Hildabeast admitted the document(s) was/were classified when she told her minion to strip the "classification headings" from the document. The act of stripping the "classification headings" is illegal.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
The words "classification headings," which you quote twice, is found nowhere in the emails. It says "identifying heading." Why misquote it?
You seem to be hung up on whether one email is a smoking gun. Meanwhile you lose sight of the cumulative evidence and the big picture. They've turned up over 1300 classified emails on her private server, and they're still counting. The latest batch includes documents with the highest level of intelligence classification - SAP or Special Access Program. How can the Secretary of State not know when she receives or sends a SAP email?
Originally Posted by lustylad
You are twisting the evidence. A lot of what was found on her server was classified after the fact and thus wasn't even classified when it was sent. As of right now, there has not been the release of a single email that we know she knew, or should have known, was classified at the time.
Everyone on this board with a background in intelligence classifications is appalled by Hillary Clinton's behavior. She has no defenders among those in the know.
Interestingly enough, I have a background with intelligence classification. I had secret clearance with the government while working for a previous employer. My issue with her "private server" has way more to do with making FOIA requests harder. I am glad that they are no longer allowed to do this, and she shouldn't have been allowed to do this. However, I have yet to see any information that she intentionally or negligently handled any particular piece of classified material, so it is impossible for me to say that she mishandled classified information. Nor can anyone else who isn't privy to some information that has not been made public, because it hasn't come out yet, if it exists at all.
I think your problem is your heart and your head are in conflict. Your heart stubbornly refuses to let you agree with all those nasty right wingers who are out to get Hillary. Meanwhile your head is telling you she broke all the rules.
Again, I don't like Clinton. I already explicitly said this. I don't like the fact that she used a private server. It was wrong because it put her communication at risk (even unclassified information getting intercepted by foreign intelligence could hurt our position) and it avoided FOIA requests. She is far from my first choice for president. In fact, she is near the bottom. I have no interest in defending her.
What I am doing is defending objectivity. I try not to let my personal opinion of someone lead me to a conclusion, I try to let the facts lead me to a conclusion. This isn't about me, it is about the facts as we know them. You believe that I am viewing them in a way that confirms what I want to be true, but I don't believe that to be true, and may even be why
you are interpreting them the way you are.
They also know: to the second when it was sent, when it was received, and when it was opened (and how many times for each time), and most importantly if there was an attempt to revise or delete it. Also, they know how many file servers it passed through from beginning to end, and to the second, as well as if anyone accessed it on those file servers.
Originally Posted by LexusLover
Which is why, if this is a smoking gun, the information
should come out. And why I am withholding a final judgement.
