AURaptor 1,125 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 None were marked classified to HER knowledge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 None were marked classified to HER knowledge! E-mails are not marked "classified"Either Unclassified Unclassified/FOUO Confidential Secret Secret/NOFORN Top Secret (insert caveats here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 From NPR: Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law During Clinton's news conference last month, she was asked if she was aware of the security implications of using her own email. Clinton answered this way: "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material." What's remarkable about that answer is that she wasn't asked in the preceding question specifically about classified emails, but offered that answer anyway. There's a reason for that. It would be illegal for anyone to store classified information in an unauthorized way, like, say, on an unauthorized personal email server. The day after Clinton's news conference, the New York Times reported, quoting a former State Department official, that it "seemed unlikely" that Clinton didn't email at least something classified. "A former senior State Department official who served before the Obama administration said that although it was hard to be certain, it seemed unlikely that classified information could be kept out of the more than 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton's staff identified as involving government business. " 'I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified,' said the former official, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to seem ungracious to Mrs. Clinton. 'Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it's hard to imagine.' " The bottom line is this: No one will likely ever know what was deleted from Clinton's server. Barring one of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department being deemed "classified," it's also unlikely she will ever be found to have violated the letter of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 From NPR: Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law During Clinton's news conference last month, she was asked if she was aware of the security implications of using her own email. Clinton answered this way: "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material." What's remarkable about that answer is that she wasn't asked in the preceding question specifically about classified emails, but offered that answer anyway. There's a reason for that. It would be illegal for anyone to store classified information in an unauthorized way, like, say, on an unauthorized personal email server. The day after Clinton's news conference, the New York Times reported, quoting a former State Department official, that it "seemed unlikely" that Clinton didn't email at least something classified. "A former senior State Department official who served before the Obama administration said that although it was hard to be certain, it seemed unlikely that classified information could be kept out of the more than 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton's staff identified as involving government business. " 'I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified,' said the former official, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to seem ungracious to Mrs. Clinton. 'Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it's hard to imagine.' " The bottom line is this: No one will likely ever know what was deleted from Clinton's server. Barring one of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department being deemed "classified," it's also unlikely she will ever be found to have violated the letter of the law. The current DOJ won't do anything. That much we do know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,704 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 None were marked classified to HER knowledge! E-mails are not marked "classified"Either Unclassified Unclassified/FOUO Confidential Secret Secret/NOFORN Top Secret (insert caveats here) I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is, huh? Sounds like semantic games again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 None were marked classified to HER knowledge! E-mails are not marked "classified"Either Unclassified Unclassified/FOUO Confidential Secret Secret/NOFORN Top Secret (insert caveats here) I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is, huh? Sounds like semantic games again. For Fox news it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,704 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 None were marked classified to HER knowledge! E-mails are not marked "classified"Either Unclassified Unclassified/FOUO Confidential Secret Secret/NOFORN Top Secret (insert caveats here) I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is, huh? Sounds like semantic games again. For Fox news it is. Do you think Hillary violated the law with her private server? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 None were marked classified to HER knowledge! E-mails are not marked "classified"Either Unclassified Unclassified/FOUO Confidential Secret Secret/NOFORN Top Secret (insert caveats here) I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is, huh? Sounds like semantic games again. For Fox news it is. Do you think Hillary violated the law with her private server? I have no idea. I'll wait to read the indictment before frothing at the mouth. If there is an indictment that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 For those who don't like Fox here is the liberal NYT equivalent http://www.nytimes.c...ecret.html?_r=0 Maybe Iran has something on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Still not impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,949 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 It amazes me how anybody can vote for her when in all probability she has jeopardized many American lives. I hope she is in jail by November. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/new-batch-clinton-emails-released-84-now-marked-classified.html You voted for W after his incompetence directly led to thousands of Americans death.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 It amazes me how anybody can vote for her when in all probability she has jeopardized many American lives. I hope she is in jail by November. http://www.foxnews.c...classified.html You voted for W after his incompetence directly led to thousands of Americans death.. Because of bad judgement and intelligence but not because of carelessness in vilolating national security.. But it's OK if the best you can do is regress to "Bush did it" if you fell it makes Hillary's CURRENT actions more acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 An indictment only means she's really really effing guilty. But if they don't indict, it doesn't mean she didn't commit a crime. Or put our country at risk. We've seen this admin cover for its political ends. Obama wants his legacy to endue, and not be wiped clean by President Cruz or Trump , this will be swept under the rug, and Hillary can proceed to the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,949 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 It amazes me how anybody can vote for her when in all probability she has jeopardized many American lives. I hope she is in jail by November. http://www.foxnews.c...classified.html You voted for W after his incompetence directly led to thousands of Americans death.. Because of bad judgement and intelligence but not because of carelessness in vilolating national security.. But it's OK if the best you can do is regress to "Bush did it" if you fell it makes Hillary's CURRENT actions more acceptable. Horrendous judgement is pretty careless and had direct results. You're dealing with hypotheticals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 So, we should have allowed Saddam to carry on, as is ? Choices have to be made. We could have let the Soviets roll into Afghanistan, and keep going, OR... chose to try to stop them. It's called a Catch 22. Calls are made with the best intel, and then what happens happens. Unlike with Obama, who knowingly lied, and used the IRS to smother free speech of those who oppose his " change " . Or Hillary , who knowingly lied, out of convenience, and a need to cover up Benghazi, because it would look bad , right before the 2012 election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 It amazes me how anybody can vote for her when in all probability she has jeopardized many American lives. I hope she is in jail by November. http://www.foxnews.c...classified.html You voted for W after his incompetence directly led to thousands of Americans death.. Because of bad judgement and intelligence but not because of carelessness in vilolating national security.. But it's OK if the best you can do is regress to "Bush did it" if you fell it makes Hillary's CURRENT actions more acceptable. Horrendous judgement is pretty careless and had direct results. You're dealing with hypotheticals. You are dealing with the past trying to divert from Hillary's mistakes. What is hypothetical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 So, we should have allowed Saddam to carry on, as is ? Choices have to be made. We could have let the Soviets roll into Afghanistan, and keep going, OR... chose to try to stop them. It's called a Catch 22. Calls are made with the best intel, and then what happens happens. Unlike with Obama, who knowingly lied, and used the IRS to smother free speech of those who oppose his " change " . Or Hillary , who knowingly lied, out of convenience, and a need to cover up Benghazi, because it would look bad , right before the 2012 election. And PT accuses me of getting off topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Totally stayed on topic. Not sure what your problem is, other than having to admit that Hillary broke the law. You seem really reluctant to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Totally stayed on topic. Not sure what your problem is, other than having to admit that Hillary broke the law. You seem really reluctant to do that. I'm not a lawyer. Let me see if I can find a quote... Any evidence would be nice. Until then, it's a non issue. Ah, there it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 So, we should have allowed Saddam to carry on, as is ? Choices have to be made. We could have let the Soviets roll into Afghanistan, and keep going, OR... chose to try to stop them. It's called a Catch 22. Calls are made with the best intel, and then what happens happens. Unlike with Obama, who knowingly lied, and used the IRS to smother free speech of those who oppose his " change " . Or Hillary , who knowingly lied, out of convenience, and a need to cover up Benghazi, because it would look bad , right before the 2012 election. And PT accuses me of getting off topic! Response.......if the shoe fits wear it. The evidence is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 She had a private server - evidence She had top secret material on the server - evidence She sent/ received said material to uncleared recipients, after claiming no such material was even ON her server in the first place. Nice attempt, trying to migrate something said in another thread and turn it angst me here, totally out of context. Shows how desperate you are to defend Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 So, we should have allowed Saddam to carry on, as is ? Choices have to be made. We could have let the Soviets roll into Afghanistan, and keep going, OR... chose to try to stop them. It's called a Catch 22. Calls are made with the best intel, and then what happens happens. Unlike with Obama, who knowingly lied, and used the IRS to smother free speech of those who oppose his " change " . Or Hillary , who knowingly lied, out of convenience, and a need to cover up Benghazi, because it would look bad , right before the 2012 election. And PT accuses me of getting off topic! Response.......if the shoe fits wear it. The evidence is there. You hear that Raptor? Your BFF Proud Tiggy agrees you were off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 She had a private server - evidence She had top secret material on the server - evidence She sent/ received said material to uncleared recipients, after claiming no such material was even ON her server in the first place. Nice attempt, trying to migrate something said in another thread and turn it angst me here, totally out of context. Shows how desperate you are to defend Hillary. Can you point me to the top secret emails? I'd like to see it.I sent a top secret email yesterday. You? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Still defending Hillary. Top secret means they were redacted. I can't show you what the FBI won't release, dumb ****. But if they're claiming they've found 100's of such e-mails, that's called EVIDENCE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Still defending Hillary. Top secret means they were redacted. I can't show you what the FBI won't release, dumb ****. But if they're claiming they've found 100's of such e-mails, that's called EVIDENCE. You really don't know what you're talking about. It's clear you're not a lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.