US Gov't Confirms Clinton Emails Contained Top-Secret Information (thenextweb.com) 572
An anonymous reader writes: Just days before candidates begin primary season with caucuses in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Obama administration confirmed for the first time that Hillary Clinton's emails did contain sensitive information. The Associated Press reports that seven of these email chains, are being withheld from the press because they contain information deemed to be "top secret" and that 37 pages included messages described by intelligence officials as "special access programs" — meaning, highly restricted and closely guarded government secrets.
What a load of BS (Score:4, Funny)
She already confirmed they didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
You put too much into expecting that this was pushed by the owners. Enough people finds this interesting enough to have it published.
If you want to make a difference - find crap on Trump and Cruz to counter with.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you want to make a difference - find crap on Trump and Cruz to counter with.
Really? Why even bother? There is already so much public crap on Trump he should be buried 15' deep, but apparently his Republican base just doesn't care. They have taken said crap and just stuffed it in their ears so they don't have to acknowledge it.
Re: (Score:3)
Typical of careless (or biased) people, you are calling "racist" something better assigned to a different word such as nationalist, isolationist, or nativist. Opposing Muslims or Mexicans isn't racist; neither of those terms is a race or correlates strongly with a race. Furthermore, he hasn't so much attacked those groups as attacked their illegal presence in the U.S., with emphasis on the criminals among them.
The blindness of Trump's fans that you point out is appalling.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But that doesn't stop the new conservative owners of this site from pushing this load of garbage.
Excuse me, but I don't consider the opinions of our intelligence agency professionals, who have examined the emails in question, to be garbage. Moreover, Mrs. Clinton is a candidate for President of the United States which makes this all the more relevant. I don't know what's in the emails. I haven't seen them and neither have you. I can understand why Bernie didn't want to discuss the emails either, especially before this latest news, because it was speculation. However, the situation has changed now. The
Re: What a load of BS (Score:5, Insightful)
The only one that will profit from this is Bernie Sanders. So far he hasn't been touching the email issue, probably because it's contaminated.
Hillary has so far not been convincing in the denials around that - or a lot of other stuff that she did during her time as secretary of state.
Re: What a load of BS (Score:5, Insightful)
hilary is basically unelectable over this issue. who ever the republican nominee is (begins with TRUM) will hammer her daily about this, drown out all the news cycles, and she'll never be able to get her message out there.
Re: What a load of BS (Score:5, Insightful)
She repeatedly broke the rules because she wanted to beat the system. She runs a farce of a charitable foundation which gives almost no money to charity, and which doubles as a campaign slush fund. And she lied at every step of the way.
I'm a democrat and that's not some partisan attack. She's a corporate whore. Her donor list is a who's who of the banking, insurance industry and big-Pharma elite. Why on earth is she even considered to represent the people's party?
Screw Hilary and her elitist cabal of sell-out faux-populists.
She's the absolute worst,
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Wait, CLINTON is UNELECTABLE because she may or may not have sent emails from a personal server that though not top secret secure has no evidence anything was leaked - and have proven through the non-redacted bits that her means were ignorant of technology but her intent was just to get shit done.
But TRUMP, who has openly contradicted almost every stance he has previously held, has insulted almost every class of citizen except "straight white Christian male" (debatable, since he has even made veiled referen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>has insulted almost every class of citizen except "straight white Christian male"
He is the only one who isn't insulting the White Christian male.
Re: What a load of BS (Score:5, Insightful)
No, she's unelectable because what she did was criminal. It doesn't matter if the data was leaked or not. What matters is that she knowingly had classified (the lack of markings also doesn't matter...when you know material is of a classified matter, and she claims openly that she does, then you report it and turn it over), and claimed she didn't, and then tried to whitewash the entire matter.
Now her campaign is taking the tactic that it's because the govt. is overclassifying the material. Answer this...how would they know unless they know what's in those 22 emails that nobody has seen. Regardless, it certainly wouldn't be lowered from Top Secret to Unclass, and anything about that would be admitting that she had stored classified. And nobody, but nobody, gets to "just get shit done" with that.
As for your misdirection with Trump, yes he's a jackass too. But it's off-topic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, she's unelectable because what she did was criminal. It doesn't matter if the data was leaked or not. What matters is that she knowingly had classified (the lack of markings also doesn't matter...when you know material is of a classified matter, and she claims openly that she does, then you report it and turn it over), and claimed she didn't, and then tried to whitewash the entire matter.
Now her campaign is taking the tactic that it's because the govt. is overclassifying the material. Answer this...how would they know unless they know what's in those 22 emails that nobody has seen. Regardless, it certainly wouldn't be lowered from Top Secret to Unclass, and anything about that would be admitting that she had stored classified. And nobody, but nobody, gets to "just get shit done" with that.
As for your misdirection with Trump, yes he's a jackass too. But it's off-topic.
Without knowing what these e-mail contained I'm not going to jump to the conclusion Hilary Clinton was mailing the real world identities of th CIA's chief spies in the Kremlin to her friends in clear text. Overclassification of documents is a real problem. I do research into WWI/II as a hobby and there is a mountain of stuff available for research today that would still be classified for no particular reason othe than sloth and bureaucracy if a lone US govt official hadn't decided to declassify it when he h
Re: (Score:3)
None of your comment is relevant to the issue. There are procedures for having material declassified. Until those materials ARE declassified, they remain classified.
People go to prison for mishandling classified materials. They don't have to be leaked. There need not be any detrimental consequences of the mishandling. Failure to observe protocol is sufficient to be tried and convicted.
And, the woman who lived in the White House for 8 years knows all of this. Only a vegetative idiot could possibly live
Re: What a load of BS (Score:5, Insightful)
OK Mr Smartass conservative, if what she did is criminal, then why have charges not been filed?
Lifelong Democrat here...et me be blunt:
Charges not been filed because she was the Secretary of State AND a former First Lady. There's no way the government will blacken its own eye by doing a goddamn thing to her. They'd NEVER put a former First Lady in jail. She could behead a 9-year old boy on the steps of the White House on national TV and she'd still get off.
I'm a Democrat, and a pretty liberal one at that. And yet, I have NO love in my heart for Hillary Clinton- she's a fascist tool of the banking industry and rich, moneyed, concerns. She's a crook and a liar, basically a Republican-Lite masquerading as a Democrat.
Let's face it- she fucked up and broke the law with the whole private email server thing and we both know it. If you or I had been found to have a single classified email on OUR private server we'd already be serving time in prison somewhere. But not her, oh nooooooo.
So no, even a lifelong Democrat like me won't vote for her. I just can't do it. I gotta call 'em as I see 'em, and she's dirty, as dirty as they come.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because no ex post facto law means that since the emails were not classified and were on a government owned server for unclassified emails and documents at the time means that Clinton isn't guilty of squat, any more than the entire US government is guilty because they owned the servers that these "classified" documents resided
You're doing it wrong here in a number of ways.
First off, Hillary had a privately owned server. She owned it, not the government.
Secondly, using a privately owned server to do Official Government Business is a crime even if the work is unclassified. (It violates the Freedom of Information Act, which says that the people have the right to demand records from the government so they can check for corruption.)
Also, the documents were classified when they were sent. The State Department is lying to protect
Re: (Score:2)
may or may not have?
comparing highly illegal behavior to what you consider to be immoral behavior.
Are you a hillary campaign manager?
Re: What a load of BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What a load of BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, CLINTON is UNELECTABLE because she may or may not have sent emails from a personal server that though not top secret secure has no evidence anything was leaked - and have proven through the non-redacted bits that her means were ignorant of technology but her intent was just to get shit done.
But TRUMP, who has openly contradicted almost every stance he has previously held, has insulted almost every class of citizen except "straight white Christian male" (debatable, since he has even made veiled references that anyone supporting him is a moron), and has even literally praised and kowtowed to the US's greatest rival, Vladimir Putin, is somehow ELECTABLE (let alone not a real traitor)?
Cut the tidbits nobody gives a shit about. What matters: Did she fuck anyone but her husband, and did Trump get a blowjob when he shouldn't? That would have ten times the influence on the US voter than petty things like national secrets or foreign politics.
Re: (Score:2)
as if she wasn't before. I don't know anyone who is actually excited about the prospect of hillary being president.
Re: (Score:3)
The executive branch is in charge of convening Grand Juries and investigating/prosecuting crimes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The only one that will profit from this is Bernie Sanders.
Nope. If she gets put away, his chance to be VP does, too. If he gets the nomination, he'll be the next George McGovern.
Not necessarily a bad thing. I can think of worse labels to get.
he hasn't been touching the email issue, probably because it's contaminated.
He's treating her with kid gloves, because he wants something from her.
-jcr
You mean that Sanders would be vice president. The alternative to that - I don't want to go there, too much lemonparty association.
Re: (Score:3)
That might be true in a normal election year, but considering the GOP field, Sanders would almost certainly get elected. Either Trump or Cruz is the next Goldwater, no matter who the Democrats run.
Re: (Score:3)
There are no "Northern socialist atheist Democrats" running for president.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe you need to look up the difference between being an "atheist" and being "not religious".
They are not remotely the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you need to look up the difference between being an "atheist" and being "not religious".
They are not remotely the same thing.
Nice selective quoting.
Re: (Score:3)
You REALLY think anyone who votes in the US gives half a shit about emails on her server?
Let me phrase it that way: In this fucked up country, it would hurt her chances to become president more if she had given her janitor a blowjob than if she dumped more government secrets than any whistle blowers combined on Reddit.
Unless of course said janitor was black.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait. Seriously?
I don't vote in the USA, but claiming that "one" party is the "honest" one, and the other isn't... is borderline hilarious.
They're all a bunch of crooks. The discussion of who's a bigger crook is laughable.
The reason that this election is different (Sanders and Trump) is because people have seen through the BS on BOTH sides of the US Government. The democratic establishment and the republican establishment alike are both equally terrified that their "chosen" horses might not win the race,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What a load of BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Right? She "confirmed" they didn't. 100% honest to goodness. No way jose.
Except... turns out she lied.
Again.
That's what happens when you try to hide the "charitable" activities of the Clinton "foundation". When is this horrible creature going to be sent up the river?
Re: What a load of BS (Score:5, Informative)
Right? She "confirmed" they didn't. 100% honest to goodness. No way jose.
Except... turns out she lied.
Again.
No, not really. According to this NY Times article, [nytimes.com] and reports I heard on NPR earlier:
The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server.
So, they're classified *now* after the fact but were not earlier. From what I know, and is noted in the article itself, this is not that uncommon. Furthermore:
“We understand that these emails were likely originated on the State Department’s unclassified system before they were ever shared with Secretary Clinton, and they have remained on the department’s unclassified system for years,” Mr. Fallon said.
Officials at the State Department have said the “upgrading” of the classification of Mrs. Clinton’s emails has been routine. Mr. Kirby said Friday that the classification review was “focused on whether they need to be classified today.”
Apparently, at least one of the emails was about a NY Times article about the US classified drone program. Hard to imagine why an email about an article in a public newspaper would be classified.
Re: What a load of BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently, at least one of the emails was about a NY Times article about the US classified drone program. Hard to imagine why an email about an article in a public newspaper would be classified.
If the person who sent the article from the public newspaper has classified knowledge and that person makes comments about the public newspaper article, then the e-mail has classified information.
Re: What a load of BS (Score:5, Informative)
Not only that: just sending the article can make it classified. Suppose I have classified information about the North Korean nuclear weapons program, and someone sends me an email asking for a good overview of the NK nuclear weapons program. That's a classified query about classified information. My response, even if it's just sending a link to the NYT article, is a classified response.
ObDisclosure: I hold a U.S. security clearance. Posting anonymously for obvious reasons. The example I gave is straight out of (non-classified) briefing materials about how to take care of classified information.
Re: What a load of BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that: just sending the article can make it classified. Suppose I have classified information about the North Korean nuclear weapons program, and someone sends me an email asking for a good overview of the NK nuclear weapons program. That's a classified query about classified information. My response, even if it's just sending a link to the NYT article, is a classified response.
In that case, your decision to send the link in response to the query does actually provide information beyond the content of the article... specifically it indicates that, based on your classified knowledge, you consider the newspaper article to be correct, or at least sufficiently correct to be worth referencing.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently, at least one of the emails was about a NY Times article about the US classified drone program. Hard to imagine why an email about an article in a public newspaper would be classified.
If the person who sent the article from the public newspaper has classified knowledge and that person makes comments about the public newspaper article, then the e-mail has classified information.
The comments made by a person with classified knowledge could contain classified information. But the person with classified knowledge also presumably knows some things which aren't classified. Whether the comments they made are classified or not would need to be determined on a case by case basis.
(Personally, I think using a personal email server for official emails which even had the potential possibility of containing classified info is batshit stupid. But that doesn't justify jumping to conclusions.)
Re: What a load of BS (Score:4, Insightful)
That's yet to be seen. The issue here is that the bulk of the email is so large that it is being sorted and the security classification is being determined in batches. The articles you reference can only speak to the amounts of email processed to date and they are dated before this statement about the yet to be released next batch (it missed the deadline).
The assertion of classification alterations after the fact may well be true. Just as we cannot make the affirmative statement that all the emails were not classified when sent, we cannot make the same that any were classified until it has been processed. Executive order 13526 makes all official communication with foreign nations classified by default until declassified so I find it improbable that all emails were later classified. But I also do not see much in the way of sensitive information being discussed via email in this sense. You would think a more dedicated secure source of communication would be employed for state level negotiations other than "hope you like steak and potatoes " concerning a state dinner or "congratulations on your daughter getting married " good will type communication.
Re: What a load of BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Hillary Clinton had Talent Keyhole satellite imagery classified higher than TOP SECRET on her secret email server. All actual Talent Keyhole images are codeword classified because revealing the images would reveal the capabilities of the Talent Keyhole satellite. This is confirmed by the FBI.
Clinton also had highly classified HUMINT on her server. (Again, above Top Secret.) HUMINT is "Human Intelligence," in other words, intelligence gathered by a mole inside wherever but working for the US. The reason it was so highly classified is because its improper disclosure would put the source in danger. There was no security in place on the server (which was hacked by China and Russia.) Clinton very well may have gotten this source killed. (The FBI confirmed this part too.)
Re: What a load of BS (Score:5, Insightful)
What a silly, non-sensual argument.
Hillary Clinton, as a Harvard educated lawyer is not, simple-minded, and she knows ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Hillary was taught, first as a Senator, then as Secretary of State, how to identify, mark, and handle classified information (classified means 'confidential', 'secret' or 'top secret' classification).
Hillary was taught that material does not have to be marked with a classification to be secret/require special handling.
Hillary knew that removing a classification marking from a document doesn't make the contents less secret.
Hillary has turned over at least one email exchange in which she instructs an aide to print out material from the classified email system and send it to her insecure home server, the act of doing so is a breach of security protocols and a crime.
As Secretary of State she refused to allow her official email from passing through secure gov't email servers - that is NOT the same as forwarding emails from your gov't email account to a private account, a practice frowned upon, but employed by many gov't workers, including past Secretaries of State.
The argument Hillary supporters would have you believe is that every email sent or received on her server by her or her aides were not classified, that anyone could have read them at the time she got/sent them, but it is only with the passage of time that the information in these emails became secret, requiring classification and special handling.
At it's simplest, the moment Hillary handed her attorney the flash drive containing the 55,000 pages of emails, some of which contained classified information, she committed a crime. General Patraeus showed secret documents to his mistress and was convicted of mis-handling state secrets. Hillary, in handing over state secrets to her lawyer committed the very same crime.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry Ken. IAAL, I've had to deal with classified information and with unclassified information that may possibly deserve classification. Reading the statutes (mainly 18 USC 793 et seq.) concerning crimes on handling classified information, merely handing a flash drive containing emails to a lawyer does not constitute a crime.
Let's break the first half of 18 U.S.C. 793(d) down into the elements a prosecutor would need to prove:
1. That a person having lawful possession, access, control over, or being entrus
Re: (Score:3)
Except... turns out she lied.
No . . . really . . . she's always been a resident of New York . . . even though she never lived there . . . until the prominent Democrat Senator Patrick Moynihan retired, and there was a Democrat seat open in the Senate.
In New York, you could run a house plant on the election platform . . . and it would get elected.
Well, let's see how the US general electorate decides . . . but with Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump on the ballot . . . of course . . . America loses . . .
Re: What a load of BS (Score:3, Informative)
Hillary, at least once, sent an email to an aide instructing the aide to copy and paste information from a secure source onto an insecure source and email it to her.
Sounds like a crime.
She handed a flash drive containing over 1,000 classified documents to her lawyer, someone not authorized to receive such information.
Sounds like a crime.
She hired individuals to review potentially classified information (her emails) to weed out yoga routines and granddaughter pics, but in the process these individuals read a
Re: (Score:2)
But what does Netcraft have to say on the matter?
Re:What a load of BS (Score:4, Funny)
She already confirmed they didn't.
And, if the Republicans had the proof they claim, they would have already had her arrested. By not doing so, they're proving they have no evidence.
The Obama Justice Dept. is the one that gets to decide to indict her or not. Thanks for playing.
Makes no difference (Score:2)
The people voting for her don't care.
The problem with democracy is that you can't keep people from voting badly.
Re: (Score:2)
Premature Conclusions be Damned (Score:5, Insightful)
Until the details come out of who sent them, when they were classified, and who should have known it was problem material, there is not much use in speculating at this point.
Also note that the "regular" office server she allegedly should have been using was NOT designed for classified info either. The same issue would still exist: classified stuff winding up on the wrong equipment. Whether anybody would then still know or care in that case is another matter.
Re:Premature Conclusions be Damned (Score:4, Interesting)
I wish news organizations would press her harder (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish news organizations would press her harder with followup questions. I was listening to a NPR (my main source of news) doing a question and answer with Hillary.
NPR: Did you send or receive classified e-mails?
Hillary: I did not receive or send e-mails marked classified.
NPR should have followed up with: Did you discuss with anyone over your private unsecured e-mails system anything that should have been classified? (To have done that would would have been illegal)
During this Q&A with Hillary, she laughed and said that one of the e-mails that is now being classified was of someone sending her a New York Times article. How could it be classified if it was in the newspaper?
(I spent a year in Iraq supporting the US Army. At one point, a co-worker gave a google earth picture to me (by hand) of area around us. He pointed out that the picture originally was not classified because it came from google earth. But then he pointed out that he had made some markings on the picture and now it was classified.)
NPR should have followed up with Hillary: In this e-mail did the person have classified knowledge about the subject of the newspaper article, and did he make comments about the article. (As in my example above, if someone with classified knowledge made any comments about the article and sent it over a non secure e-mail system, it would be illegal)
(disclaimer: I am a Bernie Sanders supporter)
Re:I wish news organizations would press her harde (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
why didn't they know already? (Score:2)
here's what i'm gathering from all this: the government has not secured its email system. if you are sending sensitive information outside of intranets you control, you have lost control of the information. so the question is, why will their email system send any information anywhere if it handles highly sensitive information? why aren't they using an encrypted email system? why does their security rely on the users? why is their system so damn insecure?!
Re:why didn't they know already? (Score:4, Informative)
We are all cows (Score:2)
We are all cows who have no future [wikipedia.org]. Moo.
Its fun watching the Clinton Dynasty burn (Score:3)
Chelsea Clinton apparently is already laying the ground work for her own political career... with an eye to being president one day. Its all quite delightful.
The Bush Dynasty is also burning. Watching Jeb fail to get anywhere is delicious.
We've had enough of Clintons' and Bushs'. Let someone else run. If the democrats really can do no better than Bill Clinton's wife then apparently they have not taken the office seriously. More is the pity.
And really, Hillary could have perhaps had it if she had so much as taken her gimme job of Sec State seriously. But she did not. She went home early while her diplomats died. She was told to not permit old Sidney access to the State Department and she did it anyway. And the email server... and the lies... so many lies.
We'll see where this goes... The FBI is furious at the lack of prosecution... obstruction from the "Justice" Department is going to have long term consequences if it is understood that the law bends in the favor of any party in power.
Really... we're getting nearer and nearer the moment where we just rip each other's eyes out of our heads from spite. And all because some people have a hard time with democracy.
Oh well... We shall see where this goes. Regardless... I shall enjoy the fires.
Re: (Score:2)
and politicians never lie?
Re: She testified there weren't any (Score:3)
"I did not have sex..." , wait, that's the wrong Clinton.
Re: (Score:3)
This is yet another irrational attack by the Republicans.
The statement came from the Obama State Dept. Which Republicans are you referring to there?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is controlled by the Republicans.
The State Department is controlled by Republicans? Put down the bong, step away from the keyboard, and let the grownups talk.
Re: She testified there weren't any (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately it's not how it works - if the evidence is classified it's hard to release it.
Re: She testified there weren't any (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately it's not how it works - if the evidence is classified it's hard to release it.
So we're just supposed to trust these Republicans when they claim she did something wrong? That isn't how things work in the US. You are innocent until proven guilty. There is no evidence against her, or the Repubicans would have already released it.
It's her old office (you know, the Obama State Dept.) that is slow rolling out the emails. But only because they were forced to. Otherwise we probably wouldn't have seen any of this for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: She testified there weren't any (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They have nothing. If they did, they would have released already.
Hillary? Is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, you're one of her campaign workers or we wouldn't be seeing so many AC posts coming to her defense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you actually bothered to look into the DETAILS, usually it's right-wing spin. Often it's gray areas where if you don't like her, you won't give her the benefit of the doubt and vice-versa. Politics biases people.
As far as the "Bosnian sniper" issue, it's possible she mixed up two different events in her mind. I've done it also. Human memory is an odd thing. Fortunately I'm a nobody such that my mistakes don't mean much on the world stage.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, let's forgive the Bosnian sniper for the sake of discussion.
I'm sure this was intended as just a cute family fairy tale...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10... [nytimes.com]
As was this...
http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]
And this was just a bit of hyperbole
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
And we know she was just kidding with
http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]
I'm sure she just forgot when she said
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/... [cnn.com]
I could go on for many more lines, but it's late.
Re: She lives in pretend land (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying that women have always been the primary victims of war is pretty damn insulting to those men and boys maimed and killed in wars they were forced to fight in.
Re: (Score:3)
Saying that women have always been the primary victims of war is pretty damn insulting to those men and boys maimed and killed in wars they were forced to fight in.
OTOH, the leaders who sent them were generally all male as well. However, this argument presumes that female leaders wouldn't have done the same.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're a retard. The soldiers sent to die at the behest of some government are the primary victims in war.
Re: (Score:3)
The US has had an all-volunteer military for over 40 years.
http://www.army.mil/article/10... [army.mil]
Re: (Score:3)
Look up the word, "volunteer".
http://www.army.mil/article/10... [army.mil]
Re: (Score:3)
If you actually bothered to look into the DETAILS, usually it's right-wing spin.
I have heard her say, with her own voice, "There was no classified information on my e-mail server".
So, now we know for sure there was...
She is lying... That isn't spin, that is a fact.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no evidence (released) that it was classified AT THE TIME of her receiving it. Most if not all were retroactively classified.
That really isn't how it works...
If a document contains obvious state secrets, such as designs for modern nuclear weapons, yet it lacks any "classified markings", it isn't suddenly declassified.
The content makes it classified, not the markings.
Someone in Clinton's position should be able to know what sorts of things are classified and what are not. You might draw some gray areas when it comes to things that would fall under "Secret".
You'd have a harder time with Top Secret.
It is beyond absurd to suggest th
Re: (Score:2)
H.Clinton reminds me of Kathleen Wynne here in Ontario. Government is involved in 15 or so scandals, blew a billion dollars on a gas plant that was scrapped, being investigated by the OPP(for Americans that's the equivalent of state police) for destruction of data relating to it, 3 or so other scandals that have led to the death of people...and she got elected. Then again, Ontario is very much like So. Cal., lots of city folks in highly dense urban areas and the other 2m people living in the province liv
Re:She lives in pretend land (Score:5, Insightful)
The impeachment (and subsequent acquittal) of her husband was clearly part of a smear campaign. It is of no interest to anyone but Bill's wife into whose mouth he puts his cock. The e-mail scandal, on the other hand, is a big problem.
I don't know what is " turbo-liberal" about Planned Parenthood: it's an organization that provides health services. Some people disagree with some of those services on religious grounds. The resulting debate is given far too much importance on the National political stage. In reality, the issue is used as a tool to divide the electorate and everyone seems to fall for it.
I don't much like Hilary, but I like less silly ad hominem like saying "incontrovertible proof of mental illness", which just lower the standard of discourse and contribute nothing.
Re:Allow me to quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not voting for her in the primaries, and she probably did fuck up w/operational security big-time. I don't think it was with malice
Doesn't matter. Carelessness with Secret information is a federal felony. These "Special Access" documents are "above Top Secret", and likely contained names of covert sources - that is, when this server was hacked by foreign intelligence services, this carelessness caused deaths. That's why it's a felony.
But there is evidence of malice - there is an email instructing a subordinate to strip off the classified header from a document and "send it insecure".
There are important issues like who does and doesn't get massive financial support from wall street to complain about.
Off topic, but Hillary's top lifetime donors have been investment banks and our friends the cable companies. That is the legal donors. The FBI is also investigating Hillary for illegal contributions to the Clinton fund.
We'll know the truth of all of this when it goes to trial, or we'll know we're in a banana republic if it doesn't. In either case, this isn't some trivial issue - people likely died behind this.
Re:Allow me to quote... (Score:5, Informative)
... what evidence of malice?
The e-mail from Clinton telling a subordinate to strip off classified headers and "send it insecure".
That malice.
Who got killed as a direct result of these emails being sent?
No one has to die for it to be an offense that sends you to prison.
Hilary clinton and most of the politicians in the USA, democrat or Republican they are all crooked.
I don't get the sense that either Bernie Sanders nor Donald Trump are crooked politicians. Trump isn't one (even if he is a walking ego trip) and Sanders strikes me as different.
Ron Paul is probably the same, but he has no chance so it doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who got killed? When was it hacked?
Quite irrelevant. Federal law is pretty specific on the handling of classified information and people dying is not required to be charged. Remember, the server IS the smoking gun.
Re:Allow me to quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Run your own mail server with lousy security? At work, it might get you fired.
Same thing with Terry Childs.....at another job, he would have been fired. Working for the government, he was put in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
The real news would be if someone as a high-profile candidate didn't get any support at all from Wall Street.
But that news wouldn't be shocking so we don't see it.
The two major political parties in the US are great targets for lobbyists and corruption. It's better to subvert party members that will work in the administration rather than the top figures.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because an authoritarian president plus corrupt police forces and intelligence agencies is a recipe for success.
Re: (Score:2)
Why yes, it is! And it is highly rewarded by the general public at large, for thousands of years.
Re: Let the shouting begin! (Score:2)
Don't you already have that?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes.
What? Look at the Chinese economy and tell me that it ain't so!
Re: Let the shouting begin! (Score:3)
Just ask those that remember Nazi Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump will just build a huge new political system because he's the best at political systeming.. and the Democrats will pay for it.
Re:Let the shouting begin! (Score:5, Funny)
Nope. The US population will pay for it. Dearly. In ways you couldn't imagine possible yet.
But it would sure be hilarious to watch this from across the pond. It's like our very own reality TV show, with over 200 million participants and a show host we already know from a few other reality shows.
Re:US Government Classifies Emails After Review (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that she had to have known, right? Any program she had access to, she would have had to have been briefed on. The information is classified even if it's not marked as such...everyone who's ever worked with classified will tell you that. So, for example, if you create a document, email, etc., that has classified information, you're supposed to mark it properly.
So, for the sake of discussion, let's say she didn't know, even though she's said...
“I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material. I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”
Then that could only mean a few things...1) she slept through the program briefing, 2) she didn't read the emails, 3) she read the mail, and didn't understand that it was classified...meaning her above statement shows clear lack of understanding, or 4) she's lying about the whole thing to cover her ass. Are there really any other possibilities beyond it being "a vast right wing conspiracy"?
One other detail...even if she never sent, and only received these items, as soon as she became aware that she had classified material, she would have been required to report it, and turn it over...immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
You just changed it to something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody cares!
We do care Hillary.
Re:Charge her with treason (Score:5, Informative)
Treason has specific legal meaning...What she did was criminal, but doesn't come close to treason.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And I really don't care. Gov servers had coded back doors being exploited this whole time. So pick your poison
Come on Hillary, if you didn't care, you wouldn't post.
Re: (Score:3)
You really think she can use a computer, do you?
Re: (Score:3)