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

[Guest042616-1]

Big surprise, now classified information found in both Rice and Powell's privatge emails.

Powell, just like Clinton, denies that they were classified at the time, says he doesn't believe they should be classified now, and wants the emails released so that public can see how innocuous the material being claimed as classified actually is. Is the US government over-classifying documents? My guess is that the answer is most definitely yes. And the government shrouding way too much in secrecy should be more of a concern to those of us who want a functioning democracy than whether or not Clinton mishandled some of the information.

Does this mean we know for sure that Clinton didn't break the law? No. But it should indicate that without further information, it is impossible for us on the outside to actually come to an objective conclusion as to whether or not she did.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Big surprise, now classified information found in both Rice and Powell's privatge emails.

Powell, just like Clinton, denies that they were classified at the time, says he doesn't believe they should be classified now, and wants the emails released so that public can see how innocuous the material being claimed as classified actually is. Is the US government over-classifying documents? My guess is that the answer is most definitely yes. And the government shrouding way too much in secrecy should be more of a concern to those of us who want a functioning democracy than whether or not Clinton mishandled some of the information.

Does this mean we know for sure that Clinton didn't break the law? No. But it should indicate that without further information, it is impossible for us on the outside to actually come to an objective conclusion as to whether or not she did.

You and MSNBC failed to show where either Rice or Powell set up a private, unsecured server and conducted 100% of their official business utilizing a private and unsecured server.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You and MSNBC failed to show where either Rice or Powell set up a private, unsecured server and conducted 100% of their official business utilizing a private and unsecured server.

The question isn't whether or not she set up the server or if she solely used it, there is zero argument over whether or not this was legal at the time. Just like it was legal for Rice and Powell to use private email.

The question is whether or not she knowingly sent classified information or instructed other people to do so. This is the question of legality and the only real (potential) scandal here. People on this board have been using the fact that classified information was found on her server as "a smoking gun" that she did. The reality is that this is very weak evidence and if it a "smoking gun" for her, it is also one for Powell and Rice.

My position is that it is ridiculous to consider this as smoking gun for any of them. It's just circumstantial evidence that can be explained in many ways, some described by Powell (poor decisions on what to classify, classified ex post facto).

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

The question isn't whether or not she set up the server or if she solely used it, there is zero argument over whether or not this was legal at the time. Just like it was legal for Rice and Powell to use private email.

The question is whether or not she knowingly sent classified information or instructed other people to do so. This is the question of legality and the only real (potential) scandal here. People on this board have been using the fact that classified information was found on her server as "a smoking gun" that she did. The reality is that this is very weak evidence and if it a "smoking gun" for her, it is also one for Powell and Rice.

My position is that it is ridiculous to consider this as smoking gun for any of them. It's just circumstantial evidence that can be explained in many ways, some described by Powell (poor decisions on what to classify, classified ex post facto).

You're disingenuous and quite wrong. Hildabeast set up a system that was guaranteed to "bleed" intelligence, because, as the record shows, e.g., Powell and Rice, accidents do happen. Thus when Hildabeast set up a system without safeguards, it was guaranteed to fail, because even systems with the proper safeguards fail. Hildabeast intentionally invited a breach in security for her own crass and petty political agenda.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

The question isn't whether or not she set up the server or if she solely used it, there is zero argument over whether or not this was legal at the time. Just like it was legal for Rice and Powell to use private email.

The question is whether or not she knowingly sent classified information or instructed other people to do so. This is the question of legality and the only real (potential) scandal here. People on this board have been using the fact that classified information was found on her server as "a smoking gun" that she did. The reality is that this is very weak evidence and if it a "smoking gun" for her, it is also one for Powell and Rice.

My position is that it is ridiculous to consider this as smoking gun for any of them. It's just circumstantial evidence that can be explained in many ways, some described by Powell (poor decisions on what to classify, classified ex post facto).

Rice did not use email at all. And your argument is stupid. It's like a lawyer defending his client saying, "Sure my client robbed a bank. But those other guys robbed a bank and didn't get caught, so my client shouldn't be prosecuted." If Powell and Rice broke the law, prosecute them, too. But Hillary shouldn't be allowed to skate just because someone else got away with a crime.


And if you can't see the difference in magnitude of the crime, followed by Hillary's massive attempt at covering it up, and Hillary's long history of lies and corruption, you're an idiot.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And if you can't see the difference in magnitude of the crime, followed by Hillary's massive attempt at covering it up, and Hillary's long history of lies and corruption, you're an idiot.

I believe he can see the difference. That makes him worse than an "idiot"!

That makes him as guilty as Hillary.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Big surprise, now classified information found in both Rice and Powell's privatge emails.

Powell, just like Clinton, denies that they were classified at the time, says he doesn't believe they should be classified now, and wants the emails released so that public can see how innocuous the material being claimed as classified actually is. Is the US government over-classifying documents? My guess is that the answer is most definitely yes. And the government shrouding way too much in secrecy should be more of a concern to those of us who want a functioning democracy than whether or not Clinton mishandled some of the information.

Does this mean we know for sure that Clinton didn't break the law? No. But it should indicate that without further information, it is impossible for us on the outside to actually come to an objective conclusion as to whether or not she did.

Better read closer...Powell denies that there any classified emails and we're talking about a dozen total whereas the Rice story (which you wisely but dishonestly glossed over) is that it was her staffer and not her. So you have half a dishonest post.

If it's true then Powell found a $20 bill inside of a bank on the floor and he was accused of bank robbery by someone who came in with a gun, a gang, and a bomb to loot the bank's vault.

[Yssup Rider]

So it's OK for Powell and Rice? And her staff?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

The question isn't whether or not she set up the server or if she solely used it, there is zero argument over whether or not this was legal at the time.

By "zero argument" do you mean SOLELY on the issue of someone setting up their own private server system? So, you think this boils down to whether or not "Joe Citizen" (or "Hillarious Citizen") can set up his or her own server?

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're disingenuous and quite wrong. Hildabeast set up a system that was guaranteed to "bleed" intelligence, because, as the record shows, e.g., Powell and Rice, accidents do happen. Thus when Hildabeast set up a system without safeguards, it was guaranteed to fail, because even systems with the proper safeguards fail. Hildabeast intentionally invited a breach in security for her own crass and petty political agenda.

Do you have any non-circumstantial evidence that it wasn't accidental for Clinton? Do you have any non-circumstantial evidence that it was accidental for Powell and/or Rice?

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Rice did not use email at all. And your argument is stupid. It's like a lawyer defending his client saying, "Sure my client robbed a bank. But those other guys robbed a bank and didn't get caught, so my client shouldn't be prosecuted." If Powell and Rice broke the law, prosecute them, too. But Hillary shouldn't be allowed to skate just because someone else got away with a crime.

I explicitly said that it doesn't prove she didn't commit a crime. I certainly never said she should be allowed to get away with it if she did. Kindly don't put words in my mouth.

What I said is that we don't have enough information for any of them to say whether or not they committed a crime. We have virtually the same evidence for both: private emails that contained now classified information. The only additional thing we have for Hillary is a request to remove an "identifying heading" and to have something to have it sent on unsecure channels. We have no idea whether or not what that was referring to is actually classified or not.

And if you can't see the difference in magnitude of the crime, followed by Hillary's massive attempt at covering it up, and Hillary's long history of lies and corruption, you're an idiot.

No one here has shown me any even remotely convincing evidence that any of them have committed a crime. If accepting the reality that I don't have enough information to assume they did break the law makes me an idiot, I'll happily wear the label "idiot."

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Better read closer...Powell denies that there any classified emails

No, Powell does not deny that there were classified emails. He said they weren't marked classified at the time, which is the same claim Hillary is making. He is also making the claim that they shouldn't be classified now. The same argument Hillary is making. He wants them released. As does Hillary. It's virtually the same argument.

and we're talking about a dozen total whereas the Rice story (which you wisely but dishonestly glossed over) is that it was her staffer and not her.

So what about the number? If having non-classified information in your private email is evidence of a crime, it is a crime for all of them. If we accept that we don't have enough information to assume one is guilty of a crime, we have to extend the same benefit to all. There is no "well, 12 now-classified pieces of information is not evidence of a crime, but once you cross the 15 threshold. . . CRIME!"

Originally Posted by LexusLover

By "zero argument" do you mean SOLELY on the issue of someone setting up their own private server system? So, you think this boils down to whether or not "Joe Citizen" (or "Hillarious Citizen") can set up his or her own server?

No. At the time, there was nothing illegal or against regulation for her to set up her own email server. It was stupid that it was ever allowed, but the question isn't whether or not she broke the law by setting up a server (I've seen no one reasonable make the argument that she did), but whether or not the classified emails on her server represent gross negligence or intentional mishandling of classified information.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Do you have any non-circumstantial evidence that it wasn't accidental for Clinton? .....

.... whether or not the classified emails on her server represent gross negligence or intentional mishandling of classified information.

#1: There is no requirement that one must have "non-circumstantial evidence" to convict her, and clearly not for "probable cause" to indict her.

#2: The law under which she would be charged does not have a "gross negligence" or "intentional mishandling" element to the prosecution. Possession is all that is necessary.

Of course, she can commit perjury (like she has probably already done to the FBI) and claim she didn't "know" they were on her server, but Martha Stewart knows all about that! And then when the FBI confirm (they have already) that she received it, opened it, and "saved" it back, then she's toast! The revelation that she requested a subordinate to remove the "heading" off the emails is sufficient to prove "knowingly" possessed.

She can babble all she wants, because she thinks she is talking to "gruberized empty-heads" ... So did Bill!

Where is Bill anyway?

"At the time" there was nothing "illegal" about the terrorists in California obtaining "assault weapons" that were subsequently used to commit mass murder either, or two brothers buying a pressure cooker for the Boston marathon. So what?

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

#1: There is no requirement that one must have "non-circumstantial evidence" to convict her, and clearly not for "probable cause" to indict her.

Understood. Maybe I should say "something other than incredibly weak circumstantial evidence." The fact that she had now-classified information on her server could be explained in a number of other ways: innocent mistake, not classified at the time, or she didn't know it was classified at the time. We are far from "beyond a reasonable doubt." Just like this circumstantial evidence isn't enough to indict/convict Powell or Rice, it is not enough indict/convict Clinton either.

#2: The law under which she would be charged does not have a "gross negligence" or "intentional mishandling" element to the prosecution. Possession is all that is necessary.

Can you cite this law because I've seen nothing that even remotely suggests this is true.

Of course, she can commit perjury (like she has probably already done to the FBI) and claim she didn't "know" they were on her server, but Martha Stewart knows all about that!

And. . .you immediately contradict yourself. Is the crime simply possession or knowledge of possession?

And then when the FBI confirm (they have already) that she received it, opened it, and "saved" it back, then she's toast! The revelation that she requested a subordinate to remove the "heading" off the emails is sufficient to prove "knowingly" possessed.

Unless, of course, what she is referring to isn't even classified information at all. I've asked before and no one could provide anything, but I'll try again: where is your evidence that the document she was referring to is classified?

"At the time" there was nothing "illegal" about the terrorists in California obtaining "assault weapons" that were subsequently used to commit mass murder either, or two brothers buying a pressure cooker for the Boston marathon. So what?

I don't follow. Do you think that because I know that her having the server in-and-of-itself broke no laws, that that makes her incapable of breaking laws with it? If so, you couldn't be more wrong.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Do you have any non-circumstantial evidence that it wasn't accidental for Clinton? Do you have any non-circumstantial evidence that it was accidental for Powell and/or Rice?

Hildabeast set up and operated through an unsecured server guaranteeing that even the slightest error would be magnified by her gross negligence in ignoring proper security procedures.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Understood. Maybe I should say "something other than incredibly weak circumstantial evidence."

We are far from "beyond a reasonable doubt." Just like this circumstantial evidence isn't enough to indict/convict Powell or Rice, it is not enough indict/convict Clinton either.

Powell or Rice have nothing to do with whether or not Hillarious gets what's coming to her. And more importantly, the information released to the media has been enough to indict her for the offenses mentioned in the media.

The only thing "incredibly weak" are your "arguments" in favor of "Hillarious"!

Her "tactic" is to drag this bullshit out long enough so a "crisis" will exist if she's popped and she will go all the way to the convention with her delegates, because she's a narcissistic bubble-head.....and could give a rat's ass about "The Republic"! Apparently you share her attitude.

As for this meantingless question:
"where is your evidence that the document she was referring to is classified?"

I refer you to: https://www.fbi.gov/ (Either "Contact Us" or "Fun and Games"!)

Because you must be attempting to reference the "document(s)" that she claimed didn't exist, because she had already "scrubbed" them from her PRIVATE SERVER's HARD-DRIVE AFTER THEY WERE SUBPOENAED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE INITIATING A HEARING ON BENGHAZI. That was after "her" explanation that she didn't know she could have more than one email account on her Iphone ... so that's why she was receiving DOS emails on her private account! She's a prosecutor's wet dream! Didn't work for Bill. Won't work for her.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Powell or Rice have nothing to do with whether or not Hillarious gets what's coming to her.

Of course, and whether or not they are guilty, if she is, she should be prosecuted. My point is that if what we know publicly is enough to indict her, let alone convict, it is also enough to indict Powell and maybe even Rice because it is the same (lack of) evidence. Any suggestion otherwise is a blatant double standard or the result of not understanding the law.

And more importantly, the information released to the media has been enough to indict her for the offenses mentioned in the media.

But it hasn't. I've not seen one shred of strong evidence that she knowingly sent/received classified information nor that she acted with gross negligence when it comes to classified information. Neither have you.

Her "tactic" is to drag this bullshit out long enough so a "crisis" will exist if she's popped and she will go all the way to the convention with her delegates, because she's a narcissistic bubble-head.....and could give a rat's ass about "The Republic"! Apparently you share her attitude.

How is she dragging it out? It is completely out of her hands now. On top of that, she has called for the emails to be released so that everyone could judge for themselves.

"where is your evidence that the document she was referring to is classified?"

I refer you to: https://www.fbi.gov/ (Either "Contact Us" or "Fun and Games"!)

Your evidence that the document was classified is the landing page for the FBI? Seriously?

On that note, where is your citation of the law that says simple possession is a crime?