Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Emailgate
- This topic has 35 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by JoB.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 29, 2016 at 9:43 pm #831943
SmittyParticipantJanuary 29, 2016 at 10:05 pm #831945
JanSParticipantmaybe I’m obtuse, but could you link to whatever it is that you’re talking about? I’m in the dark here…
January 30, 2016 at 12:00 pm #831972
SmittyParticipantMy bad. MSM not covering yet, I guess. Maybe they never will – which is probably the answer since they are so trustworthy.
22 emails are marked classified and cannot be released. These were found on HRCs private server.
Depending on who you believe
1) the classified markings were removed on her approval.
2) They “should” have been marked classified and as Secretary of State she is charged with recognizing that.
3) Or, this is all much ado about nothing a aright-wing slime job.
January 30, 2016 at 2:20 pm #831988
JanSParticipantyes, I caught a bit of Fox News, Megyn Kelly video…Breaking News. Obviously implying that Hillary Clinton has done some dastardly dirty illegal whatever. Hillary Clinton herself said…release them…got nothing to hide. But the powers that be siad no. So….no one knows whats in them…not you, not me, certainly not Megyn Kelly and Fox News… but I find the timing highly suspicious, right before the Iowa Caucuses…no?
January 30, 2016 at 6:36 pm #831994
SmittyParticipantAgree the timing is odd, but this is not a partisan committee releasing this information, is it?
And, of course she is going to call for their release because she knows damn well they can’t be released…they are top secret!
This is not going away, in my opinion.
January 30, 2016 at 8:35 pm #832008
JanSParticipantI, for one, am not going to stress about it…there are people who are looking for any little thing to crucify HRC with. It’s politics, as far as I’m concerned…dirty politics…it’s tiresome, it costs us money…and people need to move on. It’s just like all the crap about Tom DeLay(fraudster that he is) and Darrell Issa(car salesman that he is) coming out this week that the FBI is about to indict HRC. They know because they “know someone on the inside”…well, the FBI does not indict…but that sure does look good in the news, now, doesn’t it…right before the Iowa Caucus. And it’s only January.
January 30, 2016 at 9:41 pm #832020
TanDLParticipantAnd yet… The federal personnel system was hacked, not the Secretary of State’s system. Maybe we should thank her for keeping e-mail messages secure during her tenure there.
January 31, 2016 at 11:45 am #832070
JTBParticipantSmitty, it’s nice to see you acknowledge the efforts to smear Hillary over Benghazi amounted to little more than “hype.” I’m sure everyone commenting on the email matter are simply interested in allowing the review to take place before they jump to conclusions.
For my part, it seems that if the security status of a document was uncertain enough that it was upgraded only later, it would be important to know the particulars. We do know the government is burdened by overuse, often clearly absurd application, of high security classification. So it seems either the originators of the documents in question failed to recognize the need for higher classification at the time or else whoever was involved in this second, third, fourth, etc look had a more extreme view of what should be classified. The later is what the Clinton camp is saying.
But rather than letting the review play out, we should undoubtedly defer to people like Issa who has demonstrated such a well-intended, objective view of anything involving Hillary Clinton. :-d
January 31, 2016 at 6:56 pm #832107
JayDeeParticipantUnless you have heard otherwise, it seems like that State Department is retroactively classifying emails that Hilary had on her Server rather than her having TOP SECRET emails on her server at the time of their sending. I agree she shouldn’t have had a separate server but that isn’y the point.
January 31, 2016 at 10:28 pm #832140
dobroParticipantmeaningless right wing media-hype bull. Colin Powell gave an interview on, I believe,This Week with Stephanopolous and outlined how he handled his email. Hillary patterned what she did after him. None of this will stick.
Unless Bernie can pull off the upset (I’m rooting for him) get ready for President Hillary.
February 1, 2016 at 6:09 am #832169
JoBParticipantis there no end to this?
Probably not.. it’s far too profitable for the gossip mongers and far too politically profitable for the right.
And i don’t think you can count on it ending even if she becomes President. But then, i don’t think she expects it will.
i bet it’s no secret that i am not betting on Bernie..
though i do appreciate the national conversation he has driven.I want to see a woman in the White House.. but more than that I want to see this woman in the White House.
The upside of the Republican smear campaign of the last 3 decades is that she has developed an incredibly thick political skin while still embracing her inner Methodist church lady.
Everyone makes fun of the church ladies.. but without them our world would be a much uglier place…
If Hillary hadn’t invested her life in public service she would be running a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter or an after school program for kids or a clothing bank or ….
We could do worse.
February 1, 2016 at 2:48 pm #832249
SmittyParticipantThis is so interesting to me.
On one hand there are attorneys saying that even if they are not marked classified at the time it is up to the department official to classify them as such. So, the fact that they were not classified is not – in and of itself – a defense.
Others – claim that because they were not marked she is free and clear.
There HAS to be truth in there somewhere, maybe there’s a state department document or something that is clearer than all this legal-speak?
Regardless, it appears to not be sticking so maybe that tells you something…….that said, I am SO curious if Bernie pulls this out tonight whether the exit polls indicate that this latest revelation was the difference?
February 1, 2016 at 3:21 pm #832255
dhgParticipantThere are people who hate Hillary to the degree that there is nothing she can do that’s not objectionable in some way. Benghazi investigation was all about trying to make something stick when there was nothing. The email scandal is even less of an issue. Did someone get access to her emails who should not have????? If people were hurt as a result of her using a private server then voters might feel she screwed up. As it stands, it’s much ado about nothing.
February 1, 2016 at 3:26 pm #832256
dhgParticipantSmitty: Here is the msnbc.com story: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/republicans-attack-clinton-over-secret-email-information
February 1, 2016 at 9:43 pm #832313
JTBParticipantSmitty says, “there are attorneys saying . . . it is up to the department official to classify them as such>” Really? Who might be saying that? How does that work in the real world? A recipient of an email is obliged to double check the classification status of every document they receive? I suppose if something is glaringly obvious, that’s a reasonable expectation. But what if the originator and the recipient(s) don’t see anything of concern? My understanding is that most of the emails that have been reclassified were heavily redacted in the first place, but current sensibilities have identified minor details that could be embarrassing or otherwise too revealing if given a close look. THe hindsight perspective on security classification.
February 2, 2016 at 6:32 am #832329
SmittyParticipantThis is the interview I watched. The full interview included a rebut by Lanny Davis to provide balance.
February 2, 2016 at 8:59 am #832346
JTBParticipantNothing on topic at that link now, Smitty, thereby making the phrase, “there’s nothing there” seem to apply on several levels.
February 2, 2016 at 12:47 pm #832380
SmittyParticipantWeird. Here’s another:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/01/30/exp-mukasey-on-clinton-emails.cnn
February 2, 2016 at 9:29 pm #832416
JTBParticipantHow pathetic. Pathetic in that Mukasey and Fox are comfortable slinging barbs like “low grade moron.” His command of legal matters independent of partisan policy was aptly demonstrated during his tenure in the Bush administration. So consider me still unpersuaded there is any there there.
February 3, 2016 at 6:21 am #832450
SmittyParticipantIt was CNN, but I get your point. BTW Lanny Davis(D) provided the rebuttal and it was a really good back and forth.
That said, is what he said true or not? That classified information is classified not based on the markings of the document but based on the contents of the email?
If we are going to discount anything that any former attorney general/politician says based on the administration he/she worked for or the party they are affiliated with then why waste our time talking substance? It’s such an “easy out”. Depending on what side of the political spectrum people are on they immediately discount what was said…..again – it’s an “easy out”. Refute it with facts.
Is what he said true?
If it is, then her defense of “not marked at the time” is irrelevant and she needs to be called out on it.
February 3, 2016 at 10:38 am #832484
JTBParticipantSmitty, I’m discounting what Mukasey said based on the “low grade moron” comment as indicative of his intent. His dodgy legal positions under the Bush admin are something else.
What he said is simplistic. As I’ve already pointed out, we are talking about emails that upon retrospective, rigorous review have been deemed to have material the State Department doesn’t want made public and have been reclassified. Fault the person who wrote the original document, fault everyone who read it and didn’t see a problem with its classification, or conclude there was no fault given the circumstances at the time. But to assert there is an absolute, objective measure of what should have been done at every step is disingenuous and serves no constructive purpose.
Senator Ron Johnson asserts, even more disingenuously, we must assume that all of Hillary’s emails are in the hands of our enemies and they now have sensitive, beyond top secret information. There might be some basis for that if there was some indication her network or server had been hacked. I think it’s safe at this point to conclude that didn’t happen given the degree of scrutiny. But that doesn’t matter to those obsessed with using this issue to hammer Hillary endlessly in order to tarnish her image.
She’s admitted it wasn’t a good call. There is no indication that any damage was done. To your original question, yes, this is pretty much the same as Benghazi.February 3, 2016 at 2:59 pm #832517
JanSParticipantwhat I’m seeing is…there was an email…from whoever or to that person…whoever that person forwarded it to deemed it not so sacred the public couldn’t see. Later on…months, years, they now say…oops…should have bee top secret. Hillary bad! Nope, nope, not in my book. Person who originally classified as not bad..or…considering the state of hate for this woman running for president, the new persons doing the reclassification are bad, perhaps making it a political game. “Let’s get Hillary”. I will say in my defense. I am a Democrat, and I am not supporting eith candidate at this point. I consider myself a “mugwump”, sitting on a fence mug on one side, wump on the other. I am not partisan to Hillary Clinton as a reason for my post.
February 3, 2016 at 2:59 pm #832518
JanSParticipantwhat I’m seeing is…there was an email…from whoever or to that person…whoever that person forwarded it to deemed it not so sacred the public couldn’t see. Later on…months, years, they now say…oops…should have been top secret. Hillary bad! Nope, nope, not in my book. Person who originally classified as not top secret is the bad..or…considering the state of dislike right now for this woman running for president among certain factions, the new persons doing the reclassification are bad, perhaps making it a political game. “Let’s get Hillary”. I will say in my defense. I am a Democrat, and I am not supporting either candidate at this point. I consider myself a “mugwump”, sitting on a fence mug on one side, wump on the other. I am not partisan to Hillary Clinton as a reason for my post.
February 3, 2016 at 5:15 pm #832541
CMParticipantI’m not going to weigh in on the politics, but I regularly deal with classified information and emails, and actually just recently took my annual security refresher training, so just some facts.
1. It is the responsibility of the sender to properly mark any classified information, make sure the recipients have the appropriate clearance required to view it, and use the encryption system authorized by the program in question.
2. Documents can not be retroactively classified. If it is found that classified information was sent incorrectly, that is considered a system breach and is the fault of the sender. Recipients will be contacted and the documents retrieved. The server that received the documents will be scanned, investigated for breaches and secured.
3. Any system/server that can or will be authorized to receive classified documents must be reviewed and approved by the program computing security group to make sure the system has the necessary security protocols.
4 If a system is approved for receipt of classified information, any security breach on that system must be reported. If the system needs to be disposed of, the entire thing will be usually destroyed.Please draw your own conclusions. CM
February 4, 2016 at 6:43 am #832641
SmittyParticipantCM that is perfect, thank you!
Sounds like if she received it then there are no issues. I mean really, how are you supposed to stop some idiot from sending (what should be marked) classified material.
Now, if she forwarded (what should be marked) classified material she may be at fault.
I guess it’s people who automatically say it’s “partisan” would wait for facts (this works BOTH ways, of course).
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.