Hillary and the FBI investigation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to do some reading on how classified info is handled. It is very complex and not easy to spot whether something is classified or not. There are many examples of info freely available on the internet being marked classified, and on inconsistencies in what is deemed classified. Google for any of the agency handbooks on classified info and "derivative" classification, if you really want to understand this stuff.

If you're just looking to beat your chest with specious lines to chant against Clinton, then continue with your ignorance.

So you're saying this is too complex for Clinton to understand?

No, I'm saying what all the government manuals on handling classified information say: It's incredibly difficult and often impossible to know when looking at a document whether it contains classified info. Therefore, the classification rules set up a complex structure of checks to carry classified citations forward as new documents are derived from old ones. Often, only the person creating the document will have ability to know what in it is classified. If you are genuinely interested, read some of the materials. If you do, I suspect you will understand better and agree with me.

You are making the case against Hillary. She should have known that, as Sec of State, her highly sensitive communications had the potential to be classified in the complex world of classification you're describing. YET she used her sketchy personal server for god knows what reason. This is an inexcusable lapse in judgment. She was putting state secrets at risk. End of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to do some reading on how classified info is handled. It is very complex and not easy to spot whether something is classified or not. There are many examples of info freely available on the internet being marked classified, and on inconsistencies in what is deemed classified. Google for any of the agency handbooks on classified info and "derivative" classification, if you really want to understand this stuff.

If you're just looking to beat your chest with specious lines to chant against Clinton, then continue with your ignorance.

So you're saying this is too complex for Clinton to understand?

No, I'm saying what all the government manuals on handling classified information say: It's incredibly difficult and often impossible to know when looking at a document whether it contains classified info. Therefore, the classification rules set up a complex structure of checks to carry classified citations forward as new documents are derived from old ones. Often, only the person creating the document will have ability to know what in it is classified. If you are genuinely interested, read some of the materials. If you do, I suspect you will understand better and agree with me.

You are making the case against Hillary. She should have known that, as Sec of State, her highly sensitive communications had the potential to be classified in the complex world of classification you're describing. YET she used her sketchy personal server for god knows what reason. This is an inexcusable lapse in judgment. She was putting state secrets at risk. End of story.

Lapse in judgement? Her decision was calculated and allowed her to control without regard to what should have been done as prescribed for a secure server setup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to do some reading on how classified info is handled. It is very complex and not easy to spot whether something is classified or not. There are many examples of info freely available on the internet being marked classified, and on inconsistencies in what is deemed classified. Google for any of the agency handbooks on classified info and "derivative" classification, if you really want to understand this stuff.

If you're just looking to beat your chest with specious lines to chant against Clinton, then continue with your ignorance.

So you're saying this is too complex for Clinton to understand?

No, I'm saying what all the government manuals on handling classified information say: It's incredibly difficult and often impossible to know when looking at a document whether it contains classified info. Therefore, the classification rules set up a complex structure of checks to carry classified citations forward as new documents are derived from old ones. Often, only the person creating the document will have ability to know what in it is classified. If you are genuinely interested, read some of the materials. If you do, I suspect you will understand better and agree with me.

You are making the case against Hillary. She should have known that, as Sec of State, her highly sensitive communications had the potential to be classified in the complex world of classification you're describing. YET she used her sketchy personal server for god knows what reason. This is an inexcusable lapse in judgment. She was putting state secrets at risk. End of story.

I have yet to hear of anything in her emails that put the country at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to do some reading on how classified info is handled. It is very complex and not easy to spot whether something is classified or not. There are many examples of info freely available on the internet being marked classified, and on inconsistencies in what is deemed classified. Google for any of the agency handbooks on classified info and "derivative" classification, if you really want to understand this stuff.

If you're just looking to beat your chest with specious lines to chant against Clinton, then continue with your ignorance.

So you're saying this is too complex for Clinton to understand?

No, I'm saying what all the government manuals on handling classified information say: It's incredibly difficult and often impossible to know when looking at a document whether it contains classified info. Therefore, the classification rules set up a complex structure of checks to carry classified citations forward as new documents are derived from old ones. Often, only the person creating the document will have ability to know what in it is classified. If you are genuinely interested, read some of the materials. If you do, I suspect you will understand better and agree with me.

You are making the case against Hillary. She should have known that, as Sec of State, her highly sensitive communications had the potential to be classified in the complex world of classification you're describing. YET she used her sketchy personal server for god knows what reason. This is an inexcusable lapse in judgment. She was putting state secrets at risk. End of story.

I have yet to hear of anything in her emails that put the country at risk.

I said "state secrets" at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to do some reading on how classified info is handled. It is very complex and not easy to spot whether something is classified or not. There are many examples of info freely available on the internet being marked classified, and on inconsistencies in what is deemed classified. Google for any of the agency handbooks on classified info and "derivative" classification, if you really want to understand this stuff.

If you're just looking to beat your chest with specious lines to chant against Clinton, then continue with your ignorance.

So you're saying this is too complex for Clinton to understand?

No, I'm saying what all the government manuals on handling classified information say: It's incredibly difficult and often impossible to know when looking at a document whether it contains classified info. Therefore, the classification rules set up a complex structure of checks to carry classified citations forward as new documents are derived from old ones. Often, only the person creating the document will have ability to know what in it is classified. If you are genuinely interested, read some of the materials. If you do, I suspect you will understand better and agree with me.

You are making the case against Hillary. She should have known that, as Sec of State, her highly sensitive communications had the potential to be classified in the complex world of classification you're describing. YET she used her sketchy personal server for god knows what reason. This is an inexcusable lapse in judgment. She was putting state secrets at risk. End of story.

Lapse in judgement? Her decision was calculated and allowed her to control without regard to what should have been done as prescribed for a secure server setup.

Sorry can you re-phrase? I have no idea what you're saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/us/politics/first-batch-of-hillary-clinton-emails-captures-concerns-over-libya.html?_r=0

I think this is the "cut and paste" letter. There are others, too. Pretty sure it is not good for Huma. Don't see how this would just be "sensitive"......

This article explicitly says it wasn't classified. If this is what the FBI is investigating, it's an even bigger waste of time than anyone expected.

Not the pp.
This is the NY Times article outlining some of the classified information.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/second-review-says-classified-information-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Well, if she's elected president she can pardon herself. Problem solved.

I think that is the plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, if she's elected president she can pardon herself. Problem solved.

I think that is the plan.

Your carbon monoxide detector is going off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/us/politics/first-batch-of-hillary-clinton-emails-captures-concerns-over-libya.html?_r=0

I think this is the "cut and paste" letter. There are others, too. Pretty sure it is not good for Huma. Don't see how this would just be "sensitive"......

This article explicitly says it wasn't classified. If this is what the FBI is investigating, it's an even bigger waste of time than anyone expected.

Not the pp.
This is the NY Times article outlining some of the classified information.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/second-review-says-classified-information-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html

Yes, the NYT description fits with what the Washington Times wrote about derivative info not properly classified by a State Dept employee who allowed it to cross the air gap, and then someone else later forwarded it to Clinton without knowing it was classified. PP's claim about some other material reflecting the travel schedule is not what's classified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/us/politics/first-batch-of-hillary-clinton-emails-captures-concerns-over-libya.html?_r=0

I think this is the "cut and paste" letter. There are others, too. Pretty sure it is not good for Huma. Don't see how this would just be "sensitive"......

This article explicitly says it wasn't classified. If this is what the FBI is investigating, it's an even bigger waste of time than anyone expected.

Not the pp.
This is the NY Times article outlining some of the classified information.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/second-review-says-classified-information-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html

Yes, the NYT description fits with what the Washington Times wrote about derivative info not properly classified by a State Dept employee who allowed it to cross the air gap, and then someone else later forwarded it to Clinton without knowing it was classified. PP's claim about some other material reflecting the travel schedule is not what's classified.

I would also think that forwarding the name of a CIA source would be considered classified. I guess Clinton doesn’t think so.
Yeah, sure. She knows how to protect the interests of our country.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/08/benghazi-committee-blumenthal-promoted-passed-along-name-cia-source-pushed-for/

[Anonymous]

The best thing about a conspiracy is it never ends. There is always another layer.