CDZ True or False about Clinton's private emails and server: Which is Which?

[emilynghiem]

Okay, once and for all, which description of events is true and which is false:

A. Clinton used private email for classified govt communications.
This account was hacked, and that's how the wrong people got information on Christopher Stevens which cost him his life.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

B. Clinton only used private email for personal use and did not mix in any classified or security-sensitive exchanges or matters that concern public duty and accountability as govt business.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

C. Bonus 1: Clinton used private emails and server in order to conduct illicit business that was in conflict
with govt duty, principles or laws.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

D. Bonus 2 - Clinton deliberately lied and/or changed stories after being confronted.

Where when what was said -- please cite exact sources NOT hearsay or one person repeating what another media source reported where conjectures go in circular arguments with no foundation in established agreed accounts.

Please do not repeat anything unverified or repeated from other sources "on the internet"

What was really said, changed, proven, documented, and established.

TRUE or FALSE for A and B (and 1 and 2 if this can even be done at all) Thanks

 

[Wyatt earp]

I pick the truth E

Clinton was a stuck bitch who was to good to go by protocol.

She didn't want to give up her BlackBerry, hillary didn't send any classified material but received it.

 

[sakinago]

Okay, once and for all, which description of events is true and which is false:

A. Clinton used private email for classified govt communications.
This account was hacked, and that's how the wrong people got information on Christopher Stevens which cost him his life.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

B. Clinton only used private email for personal use and did not mix in any classified or security-sensitive exchanges or matters that concern public duty and accountability as govt business.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

C. Bonus 1: Clinton used private emails and server in order to conduct illicit business that was in conflict
with govt duty, principles or laws.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

D. Bonus 2 - Clinton deliberately lied and/or changed stories after being confronted.

Where when what was said -- please cite exact sources NOT hearsay or one person repeating what another media source reported where conjectures go in circular arguments with no foundation in established agreed accounts.

Please do not repeat anything unverified or repeated from other sources "on the internet"

What was really said, changed, proven, documented, and established.

TRUE or FALSE for A and B (and 1 and 2 if this can even be done at all) Thanks

A. I have not heard of this, and I doubt it or any correlation can be made so I will say FALSE.

B. False: It was not strictly for personal use, she used it for her civic duties which is the cause of this whole investigation. The reason for the law is to make sure national info is secure, and for transparency to the public/congress/justice dept. if needed. The reason for going out of her way and setting up this private server as opposed to just using a govt. address is conjecture, but it's fairly obvious where that arrow points. And yes classified all the way to top secret emails were found, the real question is, if this were anyone else who did this, what would happen to them?

 

[pwjohn]

Okay, once and for all, which description of events is true and which is false:

A. Clinton used private email for classified govt communications.
This account was hacked, and that's how the wrong people got information on Christopher Stevens which cost him his life.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

B. Clinton only used private email for personal use and did not mix in any classified or security-sensitive exchanges or matters that concern public duty and accountability as govt business.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

C. Bonus 1: Clinton used private emails and server in order to conduct illicit business that was in conflict
with govt duty, principles or laws.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

D. Bonus 2 - Clinton deliberately lied and/or changed stories after being confronted.

Where when what was said -- please cite exact sources NOT hearsay or one person repeating what another media source reported where conjectures go in circular arguments with no foundation in established agreed accounts.

Please do not repeat anything unverified or repeated from other sources "on the internet"

What was really said, changed, proven, documented, and established.

TRUE or FALSE for A and B (and 1 and 2 if this can even be done at all) Thanks

A. I have not heard of this, and I doubt it or any correlation can be made so I will say FALSE.

B. False: It was not strictly for personal use, she used it for her civic duties which is the cause of this whole investigation. The reason for the law is to make sure national info is secure, and for transparency to the public/congress/justice dept. if needed. The reason for going out of her way and setting up this private server as opposed to just using a govt. address is conjecture, but it's fairly obvious where that arrow points. And yes classified all the way to top secret emails were found, the real question is, if this were anyone else who did this, what would happen to them?

Colin Powell did it ! What, if anything happened to him for doing the same thing Hillary did.

 

[320 Years of History]

reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not

By that phrase do you mean sworn testimony given under oath in a courtroom or other venue? Do you consider that some other form of source as being "legally responsible for being correct?" If so what are some examples?

For example, Jenna Green, writing in the National Law Journal (3/9/15), noted the following:

There's not any blanket prohibition on any federal employee from using a personal email account to conduct government business," said Potomac Law Group partner Neil Koslowe, a former Justice Department special litigation counsel who has worked on cases involving the Federal Records Act.

If it turns out that Clinton destroyed documents or mishandled classified information, that would be another story -- such violations can be criminal. However, the State Department has said there are "no indications" that Clinton improperly used her email for classified information.

The New York Times on March 2 reported that Clinton relied on her personal email account exclusively when she ran the State Department between 2009 and 2013, thwarting government record-keeping procedures.

National Archives and Records Administration regulations require emails to be "preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system," but when Clinton was in government there was no specified deadline for turning them over.

In 2013, David Ferriero, who heads the archives, testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that the agency "discourages the use of private email accounts to conduct federal business, but understands that there are situations where such use does occur."

Following that hearing, according to a statement from the archives, Congress amended the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act in November 2014 -- 21 months after Clinton left government -- to "prohibit the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they copy or forward any such emails into their government account within 20 days."
​

Do such remarks made by folks and published in such journals, for example, count as "legally responsible for being correct?"

 

[320 Years of History]

A. Clinton used [a] private email [account/server to send or receive] classified govt communications.

False. Officials acknowledged that none of the e-mails reviewed so far contain information that was marked classified when they were sent.

Clinton only used private email for personal use and did not mix in any classified or security-sensitive exchanges or matters that concern public duty and accountability as govt business.

Red:
False: Secretaries Clinton, Rice and Powell all used private email servers and each used them to send and receive information pertaining to personal matters and to Dept. of State matters.

Blue:
I'm not precisely certain what that phrase means because it's ambiguously worded, perhaps in an effort to keep the statement short, but in an honest attempt to infer what you mean, my answer is:

True. I say "true" because as noted in the previous statement, nothing she sent/received at the time she sent/received it was marked with some level of classification. If it wasn't classified when it was sent or received, there was no basis for anyone to perceive or glean that the communications having been transmitted via Mrs. Clinton's personal server to have caused anyone any concern regarding their sensitivity.

 

[sakinago]

Okay, once and for all, which description of events is true and which is false:

A. Clinton used private email for classified govt communications.
This account was hacked, and that's how the wrong people got information on Christopher Stevens which cost him his life.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

B. Clinton only used private email for personal use and did not mix in any classified or security-sensitive exchanges or matters that concern public duty and accountability as govt business.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

C. Bonus 1: Clinton used private emails and server in order to conduct illicit business that was in conflict
with govt duty, principles or laws.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

D. Bonus 2 - Clinton deliberately lied and/or changed stories after being confronted.

Where when what was said -- please cite exact sources NOT hearsay or one person repeating what another media source reported where conjectures go in circular arguments with no foundation in established agreed accounts.

Please do not repeat anything unverified or repeated from other sources "on the internet"

What was really said, changed, proven, documented, and established.

TRUE or FALSE for A and B (and 1 and 2 if this can even be done at all) Thanks

A. I have not heard of this, and I doubt it or any correlation can be made so I will say FALSE.

B. False: It was not strictly for personal use, she used it for her civic duties which is the cause of this whole investigation. The reason for the law is to make sure national info is secure, and for transparency to the public/congress/justice dept. if needed. The reason for going out of her way and setting up this private server as opposed to just using a govt. address is conjecture, but it's fairly obvious where that arrow points. And yes classified all the way to top secret emails were found, the real question is, if this were anyone else who did this, what would happen to them?

Colin Powell did it ! What, if anything happened to him for doing the same thing Hillary did.

If your kids try to sell you on this argument, "well so and so did it and got away with it." Would you accept it? And what Petreus did was much less and look what happened to him. Why is it we do not hold up these celebrity politicians to the same standard they hold their subordinates too?? These are the highest offices of public SERVANTS! If anything they should be held to a higher standard. It's this thinking that "oh he/she is democrat/republican and therefore can do no wrong" that has gotten us in this much trouble. Our politicians in congress don't even read the bills that they vote on, their number one job is fundraising and getting re-elected. And now the two most disliked candidates have now become the front runners of their respective parties, why? Because we have learned that if they are on "our side" we dismiss and excuse anything bad that they do or say. Because winning is more important, but now a days it's gone way past just winning the next election. Now it's if he/she is on our side we need to parrot everything they say.

 

[320 Years of History]

Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails:

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes​

Given the above, the entirety of the legal question about criminal wrongdoing must focus on intent:

• whether the information should have been recognized by Mrs. Clinton as classified
• whether Mrs. Clinton did know the information was classified

Thus far, what is known is that the FBI has found nothing indicating criminal activity, thus criminal intent, actually occurred. It's easy to make a mistake without committing a crime.

Seeing as the actual content of the four emails isn't known publicly, I'm in no position to say whether Mrs. Clinton reasonably should have understood it to be classified given its appearance in emails not indicated as being classified or having dissemination controls on them. Heck, I don't even know whether she was the sender or receiver of the noted four emails.

What I can say is that there is almost certainly no "smoking gun," for were there, charges would have been brought by now, some nine months after the investigation began. What I can't say is whether there's a sequence of circumstantial evidence that may allow for a decently strong enough -- i.e., debatable -- case and charges to be brought. There might be; there might not be. We have to wait to see what the FBI and the DA/special prosecutor determine.


When it comes to assessing Mrs. Clinton, she's at a distinct disadvantage in comparison to her competitors because so much more of her adult live has been in the public eye than has that of the lives of the other Presidential candidates. Take Trump, for example. The man has been a private citizen, sharing only what he wanted to, for all but the past 10 months to a year of his nearly 70 years of living. It's not easy to get "scoop" on folks of that ilk.

I don't say that as a means of exculpating Mrs. Clinton from having created an appearance of impropriety. I say it only to note that she's something of "low hanging fruit" when it comes to finding things that can be cast as her having done something wrong.

 

[sakinago]

Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails:

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes​

Given the above, the entirety of the legal question about criminal wrongdoing must focus on intent:

• whether the information should have been recognized by Mrs. Clinton as classified
• whether Mrs. Clinton did know the information was classified

Thus far, what is known is that the FBI has found nothing indicating criminal activity, thus criminal intent, actually occurred. It's easy to make a mistake without committing a crime.

Seeing as the actual content of the four emails isn't known publicly, I'm in no position to say whether Mrs. Clinton reasonably should have understood it to be classified given its appearance in emails not indicated as being classified or having dissemination controls on them. Heck, I don't even know whether she was the sender or receiver of the noted four emails.

What I can say is that there is almost certainly no "smoking gun," for were there, charges would have been brought by now, some nine months after the investigation began. What I can't say is whether there's a sequence of circumstantial evidence that may allow for a decently strong enough -- i.e., debatable -- case and charges to be brought. There might be; there might not be. We have to wait to see what the FBI and the DA/special prosecutor determine.


When it comes to assessing Mrs. Clinton, she's at a distinct disadvantage in comparison to her competitors because so much more of her adult live has been in the public eye than has that of the lives of the other Presidential candidates. Take Trump, for example. The man has been a private citizen, sharing only what he wanted to, for all but the past 10 months to a year of his nearly 70 years of living. It's not easy to get "scoop" on folks of that ilk.

I don't say that as a means of exculpating Mrs. Clinton from having created an appearance of impropriety. I say it only to note that she's something of "low hanging fruit" when it comes to finding things that can be cast as her having done something wrong.

I do understand that they weren't marked classified at the time, and the classified classification is uneccasarily thrown on the most ridiculous bits of info by the government (which is a whole different topic). But the four emails they mention I believe are considered top secret, a much higher level than classified. Granted top secret after the fact, but still top secret. Essentially the highest classification level, very sensitive info. While it's possibly she could not have forseen this, someone in her position should have definitely known. And from testimony I have been hearing from other government employees is that had this been them, they'd certainly be fired and probably be facing trial. Which is my biggest issue with the email situation. Along with the higher your posistion in office, the less privacy you should have in your work life, IMO. Being you are a PUBLIC SERVANT, and not only responsible with immense amounts of tax dollars, but also lives. So the whole personal server thing irks me a lot as well

 

[320 Years of History]

Granted top secret after the fact, but still top secret.

Well, whether the classification was assigned before or after the fact goes directly to whether a crime was committed.

While it's possibly she could not have forseen this, someone in her position should have definitely known.

Not having seen the actual content, I have no way to know or opine about what anyone should have or should not have known. How do you come to be so certain? Have you seen the content of the emails?

from testimony I have been hearing from other government employees is that had this been them, they'd certainly be fired and probably be facing trial. Which is my biggest issue with the email situation.

What testimony? I haven't seen anything that rises to the level of testimony. I have seen folks speculate about what may or may not have happened to them were they in similar situations.

Along with the higher your posistion in office, the less privacy you should have in your work life, IMO.

Okay, well, that's your opinion. In my experience as an executive in a consulting firm, I can tell you that across all myriad industries -- government, financial services, manufacturing, etc. -- the fact of the matter is that one's discretionary leeway, the extent to which one is given the benefit of the doubt, along with the privacy of one's communications, increases in direct proportion with one's responsibility and authority. You may feel that's not how things should be, but I assure you it's how it is.

Part of where that greater degree of discretionary choice comes from is that managing is about maintaining processes, disciplines and systems. Where managers keep the rules, leaders have to be willing to break them, or at least find creative ways around them. When to break the rules depends on the role a leader is fulfilling at any given point in time. All leaders are managers, but not always are leaders acting the manager role. All leaders are keen communicators, but every time they communicate they are neither intending to inspire nor to inform.

A lot of folks -- non leaders especially -- don't understand those things and their distinctions. That's okay if they aren't tasked with leading as well as with managing. I don't know if you are one of those folks or whether you're merely playing devil's advocate. What I do know is that it's impossible to make an accurate assessment of Mrs. Clinton's actions re: the emails without seeing the emails. That's why -- because it's impossible for me to have a fully or even halfway decently informed opinion -- I've eschewed making a judgment call about whether she did something wrong, legally or ethically.

 

[Markle]

I pick the truth E

Clinton was a stuck bitch who was to good to go by protocol.

She didn't want to give up her BlackBerry, hillary didn't send any classified material but received it.

She also sent emails with classified documents. You are 100% correct that Hillary and the entire Clinton cabal, believes they are ABOVE having to follow protocol. Surely us peasants should understand.

I believe that the FBI has so much evidence that their recommendation would be for charges all the way up to and including espionage. That would be a bombshell. They are checking, rechecking and checking again to make certain that they have all the "i's" dotted and the "t's" crossed.

Hillary seems intent on antagonizing FBI Director James Comey. He has a sterling reputation and, were I under investigation by his bureau, not someone I would want to poke.

 

[320 Years of History]

Hillary and the entire Clinton cabal, believes they are ABOVE having to follow protocol.Surely us peasants should understand.

Let me put your mind at ease. Leaders know full and well you "peasants [simply] don't understand." That you don't isn't among the things that concern executive leaders, be they the Clintons, the Bushes, the Ryans, or any other folks who are tasked with setting direction more so that following it.

Rules, each and every one of them exists to guide leaders not constrain their actions. It is, of course, necessary to have rules and procedures if we wish to accomplish large and complex tasks, but the question of whether or not it is worth the cost of merely following the rules and procedures must be perennially re-examined by the people given the discretion and authority to make and break the rules.

Any fool can make a rule
And any fool will mind it.
― Henry David Thoreau, Journal #14​

 

[emilynghiem]

reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not

By that phrase do you mean sworn testimony given under oath in a courtroom or other venue? Do you consider that some other form of source as being "legally responsible for being correct?" If so what are some examples?

For example, Jenna Green, writing in the National Law Journal (3/9/15), noted the following:

There's not any blanket prohibition on any federal employee from using a personal email account to conduct government business," said Potomac Law Group partner Neil Koslowe, a former Justice Department special litigation counsel who has worked on cases involving the Federal Records Act.

If it turns out that Clinton destroyed documents or mishandled classified information, that would be another story -- such violations can be criminal. However, the State Department has said there are "no indications" that Clinton improperly used her email for classified information.

The New York Times on March 2 reported that Clinton relied on her personal email account exclusively when she ran the State Department between 2009 and 2013, thwarting government record-keeping procedures.

National Archives and Records Administration regulations require emails to be "preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system," but when Clinton was in government there was no specified deadline for turning them over.

In 2013, David Ferriero, who heads the archives, testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that the agency "discourages the use of private email accounts to conduct federal business, but understands that there are situations where such use does occur."

Following that hearing, according to a statement from the archives, Congress amended the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act in November 2014 -- 21 months after Clinton left government -- to "prohibit the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they copy or forward any such emails into their government account within 20 days."
​

Do such remarks made by folks and published in such journals, for example, count as "legally responsible for being correct?"

Hi 320 Years of History
At this point, no we don't have even Hillary Clinton agreeing to sworn testimony.

For that reason, we have hearsay stories that (A) she "changed her story" and "she said" there was no such server "but later there turns out there was" so she "changed her story" [so I'm asking can any of that be verified? the longer version of this is that she denied several points, and had to "go back on them" after being confronted with evidence to the contrary. such as "yes there was a private email/server" but it was only for personal use and then "she changed her story" when confronted with emails that weren't just personal, etc.] (B) she "told the families that the attack was caused by the video" but later "changed her story" and "even called the families liars" [is there any verification of what she said or didn't say to the families or about them?] (C) she "told Chelsea and other sources it WAS caused by a planned terrorist attack" early on but "later changed her story and denied it" [where did this come from and how can any of it be verified? how can anyone possibly trace what she told her own daughter and other sources in private?]

However, if there is indeed admissions of a hacker who "allegedly" hacked into her email, and is saying that both Russian and Chinese sources also hacked into her email, then wouldn't those investigations and statements made by a suspect apprehended by authorities have to be obtained under strict enough procedures that they can be used for prosecution purposes. Is all this just hearsay and none of it official information obtained by authorities?

The "story" is one hacker has already claimed to have hacked into her email.
And then the story is other sources have also, and "that is how information leaked out on Christopher Stevens location, and how he got targeted"

So this leak is blamed for getting him and other people killed.

I'd like to know is there any official word or source for any of this,
or is it all "he said she said" stuff off the internet.

It was described to me that Clinton is the one who SENT Ambassador Stevens out there, but his multiple requests for support were ignored even before this event, and especially the emergency messages for help when danger was imminent went completely ignored, which is what is upsetting the people protesting this.

The complaint is that the Americans were basically abandoned for 13 hours, when Clinton herself is the one who sent Stevens into that situation in the first place.

If the only thing that can be verified is that Clinton sent him there, and all the other things that took place cannot be verified in detail, that can still explain the upset and outrage over this tragedy.

If Clinton appears cold about it, and to the families also, I am told that is just her personality. She is reported to be like that on everything to everyone, and it is not personal to this one incident, or trying to cover up one thing more than another. She just has this persona that is like that all the time, from what personal sources are saying about her.

I understand certain political leaders need to have a tough front because politics gets messy and you have to be able to stick to your guns. Like Abraham Lincoln had to play very mean dirty politics to get anything done when there was a civil war going on, even hanging journalists and burning presses that is of course totally unlawful in peacetime. But during war, anyone could be the enemy and treated as treasonous, so it was a mess when it's Americans against Americans, and Lincoln was in the middle of all that.

This same personality backfires when someone really is part of unethical or unlawful activities and won't budge or give the truth when prompted but has to be forced.

So if someone has this type of personality, it is URGENT to know if they are truly Constitutionalist and will only use it to protect America and the Constitution and will not use this bullying/obstructionist type of front for personal reasons or gain.

That is why I want to know if Clinton was or was not covering up for personal issues. When Bush overreached with the contested military targeting of Iraq after 9/11, this was a mix of both a strongarmed response to deter any further terrorist attacks, and also it was abused by private interests to take advantage with an ongoing pattern of contested war contracts that show conflicting interests. So it was both, and that's why both sides were right and both were wrong in defending and contesting the war decisions. There were intentions that were right, but also a lot of corruption and abuse mixed in that was wrong and should still be corrected instead of skirting over it.

However, with the the "war going on" here between conservatives and liberals accusing each other through the media, this is NOT an official war as in Lincoln's day to REALLY "overthrown the govt" but ideological between parties trying to overthrow the other PARTY, not the govt.

So it is NOT justified to abuse power as Lincoln did things that are normally illegal, and Bush used whatever means to justify declaring war that didn't meet the usual standards and was later picked apart for that.

Obama, Clinton and this administration has been treating people as enemies and send the IRS after political enemies while overlooking and accommodating conflicts of interest that benefit the party in power.
So that is not official use of govt office, but political abuse of office.

I want to know if this falls under that, or what.
If Clinton is stonewalling, is it just the way she is personality wise as is reported toward people in general.
Or it political to save face, or is it political to really avoid some issue that is of national security and
against duties as Secretary of State.

 

[emilynghiem]

I pick the truth E

Clinton was a stuck bitch who was to good to go by protocol.

She didn't want to give up her BlackBerry, hillary didn't send any classified material but received it.

She also sent emails with classified documents. You are 100% correct that Hillary and the entire Clinton cabal, believes they are ABOVE having to follow protocol. Surely us peasants should understand.

I believe that the FBI has so much evidence that their recommendation would be for charges all the way up to and including espionage. That would be a bombshell. They are checking, rechecking and checking again to make certain that they have all the "i's" dotted and the "t's" crossed.

Hillary seems intent on antagonizing FBI Director James Comey. He has a sterling reputation and, were I under investigation by his bureau, not someone I would want to poke.

Thanks Markle what sources can be used to verify that classified information
was found there, and also can it be confirmed that when Clinton was confronted
with this "she changed her story from denying it to saying yes there was classified information"
or did she always say there was some mixed in? Where are sources on this, links anything?
Thank you!

 

[320 Years of History]

reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not

By that phrase do you mean sworn testimony given under oath in a courtroom or other venue? Do you consider that some other form of source as being "legally responsible for being correct?" If so what are some examples?

For example, Jenna Green, writing in the National Law Journal (3/9/15), noted the following:

There's not any blanket prohibition on any federal employee from using a personal email account to conduct government business," said Potomac Law Group partner Neil Koslowe, a former Justice Department special litigation counsel who has worked on cases involving the Federal Records Act.

If it turns out that Clinton destroyed documents or mishandled classified information, that would be another story -- such violations can be criminal. However, the State Department has said there are "no indications" that Clinton improperly used her email for classified information.

The New York Times on March 2 reported that Clinton relied on her personal email account exclusively when she ran the State Department between 2009 and 2013, thwarting government record-keeping procedures.

National Archives and Records Administration regulations require emails to be "preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system," but when Clinton was in government there was no specified deadline for turning them over.

In 2013, David Ferriero, who heads the archives, testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that the agency "discourages the use of private email accounts to conduct federal business, but understands that there are situations where such use does occur."

Following that hearing, according to a statement from the archives, Congress amended the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act in November 2014 -- 21 months after Clinton left government -- to "prohibit the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they copy or forward any such emails into their government account within 20 days."
​

Do such remarks made by folks and published in such journals, for example, count as "legally responsible for being correct?"

Hi 320 Years of History
At this point, no we don't have even Hillary Clinton agreeing to sworn testimony.

For that reason, we have hearsay stories that (A) she "changed her story" and "she said" there was no such server "but later there turns out there was" so she "changed her story" [so I'm asking can any of that be verified? the longer version of this is that she denied several points, and had to "go back on them" after being confronted with evidence to the contrary. such as "yes there was a private email/server" but it was only for personal use and then "she changed her story" when confronted with emails that weren't just personal, etc.] (B) she "told the families that the attack was caused by the video" but later "changed her story" and "even called the families liars" [is there any verification of what she said or didn't say to the families or about them?] (C) she "told Chelsea and other sources it WAS caused by a planned terrorist attack" early on but "later changed her story and denied it" [where did this come from and how can any of it be verified? how can anyone possibly trace what she told her own daughter and other sources in private?]

However, if there is indeed admissions of a hacker who "allegedly" hacked into her email, and is saying that both Russian and Chinese sources also hacked into her email, then wouldn't those investigations and statements made by a suspect apprehended by authorities have to be obtained under strict enough procedures that they can be used for prosecution purposes. Is all this just hearsay and none of it official information obtained by authorities?

The "story" is one hacker has already claimed to have hacked into her email.
And then the story is other sources have also, and "that is how information leaked out on Christopher Stevens location, and how he got targeted"

So this leak is blamed for getting him and other people killed.

I'd like to know is there any official word or source for any of this,
or is it all "he said she said" stuff off the internet.

It was described to me that Clinton is the one who SENT Ambassador Stevens out there, but his multiple requests for support were ignored even before this event, and especially the emergency messages for help when danger was imminent went completely ignored, which is what is upsetting the people protesting this.

The complaint is that the Americans were basically abandoned for 13 hours, when Clinton herself is the one who sent Stevens into that situation in the first place.

If the only thing that can be verified is that Clinton sent him there, and all the other things that took place cannot be verified in detail, that can still explain the upset and outrage over this tragedy.

If Clinton appears cold about it, and to the families also, I am told that is just her personality. She is reported to be like that on everything to everyone, and it is not personal to this one incident, or trying to cover up one thing more than another. She just has this persona that is like that all the time, from what personal sources are saying about her.

I understand certain political leaders need to have a tough front because politics gets messy and you have to be able to stick to your guns. Like Abraham Lincoln had to play very mean dirty politics to get anything done when there was a civil war going on, even hanging journalists and burning presses that is of course totally unlawful in peacetime. But during war, anyone could be the enemy and treated as treasonous, so it was a mess when it's Americans against Americans, and Lincoln was in the middle of all that.

This same personality backfires when someone really is part of unethical or unlawful activities and won't budge or give the truth when prompted but has to be forced.

So if someone has this type of personality, it is URGENT to know if they are truly Constitutionalist and will only use it to protect America and the Constitution and will not use this bullying/obstructionist type of front for personal reasons or gain.

That is why I want to know if Clinton was or was not covering up for personal issues. When Bush overreached with the contested military targeting of Iraq after 9/11, this was a mix of both a strongarmed response to deter any further terrorist attacks, and also it was abused by private interests to take advantage with an ongoing pattern of contested war contracts that show conflicting interests. So it was both, and that's why both sides were right and both were wrong in defending and contesting the war decisions. There were intentions that were right, but also a lot of corruption and abuse mixed in that was wrong and should still be corrected instead of skirting over it.

However, with the the "war going on" here between conservatives and liberals accusing each other through the media, this is NOT an official war as in Lincoln's day to REALLY "overthrown the govt" but ideological between parties trying to overthrow the other PARTY, not the govt.

So it is NOT justified to abuse power as Lincoln did things that are normally illegal, and Bush used whatever means to justify declaring war that didn't meet the usual standards and was later picked apart for that.

Obama, Clinton and this administration has been treating people as enemies and send the IRS after political enemies while overlooking and accommodating conflicts of interest that benefit the party in power.
So that is not official use of govt office, but political abuse of office.

I want to know if this falls under that, or what.
If Clinton is stonewalling, is it just the way she is personality wise as is reported toward people in general.
Or it political to save face, or is it political to really avoid some issue that is of national security and
against duties as Secretary of State.

Okay. I understand now what you mean. I was unclear about whether you sought affidavits or whether you sought credible/valid legal analysis of the information that is currently available.

You're asking what affidavits about the email/server issue have been made public. The only affidavit I'm aware of that has become public is one Mrs. Clinton signed averring that she had turned over all the emails she'd sent/received using her personal server and that pertain to DoS business. There was a lawsuit -- Gawker Media LLC, et al. v. Department of State (link goes to the appellate court decision, not the district court one) -- in which the plaintiff sought some of the emails. (Note: the link goes to a clearly biased source, but the details of what was sought seem accurate.)

That's what I know of that's actual sworn testimony and that must therefore be accepted as truthful. Short of that, the only major thing known as undeniable fact re: the investigation is that so far the FBI hasn't found anything that rises to the level of meriting bringing charges against Mrs. Clinton, but they are still looking. Maybe they'll find something; maybe they won't. The thing known about "the four emails" is that their details are unlikely to become public knowledge because they contain information that is currently classified (general sense of the word).

 

[pwjohn]

Okay, once and for all, which description of events is true and which is false:

A. Clinton used private email for classified govt communications.
This account was hacked, and that's how the wrong people got information on Christopher Stevens which cost him his life.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

B. Clinton only used private email for personal use and did not mix in any classified or security-sensitive exchanges or matters that concern public duty and accountability as govt business.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

C. Bonus 1: Clinton used private emails and server in order to conduct illicit business that was in conflict
with govt duty, principles or laws.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

D. Bonus 2 - Clinton deliberately lied and/or changed stories after being confronted.

Where when what was said -- please cite exact sources NOT hearsay or one person repeating what another media source reported where conjectures go in circular arguments with no foundation in established agreed accounts.

Please do not repeat anything unverified or repeated from other sources "on the internet"

What was really said, changed, proven, documented, and established.

TRUE or FALSE for A and B (and 1 and 2 if this can even be done at all) Thanks

A. I have not heard of this, and I doubt it or any correlation can be made so I will say FALSE.

B. False: It was not strictly for personal use, she used it for her civic duties which is the cause of this whole investigation. The reason for the law is to make sure national info is secure, and for transparency to the public/congress/justice dept. if needed. The reason for going out of her way and setting up this private server as opposed to just using a govt. address is conjecture, but it's fairly obvious where that arrow points. And yes classified all the way to top secret emails were found, the real question is, if this were anyone else who did this, what would happen to them?

Colin Powell did it ! What, if anything happened to him for doing the same thing Hillary did.

If your kids try to sell you on this argument, "well so and so did it and got away with it." Would you accept it? And what Petreus did was much less and look what happened to him. Why is it we do not hold up these celebrity politicians to the same standard they hold their subordinates too?? These are the highest offices of public SERVANTS! If anything they should be held to a higher standard. It's this thinking that "oh he/she is democrat/republican and therefore can do no wrong" that has gotten us in this much trouble. Our politicians in congress don't even read the bills that they vote on, their number one job is fundraising and getting re-elected. And now the two most disliked candidates have now become the front runners of their respective parties, why? Because we have learned that if they are on "our side" we dismiss and excuse anything bad that they do or say. Because winning is more important, but now a days it's gone way past just winning the next election. Now it's if he/she is on our side we need to parrot everything they say.

Well, Petreus punishment was kind of a mixed bag. His position pretty much remains unchanged, and he continues to work at the highest levels with information that's considered top secret, and above, to this day. The last I heard.

 

[emilynghiem]

Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails:

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes​

Given the above, the entirety of the legal question about criminal wrongdoing must focus on intent:

• whether the information should have been recognized by Mrs. Clinton as classified
• whether Mrs. Clinton did know the information was classified

Thus far, what is known is that the FBI has found nothing indicating criminal activity, thus criminal intent, actually occurred. It's easy to make a mistake without committing a crime.

Seeing as the actual content of the four emails isn't known publicly, I'm in no position to say whether Mrs. Clinton reasonably should have understood it to be classified given its appearance in emails not indicated as being classified or having dissemination controls on them. Heck, I don't even know whether she was the sender or receiver of the noted four emails.

What I can say is that there is almost certainly no "smoking gun," for were there, charges would have been brought by now, some nine months after the investigation began. What I can't say is whether there's a sequence of circumstantial evidence that may allow for a decently strong enough -- i.e., debatable -- case and charges to be brought. There might be; there might not be. We have to wait to see what the FBI and the DA/special prosecutor determine.


When it comes to assessing Mrs. Clinton, she's at a distinct disadvantage in comparison to her competitors because so much more of her adult live has been in the public eye than has that of the lives of the other Presidential candidates. Take Trump, for example. The man has been a private citizen, sharing only what he wanted to, for all but the past 10 months to a year of his nearly 70 years of living. It's not easy to get "scoop" on folks of that ilk.

I don't say that as a means of exculpating Mrs. Clinton from having created an appearance of impropriety. I say it only to note that she's something of "low hanging fruit" when it comes to finding things that can be cast as her having done something wrong.

I do understand that they weren't marked classified at the time, and the classified classification is uneccasarily thrown on the most ridiculous bits of info by the government (which is a whole different topic). But the four emails they mention I believe are considered top secret, a much higher level than classified. Granted top secret after the fact, but still top secret. Essentially the highest classification level, very sensitive info. While it's possibly she could not have forseen this, someone in her position should have definitely known. And from testimony I have been hearing from other government employees is that had this been them, they'd certainly be fired and probably be facing trial. Which is my biggest issue with the email situation. Along with the higher your posistion in office, the less privacy you should have in your work life, IMO. Being you are a PUBLIC SERVANT, and not only responsible with immense amounts of tax dollars, but also lives. So the whole personal server thing irks me a lot as well

Dear sakinago and 320 Years of History
I am thanking your posts as "informative" since you are going through the trouble of trying to cite exact sources and clarify what has been verified or not.

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.
I was told to "research the internet" to find this, so I will try, but may need your help.

Are you sure there are no sources online confirming some emails/information WERE marked as "TOP SECRET or higher' and "this is why the information is being withheld".

I see from your posts that some INFORMATION in the emails is classified and is still being treated as such.
So that already tells me this was not safe to use emails for that.

At the very least, this is reckless and poor judgment to use private hackable email for any state business dealing with national security/defense.

I can understand personal emails for events like state dinners, where people might share personal information about people they know personally when planning social events.

But for anything involving issues of defense, security, and purely govt business, I don't care who did what before, that should clearly be on govt emails and servers so it is
ACCOUNTABLE to the govt and public and Freedom of Information requests can be applied to it.

People at "regular businesses" make mistakes all the time of mixing business with personal emails.
That DOES cause problems with companies when something goes wrong, and it is both personal
and affecting professional relations and responsibility.

For Govt business and especially when Defense/Security issues are involved,
Clinton and others should apply a higher standard, and they should know this.
Even if "other people" mixed personal emails before, I can understand that for
govt related "social events" and non-proprietary issues.

But CANNOT understand this for things that are even RELATED to classified/security sensitive matters.
Even if the actual information "may not have been classified" if the MATTER has some classified and
some not, then it is dangerous to start any emails on that if it COULD lead to some classified info later on.

Such matters should CLEARLY NOT be personal or nonproprietary, and should have been
restricted to the respective emails/servers if there is even a RISK of something that COULD be
misused or RISK of some information leaking that COULD jeopardize a classified matter.

So I agree with the gist of what
sakinago is saying about accountability.

I stlll want to dig deeper to find whatever sources are supposedly reporting that
some emails/information WERE marked as TOP SECRET or higher.

If I can't find that, even with your help, I'll try to get the original person who reported this to track down those sources and post what is being cited for that.

Thanks so much, I know this is a lot of trouble to avoid repeating the "he said/she said type of hearsay" circulating on the internet, instead of digging up and finding the original source links that can verify what was established and what hasn't been.

I will try to THANK all the msgs that make some sincere attempt to dig into the real sources and avoid hearsay.

If I miss one, please PM me and let me know so I'll go back and credit the poster.

Everyone else: I appreciate your help and contributions here, each of you. Thank you, too!

 

[emilynghiem]

I pick the truth E

Clinton was a stuck bitch who was to good to go by protocol.

She didn't want to give up her BlackBerry, hillary didn't send any classified material but received it.

She also sent emails with classified documents. You are 100% correct that Hillary and the entire Clinton cabal, believes they are ABOVE having to follow protocol. Surely us peasants should understand.

I believe that the FBI has so much evidence that their recommendation would be for charges all the way up to and including espionage. That would be a bombshell. They are checking, rechecking and checking again to make certain that they have all the "i's" dotted and the "t's" crossed.

Hillary seems intent on antagonizing FBI Director James Comey. He has a sterling reputation and, were I under investigation by his bureau, not someone I would want to poke.

Dear Markle and 320 Years of History
I was reminded that we may have missed the obvious.

If Clinton was sending out these emails (ie ones including classified information) from her server then the fact they weren't MARKED as classified is still on her.

1. if they weren't MARKED to begin with, that still implicates her as being responsible/irresponsible for the ones that WERE found later to CONTAIN classified information and be treated as such after being discovered.

2. if they were altered later, that is still on her, and again, I was told to research how 22,000 emails are missing, an estimated 55,000 were provided, and only 1 email was supposedly sent using her govt email.
This is not the same use as "others" -- no other Secretary of State used an email/server that "nobody knew about" and deliberately did not use the govt email/server provided (except 1 time, if I can find that source)

Here are the links I was given to research:

Clinton, on her private server, wrote 104 emails the government says are classified

More than 100 of Hillary Clinton's emails are considered 'classified'

Emails From Clinton’s IT Director Appear to Be Missing

Clinton denies sending classified info from private server

Romanian hacker Guccifer: I breached Clinton server, 'it was easy' | Fox News

http://nypost.com/2015/08/18/hillarys-email-server-was-run-out-of-an-old-bathroom-closet/

^ This especially does not compare to what "other people did before"

As a Democrat, I want to vote for someone who is TRANSPARENT. If you are going to take the Fifth Amendment on something, and ask to keep it between you and God, I believe there can still be justice without revealing every detail: I believe you still owe full restitution for whatever damage "may or may not have been caused by said accusation" and take that responsibility for reparations while you keep the degree of your guilt or innocence between you and God. You can do voluntary restitution without admitting how much was your fault, was deliberate, or was related because of reckless oversight. As long as all resulting grievances are resolved, and good faith relations restored, then keeping some details private does not have to obstruct justice. I'd like to ask Clinton and other Democrat leaders for such a resolution here, so there is not this perception that even "possible" breaches of national security will be tolerated for political expedience.

In this case, even if none of it was deliberate to hide or to do anything illicit,
if it led to the fear or the PERCEPTION of breach of national security then restitution is owed for that breach of public duty, where perception of security is NECESSARY to DETER attacks. If anyone PERCEIVES American Defense as being weak, that opens the door to tests and attacks, as people are arguing Obama and the Democrats are WEAK in this area and practically invite aggression because of the appearance of being soft.

Clinton may be one of the Democrats who CAN scare people into fearing what American govt will do, and not test but avoid pulling any stunts.

But this tough appearance for deterrent effect CANNOT be a liability where American citizens fear their own administration as not being accountable to us, and willing to put party interests and personal political face ABOVE our interests and above national security as Obama is blamed for.

I will ask all of you to PLEASE review the links above (and I will try to find the links on how Clinton backtracked on when she admitted what details about this ie "when she lied at first and then later changed her story", and
the ones on how she only used the govt email/server one time?)

If we can settle this successfully, I will know what was established as going on and how much was left out and left to conjecture.

If there are still debates as to what was established and what was left out, I have no qualms about asking all other sources, inside and outside the Democrat party and campaign consultants, to dig up the truth to resolve any issues in question.

If Clinton's own support base can't be honest, I don't want that either.
If opponents can't stick to the facts, and have to say things like "if there are emails missing then you can only assume X Y Z" and issue judgment based on that, that isn't enough to make those claims.

If we get stuck, and can't confirm past a certain point because information once deemed classified is blocked from public access, then at the very least, I would still appeal to my fellow Democrats to create 4 memorial projects and internships/positions in fields related to govt that would address and resolve these issues for improved national security and to end this whole pattern of political bullying, attacks and defenses between parties, that I feel is endangering public security by distracting and dividing, instead of uniting the nation, and is wasting resources on media and political campaigns that could go directly into creating jobs SOLVING our nation's problems with govt, social programs and education, and business/economy.

Thanks for your help to review this and the links above.

We need accountability for correcting problems, whether people agree or disagree on who was at fault or what were all the causes, and whether or not which people take the Fifth Amendment. If only God can be our judge, then God can withhold information from us where we might abuse it, and God may have us accused and attacked to the same degree we have done so to others, which befuddles the issue at hand.

If we agree to solve problems together, God will grant us the wisdom and support we need to restore justice, even if we don't have "omniscience" to know every single detail. We can still seek consensual solutions to restore American faith in govt, even where our knowledge remains imperfect.

I want to find the people who CAN handle transparency, because we need that to solve problems inside and outside govt. Thank you, everyone here.

 

[emilynghiem]

Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails:

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes​

Given the above, the entirety of the legal question about criminal wrongdoing must focus on intent:

• whether the information should have been recognized by Mrs. Clinton as classified
• whether Mrs. Clinton did know the information was classified

Thus far, what is known is that the FBI has found nothing indicating criminal activity, thus criminal intent, actually occurred. It's easy to make a mistake without committing a crime.

Seeing as the actual content of the four emails isn't known publicly, I'm in no position to say whether Mrs. Clinton reasonably should have understood it to be classified given its appearance in emails not indicated as being classified or having dissemination controls on them. Heck, I don't even know whether she was the sender or receiver of the noted four emails.

What I can say is that there is almost certainly no "smoking gun," for were there, charges would have been brought by now, some nine months after the investigation began. What I can't say is whether there's a sequence of circumstantial evidence that may allow for a decently strong enough -- i.e., debatable -- case and charges to be brought. There might be; there might not be. We have to wait to see what the FBI and the DA/special prosecutor determine.


When it comes to assessing Mrs. Clinton, she's at a distinct disadvantage in comparison to her competitors because so much more of her adult live has been in the public eye than has that of the lives of the other Presidential candidates. Take Trump, for example. The man has been a private citizen, sharing only what he wanted to, for all but the past 10 months to a year of his nearly 70 years of living. It's not easy to get "scoop" on folks of that ilk.

I don't say that as a means of exculpating Mrs. Clinton from having created an appearance of impropriety. I say it only to note that she's something of "low hanging fruit" when it comes to finding things that can be cast as her having done something wrong.

These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department;
rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated
and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified
today. This classified information should
never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

Dear 320 Years of History Thank you again for posting this statement.

I will share it with the person who referred the link that cited 104 emails
(which may be a later count) vs. these "4" cited (as a LIMITED SAMPLE
out of the given set, and doesn't mean the only ones).

There is also no mention of the total # of emails missing.

I cited the statement above that
"This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system."

So that tells me enough. Even if this isn't counted as criminal, the negligence and lack of judgment to know what is classified and what isn't concerns me enough, with someone who cares more about other things than government duty.

I already watch govt with disdain that people in highest of offices keep putting politics and popular beliefs over Govt duty NOT to impose or deny beliefs by abusing public authority and law. Nobody is meeting that standard.

I thought Cruz came close to putting Constitution before personal politics and beliefs, and he even made a statement that the people in BOTH parties aren't the problem but their leaders who are selling them out, so he wasn't being partisan there. But when he defended traditional marriage beliefs ABOVE equal beliefs in marriage equality, that is where he went too far for me. I know he was intending to defend states' rights from federal govt overreaching, but in that case it is proper for federal govt to enforce Constitutional right to equal exercise of beliefs and strike BANS on gay marriage that are equally wrongful as ESTABLISHING same sex marriage through the state. BOTH parties and all leaders speaking up on this have gotten this wrong.

So already I know that people are putting their own agenda and politics before public interests and duty, since nobody is perfectly unbiased, or "all inclusive as God represents". Nobody is perfectly just and unbiased as "Jesus Christ represents Universal Justice defending and restoring all humanity equally" and nobody is as perfect as that!

But if Cruz came close, to holding his own party to sticking to Constitutional standards, surely we can do better. We all need to hold govt in check, especially if candidates like Trump or Clinton are going to win and take office, we need to be prepared.

Maybe we need a network of political consultants and researches from ALL parties to redress grievances, and the minute some issue or objection comes up, we consult in teams, weed out the true verified information from the hearsay online, and issue statements and corrections so the public stays informed and not misled by any political lobbying by either side of conflicts.

320 Years of History I am especially interested if you are a professional executive in this field. We need a citizens' senate in every state to start checking these things, if these difficult political personalities like Trump and Clinton are going to be making or denying statements in the media.

sakinago your statements on the importance of ethics and even APPEARANCE is also critical for public faith in govt and public security. I'd like to work with you further on how to promote govt ethics, where I propose to educate the public on standards and even set up a grievance system to report ethics complaints - NOT just financial/legal conflicts of interest but POLITICAL conflicts of interest, where if any public official puts their partisan beliefs above any other citizens' that is still abuse of public authority as a bias in belief that does not belong in govt policy. See ethics-commission.net where one of the 10 articles is about not letting loyalty to party or persons interfere with public duty. People are breaching this all the time, where we have come to expect people to pay money to the party and party candidates we are "hiring" to bully certain beliefs through govt, so people also need to know this habit is violating Constitutional duties, we cannot hire people to violate the equal rights, beliefs and protections of other people of different beliefs, or we are guilty of "conspiring to violate equal civil rights" by FUNDING such campaigns to abuse govt this way!

Thanks again to 320 Years of History sakinago Markle pwjohn and everyone else who replied here. You renew my faith that people can push for accountability. Whoever wins this election is going to require citizens to police their govts (local state and federal) full time to keep policies in check, and not allow party politics to push anything out of line where it violates the beliefs of other citizens who have the right not to be forced to fund things they don't believe in. This will take a team effort. With people like you, this is not impossible, but may be legally necessary to protect all our rights from any more political oppression and obstruction. Thanks!

 

[320 Years of History]

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.
I was told to "research the internet" to find this, so I will try, but may need your help.

I don't know precisely which emails your source means, but I suspect they are referring to the emails that were sent/received prior to their having been declared "top secret."

Are you sure there are no sources online confirming some emails/information WERE marked as "TOP SECRET or higher' and "this is why the information is being withheld".

What I'm sure of is only that John Kirby, a DoS spokesperson, has publicly asserted (as noted in the above link and prior links) that the "top secret" content was not flagged as such until after the fact of the email's transmission/receipt. I am also certain that now that the emails have been flagged "top secret" their top secret content won't be released publicly until that classification is removed. Some classified (general sense, not necessarily the specific designation called "classified") emails have been released, but for some of them, the whole body of the message has been redacted.

I see from your posts that some INFORMATION in the emails is classified and is still being treated as such. So that already tells me this was not safe to use emails for that.

I think that's a reasonable inference to make legitimately; however, it's not the only valid inference one can make legitimately. The right conclusion to draw (or best one to draw, because it may be there is no "right" one) isn't knowable without seeing the actual content and knowing the circumstances that pertain to it. Of course, we and others can speculate and conclude based on our speculations to our hearts' content....

People at "regular businesses" make mistakes all the time of mixing business with personal emails. That DOES cause problems with companies when something goes wrong, and it is both personal and affecting professional relations and responsibility.

It can. At times it does, but that it can, does, could or will depends on the specifics of any given situation and/or email. It's not a "black and white" thing. It's not ever going to be.

Here again, I think you're heading down a path of applying approaches to managing and performing lower and mid level personnel to the way senior executives perform their work. That's just not realistic. I get that most folks are not, have not been and won't ever be senior executives, so they don't and won't understand the role and scope of executive discretion, even as they'll surely have their own uninformed and inexperienced views on the matter.

I don't know how else to try to explain it other than to say that a very large share of why someone ascends to the executive level is that they have shown they have the judgement to properly use and restrain themselves when it comes to exercising the great degree of discretionary choice they have at that level. If there's actually blame to be had for when an exec abuses or misuses that discretion, sure, some of it rests with the abusers, but at the heart of things is that the folks who put that person in the executive role demonstrated poor judgment in doing so. In the case of Mrs. Clinton's confirmation as SecState, one is talking about the judgement of 94 Senators, their aides and staff. That's a lot of folk who, regardless of their political persuasion and views, aren't stupid people, even if there are a few "dim lights" among them.

But for anything involving issues of defense, security, and purely govt business, I don't care who did what before, that should clearly be on govt emails and servers so it is
ACCOUNTABLE to the govt and public and Freedom of Information requests can be applied to it.

Think what you want about Mrs. Clinton, but it's a big stretch to presume that she had email discussion with herself. I may be mistaken, but if the other party to the email is at a ".gov" address, the accountability and traceability isn't lost. Now emails between her and an non-government individual are a different matter, but I don't know or not know whether that scenario is in play.

For Govt business and especially when Defense/Security issues are involved, Clinton and others should apply a higher standard, and they should know this. Even if "other people" mixed personal emails before, I can understand that for
govt related "social events" and non-proprietary issues.

Here again, this is getting into the level of discretionary decision making a top level exec has. I mean really. What "other people" are we talking about? Secretaries Albright, Kerry, Rice and Powell, and some senior staff just below them. AFAIK, they are "guilty" of precisely the same things Mrs. Clinton is now being investigated for, at least it appears that way given what we've actually been told about Mrs. Clinton's email use and the DoS IG's investigation into the matter.

Should the FBI formally investigate all of them too because the IG found the same thing going on? I hardly think so, but then that's because I understand the idea of executive discretion and judgment. But for Mrs. Clinton's seeking the Presidency, I don't think this would be an issue for her. But, her opponents need "stuff" to pick at and the topic at hand, most especially the executive discretion aspect of it, is one that all but begs for innuendo, hearsay, and sophistic conjecture. It's just not something the general public is going to understand well because for most folks all they know is "this is the rule; follow the rule," and the general public prefers to think of all things in "black and white" terms. The reality is that the world of senior execs, in business and in government, is overwhelmingly gray.

That's not to say the general public is incapable of understanding executive judgmental volition, just that they don't. Most aren't going to critically examine that aspect of the situation, and it's certainly not an aspect that's going to leap into their mind as one to consider from the get go. What most folks will do is attempt to look at the matter as a cut and dried thing in one or several dimension. But until one's actually been in a position to exercise their druthers at the level and scope of a SecState, one won't understand how to judge folks who have.


Sidebar:

I'll never forget one of the messages we were given when I became an audit manager in a Big Eight firm in the early days of my career. The partner leading one of our training sessions pointed out in no uncertain terms that it was essential for us to manage the junior staff to the letter of firm policy because failing to do so exposed us to audit risk and part of that risk included the risk that the client or a third party could sue the firm. He went on to point out that given the abstruse nature of public auditing and public accounting, along with public's perception of "deep pocketed" accountants regardless of their having a factually wrong perception of us, the odds of the firm being able to win in at trial were slim to none.

It was bad enough with a bench trial and decidedly worse with a jury trial because the opportunity to convey the theory and nature of how audits work and what they aim to do just won't exist. That's no surprise given that it takes people with actual accounting degrees a few years of actually performing audits to fully "get it." Thus the firm would likely have to settle rather risk paying out even greater sums by losing at trial.​

End of sidebar.

For Govt business and especially when Defense/Security issues are involved, Clinton and others should apply a higher standard, and they should know this. Even if "other people" mixed personal emails before, I can understand that for govt related "social events" and non-proprietary issues.

See above....this is more of the same line of thought. I get the "better safe than sorry" argument, but I also know that "better safe than sorry," "just in case" is a fallacious line of reasoning unless one can show empirically that its not. (You may find this interesting insofar it explains why, from a psychological perspective, folks head down some fallacious paths.) Well, absent seeing the content itself and knowing what it pertains to, right at least, we can't show that.

It's clear that "social chit chat" isn't what's at issue. It's clear that so far the woman didn't transmit or receive clearly "flagged" content that was classified in some regard. What's not clear is what she did send/receive and whether it was reasonable for her to know

the "he said/she said type of hearsay" circulating

Well, I think we'd all be better off without that sort of thing. I'm not saying Mrs. Clinton did nothing wrong, but figuring out whether she did isn't remotely similar to resolving a binary matter. I think the whole matter doesn't belong in the "court of public opinion" at all, at least not until folks who understand and know the full scope of what happened have brought charges (or not) and the charges tried in court, or pled to.


To close, I want to be clear. Even as I've written the above, I'm not defending Mrs. Clinton and that's neither my goal nor inclination. I'm advocating for objectivity and integrity in public discourse about public officials and policy. I'm saying that where there is doubt, one has no business arriving at a conclusion until that doubt has been objectively removed or materially reduced, in fact, not just in some or several individual minds. I'm defending the idea that we all have to practice intellectual integrity and ethics to the extent that we refrain from having an opinion when there's insufficient information for having a valid one.