When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

That's nice. Was it just a coincidence then that the classification notification just happened to be missing from ALL of the secret and top secret emails that showed up on Hillary's unsecured server?

There is also a movement to get Hillary's closest advisers (who she would have wanted to have advising her in the White House if she wins) stripped of their security clearance. That movement has a much greater chance of succeeding.

We saw a similar thing with the Brexit vote. It was the old racist white people...

Sure I can, ask an old person if they are for a more secure border. If they say yes, then they are an old racist and their opinion is ignored. Basically if their opinion comes down on the right side of the isle they are ignored, except when SS or Medicare are the subject. Then politicians of the left are all ears with the old folks. We saw a similar thing with the Brexit vote. It was the old racist white people...

If the document is not marked classified, Hillary would not know it is classified, and if she wants to send the document along to someone else in her department, which is likely, that person would be on the government Email system and therefore a copy is automatically made as soon as Hillary sends it to them.

But if the document isn't marked classified when Hillary gets it, obviously Hillary cannot be held responsible for knowing it is classified, can she? No, she cannot.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

No wonder this Email thing is on its last legs as far as the public caring about it.

oralloy wrote:

There is also a movement to get Hillary's closest advisers (who she would have wanted to have advising her in the White House if she wins) stripped of their security clearance. That movement has a much greater chance of succeeding.

No, it doesn't have a greater chance of succeeding. There is a little thing called the US Constitution that says Congress can't write laws to punish people after the fact.

We need a word for this kind of thinking. Kinda like truthiness, but for something that seems or feels like a scandal, but isn't.

"Truthiness" " the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true."

"Scandaliciousness?"

How about "Liberals thinking that the rules never apply to them."?

How can Congress strip the security clearance of anyone in the Executive branch without passing a law?