Whoa! Hillary instructs top aid to violate security protocols surrounding classified email?

I don't get it. Hillary is far down my list of candidates that I would vote for in an election. She almost certainly won't get my vote if she wins the primary, considering I can vote more strategically in Texas due to the fact that the republican nominee is all but a guarantee. I've said this multiple times. I don't like her, and I don't like that she put all of this on a private server because I believe it was, at best, a poor judgment call and, at worst, an attempt to shield her emails from FOIA requests.

But the reality of the situation is that there is, publicly, no strong evidence that she has committed a crime. This isn't me being "unreasonable," it is me objectively looking at the facts. I don't like Hillary, I just don't hate her as much as many people here. I'm not looking at this situation as a way to take Hillary down, I am looking at the situation

If the best argument you have to support your position is that I am a mindless Hillary supporter, that does nothing but reveal how weak your position is.

Eatme, you must be in denial or not paying attention.

I don't get it. Hillary is far down my list of candidates that I would vote for in an election. She almost certainly won't get my vote if she wins the primary, considering I can vote more strategically in Texas due to the fact that the republican nominee is all but a guarantee. I've said this multiple times. I don't like her, and I don't like that she put all of this on a private server because I believe it was, at best, a poor judgment call and, at worst, an attempt to shield her emails from FOIA requests.

But the reality of the situation is that there is, publicly, no strong evidence that she has committed a crime. This isn't me being "unreasonable," it is me objectively looking at the facts. I don't like Hillary, I just don't hate her as much as many people here. I'm not looking at this situation as a way to take Hillary down, I am looking at the situation

If the best argument you have to support your position is that I am a mindless Hillary supporter, that does nothing but reveal how weak your position is. Originally Posted by eatfibo

There have been many links posted that respected legal minds believe she did break some laws. I tend to lean to their arguments over your weak position.

There have been many links posted that respected legal minds believe she did break some laws. I tend to lean to their arguments over your weak position. Originally Posted by bambino

And I linked to legal minds that agree with my position. This is why I'm not a big fan of linking to the opinion of other people on the internet; we can always find someone who is at least semi-legitimate that agrees with our position.

The question, if the investigation ends with no indictment, will people come back here and admit that I might have had a point?

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was looking for the citation for the claim that she was "blaming others." Because I had no idea what you were talking about. Now, you have already backtracked and are saying that her pointing out that "others did it." These are two very different things, you have to be careful with the language.

She hasn't denied that information on the server is no classified, she has simply stated numerous times that it wasn't classified at the time or it wasn't labeled as classified when it passed through her server and she never knew any of it was classified. And pointing to the fact that other people (at least Powell) have the same problem isn't admitting wrong-doing, it is forcing the people condemning her to either deal with the cognitive dissonance of holding a blatant double standard, or also condemning someone they don't really want to condemn - which sheds light on the fact that this all stems from wanting to condemn her rather an objective view of the facts. Originally Posted by eatfibo

Again the truth is different. Hillary signed documents, as I did, when she was given access to classified information. It was not necessary the it was marked classified. The fact that it was found in a particular space on the ship made it classified and was required to be treated that way at all times. She lies when she says nothing was classified to her knowledge. Of course she gets out of this by parsing her words to say, none of the documents were MARKED classifed. She knows full well that a marking is not necessary. Also the stuff from the NSA and Justice classified even higher.

Any backtracking is in your head.

Again the truth is different. Hillary signed documents, as I did, when she was given access to classified information. It was not necessary the it was marked classified. The fact that it was found in a particular space on the ship made it classified and was required to be treated that way at all times. She lies when she says nothing was classified to her knowledge. Of course she gets out of this by parsing her words to say, none of the documents were MARKED classifed. She knows full well that a marking is not necessary. Also the stuff from the NSA and Justice classified even higher. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

There are circumstances that make classification implied, such as in your case where it is found on the ship. This was true in my job as well where if something was in a secure room, you had to assume it was classified. Marked or not. Unless you knew otherwise. However, if a piece of that information was taken from that room by someone else and you found it elsewhere on the ship/lab, and you didn't know it belonged to that room, you wouldn't legally be held responsible for not knowing it was classified because what implied the classified was absent.

The question comes down to knowingly passing or receiving (and not reporting) a piece of classified information. If what implies classification is absent, and it is marked (why mark anything classified if it is unnecessary to do so?), then there is plenty of room for you to reasonably not know a piece of information is classified.

So while a marking is not necessary, as things can be classified implicitly, that doesn't mean one can know, outside of the context that implies it, everything that is classified. Which is why the markings are so important.

Any backtracking is in your head.

Well then the comment in question was incorrect, even if it was unintentional, and you don't have a citation for it. It's okay to admit you misspoke. We all do it.

There are circumstances that make classification implied, such as in your case where it is found on the ship. This was true in my job as well where if something was in a secure room, you had to assume it was classified. Marked or not. Unless you knew otherwise. However, if a piece of that information was taken from that room by someone else and you found it elsewhere on the ship/lab, and you didn't know it belonged to that room, you wouldn't legally be held responsible for not knowing it was classified because what implied the classified was absent.

The question comes down to knowingly passing or receiving (and not reporting) a piece of classified information. If what implies classification is absent, and it is marked (why mark anything classified if it is unnecessary to do so?), then there is plenty of room for you to reasonably not know a piece of information is classified.

So while a marking is not necessary, as things can be classified implicitly, that doesn't mean one can know, outside of the context that implies it, everything that is classified. Which is why the markings are so important.


Well then the comment in question was incorrect, even if it was unintentional, and you don't have a citation for it. It's okay to admit you misspoke. We all do it. Originally Posted by eatfibo

Incompetence, or negligence is not a defense.

Incompetence, or negligence is not a defense. Originally Posted by bambino

And, again, without knowing the details of information in question, how much of it was classified at the time, or how much of it she should have known was classified, it's really hard to say she was "incompetent" or "negligent." Of course, we don't have any of this information. But some of us believe they can just assume.

I think eatfiber is Hillary's Fluffy. He's overdosed on the Hillary Kool-Aid. There is no talking sense to him. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And no matter how much fiber the full of shit, lying liberal consumes, he still stays full of shit, just like ALL Clinton supporters ! ( And YES, that means Mr. " Triple Crown " Lil Cotex too !

That included the email she sent to Chelsea the night of the Benghazi attack informing Chelsea that terrorists had attacked the compound where the ambassador was staying before she chimed in on the "video claim" story! Originally Posted by LexusLover

+1

Funny how eatbeaux and the MSM doesn't recall how Hildabeast tried to have her unsecured server wiped AFTER those emails were subpoenaed by Congress and that she lied through her teeth when she lyingly claimed that the only emails that she had erased were "boring emails" dealing with her yoga lessons and Chelsea's wedding. Hildabeast is a lying bitch demonstrably guilty of impeding an ongoing investigation; wherein, each and every forensically recovered classified document is a nail sealing the lid of the case against her.

+1

Funny how eatbeaux and the MSM doesn't recall how Hildabeast tried to have her unsecured server wiped AFTER those emails were subpoenaed by Congress and that she lied through her teeth when she lyingly claimed that the only emails that she had erased were "boring emails" dealing with her yoga lessons and Chelsea's wedding. Hildabeast is a lying bitch demonstrably guilty of impeding an ongoing investigation; wherein, each and every forensically recovered classified document is a nail sealing the lid of the case against her. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I hope that there will be a " Deep Throat " in the FBI when the AG, Mizz Eric Holder-female clone decides not to indict Shrillary. ' specially considering her role in the Watergate prosecution and her attempt to deny Nixon legal counsel by means so illegal that her liberal boss fired her for her actions !

And, again, without knowing the details of information in question, how much of it was classified at the time, or how much of it she should have known was classified, it's really hard to say she was "incompetent" or "negligent." Of course, we don't have any of this information. But some of us believe they can just assume. Originally Posted by eatfibo

And again, she used a private server, which is against a federal rule. A document she signed.

And again, she used a private server, which is against a federal rule. A document she signed. Originally Posted by bambino

Citation? Everything I've read said that it was not against the rules at the time for her to have the private server.

And, again, without knowing the details of information in question, how much of it was classified at the time, or how much of it she should have known was classified, it's really hard to say she was "incompetent" or "negligent." Of course, we don't have any of this information. But some of us believe they can just assume. Originally Posted by eatfibo

A problem you have ... there are people who are "knowing the details of information in question, how much of it was classified at the time, or how much of she should have known was classified" .... so neither I nor you nor anyone else out in the public pounding on keyboards NEED TO KNOW and just because you "don't know" doesn't make it "not so"!

What is "known" publicly NOW is: she kept government documents on a private email server and some of those documents were not supposed to be on that private server and having possessing on there violated several Federal statutes which contain criminal provisions for which she can and should be prosecuted. You can quibble all you want, eatmorebullshit, about how many there were, what the content it was, and/or why they were there...... because you don't know this or that ...

.. and you can shell out a bunch of bullshit like "strategically voting in Texas" whatever the fuck that means, but you are attempting to defend the indefensible.

The DPS trooper pulls you over on the highway and says he clocked going 80 in a 65 mph speed limit section of the highway ... in which you were not to exceed 65 .... "your defense" starts:

"I didn't know I was going over 65"
"I wasn't going over 65"
"How about all those others who were also going over 65"
"My speedometer doesn't work"
"I needed to take a piss"
blah, blah, blah ....

Was there sufficient evidence to charge you with "going over 65"?

A problem you have ... there are people who are "knowing the details of information in question, how much of it was classified at the time, or how much of she should have known was classified" .... so neither I nor you nor anyone else out in the public pounding on keyboards NEED TO KNOW and just because you "don't know" doesn't make it "not so"!

What is "known" publicly NOW is: she kept government documents on a private email server and some of those documents were not supposed to be on that private server and having possessing on there violated several Federal statutes which contain criminal provisions for which she can and should be prosecuted. You can quibble all you want, eatmorebullshit, about how many there were, what the content it was, and/or why they were there...... because you don't know this or that ...

.. and you can shell out a bunch of bullshit like "strategically voting in Texas" whatever the fuck that means, but you are attempting to defend the indefensible.

The DPS trooper pulls you over on the highway and says he clocked going 80 in a 65 mph speed limit section of the highway ... in which you were not to exceed 65 .... "your defense" starts:

"I didn't know I was going over 65"
"I wasn't going over 65"
"How about all those others who were also going over 65"
"My speedometer doesn't work"
"I needed to take a piss"
blah, blah, blah ....

Was there sufficient evidence to charge you with "going over 65"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I think he would finally get his "citation". That sounds so intelligent.