prison for negligence in handling supposedly classified information. Because muck like the perjury in a civil case, you guys never seem to find these things.

How about you show me where a person accumulated the quantity of classified information the hildabitch has, on an unsecured system, and didn't go to jail.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, when you consider I've never owned a stock a day in my life, the stock market doesn't affect me, I was taught to never put my future in the hands of a stock broker. Guess you didn't get such sound advice.

Okay, guy, whatever stories you want to make up to make you feel better about your selfishness and racism.

How about you show me where a person accumulated the quantity of classified information the hildabitch has, on an unsecured system, and didn't go to jail.

Um, no, guy, I shouldn't be required to prove a negative. Obviously, this logic thing escapes you.

 

[paperview]

I haven't read the OP, but just the title alone is breathtakingly stupid.

 

[paperview]

Looks like I'm going to have to keep reposting this link for a while - as the hot & bothered cons work out their new Benghazisms.

5 myths about classified information

 

[OKTexas]

Well, when you consider I've never owned a stock a day in my life, the stock market doesn't affect me, I was taught to never put my future in the hands of a stock broker. Guess you didn't get such sound advice.

Okay, guy, whatever stories you want to make up to make you feel better about your selfishness and racism.

How about you show me where a person accumulated the quantity of classified information the hildabitch has, on an unsecured system, and didn't go to jail.

Um, no, guy, I shouldn't be required to prove a negative. Obviously, this logic thing escapes you.

Once again you have proven yourself to be nothing but a childish mental midget. I made the decisions to allow myself to retire at age 59 and suddenly in your feeble mind I'm selfish and wait for it













a racist.


Honestly, I feel really sorry for you and your apparent little fucked up life. When you learn to accept the fact that your life is the sum total of your own decisions and stop blaming others for your misery, you might not be such a bitter little man. You sir, are dismissed.

 

[Boss]

So now you're claiming some kind of a conspiracy between more than 150 FBI agents, really?

Also the Obama appointed director of the FBI!

 

[OKTexas]

Looks like I'm going to have to keep reposting this link for a while - as the hot & bothered cons work out their new Benghazisms.

5 myths about classified information

Care to post what's in the link, I'm not going to register to read it.

 

[paperview]

Looks like I'm going to have to keep reposting this link for a while - as the hot & bothered cons work out their new Benghazisms.

5 myths about classified information

Care to post what's in the link, I'm not going to register to read it.

Huh? I don't get a paywall.

I can't post all of it, But I'll get you started.

Here's another link:
Five myths about classified information - The Washington Post

1. Information can be “classified,” even if no one has classified it.

Many news reports and commentators have suggested that “information is classified by (its) nature” (as Sean Davis writes in The Federalist), even if no agency or official has classified it yet. These accounts treat “classified” as a quality rather than an action — one that is inherent, immutable and self-evident. If information is sensitive enough, it’s classified, no matter what.

When it comes to “original classification” — the initial decision to classify information — that portrayal is simply wrong. Under the executive order that governs classification, the 2,000-plus officials who have this authority “may” classify information if its disclosure reasonably could be expected to damage national security. The determination of harm is often highly subjective, and even if an official decides that disclosure would be harmful, he or she is not required to classify.

Information provided by foreign governments in confidence is different. The executive order cautions that the release of such information is “presumed” to harm national security; agency rules provide that such information “must be classified.” There is a difference, however, between “must be classified” and “is classified.” After all, when an official receives information, its source and the circumstances of its disclosure may not be apparent. This category of information is not self-identifying, let alone self-classifying.

An official who transmits that information without classifying it has violated agency rules. But the recipient now possesses information that someone else should have classified — not classified information. (Of course, classifying the information, then sending it through unclassified channels to a private email account also would be impermissible. Emails released by the State Department show that some of Clinton's correspondents dealt with this by asking to set up conversations over secure telephone lines.)

2. It’s easy to figure out whether information has been classified.

There is a common refrain that Clinton “should have known” there was classified information in emails she got, even if it wasn't marked. As commentator Andrew McCarthy put it, “Classified information ... is well known to national security officials to be classified — regardless of whether it is marked as such or even written down.”

The classification rules treat this myth as if it were true. ...

<snip>

3. Anything classified is sensitive.

Many discussions of Clinton’s email assume that all classified information deserves to be classified, often using the terms “classified” and “sensitive” interchangeably, and that every leak of classified information is dangerous. Officials frequently make blanket statements that “unauthorized disclosure of classified information jeopardizes national security.”

In fact, the classification system is marked by discretion (intended) on the front end and uncertainty (unintended) on the back end. This lack of clear boundaries opens the door to a huge amount of unnecessary classification.

There are multiple incentives, unrelated to national security, to classify. It is easier and safer for busy officials to classify by rote rather than to pause for thought. Classification is a way for officials to enhance their status or protect agencies' turf. It can hide embarrassing facts or evidence of misconduct. There are no countervailing disincentives, as classification decisions normally go unreviewed, and agencies do not punish overclassifying. The result is massive overclassification.

4. Any mishandling of classified information is illegal.

5. Our classification system protects us from harm.

Rest at link:
5 myths about classified information

 

[OKTexas]

Looks like I'm going to have to keep reposting this link for a while - as the hot & bothered cons work out their new Benghazisms.

5 myths about classified information

Care to post what's in the link, I'm not going to register to read it.

Huh? I don't get a paywall.

I can't post all of it, But I'll get you started.

Here's another link:
Five myths about classified information - The Washington Post

1. Information can be “classified,” even if no one has classified it.

Many news reports and commentators have suggested that “information is classified by (its) nature” (as Sean Davis writes in The Federalist), even if no agency or official has classified it yet. These accounts treat “classified” as a quality rather than an action — one that is inherent, immutable and self-evident. If information is sensitive enough, it’s classified, no matter what.

When it comes to “original classification” — the initial decision to classify information — that portrayal is simply wrong. Under the executive order that governs classification, the 2,000-plus officials who have this authority “may” classify information if its disclosure reasonably could be expected to damage national security. The determination of harm is often highly subjective, and even if an official decides that disclosure would be harmful, he or she is not required to classify.

Information provided by foreign governments in confidence is different. The executive order cautions that the release of such information is “presumed” to harm national security; agency rules provide that such information “must be classified.” There is a difference, however, between “must be classified” and “is classified.” After all, when an official receives information, its source and the circumstances of its disclosure may not be apparent. This category of information is not self-identifying, let alone self-classifying.

An official who transmits that information without classifying it has violated agency rules. But the recipient now possesses information that someone else should have classified — not classified information. (Of course, classifying the information, then sending it through unclassified channels to a private email account also would be impermissible. Emails released by the State Department show that some of Clinton's correspondents dealt with this by asking to set up conversations over secure telephone lines.)

2. It’s easy to figure out whether information has been classified.

There is a common refrain that Clinton “should have known” there was classified information in emails she got, even if it wasn't marked. As commentator Andrew McCarthy put it, “Classified information ... is well known to national security officials to be classified — regardless of whether it is marked as such or even written down.”

The classification rules treat this myth as if it were true. ...

<snip>

3. Anything classified is sensitive.

Many discussions of Clinton’s email assume that all classified information deserves to be classified, often using the terms “classified” and “sensitive” interchangeably, and that every leak of classified information is dangerous. Officials frequently make blanket statements that “unauthorized disclosure of classified information jeopardizes national security.”

In fact, the classification system is marked by discretion (intended) on the front end and uncertainty (unintended) on the back end. This lack of clear boundaries opens the door to a huge amount of unnecessary classification.

There are multiple incentives, unrelated to national security, to classify. It is easier and safer for busy officials to classify by rote rather than to pause for thought. Classification is a way for officials to enhance their status or protect agencies' turf. It can hide embarrassing facts or evidence of misconduct. There are no countervailing disincentives, as classification decisions normally go unreviewed, and agencies do not punish overclassifying. The result is massive overclassification.

4. Any mishandling of classified information is illegal.

5. Our classification system protects us from harm.

Rest at link:
5 myths about classified information

I guess they forgot to mention, State Dept protocol requires even sensitive unclassified information to be handled on secure systems. Which would include any correspondence with any foreign government official or anything that contains personal information on a US citizen.

 

[JoeB131]

Once again you have proven yourself to be nothing but a childish mental midget. I made the decisions to allow myself to retire at age 59 and suddenly in your feeble mind I'm selfish and wait for it

Guys who need to brag about how well they are doing on the internet can't in real life.

 

[JoeB131]

Honestly, I feel really sorry for you and your apparent little fucked up life. When you learn to accept the fact that your life is the sum total of your own decisions and stop blaming others for your misery, you might not be such a bitter little man. You sir, are dismissed.

I didn't cause the 9/11 or The Great recession. That would be your boy Bush.

But you keep kissing ass if you want to use that to validate your selfishness and racism. Future generations will not look back at you kindly.

 

[JoeB131]

I guess they forgot to mention, State Dept protocol requires even sensitive unclassified information to be handled on secure systems. Which would include any correspondence with any foreign government official or anything that contains personal information on a US citizen.

which again, doesn't really apply here. Paper's article points out that the classification system is largely subjective.

None of which matters because Hillary wasn't the one SENDING the e-mails.

 

[Synthaholic]

Damn, I'm sorry, here I thought you was old enough not to need a nanny anymore. God, how could I have been so mistaken.

Grown ups look to themselves to make their own lives better, not bought and paid for politicians. Now I'm really curious, what do you want to be when you grow up?

I think you miss my point, guy. A president who ***** up the economy is going to have an effect on me no matter how much I prepare.

YOu see, back in 2000, I used to be one of you Right Wing Assholes who said, "Subornation of perjury" and "Obstruction of Justice" and thought Bill Lying about a Blow Job was the worst thing- EVER!!!! I told myself that the fact that I just flipped my house for twice what I paid for it in 1987 and the fact my Salary had doubled since I left the Army was due to my hard work and dedication, not because we managed to keep out of wars and recessions.

And then Dubya got in, and two wars and two recessions later, I had an underwater mortgage on my current home, my 401K was busted, and after my employer illegally fired me after I had a medical issue, I took a 25% cut in pay. IN short, Dubya fucked up, well, everything.

But Gosh Darn, he didn't lie about a blow job. That was the important thing. He lied about why we went into a war with a country that wasn't a treat to us. He lied about his tax cuts for the rich boosting the economy.

I am finally, finally at a point where I've clawed my way back to where I was before Bush fucked it all up, and I've even gotten a little ahead of that. Now all I need to do is make sure one of you guys don't get in there and **** it all up all over again.

Funny, none of that happened to me. I wonder what the difference is, could it possibly have been I made better decisions? Every point in my life, when things got tough financially, can be traced to a poor decision I made, I learned and moved on. I didn't blame anyone else and today, even in retirement, I don't owe anyone anything.

Are you claiming that the Bush Financial Crash had absolutely no affect on you financially?

 

[Synthaholic]

Who decides which State Dept. emails are classified? Would it be the Secretary of State, by any chance? Or do underlings have more authority?

The agency that originally generated the information.

Say that's the State Department.

Who in the State Department has the ultimate decision as to what is a classified/Top Secret document?

 

[Synthaholic]

Also the Obama appointed director of the FBI!

Of whom people like Sean Hannity have said is the only honest person in the Obama Administration, when he testified that the FBI couldn't vet every Syrian refugee.

At the time, I predicted either here or another forum that this would be short-lived praise, and the wingnuts would turn on him once he found Hillary innocent of any crimes.

I am confident I won't have to eat those words.