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

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

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.

the very fact that it is classified, is damning to the Hildebitch.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by bambino

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

So, does this mean you cannot cite your claim? Doesn't really surprise me because I'm relatively sure it isn't true.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

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"!

I've already repeated in this thread, numerous times, that I'm not arguing that she is innocent. I've been very explicit with my position that there is not enough public information to say we know she committed a crime. So I agree with you to an extent, the people who need to know the information probably have it. I'm waiting for what they say before I pass judgment. I'm simply pointing out how so many people in this thread are rushing to judgment without a proper amount of information.

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

True.

and having possessing on there violated several Federal statutes which contain criminal provisions for which she can and should be prosecuted.

Not true (based on what we know).

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 ...

It's not "quibbling." I'm pointing out what we do and what we don't know and how it is important to whether or not we can reasonably pass judgment.

.. 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.

Really? You don't know about strategic voting? I'm almost certain you do it to an extent yourself. I feel relative confident saying you have held your nose and voted for one candidate because you didn't want the other major one to win. You didn't vote for you who you wanted, you made a strategic decision and voted against the person you didn't want.

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"?

As long as the radar gun was properly calibrated, and there was some way for them to prove it was read off of my car, I would say that is pretty damning evidence. It's straight up direct evidence. Something I've asked for numerous times in this thread and something that not a single poster has even remotely been able to provide. There might be direct evidence, I don't know. But the reality is that it isn't public right now and if you have the "radar gun" of her "going over the speed limit," I would love to see it.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

the very fact that it is classified, is damning to the Hildebitch.

If understanding the law makes me "a special kind of stupid," I'm fine with that label.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

So, does this mean you cannot cite your claim? Doesn't really surprise me because I'm relatively sure it isn't true.


I've already repeated in this thread, numerous times, that I'm not arguing that she is innocent. I've been very explicit with my position that there is not enough public information to say we know she committed a crime. So I agree with you to an extent, the people who need to know the information probably have it. I'm waiting for what they say before I pass judgment. I'm simply pointing out how so many people in this thread are rushing to judgment without a proper amount of information.


True.


Not true (based on what we know).


It's not "quibbling." I'm pointing out what we do and what we don't know and how it is important to whether or not we can reasonably pass judgment.


Really? You don't know about strategic voting? I'm almost certain you do it to an extent yourself. I feel relative confident saying you have held your nose and voted for one candidate because you didn't want the other major one to win. You didn't vote for you who you wanted, you made a strategic decision and voted against the person you didn't want.


As long as the radar gun was properly calibrated, and there was some way for them to prove it was read off of my car, I would say that is pretty damning evidence. It's straight up direct evidence. Something I've asked for numerous times in this thread and something that not a single poster has even remotely been able to provide. There might be direct evidence, I don't know. But the reality is that it isn't public right now and if you have the "radar gun" of her "going over the speed limit," I would love to see it.


If understanding the law makes me "a special kind of stupid," I'm fine with that label.

if you understand law then i'm bill gates.

[CuteOldGuy]

Is eatfiber an alternate handle for WPF? Kinda sounds like him, without the misogyny.

[lustylad]

Notice how eatfibo attempts to debate here, especially how he “compares and contrasts” anything that might be instructive for judging Hillary Clinton's misconduct. Bring up Gen. Patraeus and all he wants to do is CONTRAST the two cases rather than compare them, because he doesn't want any damaging precedents to apply to Hillary. That means the two cases are completely different. Then in the next breath he mentions Colin Powell and Condi Rice, only this time he just wants to COMPARE the situations, and not contrast them. Differentiating details such as the number of emails involved, the levels of classification and the use of a private server are all irrelevant. The cases are exactly the same, and anyone who criticizes Hillary is guilty of a huge double standard! Then he has the chutzpah to insist he is trying to be objective.

There is a reason why eatfibo acts like the biggest DOUBTING THOMAS on this board. He keeps saying over and over – show me the evidence that Hillary broke the law, otherwise it is wrong to rush to judgment. Notice the catch-22 here. I already pointed out that the evidence to date includes 22 emails carrying the highest level of classification – SAP or Special Access Program. That means they are so sensitive they will never be made public and we'll never be able to see them. Of course, that suits the Doubting Thomas just fine. It means he can keep on doubting forever - or at least until after the November election.

Despite his denials, eatfibo is another Hillary-loving libtard who has learned all the tricks of her trade well. He is currently following Hillary's “run out the clock” play, the same one she employed to evade justice in the Benghazi scandal. Except this time - thanks to James Comey's FBI - it isn't going to work.

[lustylad]

Hillary’s Cyber Loose Lips

Clinton’s email server was ripe for hacking. How much damage to the U.S. was done?

By L. Gordon Crovitz
Feb. 7, 2016 4:37 p.m. ET


Hillary Clinton’s emails “do reveal classified methods, they do reveal classified sources, and they do reveal human assets,” a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Chris Stewart of Utah, told Fox News last week. That raises some pressing questions about the former secretary of state’s communications through her unprotected private email server:

Which foreign intelligence agencies tried to hack the computer server in the basement of the Clinton suburban home? Did any succeed? And if so, how did these countries use the hacked information against the U. S.?

The State Department last week confirmed that at least 22 of Mrs. Clinton’s 1,600 classified emails include information that is “top secret” or an even higher level of classification, known as “special access programs.” The latter applies to communications for which “the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional,” such as the names of sources and undercover officers.

Americans won’t see these highly sensitive emails, which were likely read in real time by intelligence agents from China, Russia and Iran. But one was described to NBC, which reported that it referred to an undercover CIA officer as a State Department official with the word “State” in scare quotes, signaling to readers the officer was not really a diplomat.

Mrs. Clinton asserted in last week’s Democratic presidential debate that she is “100% confident” she won’t be charged with a crime. She ignored the issue of hacking by foreign agents and complained about “retroactive classifications.” Yet she signed the standard nondisclosure agreement acknowledging her responsibility to keep classified information secret whether “marked or unmarked.” In one of her emails, she responded to a complaint that staffers were having trouble sending a secure fax by writing: “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

Mrs. Clinton tried to evade responsibility by claiming other secretaries of state committed the same sin, citing reports that Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice received a handful of potentially classified emails. But it was Mrs. Clinton alone who chose to set up and use only a personal email system for all her communications, knowingly risking access by foreign agents.

Unless the Clinton team wiped records from the server before producing it to be inspected, there should be logs indicating who tried to gain access—and who succeeded. In an era when cyber spies have penetrated many government departments, it is highly likely that foreign agents got into her homebrew server. The Associated Press reported that the way the computer in her home was set up would allow “users to connect openly over the Internet to control it remotely.”

Robert Gates, the former defense secretary, told radio host Hugh Hewitt recently that “the odds are pretty high” Russia, China and Iran hacked Mrs. Clinton’s emails. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in The Wall Street Journal last month that the intelligence community is “nearly certain that Mrs. Clinton’s server was hacked,” which would create blackmail opportunities against Mrs. Clinton and anyone she or her correspondents mentioned. U.S. intelligence agencies are now reviewing all their operations under the costly assumption that the cover of any program or person referenced in Clinton emails is blown.

Aside from the classified emails, there would be enormous damage if cyber spies gained access to all the digital communication involving the top American diplomat for the four years Mrs. Clinton held that office. Spies would have known the information available to the Obama administration and how its diplomatic strategies evolved over time. This might explain why Iran out-negotiated Washington on the one-sided nuclear deal, why Russia felt safe in its provocations, and why Beijing confidently claimed more of the South China Sea. And foreign governments would have access to all 60,000 emails, not just the 30,000 Mrs. Clinton chose to turn over.

Mrs. Clinton can’t plead ignorance. She gave numerous speeches as secretary of state detailing successful cyber attacks on much better-protected servers at government agencies and U.S. companies. Yet she made America’s secrets and diplomacy available on an unprotected server in her suburban home.

Voters will decide if someone whose judgment made hacking easy for the nation’s enemies can ever be trusted as commander in chief. Hacking and other cybersecurity risks should be pressing matters for debate among presidential candidates.

A book by Council on Foreign Relations scholar Adam Segal will be published this month titled “The Hacked World Order: How Nations Fight, Trade, Maneuver, and Manipulate in the Digital Age.” Meanwhile, Americans shouldn’t have to wait for Vladimir Putin’s memoirs to learn how foreign agents used Mrs. Clinton’s cyber loose lips to their advantage.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillarys...ips-1454881054
.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

As long as the radar gun was properly calibrated, and there was some way for them to prove it was read off of my car, I would say that is pretty damning evidence. It's straight up direct evidence. Something I've asked for numerous times in this thread and something that not a single poster has even remotely been able to provide. There might be direct evidence, I don't know. But the reality is that it isn't public right now and if you have the "radar gun" of her "going over the speed limit," I would love to see it.

The question was:
"Was there sufficient evidence to charge you with "going over 65"?"

Your self-professed understanding "of the law" is deficient. There is a distinction between probable cause to charge someone and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict (the "pretty damning evidence" as you say).

What you obviously want (and you've posted it already) is the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" before you will decide that charging her is appropriate. Regardless of your strained effort to appear "unbiased" you are clearly biased AGAINST CHARGING HILLARY WITH ANY CRIME regardless of what it is.

Possessing classified documents on her private server is sufficient probable cause to charge the crimes in the generally described Federal statutes. Whether you want to admit it or not is another issue or two and probably the appropriate subject of a thread of its own.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Notice how eatfibo attempts to debate here, especially how he “compares and contrasts” anything that might be instructive for judging Hillary Clinton's misconduct. Bring up Gen. Patraeus and all he wants to do is CONTRAST the two cases rather than compare them, because he doesn't want any damaging precedents to apply to Hillary. That means the two cases are completely different.

The claim is, roughly, because Patraeus was guilty, Clinton is guilty too. If I'm holding the position that we don't know whether or not Clinton is guilty, then of course I am going to mainly contrast the positions; it's obviously the difference between what we know about the two cases that makes one a crime and the other yet to be known.

Then in the next breath he mentions Colin Powell and Condi Rice, only this time he just wants to COMPARE the situations, and not contrast them. Differentiating details such as the number of emails involved, the levels of classification and the use of a private server are all irrelevant.

Do you think that if Powell/Rice knowingly sent/received classified documents they would be fine because it wasn't done on a private server? (The difference is, BTW, still incorrect. The servers that the emails have been stored on were the property of private companies. . .making them private servers) Do you think if they sent 10, instead of 20, that they wouldn't have broken the law? Do you think that if they intentionally sent top secret, instead of SAP programs, it wouldn't be a violation of the law? None of the things you listed matter when determining whether or not one broke the law. Sure, Clinton could absolutely have broken the law more than them, but without knowing what is in the emails, it is also possible that she broke the law less than them.

She might be innocent on all counts and they might be guilty on all counts. I don't believe this is true or event likely, but it is important to note.

The cases are exactly the same, and anyone who criticizes Hillary is guilty of a huge double standard! Then he has the chutzpah to insist he is trying to be objective.

I never said they were "exactly the same." Instead of attacking an argument you have put in my mouth, try just defending your position. It will make your argument look much stronger.

If you would like me to do a full compare and contrast of the cases, I can do that. However, I figured we agreed on the facts of the cases, and the argument was just whether or not they merited treating them differently. I didn't realize that for me to be "fair" I had to list out all the things we almost certainly agree on.

There is a reason why eatfibo acts like the biggest DOUBTING THOMAS on this board. He keeps saying over and over – show me the evidence that Hillary broke the law, otherwise it is wrong to rush to judgment. Notice the catch-22 here. I already pointed out that the evidence to date includes 22 emails carrying the highest level of classification – SAP or Special Access Program. That means they are so sensitive they will never be made public and we'll never be able to see them. Of course, that suits the Doubting Thomas just fine. It means he can keep on doubting forever - or at least until after the November election.

I've already openly stated, more than once, that if the FBI chooses to indict, I will admit that there is enough to indict. It would be silly to do otherwise. Saying that I would deny it unless I saw the emails myself is, again, attacking a strawman. One that I've clearly said the exact opposite of.

Despite his denials, eatfibo is another Hillary-loving libtard who has learned all the tricks of her trade well. He is currently following Hillary's “run out the clock” play, the same one she employed to evade justice in the Benghazi scandal. Except this time - thanks to James Comey's FBI - it isn't going to work.

It's amazing. You spent an entire post making up strawmen about me instead of defending your position. Is this a realize that it is impossible to defend your position so you have to make up mine?

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The question was:
"Was there sufficient evidence to charge you with "going over 65"?"

Your self-professed understanding "of the law" is deficient. There is a distinction between probable cause to charge someone and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict (the "pretty damning evidence" as you say).

Sorry, I misunderstood the question. You are absolutely right, there was sufficient evidence for the cop to charge me (write the ticket).

What you obviously want (and you've posted it already) is the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" before you will decide that charging her is appropriate. Regardless of your strained effort to appear "unbiased" you are clearly biased AGAINST CHARGING HILLARY WITH ANY CRIME regardless of what it is.

No, I don't want "beyond a reasonable doubt." You are putting words in my mouth. Whether you admit it or not, having a piece of classified information is not "probable cause" a crime has been committed, because possessing classified information is not illegal unless you know it is classified. There has to be probably cause that she knew. Because that's the crime. If we have good reason to believe that she knew it was classified, then show me this evidence. If you don't have it, you have to admit there is, publicly, no "probable cause" of a crime.

Possessing classified documents on her private server is sufficient probable cause to charge the crimes in the generally described Federal statutes. Whether you want to admit it or not is another issue or two and probably the appropriate subject of a thread of its own.

Be specific now, what differentiates the classified information being on Clinton's private server and the information in Powell's possession being on the private server of some company?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Whether you admit it or not, having a piece of classified information is not "probable cause" a crime has been committed, because possessing classified information is not illegal unless you know it is classified. There has to be probably (sic) cause that she knew. Because that's the crime. If we have good reason to believe that she knew it was classified, then show me this evidence. If you don't have it, you have to admit there is, publicly, no "probable cause" of a crime.

Like I said, you are fucking hopeless... You claim to have worked in intelligence. I have my doubts, but if true then you should understand the different classifications. Explain how it is possible for a US Secretary of State to look at SAP (Special Access Programs) documents and NOT know the information is classified. And btw - we've already shown you the evidence multiple times in this thread, but you keep stupidly denying it or saying you would have to see, touch and feel the actual underlying docs yourself.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

The claim is, roughly, because Patraeus was guilty, Clinton is guilty too. If I'm holding the position that we don't know whether or not Clinton is guilty, then of course I am going to mainly contrast the positions; it's obviously the difference between what we know about the two cases that makes one a crime and the other yet to be known.


Do you think that if Powell/Rice knowingly sent/received classified documents they would be fine because it wasn't done on a private server? (The difference is, BTW, still incorrect. The servers that the emails have been stored on were the property of private companies. . .making them private servers) Do you think if they sent 10, instead of 20, that they wouldn't have broken the law? Do you think that if they intentionally sent top secret, instead of SAP programs, it wouldn't be a violation of the law? None of the things you listed matter when determining whether or not one broke the law. Sure, Clinton could absolutely have broken the law more than them, but without knowing what is in the emails, it is also possible that she broke the law less than them.

She might be innocent on all counts and they might be guilty on all counts. I don't believe this is true or event likely, but it is important to note.


I never said they were "exactly the same." Instead of attacking an argument you have put in my mouth, try just defending your position. It will make your argument look much stronger.

If you would like me to do a full compare and contrast of the cases, I can do that. However, I figured we agreed on the facts of the cases, and the argument was just whether or not they merited treating them differently. I didn't realize that for me to be "fair" I had to list out all the things we almost certainly agree on.


I've already openly stated, more than once, that if the FBI chooses to indict, I will admit that there is enough to indict. It would be silly to do otherwise. Saying that I would deny it unless I saw the emails myself is, again, attacking a strawman. One that I've clearly said the exact opposite of.


It's amazing. You spent an entire post making up strawmen about me instead of defending your position. Is this a realize that it is impossible to defend your position so you have to make up mine?


Sorry, I misunderstood the question. You are absolutely right, there was sufficient evidence for the cop to charge me (write the ticket).


No, I don't want "beyond a reasonable doubt." You are putting words in my mouth. Whether you admit it or not, having a piece of classified information is not "probable cause" a crime has been committed, because possessing classified information is not illegal unless you know it is classified. There has to be probably cause that she knew. Because that's the crime. If we have good reason to believe that she knew it was classified, then show me this evidence. If you don't have it, you have to admit there is, publicly, no "probable cause" of a crime.


Be specific now, what differentiates the classified information being on Clinton's private server and the information in Powell's possession being on the private server of some company?

Powell didn't have a private server. Rice didn't use email. Petreus shared info with a person who had security clearance to see the documents. Clinton put those emails in a place for the world to see. That's a fact. Or a fucking citation.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Like I said, you are fucking hopeless... You claim to have worked in intelligence. I have my doubts, but if true then you should understand the different classifications.

I didn't "work in intelligence," I had security clearance.

Explain how it is possible for a US Secretary of State to look at SAP (Special Access Programs) documents and NOT know the information is classified.

Maybe it was the name of the program. Maybe it was something that was classified after the fact. Maybe it was some banal detail of the program that no one knows is classified except for a handful of people. Maybe it wasn't even classified at the time. There are so many potential explanations that assuming one, that she knew it was classified and intentionally mishandled it, is silly.

The problem is (I suspect) that you've never had clearance so you don't understand how ridiculous what gets classified can be sometimes. There are things that are considered "top secret," but you can find them on wikipedia. They would be redacted if the document were released, but anyone with half a brain could easily deduce by a simple good search what was in the redaction.

Your position is effectively that if you go to wikipedia and that "top secret" data is cached on your computer, there is probable cause you have committed a crime. Even if the government classified it well after you went to the page. The government then has a right to confiscate all of your computers so they can search them. Do you honestly believe this?

I can't believe people want Clinton to be indicted based on the public evidence that is so shoddy. It means that the government basically has carte blanch to classify something so they can then grab all of the data.

And btw - we've already shown you the evidence multiple times in this thread, but you keep stupidly denying it or saying you would have to see, touch and feel the actual underlying docs yourself.

You've shown no evidence of a crime. You've incorrectly claimed that possession of classified information is evidence of a crime. But this is wrong; it isn't evidence of a crime. Possessing classified information is not a crime. It's not. You have to know it is classified and then intentionally or recklessly pass it on at a time when it is actually classified.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by bambino

Powell didn't have a private server.

He didn't have a personal server. However, hotmail (which I believe is the service he used), means that his emails absolutely were on a private server. Are we really going to argue that passing confidential emails through one private server is not ok, but fine through another, because it is owned by a private company?

Petreus shared info with a person who had security clearance to see the documents.

You don't understand how classified information works. Just because you have a clearance, doesn't mean you can see everything at that clearance level. You have to have a "need to know." Patraeus shared the information with someone who didn't have a "need to know." Not only that, but he gave it to her so she could use it in a book. The suggestion that he didn't do something more incriminating than what we know about Clinton doesn't hold any water.

Clinton put those emails in a place for the world to see. That's a fact. Or a fucking citation.

So, again, you have no citation for your claim that she signed a document that said she wouldn't us a private server? Instead of repeatedly insulting me for asking me to prove a claim you made but apparently can't support, show some integrity and admit that you can't.

[JD Barleycorn]

I'm fairly certain that at some point we're going to here that some asset was compromised, killed, or captured by Hillary's reckless disregard for security and I wonder what the lefties will say then. I'm giving them a chance now to redeem themselves by stating ahead of time that they will be calling for Hillary to go to prison when that happens.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

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.

I agree with you. Hillary just doesn't want the rules to apply to her. Perhaps her attitude is this:

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

[DSK]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The question was:
"Was there sufficient evidence to charge you with "going over 65"?"

Your self-professed understanding "of the law" is deficient. There is a distinction between probable cause to charge someone and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict (the "pretty damning evidence" as you say).

What you obviously want (and you've posted it already) is the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" before you will decide that charging her is appropriate. Regardless of your strained effort to appear "unbiased" you are clearly biased AGAINST CHARGING HILLARY WITH ANY CRIME regardless of what it is.

Possessing classified documents on her private server is sufficient probable cause to charge the crimes in the generally described Federal statutes. Whether you want to admit it or not is another issue or two and probably the appropriate subject of a thread of its own.

EatFibo, you are just one more carcass left in the dust by LL. As Clint Eastwood's character once said, "A man has got to know his limitations."

You need to learn you cannot beat LL in a legal argument. You don't have the right stuff.