Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Thanks for the correction on "shoo-in," I honestly thought it was "shoe-in." Always good to learn something from a debate.
Can we get back on topic then? Does anyone have any proof that Clinton actually asked for classified material to be converted to nonpaper? Or do I have to "convict" based on a claim made by a news outlet that openly admits that they have no idea whether or not she was asking for classified information to be "nonpapered" and sent to her unsecurely?
Quote:
'They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it,' aide Jacob Sullivan wrote Clinton after it was discovered the document hadn't been sent to Clinton the previous evening as expected.
'If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,' Clinton replied.
Does anyone have any proof that Clinton actually asked for classified material to be converted to nonpaper? Or do I have to "convict" based on a claim made by a news outlet that openly admits that they have no idea whether or not she was asking for classified information to be "nonpapered" and sent to her unsecurely?
^^^ Are you saying the email shown in the above IB Hankering post was not in reference to one of the 1300 classified documents found to date on her server?
I am sure the FBI knows exactly which document she was referring to in the email.
IBHankering. Thanks, but I already read the original article, which had the email chain in it. And as I already pointed out - and even the article admits - they don't know whether or not the information was classified or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
He is putting on his lawyer/prosecutor's hat and trying to evaluate the evidence objectively.
Do you honestly not see the conflict of interest here? I mean, I can't imagine it could be any more clear. He clearly benefits from one more name, especially a front runner like Hillary, being taken out of the potential WH candidates. Besides, as already pointed out, he doesn't provide any evidence other than what we have already seen, and that doesn't even establish if what she was referring to was classified.
Quote:
He gives Hillary the benefit of a doubt when he makes the following point:
"No criminality can be charged against Mrs. Clinton in connection with any of this absent proof that she had what the law regards as a guilty state of mind—a standard that may differ from one statute to another, depending on what criminal act is charged."
You took the quote out of context, he immediately goes on to say it is *nearly* impossible not to convict her. This is hardly giving anyone "the benefit of the doubt."
Quote:
Then he offers up a good deal of evidence - including direct quotes from Hillary Clinton's recent book - suggesting that her "state of mind" was such as to warrant a criminal charge.
The quote from the book was about how she handled classified information. If she didn't realize that a particular piece of information that she received or sent was classified data, then I don't see how it applies. The fact that she knew she had sensitive material doesn't, at all, indicate that she mishandled anything on her server. I honestly don't get how this is evidence of anything at all, other than the already obvious fact that she had access to highly classified information.
Quote:
Mukasey is anything but a political hack. He ran a far less politicized DOJ than Eric Holder did.
IYO. The fact of the matter is, objectively speaking, he has a very obvious conflict of interest when it comes to how this matter is perceived by the public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
^^^ Are you saying the email shown in the above IB Hankering post was not in reference to one of the 1300 classified documents found to date on her server?
Nope. Not at all. I already explicitly said "It very well could be [illegal], I don't know."
Quote:
I am sure the FBI knows exactly which document she was referring to in the email.
Which is why I said I am interested to see how this pans out. If it turns out that the TP was classified, then she is in trouble. If it turns out that the TP was not classified, then this is much ado about nothing. I'm just not rushing to the conclusion I want to be true, I'm trying to be objective with the facts as I know them.
IBHankering. Thanks, but I already read the original article, which had the email chain in it. And as I already pointed out - and even the article admits - they don't know whether or not the information was classified or not.
Do you honestly not see the conflict of interest here? I mean, I can't imagine it could be any more clear. He clearly benefits from one more name, especially a front runner like Hillary, being taken out of the potential WH candidates. Besides, as already pointed out, he doesn't provide any evidence other than what we have already seen, and that doesn't even establish if what she was referring to was classified.
You took the quote out of context, he immediately goes on to say it is *nearly* impossible not to convict her. This is hardly giving anyone "the benefit of the doubt."
The quote from the book was about how she handled classified information. If she didn't realize that a particular piece of information that she received or sent was classified data, then I don't see how it applies. The fact that she knew she had sensitive material doesn't, at all, indicate that she mishandled anything on her server. I honestly don't get how this is evidence of anything at all, other than the already obvious fact that she had access to highly classified information.
IYO. The fact of the matter is, objectively speaking, he has a very obvious conflict of interest when it comes to how this matter is perceived by the public.
Nope. Not at all. I already explicitly said "It very well could be [illegal], I don't know."
Which is why I said I am interested to see how this pans out. If it turns out that the TP was classified, then she is in trouble. If it turns out that the TP was not classified, then this is much ado about nothing. I'm just not rushing to the conclusion I want to be true, I'm trying to be objective with the facts as I know them.
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.
Which is why I said I am interested to see how this pans out. If it turns out that the TP was classified, then she is in trouble. If it turns out that the TP was not classified, then this is much ado about nothing. I'm just not rushing to the conclusion I want to be true, I'm trying to be objective with the facts as I know them.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
When you're dealing with a Clinton a volley of gunfire will not solve the problem. You need the proverbial stake through the heart.
I am sure the FBI knows exactly which document she was referring to in the email.
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.
Don't forget, please, they are investigating a person who "lost" thousands of cancelled checks in shoe boxes in her closet IN THE WHITE HOUSE, WHICH HAD BEEN UNDER SUBPOENA FOR MONTHS while she claimed she didn't have them. I they know that also.
How many agents in "the Service" do you think the FBI has already interviewed.
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.
The words "classification headings," which you quote twice, is found nowhere in the emails. It says "identifying heading." Why misquote it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
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?
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
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.
Which is why, if this is a smoking gun, the information should come out. And why I am withholding a final judgement.
Sally Perdue, a long time Bill Clinton squeeze and former Miss Arkansas, is writing a book. She says that is she shows up dead of an apparent suicide, don't believe and look to Hillary for a suspect.
The words "classification headings," which you quote twice, is found nowhere in the emails. It says "identifying heading." Why misquote it?
Why are you ignoring that her comment would be superfluous -- literally "unremarkable" -- if the document were not classified and not marked so in the "heading"? The fact that it was the "secure fax machine" that was being problematic to transmitting the document to her immediately as she demanded taken in conjunction with Clinton's distinction that the "heading" be stripped so that it could be transmitted over an "unsecured network" is evidence that it was a classified document; thus, an illegal directive.
