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

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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.

I'm not privy to the private to the inner workings of the state department. So I don't know why she may have wanted/needed the "identifying heading" removed. But simply because I don't know every type of "identifying heading" and why she might need it removed to send it to her email does not mean the only explanation is that she was removing classified heading. Unless you can prove to me that the only reason to do so is because it was classified, or that the document in question was actually classified, then this is nothing but circumstantial evidence.

So can you do that? Can you prove that the document in question was classified? Or prove that there are no other "identify headings" used by the state department that would make sense to remove before sending via email?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I'm not privy to the private to the inner workings of the state department. So I don't know why she may have wanted/needed the "identifying heading" removed. But simply because I don't know every type of "identifying heading" and why she might need it removed to send it to her email does not mean the only explanation is that she was removing classified heading. Unless you can prove to me that the only reason to do so is because it was classified, or that the document in question was actually classified, then this is nothing but circumstantial evidence.

So can you do that? Can you prove that the document in question was classified? Or prove that there are no other "identify headings" used by the state department that would make sense to remove before sending via email?

One doesn't need a PhD in State Department Studies to understand that sending the document with its heading intact was not an issue when it was going to be sent over a secure fax machine, but it became an issue when Clinton wanted it transmitted over an unsecured network. A letter from Aunt Susie wouldn't require that type of manipulation; whereas, concealing the fact that you're transmitting a classified document over an unsecured network does.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

One doesn't need a PhD in State Department Studies to understand that sending the document with its heading intact was not an issue when it was going to be sent over a secure fax machine, but it became an issue when Clinton wanted it transmitted over an unsecured network.

So, is this an admission that you can't answer either of my questions?

For all you know, she could have been acting unnecessarily precautious. Maybe it was her request or her policy that these documents normally get sent via secure fax, even though it isn't a requirement because they aren't classified. Maybe there are markings that they use for UN communications that they don't like to send over non-secure channels, so she was asking for that part to be removed because she didn't need it along with the TP. The reality is that neither you nor I know.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

So, is this an admission that you can't answer either of my questions?

For all you know, she could have been acting unnecessarily precautious. Maybe it was her request or her policy that these documents normally get sent via secure fax, even though it isn't a requirement because they aren't classified. Maybe there are markings that they use for UN communications that they don't like to send over non-secure channels, so she was asking for that part to be removed because she didn't need it along with the TP. The reality is that neither you nor I know.

Just like Hildabeast took "unnecessary precautions" in Benghazi. Yeah, right. Your fantasy explanation doesn't pass the smell test since it's already been revealed that Hildabeast's server had more than 1,300 classified documents on her sever that were "stripped" of their headings, just like she direct.

Hillary Clinton's email excuses are falling apart

It is against the law to remove classification markings from classified information and enter it into an unclassified system — which is the only way this information could have found its way into more than 1,300 emails on Clinton's personal server. There is no way to “accidentally” send classified information by unclassified email.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...125-story.html

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Just like Hildabeast took "unnecessary precautions" in Benghazi. Yeah, right. Your fantasy explanation doesn't pass the smell test since it's already been revealed that Hildabeast's server had more than 1,300 classified documents on her sever that were "stripped" of their headings, just like she direct.

I am not making up a "fantasy explanation." I'm giving you other possible explanations as to why she might have wanted the "identifying headings" removed. This was simply to demonstrate to you why the evidence, as it is presented, is circumstantial. The was no intent to argue that this is what actually happened; there is as little support for my explanation as there is yours. As I have repeated numerous times already, I don't know. The difference between you and I is that I admit that I don't know, you claim to know even though, despite being asked numerous times, you are not able to prove any of your claims.

Also, the argument that (paraphrased) "she didn't handle Benghazi correctly, so there is no way she was being precautious here!" doesn't hold much water. They are completely unrelated. Do you accept that a person can make a mistake with something else but handle another thing correctly?

Sure, we found the classified documents. However, we don't know how many of those were classified at the time she sent/received them (we know a lot were classified ex post facto) and/or we have yet to see any evidence that she knew any of them were classified. However, we don't know if any were stripped of her heading. If they were stripped, we don't know she directed it be done that way. These are the facts right now. Suggesting otherwise is nothing but speculation.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I am not making up a "fantasy explanation." I'm giving you other possible explanations as to why she might have wanted the "identifying headings" removed. This was simply to demonstrate to you why the evidence, as it is presented, is circumstantial. The was no intent to argue that this is what actually happened; there is as little support for my explanation as there is yours. As I have repeated numerous times already, I don't know. The difference between you and I is that I admit that I don't know, you claim to know even though, despite being asked numerous times, you are not able to prove any of your claims.

Also, the argument that (paraphrased) "she didn't handle Benghazi correctly, so there is no way she was being precautious here!" doesn't hold much water. They are completely unrelated. Do you accept that a person can make a mistake with something else but handle another thing correctly?

Sure, we found the classified documents. However, we don't know how many of those were classified at the time she sent/received them (we know a lot were classified ex post facto) and/or we have yet to see any evidence that she knew any of them were classified. However, we don't know if any were stripped of her heading. If they were stripped, we don't know she directed it be done that way. These are the facts right now. Suggesting otherwise is nothing but speculation.

Read the links I posted. It spells everything out. The FBI wouldn't be steeping up their efforts if there wasn't anything there.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I am not making up a "fantasy explanation." I'm giving you other possible explanations as to why she might have wanted the "identifying headings" removed. This was simply to demonstrate to you why the evidence, as it is presented, is circumstantial. The was no intent to argue that this is what actually happened; there is as little support for my explanation as there is yours. As I have repeated numerous times already, I don't know. The difference between you and I is that I admit that I don't know, you claim to know even though, despite being asked numerous times, you are not able to prove any of your claims.

Also, the argument that (paraphrased) "she didn't handle Benghazi correctly, so there is no way she was being precautious here!" doesn't hold much water. They are completely unrelated. Do you accept that a person can make a mistake with something else but handle another thing correctly?

Sure, we found the classified documents. However, we don't know how many of those were classified at the time she sent/received them (we know a lot were classified ex post facto) and/or we have yet to see any evidence that she knew any of them were classified. However, we don't know if any were stripped of her heading. If they were stripped, we don't know she directed it be done that way. These are the facts right now. Suggesting otherwise is nothing but speculation.

The evidence shows that Hildabeast took no extra precautions to provide security in Benghazi and that she wholesale ignored security measures when she set up and used an unsecured server. So, your fantasy notion that Hildabeast was using "extra precaution," in this single instance when there are more than 1,300 examples to date that she violated established security protocols, doesn't pass the smell test.

[nevergaveitathought]

hillary has been sucking up to Obama in these "debates" supporting his destruction and praising him

she recently said Obama would be a great nomination to the supreme court

why would this be ya think?

the ole suck up so dont prosecute me ploy

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by bambino

Read the links I posted. It spells everything out. The FBI wouldn't be steeping up their efforts if there wasn't anything there.

They found highly classified information on the servers, which probably explains why they are "stepping up their efforts." They aren't necessarily stepping up their efforts because Clinton is guilty of what so many people want her to be guilty of. Those emails came and went to a number of different people, any one of them could be the focus of criminal investigation, if there is a criminal investigation at all. This is, again, making the facts fit the narrative rather than objectively looking at the facts and concluding from there.

But anyway, the FoxNews link adds nothing. All it does is point out that they are now interviewing people who sent the material. Why? We don't know. Probably to get to the bottom of how it got out, and who is responsible. Could be Clinton? Sure.

I can't really address the townhall site. It's extremely difficult to verify because it almost exclusively cites itself. I tried to find the interview with Charles Faddis but came up with nothing. From the snippets I was able to pull up, it sounds like they were spinning what he said. But I would have to be able to watch the whole thing to make my own judgment about what he said. I have a hard time taking seriously the opinion of a site that is so unabashedly anti-liberal.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

hillary has been sucking up to Obama in these "debates" supporting his destruction and praising him

she recently said Obama would be a great nomination to the supreme court

why would this be ya think?

the ole suck up so dont prosecute me ploy

Sure seems like she is being real nice to him, and he wouldn't take a blow job from her...

[bambino]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

They found highly classified information on the servers, which probably explains why they are "stepping up their efforts." They aren't necessarily stepping up their efforts because Clinton is guilty of what so many people want her to be guilty of. Those emails came and went to a number of different people, any one of them could be the focus of criminal investigation, if there is a criminal investigation at all. This is, again, making the facts fit the narrative rather than objectively looking at the facts and concluding from there.

But anyway, the FoxNews link adds nothing. All it does is point out that they are now interviewing people who sent the material. Why? We don't know. Probably to get to the bottom of how it got out, and who is responsible. Could be Clinton? Sure.

I can't really address the townhall site. It's extremely difficult to verify because it almost exclusively cites itself. I tried to find the interview with Charles Faddis but came up with nothing. From the snippets I was able to pull up, it sounds like they were spinning what he said. But I would have to be able to watch the whole thing to make my own judgment about what he said. I have a hard time taking seriously the opinion of a site that is so unabashedly anti-liberal.

You won't believe it if the FBI recommends an indictment. Which is your perogitive.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by bambino

You won't believe it if the FBI recommends an indictment. Which is your perogitive.

I absolutely will. And if and when that happens, I will come back to this post specifically to point it out.

What will you do if and when they conclude the investigation with no indictment of Clinton?

But back on point, instead of attacking that strawman, does this mean you cannot provide me a link to the interview? I am honestly curious to see it.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I absolutely will. And if and when that happens, I will come back to this post specifically to point it out.

What will you do if and when they conclude the investigation with no indictment of Clinton?

But back on point, instead of attacking that strawman, does this mean you cannot provide me a link to the interview? I am honestly curious to see it.

What interview? And if she's not indicted, then so be it.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by bambino

What interview? And if she's not indicted, then so be it.

The Charles Faddis interview. It was the central part of the townhall piece you linked to. . .

But what do you mean "so be it." Does that mean you will believe that these accusations against Hillary are untrue?

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by bambino

You won't believe it if the FBI recommends an indictment. Which is your perogitive.

I posted the following based on his posts several pages ago:

willful blindness is unassailable