80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
CalamityJane
 
  5  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 08:01 pm
@gungasnake,
Why the hell don't you get out of the sun.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  3  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 08:06 pm
@georgeob1,
George,
I think he represents the fed up Americans (and naturalized Americans Smile )
Of course, you know that I come from a more social-democratic background and I am perfectly happy to pay more taxes if it serves a greater purpose in the long run.

We desperately need a new tax reform where a Warren Buffet pays more taxes than his secretary; where loopholes for the Trumps and Kochs of this world are closed up and where a middle class is nurtured and promoted.

We also need to stop making money from student loans and join the industrialized world (and some third world countries) and enable a free
education/university degree to the American population.

McGentrix
 
  2  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 09:25 pm
@gungasnake,
Gunga, you have good ideas but I get a headache reading and then translating your posts. You put such effort in that I feel like I should read them, but come on man.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 09:34 pm
Fox's Geraldo Says Benghazi "Stand Down" Order & Clinton Emails Are Both "Fake Scandal"

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/12/myths-and-facts-on-hillary-clintons-email-and-r/204913

Myths And Facts On Hillary Clinton's Email And Reports Of "Top Secret" Materials
Research August 12, 2015 4:21 PM EDT ››› LIS POWER & KATIE SULLIVAN
?
Print Email

Media are exploiting news that two emails Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton turned over to the State Department from her time as secretary of state may be retroactively classified as "top secret" to push myths about Clinton's handling of government information and scandalize her email use. Here are the facts.

FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret"

FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System, And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton's Server Use

FACT: Experts Have Debunked Any Comparison Between Clinton's Email Use And David Petraeus' Crimes

FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton Herself
Intelligence Community IG Says Two Emails From Clinton's Server Should Be Marked "Top Secret"

Intelligence Community Inspector General Says Two Emails From Clinton's Server Contain "Top Secret" Information. The inspector general for the Intelligence Community (ICIG), I. Charles McCullough, reportedly informed leaders of key congressional oversight committees that two classified emails previously discovered on Clinton's server contain top secret information. As McClatchy reported:

The inspector general for the Intelligence Community notified senior members of Congress that two of four classified emails discovered on the server Clinton maintained at her New York home contained material deemed to be in one of the highest security classifications - more sensitive than previously known.

The notice came as the State Department inspector general's office acknowledged that it is reviewing the use of "personal communications hardware and software" by Clinton's former top aides after requests from Congress. [McClatchy DC, 8/11/15]

State Department: It Remains Unclear Whether Material In Two Emails Should Be Retroactively Classified. NBC noted that the State Department is still working with the intelligence community to determine whether the information in the two emails should in fact be labeled as classified:

Clinton aides have maintained that nothing on her server was classified at the time she saw it, suggesting that classified messages were given the label after the fact.

John Kirby, a spokesman for the State Department, said that was the case with two emails, adding that it remained unclear "whether, in fact, this material is actually classified."

"Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton," Kirby said Tuesday. "They were not marked as classified." [NBC News, 8/12/15]

MYTH: Clinton Received Emails Marked As "Top Secret"

Fox Anchor Bret Baier: "'Top Secret' Was Marked On The Emails" Sent To Clinton. During the August 11 edition of Special Report, host Bret Baier claimed that "'top secret' was marked on the emails" that Clinton received during her time as secretary of state:

MIKE EMANUEL: The breaking news of the hour is that the intelligence inspector general has told top lawmakers on Capitol Hill that two of those four classified emails from Hillary Clinton's personal server were top secret in nature. And they're still studying the other two to figure out what the relevant classification should be. Bret?

BRET BAIER: 'Top secret' marked on the emails. FBI inquiry obviously already ongoing to classified information improperly stored, they said, on her private server. And also, Mike, a thumb drive held by her attorney?

EMANUEL: Well that's absolutely correct. All of her emails have been stored by her personal attorney. And a lot of folks on Capitol Hill have been asking, why is that still out there? Why is that not controlled by the intelligence community or by the State department, this existing in the possession of a personal attorney. And so lots more questions on Capitol Hill and throughout the intelligence community this evening. [Fox News, Special Report, 8/11/15]

NBC's Andrea Mitchell: ICIG "Contradicted Clinton's Repeated Claim That Nothing On Those Private Emails Was Classified." On the August 12 edition of NBC's Today, Andrea Mitchell argued that the ICIG's statement "contradicted" Clinton's "repeated past denials":

ANDREA MITCHELL: More controversy for Hillary Clinton today indeed. Despite her repeated past denials, the intelligence community's Inspector General now says two of her emails should have been classified 'top secret,' the highest level of U.S. intelligence, even as the FBI is finally getting control of that private server.

VOICEOVER OF MITCHELL: Hillary Clinton, in New Hampshire Tuesday, has aides confirm she has turned over her private server to the FBI. In addition, her attorney David Kendall gave the FBI two thumb drives containing her emails. All of this, as the intelligence community's watchdog contradicted Clinton's repeated claim that nothing on those private emails was classified.

[CLIP OF HILLARY CLINTON: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified materials.]

MITCHELL: Clinton has said there was no classified markings on any of her emails.

[CLIP OF CLINTON: I am confident that I have never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.]

MITCHELL: But the Inspector General has now told Congress two of Clinton's emails should have been classified 'top secret,' with code words indicating electronic eavesdropping from satellites, so sensitive it could not be shared with foreign allies. [NBC, Today, 8/12/15]

FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret"

Government Officials: None Of The Emails Were Marked As "Classified" When They Were Sent. The Washington Post reported that when the ICIG first "found information that should have been designated as classified" in four emails from Clinton's server -- two of which he now says contain "top secret" information -- government officials acknowledged that the emails were not marked as classified when they were sent (emphasis added):

The Justice Department said Friday that it has been notified of a potential compromise of classified information in connection with the private e-mail account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while serving as secretary of state.

A Justice official said the department had received a "referral" on the matter, which the inspector general of the intelligence agencies later acknowledged came from him.

The inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, said in a separate statement that he had found information that should have been designated as classified in four e-mails out of a "limited sample" of 40 that his agency reviewed. As a result, he said, he made the "security referral," acting under a federal law that requires alerting the FBI to any potential compromises of national security information.

[...]

Officials acknowledged that none of the e-mails reviewed so far contain information that was marked classified when they were sent. But a new inquiry would prolong the political controversy Clinton is facing over her un­or­tho­dox e-mail system. [The Washington Post, 7/24/15]

IG Memo On Classified Information In Emails: "None Of The Emails ... Had Classification Or Dissemination Markings." A memo from the ICIG clearly stated that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings":

Since the referenced 25 June 2015 notification, we were informed by State FOIA officials that there are potentially hundreds of classified emails within the approximately 30,000 provided by former Secretary Clinton. We note that none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings, but some included IC-derived classified information and should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network. Further, my office's limited sampling of 40 of the emails revealed four contained classified IC information which should have been marked and handled at a SECRET level. [Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, 7/23/15]

MYTH: Emails Weren't Marked As "Classified" Because Clinton Used A Private Server Instead Of State Dept. Email

Fox & Friends' Steve Doocy: Emails "Were Never Classified" Because Clinton Used A Private Server Rather Than The State Department's Email System. Throughout the August 12 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy repeatedly blamed the lack of classification on Clinton's use of a private server instead of "the State Department email system," arguing the emails "were never classified because she never submitted it" (emphasis added):

STEVE DOOCY: The problem here is the fact that she didn't want her bosses at the White House to know what she was writing about, it is perceived.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: She also didn't want her colleagues in the State Department to know.

DOOCY: Right. So she had her own server, which is, you know, against protocol. Her spokespeople, and she herself has said, you know, it wasn't classified at the time. But that ignores how the process works. The reason you use the State Department email system is so that it is classif - it is vetted before you hit 'send.'

NAPOLITANO: She is probably going to argue that because the phrase, boom, 'top secret' was not stamped on each document, it wasn't top secret. That's not what the law says. Before every person in the federal government, from the president to a file clerk, gets a national security clearance, they have a 30 minute in-person interview with an FBI agent who explains, if there's doubt about whether it's classified or not, it's classified.

DOOCY: Let me just add this one thing. It was never classified because she never submitted it. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/12/15]

FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton's Server Use

Emails Originated With State Department Employees And Were Forwarded To Clinton. The State Department's statement on the retroactive "top secret" designation made clear that the emails at issue originated with State Department employees, not Clinton herself:

The following is attributable to Spokesperson John Kirby:

"The State Department takes seriously its obligations to protect sensitive information, holding its employees to a high standard of compliance with regulations and procedures.

"The Intelligence Community has recommended that portions of two of the four emails identified by the Intelligence Community's Inspector General should be upgraded to the Top Secret level. Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011 and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton. They were not marked as classified.

"These emails have not been released to the public. While we work with the Director of National Intelligence to resolve whether, in fact, this material is actually classified, we are taking steps to ensure the information is protected and stored appropriately." [Twitter.com, 8/11/15]

Clinton Campaign: Emails Originated From "Unclassified .Gov Email System." A fact sheet released by the presidential campaign for the former secretary of state explains that the emails at issue originated on "the unclassified .gov email system":

Would this issue not have arisen if she used a state.gov email address?

Even if Clinton's emails had been on a government email address and government device, these questions would be raised prior to public release.

While State Department's review of her 55,000 emails brought the issue to the Inspectors Generals' attentions, the four emails were on the unclassified .gov email system. They were not on the separate, closed system used by State Department for handling classified communications. [hillaryclinton.com, "Updated: The Facts About Hillary Clinton's Emails," accessed 8/12/15]

Vox: Whether Or Not Emails Should Have Been Marked Classified Is Part Of "Bureaucratic Turf War." Vox pointed out how the intra-agency disagreement over whether the emails were appropriately categorized "is a bureaucratic fight about how the State Department has handled the emails, not about Hillary Clinton" (emphasis added):

The State Department has been ordered by a federal judge to make public the 55,000 pages of emails Clinton turned over to the agency. So the State Department has Freedom of Information Act experts sifting through the documents to make sure that no information will be released that is either classified or sensitive (meaning not technically classified but also not covering material that the government doesn't want in the public domain).

This has caused a bureaucratic turf war between the department and the intelligence community, which believes at least one email that's already been released contains classified information and that hundreds of others in the full set may also have material that's not ready for public consumption. For a couple of months, the inspectors general of the State Department and the combined intelligence community agencies have been battling Patrick Kennedy, the lead State Department official, over who has access to the documents and the authority to release or withhold them.

Now, according to the Times and other publications, the IG team is asking the Justice Department to get involved in reviewing whether State has mishandled the emails. If Clinton was sending information that was, or should have been, classified -- and knew that it was, or should have been, classified -- that's a problem. But no one has accused her of that so far. Given the anodyne nature of what she sent in the emails we've already seen, it's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that any sensitive information was sent to Clinton, not by her (though it's not clear whether forwarding such emails would constitute a legal issue for her). [Vox, 7/28/15]

MYTH: Hillary Clinton's Email Use Is Comparable To David Petraeus' Crimes

Doocy: Clinton's Email Use Is "The Same Thing That David Petraeus Pleaded Guilty To." On the August 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Doocy hyped the debunked claim that Clinton's email use was similar to Gen. David Petraeus' illegal mishandling of confidential information:

DOOCY: Big question is -- Will this Department of Justice go ahead and fully prosecute? Because, keep in mind, she had unauthorized, for a home server, top secret documents, which was a direct violation of the U.S. laws. It's the same that David Petraeus pleaded guilty to. He had the same stuff at his house. She had at it at her house. He got, you know, they ran him up the flag pole, will they do the same for her? [Fox News, Fox & Friends,8/12/15]

Fox Judicial Analyst Implies Clinton's Email Use Is Worse Than Petraeus' Crimes. Appearing on the August 12 edition of Fox & Friends, senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano claimed "it's a grave situation" for Hillary Clinton, arguing that Gen. Petraeus only had "the lowest level materials in a desk drawer" while Clinton "had top secret materials in the server in her barn":

NAPOLITANO: Here's why it's a grave situation. A federal judge ordered the State Department to reveal -- to make public -- emails she had given back to the State Department. The recipients of those e-mails was the inspectors general of State Department and of the intelligence community. They randomly sampled 40 of them. Among the 40, they found four that were classified.

[...]

They then revealed that they then sent that to FBI to commence either a criminal or a national security investigation, and they sent it to the Senate and House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. Last night they revealed that two of the four were top secret. What does top secret mean? The government has three classifications -- the highest is top secret. Meaning if it's revealed, it could cause grave harm to national security. The middle is secret, meaning if it's revealed, it could cause serious harm to national security. The bottom is confidential, meaning if it's revealed, it could cause some hard to national security. General Patreaus was indicted, prosecuted, and convicted for having confidential, the lowest level materials in a desk drawer in his house. Mrs. Clinton, it has now been revealed, had top secret materials in the server in her barn at Chappaqua. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/12/15]

FACT: Experts Have Debunked The Comparison -- Petraeus Knowingly Mishandled Classified Documents, Whereas Clinton Had Authorization To Use Private Email, And There's No Evidence She Knowingly Emailed Classified Information

Petraeus Pled Guilty To Violating 18 U.S.C. § 1924, "Unlawfully And Knowingly" Moving Classified Materials "With Intent To Retain Such Documents ... At Unauthorized Locations." Petraeus pled guilty to one count of violating Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924:

Between in or about August 2011 and on or about April 5, 2013, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS, being an employee of the United States, and by virtue of his employment, became possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, and did unlawfully and knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at unauthorized locations, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials;

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924. [U.S. v. Petraeus, Bill of Information, 3/3/15]

NY Times: "There Has Never Been Any Legal Prohibition Against" Using Personal Email Accounts. Despite having previously scandalized Clinton's use of private emails as "alarming," the Times later clarified that "there has never been any legal prohibition" against the practice and that "[m]embers of President Obama's cabinet" use a "wide variety of strategies" to handle their emails:

Members of President Obama's cabinet have a wide variety of strategies, shortcuts and tricks for handling their email, and until three months ago there was no law setting out precisely what they had to do with it, and when. And while the majority of Obama administration officials use government email to conduct their business, there has never been any legal prohibition against using a personal account. [The New York Times, 3/13/15]

State Dept: Clinton Preserved And Provided Emails In Line With 2009 Regulation And How We Handled Records At The Time. At the March 3 daily press briefing, State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf explained that Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of documents as part of the State Department's "process of updating our records management" and emphasized that Clinton is the only former secretary of state to have done so. From Harf's briefing:

HARF: When in the process of updating our records management - this is something that's sort of ongoing given technology and the changes - we reached out to all of the former secretaries of state to ask them to provide any records they had. Secretary Clinton sent back 55,000 pages of documents to the State Department very shortly after we sent the letter to her. She was the only former Secretary of State who sent documents back in to this request. These 55,000 pages covered her time, the breadth of her time at the State Department. [State Department Daily Press Briefing,3/3/15]

Clinton: "I Am Confident That I Never Sent Or Received Any Information That Was Classified At The Time." Clinton told reporters on July 26 that she never sent or received information that she knew was classified at the time:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said she never knowingly sent or received classified information using her private email server and did not know what messages were being cited by intelligence investigators as examples of emails containing classified information.

[...]

"I am confident that I never sent or received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received. What I think you're seeing here is a very typical kind of discussion, to some extent disagreement among various parts of the government, over what should or should not be publicly released," she said. [Associated Press, 7/26/15]

Director Of Project On Government Secrecy: "There's No Comparison Between The Clinton Email Issue And The Petraeus Case." Steven Aftergood told The Washington Times that "[e]veryone agrees that there was no information in the Clinton emails that was marked as classified," and therefore Clinton's actions bear no resemblance to Petraeus's:

While officials combing tens of thousands of emails that moved through Mrs. Clinton's server have pointed to the presence of "hundreds" of pieces of classified information -- apparently none of the messages had any official classification markings on them.

It's a situation that has triggered heated debate over the extent to which such information wasn't necessarily classified at the time Mrs. Clinton was emailing it.

"To the best of my understanding, there is no comparison between the Clinton email issue and the Petraeus case," says Steven Aftergood, who heads the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. "Everyone agrees that there was no information in the Clinton emails that was marked as classified. So it would be difficult or impossible to show that those who sent or received the emails knowingly or negligently mishandled classified information." [The Washington Times, 8/2/15]

Government Secrecy Expert: "There's No Case" Against Clinton If She Didn't Knowingly Misuse Classified Information. William Jeffress, an attorney who has handled government secrecy cases, told Time:

Legally, the question is pretty clear-cut. If Clinton knowingly used her private server to handle classified information she could have a problem. But if she didn't know the material was classified when she sent or received it she's safe.

[...]

Clinton has explicitly and repeatedly said she didn't knowingly send or receive any classified information. "The facts are pretty clear," she said last weekend in Iowa, "I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time." Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III, disagrees, saying some of the material was in fact classified at the time it was sent. But in his letter last week to Congressional intelligence committee leaders, McCullough reported that, "None of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings." And there has been no indication Clinton knew she was sending and receiving anything classified.

The public doesn't yet know the content of the classified emails, and the State Department and the inspectors general have tens of thousands still to review. If evidence emerges that Clinton knew she was handling secrets on her private server, "She could have a problem," says William Jeffress, a leading criminal trial lawyer at Baker Botts who has represented government officials in secrecy cases. Barring that, says Jeffress, "there's no way in the world [prosecutors] could ever make a case" against her. [Time, 7/29/15]

MYTH: Clinton Is The Subject Of A Federal Criminal Investigation

Fox's Chris Stirewalt: Clinton Might Be "The Subject Of A Federal Criminal Investigation." On the August 12 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, digital editor Chris Stirewalt claimed that Clinton might become "the first major party nominee that is the subject of a federal criminal investigation." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 8/12/15]
FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton Herself

Reuters: Inspector General Referral Is Not Criminal. Reuters reported on July 24 that there was "no criminal referral over [the] Clinton emails":

The Justice Department said Friday it has received a request to examine the handling of classified information related to the private emails from Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, but it is not a criminal referral. [Reuters, 7/24/15]

AP: U.S. Official Said That Request Of DOJ "Doesn't Suggest Wrongdoing By Clinton Herself." The Associated Press quoted an anonymous U.S. official who noted that the referral did not implicate Clinton in any wrongdoing:

The New York Times first reported the referral. The Clinton campaign said Friday that she "followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials." Spokesman Nick Merrill said emails deemed classified by the administration were done so after the fact, not when they were sent.

One U.S. official said it was unclear whether classified information was mishandled and the referral doesn't suggest wrongdoing by Clinton herself. [Associated Press, 7/24/15]

Wash. Post: Officials Say Clinton "Is Not A Target" Of FBI Probe. The Washington Post reported that government officials said Clinton is "not a target" of the FBI's investigation:

Hillary Rodham Clinton's attorney has agreed to provide the FBI with the private server that housed her e-mail during her four years as secretary of state, Clinton's presidential campaign said Tuesday.

[...]

The inquiry by the FBI is considered preliminary and appears to be focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material. Officials have said that Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, is not a target.

The FBI's efforts have included contacting the Denver-based technology firm that helped manage the Clintons' unusual private ­e-mail system. [The Washington Post, 8/11/15]



More Myths And Facts On "Top Secret" Materials In Hillary Clinton's Email
Research August 14, 2015 3:53 PM EDT ››› MATT GERTZ
?
Print Email

Media continue to use the news that two emails Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton turned over to the State Department from her time as secretary of state may be retroactively classified as "top secret" to push myths about Clinton's handling of government information and scandalize her email use.

FACT: There Are "No Indications" That Emails Have Been Stripped Of Classifications

FACT: Officials Say Emails Include Discussion Of News Article And "Nothing In The Message Is 'Lifted' From Classified Documents"

FACT: Clinton Voluntarily Turned Over Her Email Server

For additional myths and facts about the allegedly "top secret" materials in Clinton's email server, click here
Intelligence Community IG Says Two Emails From Clinton's Server Should Be Marked "Top Secret"

Intelligence Community Inspector General Says Two Emails From Clinton's Server Contain "Top Secret" Information. The inspector general for the Intelligence Community (ICIG), I. Charles McCullough, reportedly informed leaders of key congressional oversight committees that two classified emails previously discovered on Hillary Clinton's server contain "top secret" information. As McClatchy reported:

The inspector general for the Intelligence Community notified senior members of Congress that two of four classified emails discovered on the server Clinton maintained at her New York home contained material deemed to be in one of the highest security classifications - more sensitive than previously known.

The notice came as the State Department inspector general's office acknowledged that it is reviewing the use of "personal communications hardware and software" by Clinton's former top aides after requests from Congress. [McClatchy DC, 8/11/15]

ICIG Says Information In Emails Derived From Communications Intercepts And Satellite Imagery. In his letter to congressional leaders, McCullough wrote that the emails in question "include information classified up to "TOP SECRET // SI/TK/ /NOFORN." "SI" indicates information derived from communications intercepts, while "TK" indicates information derived from satellite imagery. [McCullough letter,8/11/15] [Intelligence Community Classification and Control Markings Implementation Manual, 5/31/11]

State Department: It Remains Unclear Whether Material In Two Emails Should Be Retroactively Classified. NBC noted that the State Department is still working with the Intelligence Community to determine whether the information in the two emails should in fact be labeled as classified:

Clinton aides have maintained that nothing on her server was classified at the time she saw it, suggesting that classified messages were given the label after the fact.

John Kirby, a spokesman for the State Department, said that was the case with two emails, adding that it remained unclear "whether, in fact, this material is actually classified."

"Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton," Kirby said Tuesday. "They were not marked as classified." [NBC News, 8/12/15]

MYTH: Clinton Aides Illegally "Stripped" Emails Of Classified Markings

Fox News Wildly Pushed Anonymous Source's Claim That Clinton Aides Illegally "Stripped" Classified Markings From Emails. Fox News spent much of August 13 running with speculation from an anonymous State Department official that aides to Hillary Clinton had "stripped" the classification markings from emails that she received in her private email server, going so far as to state the claim as fact and speculate that Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills may have done the alleged deed. [Media Matters, 8/14/15]
FACT: There Are "No Indications" That Emails Have Been Stripped Of Classifications

State Department Spokesperson: "No Indications" That Classification Markings Were "Stripped" From Emails. State Department spokesman Adm. John Kirby said during his August 13 briefing that the State Department has "no indications" that classification markings were stripped from the emails (emphasis added):

QUESTION: John, thank you. I have two quick questions on Secretary Clinton's server. Has the State Department been able to determine whether each of the four classified emails sent to Secretary Clinton's server originated within the State Department or whether they originated within another agency?

MR KIRBY: I don't have any updates for you in terms of original sourcing on those emails.

QUESTION: And secondly, has the State Department been able to determine whether any classification markings may have been stripped from any of those documents from anyone within the State Department?

MR KIRBY: We have no indications that there were any - that there was at all any stripping of classification markings on these. [U.S. Department of State, 8/13/15]

MYTH: Clinton Should Have Known Emails Were Classified Because They "Contained Satellite Imagery And Signal Intelligence"

Fox Repeatedly Suggested That Clinton Should Have Known Emails Were Classified Regardless Of Whether They Were Marked. Fox News hosts and contributors repeatedly suggested that even if the emails she received were not marked as classified, Clinton should have known they were because they contained original communications intercepts and satellite images. On August 13, Fox senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano claimed "the new information is that the top secret email was satellite views of a foreign country" and Fox correspondent Peter Doocy alleged the emails "contained satellite imagery and signal intelligence." [Media Matters, 8/14/15]
FACT: Officials Say Emails Include Discussion Of News Article And "Nothing In The Message Is 'Lifted' From Classified Documents"

Associated Press Sources: Emails Don't Include Any "Form Of Sensitive Sourcing." The Associated Press reported that their sources indicate that "nothing in the emails [Clinton] received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing." The AP also reported that their sources disagreed about whether the emails contained classified information. From the AP (emphasis added):

The officials who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity work in intelligence and other agencies. They wouldn't detail the contents of the emails because of ongoing questions about classification level. Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.

The drone exchange, the officials said, begins with a copy of a news article that discusses the CIA drone program that targets terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. While a secret program, it is well-known and often reported on. The copy makes reference to classified information, and a Clinton adviser follows up by dancing around a top secret in a way that could possibly be inferred as confirmation, they said. Several officials, however, described this claim as tenuous.

But a second email reviewed by Charles McCullough, the intelligence community inspector general, appears more suspect. Nothing in the message is "lifted" from classified documents, the officials said, though they differed on where the information in it was sourced. Some said it improperly points back to highly classified material, while others countered that it was a classic case of what the government calls "parallel reporting" - different people knowing the same thing through different means. [Associated Press, 8/14/15]

MYTH: The FBI "Seized" Clinton's Private Email Server

Fox's Kelly File: "FBI Seizes Private Clinton Email Server." In a August 13 report on Fox's The Kelly File, substitute host Shannon Bream opened a segment by stating, "Breaking tonight, new questions after the FBI seizes the private email server that Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state, investigators taking possession of the server from a New Jersey data center."

[Fox News, The Kelly File, 8/13/15, via Nexis]
FACT: Clinton Voluntarily Turned Over Email Server

ABC News: "The Server Was Handed Over Voluntarily." On August 12, Hillary Clinton's team arranged for the technology company Platte River Networks, which managed her email system previously, to give her private email server to the FBI. ABC News reported that the server "was handed over voluntarily" and was transferred "with no subpoena." From the article:

Barbara Wells, a lawyer for Platte River Networks, the technology company that has managed Clinton's email server since 2013, said the company turned the server over to the FBI Wednesday afternoon at a New Jersey facility.

She said the server was handed over voluntarily, under an agreement between Platte River and Clinton's presidential campaign, with no subpoena. [ABC News, 8/13/15]


oralloy
 
  -3  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 09:47 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
I mostly like korkaman and all of her other names (I learned this from several others, but the attributes fit, each from very different people, and it makes no sense, same person re all the names, why the changing?) My instinct has been pro her, as her, but wondering.

Yahoo messageboards had a bit of a culture where people had multiple IDs (generally with everyone knowing who everyone was, even when they changed IDs).

For instance, I started posting on Yahoo when the Freedom Haters were hysterically whining about gun laws after the Columbine shooting, so took the name "Uzi_45ACP" to get in their face. However, during the time of the Amanda Knox trials, my primary Yahoo posting ID was "rape_stephanie_kercher". Everyone knew it was me though, no matter what ID I used.

Anyway, she is one of the people who followed my link to A2K as the Yahoo messageboards were wheezing their last gasp ( http://able2know.org/topic/209795-1 , http://able2know.org/topic/209768-1 ). She is just reflecting Yahoo culture.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 09:50 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
A 5400 word post is ridiculous BOB. Please attempt to not be so annoying.

Thank you!
RABEL222
 
  3  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:27 pm
@Lash,
You mean like when I called you psycho, oh wait, you called me psycho because I dont believe a woman who has been ultra conservative for as long as I have been on this site suddenly claims to be a democratic liberal. If you will check back I have been against republican lies since Kennedy, so calling me racist shows that you have reverted to your ultra conservative past and started lying again. Good luck with branding me the things you posted.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:37 pm
@snood,
If you had been attacked every day since 1992 by republicans and the media you might not be very forthcoming either.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  4  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:51 pm
@Lash,
This is getting hilarious. Lash accusing everyone who disagrees with her and their brothers of being conservative or racist or any other nasty thing she can think of.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:53 pm
@McGentrix,
"Dindu" or "Dindu Nuffin" is a sort of an ugly word but, in the case of the Hildabeast, it absolutely fits. There have to be welfare mothers who have accomplished more in their lives than HDK ever has. I mean, you could make up a wiki super-page for human accomplishment, A to Z, Alpha to Omega, every meaningful achievement for every human being who has ever walked the Earth from Adam and Eve to the present day and,whatever it was, HDK dindu it. Her name would not be on the list.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:58 pm
@McGentrix,
I think he has decided to let Lash do herself in.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  4  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 11:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
I attempt to be annoying, you succeed. I congratulate you on the one success you've achieved in your miserable whiny vacuous little life. Why don't you just run off and fantasize having a real life.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Sat 5 Sep, 2015 04:18 am
@RABEL222,
Stop hating blacks and women and pretending to be a liberal. Your dismissive remarks about blacks and women are all over these pages. And that doesn't begin to call you to account for your virulent anti-Semitism.

I've seen what you've said. Stop lying.
snood
 
  2  
Sat 5 Sep, 2015 05:08 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Hey, just my my opinion but in the future if you're ever looking for a rule of thumb about what is a good length for a post? That one you just did was too long.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  3  
Sat 5 Sep, 2015 05:14 am
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

America may just surprise you. Actually, I am surprised both came this far whereas in Trumps case, he represents exactly what's wrong with this country.

That's definitely possible - for America to suprise me. That happened when they elected Obama - twice.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Sat 5 Sep, 2015 06:54 am
@Lash,
My views on immigration? Tat's rich coming from someone who lives in a country with a population density a 5th of that of the UK.

I think we should give the Syrian refugees asylum considering we (mostly you) caused all the trouble in the first place by illegally invading Iraq and sowing the seeds of ISIS.

Cameron has recently accepted thousands more but is not specific to the actual amount, it's not enough, and pales into comparison next to Germany, but is so much better than America who caused most of the trouble in the first place.

Quote:
The US senators have recommended the US take in at least five times more than the approximately 1,500 Syrian refugees that Washington has admitted since the conflict began in 2011.

Despite the US being considered a leader in providing in humanitarian aid, the number of Syrian refugees it is set to admit pales in comparison to the 800,000 people German chancellor Angela Merkel has said Germany will take in this year.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/aid-groups-senators-us-take-in-65000-syrian-refugees

I've bought a BLM T.shirt from their website. Have you?

The minimum wage should be a living wage.

More importantly Europe and America should stop heavily subsidising agriculture so African, South American and Asian farmers can operate on a level playing field.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Sat 5 Sep, 2015 06:59 am
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
Bush was a while ago, people.


Unfortunately the rest of the World is still dealing with the consequences of his disastrous presidency, and probably will for the next 50 years at least.
Lash
 
  -1  
Sat 5 Sep, 2015 07:00 am
@izzythepush,
hahaha. You "bought the shirt." First good laugh of the day. Well then. I guess that tells us all we need to know about your views on civil rights.

And I don't think the population of our countries is a stand in for our views on immigration.

You're quite the dodgy chap, aren't you? No wonder you prefer Clinton.

You talked a lot about Germany and other countries but you didn't state your views.

Slippery. You just realized I'm more liberal than you are. And I'm laughing.

"Living wage" according to who?
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Sat 5 Sep, 2015 07:11 am
@izzythepush,
Izzy, I see Lash just wrote:

Quote:
You just realized I'm more liberal than you are. And I'm laughing.


The first thing that came into my mind when I read that are people who give up smoking cigarettes.

They become the most strident (boringly strident) for the other side.

And if they go back to smoking...they complain the most about the stridency of former smokers.

Lash is a liberal the way Chris Christie is a staunch conservative!

Opportunity and need rule!


0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Sat 5 Sep, 2015 07:18 am
@Lash,
Clearly you didn't buy the shirt being a dilettante and all that. I never said I preferred Clinton, after the disastrous Bush presidency the last thing the World needs is another Republican presidency. I want the Democrats to win, the normal people.

I have stated my views I said we should take a lot more refugees.

Population density is important, there's plenty of space where you are, and no housing crisis. Look at Detroit they can't give real estate away.

Quote:
"Living wage" according to who?


According to whom? The Living Wage Foundation of course.

http://www.livingwage.org.uk/calculation

You're a lot more liberal than me, I'm a Socialist, I can't abide the Liberals. They're almost as bad as the Conservatives. Nick Clegg is a lying git. I never will vote Liberal, even if the Labour candidate has no change they will always get my vote.
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 10:20:07