http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/8...?ocid=iehp

The State Department's late-night release of 7,121 new pages of emails from Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state hasn't revealed anything earth-shattering about the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, but newsorganizations have uncovered a few interesting exchanges during a night of digging. Here are eight of the most notable or interesting revelations.

(09-01-2015 09:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/8...?ocid=iehp

The State Department's late-night release of 7,121 new pages of emails from Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state hasn't revealed anything earth-shattering about the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, but newsorganizations have uncovered a few interesting exchanges during a night of digging. Here are eight of the most notable or interesting revelations.

What about 150 or so that were deemed Classified?

(09-01-2015 09:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 09:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/8...?ocid=iehp

The State Department's late-night release of 7,121 new pages of emails from Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state hasn't revealed anything earth-shattering about the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, but newsorganizations have uncovered a few interesting exchanges during a night of digging. Here are eight of the most notable or interesting revelations.

What about 150 or so that were deemed Classified?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/...ied-email/

Quote:Following the release of roughly 7,000 new emails, “Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough expressed concern over Hillary Clinton’s response to a staffer who told her he couldn’t send her classified information. Clinton has maintained that she never sent or received classified information from her private email account.

In a February 2010 email, Clinton wrote to her aide, Jacob Sullivan, “It’s a public statement! Just email it.”

“Trust me, I share your exasperation,” Sullivan replied. “But until ops coverts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it. I can’t even access it.”

It is amazing the women is not in jail. So if this email, released on Friday, had to heavily redacted and marked classified until 2025 it must have ok to send over private email with no security and unclassfied back in 2013. [/quote]

Hillary Clinton emails: Thousands of new pages released

Quote:t said about 150 of the messages had to be censored because they contained information considered to be classified.

One of the emails - sent in November 2013 by Mrs Clinton's then foreign policy adviser Jacob Sullivan - was published heavily redacted and marked classified until 2025.

(09-01-2015 09:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 09:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/8...?ocid=iehp

The State Department's late-night release of 7,121 new pages of emails from Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state hasn't revealed anything earth-shattering about the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, but newsorganizations have uncovered a few interesting exchanges during a night of digging. Here are eight of the most notable or interesting revelations.

What about 150 or so that were deemed Classified?

Maybe they are ummm classified?

(09-01-2015 10:07 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 09:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 09:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/8...?ocid=iehp

The State Department's late-night release of 7,121 new pages of emails from Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state hasn't revealed anything earth-shattering about the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, but newsorganizations have uncovered a few interesting exchanges during a night of digging. Here are eight of the most notable or interesting revelations.

What about 150 or so that were deemed Classified?

Maybe they are ummm classified?

No way you are that obtuse. If it is considered classifed today then it sure as hell was classifed back in 2013.

(09-01-2015 10:08 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:07 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 09:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 09:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/8...?ocid=iehp

The State Department's late-night release of 7,121 new pages of emails from Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state hasn't revealed anything earth-shattering about the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, but newsorganizations have uncovered a few interesting exchanges during a night of digging. Here are eight of the most notable or interesting revelations.

What about 150 or so that were deemed Classified?

Maybe they are ummm classified?

No way you are that obtuse. If it is considered classifed today then it sure as hell was classifed back in 2013.

From what I have heard, there were some emails that should have been classified but were not. Either way, if it was highly sensitive material, it would stand to reason that they wouldn't release that information to the public.

(09-01-2015 10:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:08 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:07 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 09:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 09:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/8...?ocid=iehp

The State Department's late-night release of 7,121 new pages of emails from Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state hasn't revealed anything earth-shattering about the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, but newsorganizations have uncovered a few interesting exchanges during a night of digging. Here are eight of the most notable or interesting revelations.

What about 150 or so that were deemed Classified?

Maybe they are ummm classified?

No way you are that obtuse. If it is considered classifed today then it sure as hell was classifed back in 2013.

From what I have heard, there were some emails that should have been classified but were not. Either way, if it was highly sensitive material, it would stand to reason that they wouldn't release that information to the public.

So, in your opinion it is ok to not release the info to the public today because it is classifed, but it was ok, and legal, to release the info to the entire world in 2013. You see, that is what Hillary basically did by conducting business on a nonsecure email system.

(09-01-2015 10:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  It is amazing the women is not in jail. So if this email, released on Friday, had to heavily redacted and marked classified until 2025 it must have ok to send over private email with no security and unclassfied back in 2013.

Hillary Clinton emails: Thousands of new pages released

Quote:t said about 150 of the messages had to be censored because they contained information considered to be classified.

One of the emails - sent in November 2013 by Mrs Clinton's then foreign policy adviser Jacob Sullivan - was published heavily redacted and marked classified until 2025.

[/quote]

That is illegal, she needs to be charged.

(09-01-2015 10:18 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  It is amazing the women is not in jail. So if this email, released on Friday, had to heavily redacted and marked classified until 2025 it must have ok to send over private email with no security and unclassfied back in 2013.

Hillary Clinton emails: Thousands of new pages released

Quote:t said about 150 of the messages had to be censored because they contained information considered to be classified.

One of the emails - sent in November 2013 by Mrs Clinton's then foreign policy adviser Jacob Sullivan - was published heavily redacted and marked classified until 2025.

That is illegal, she needs to be charged.
[/quote]

I agree and it is clear as day. I have no idea why some still defend her actions unless it is just partisan politics and/or trolling.

(09-01-2015 10:15 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:08 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:07 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 09:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  What about 150 or so that were deemed Classified?

Maybe they are ummm classified?

No way you are that obtuse. If it is considered classifed today then it sure as hell was classifed back in 2013.

From what I have heard, there were some emails that should have been classified but were not. Either way, if it was highly sensitive material, it would stand to reason that they wouldn't release that information to the public.

So, in your opinion it is ok to not release the info to the public today because it is classifed, but it was ok, and legal, to release the info to the entire world in 2013. You see, that is what Hillary basically did by conducting business on a nonsecure email system.

NO. It's the opposite. Classified information should never be released to the public ever. Not now not two or three years ago. If it is proven that she in fact did that then she should suffer the consequences.

Is that clear enough for you?

(09-01-2015 10:20 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:15 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:08 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:07 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Maybe they are ummm classified?

No way you are that obtuse. If it is considered classifed today then it sure as hell was classifed back in 2013.

From what I have heard, there were some emails that should have been classified but were not. Either way, if it was highly sensitive material, it would stand to reason that they wouldn't release that information to the public.

So, in your opinion it is ok to not release the info to the public today because it is classifed, but it was ok, and legal, to release the info to the entire world in 2013. You see, that is what Hillary basically did by conducting business on a nonsecure email system.

NO. It's the opposite. Classified information should never be released to the public ever. Not now not two or three years ago. If it is proven that she in fact did that then she should suffer the consequences.

Is that clear enough for you?

It has already been proven. Just read the threads above. If the same email is considered classifed as of today then it was classified as of 2013. So, given that plain as day nugget of info, Hillary sent a classified email as unclassifed over a nonsecure email account. THAT is illegal and there is no disputing that. This is clear as day.

Whether or not something is marked "classified" does not excuse her from transmitting it if it was indeed classified.

As SOS she should be very wary of anything she receives that could be classified and if she even suspects that something might be classified and isn't properly identified as classified she should not pass it on and should flag it immediately and report it upon receipt. She can not hang her hat on "I didn't know" when it is her job to know, to recognize possible misclassified info or to find out its status if she isn't certain.

If she claims that she didn't know something was classified when she received it how well could she possibly be doing her job! It is absolutely her job to recognize potential classified material whether marked or not and handle it correctly.

(09-01-2015 10:23 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:20 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:15 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:08 AM)VA49er Wrote:  No way you are that obtuse. If it is considered classifed today then it sure as hell was classifed back in 2013.

From what I have heard, there were some emails that should have been classified but were not. Either way, if it was highly sensitive material, it would stand to reason that they wouldn't release that information to the public.

So, in your opinion it is ok to not release the info to the public today because it is classifed, but it was ok, and legal, to release the info to the entire world in 2013. You see, that is what Hillary basically did by conducting business on a nonsecure email system.

NO. It's the opposite. Classified information should never be released to the public ever. Not now not two or three years ago. If it is proven that she in fact did that then she should suffer the consequences.

Is that clear enough for you?

It has already been proven. Just read the threads above. If the same email is considered classifed as of today then it was classified as of 2013. So, given that plain as day nugget of info, Hillary sent a classified email as unclassifed over a nonsecure email account. THAT is illegal and there is no disputing that. This is clear as day.

It is my understanding that emails that should have been classified were not labeled as such. However, if it has already proven as you state then she should suffer the consequences.

If Hillary ever actually agrees to a debate...someone will ask her if she plans to impeach a a Supreme Court Justice.

I love this email scandal. So Nixonian. It will be the gift that keeps giving. Forever.

(09-01-2015 10:26 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Whether or not something is marked "classified" does not excuse her from transmitting it if it was indeed classified.

As SOS she should be very wary of anything she receives that could be classified and if she even suspects that something might be classified and isn't properly identified as classified she should not pass it on and should flag it immediately and report it upon receipt. She can not hang her hat on "I didn't know" when it is her job to know, to recognize possible misclassified info or to find out its status if she isn't certain.

If she claims that she didn't know something was classified when she received it how well could she possibly be doing her job! It is absolutely her job to recognize potential classified material whether marked or not and handle it correctly.

How is she supposed to know it is classified if it isn't labeled classified?

Her actions were wrong and she has since admitted that she should not have done it this way.

That still doesn't mean she broke any laws.

(09-01-2015 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Her actions were wrong and she has since admitted that she should not have done it this way.

That still doesn't mean she broke any laws.

Her actions were wrong because they were against the law.

(09-01-2015 10:51 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Her actions were wrong and she has since admitted that she should not have done it this way.

That still doesn't mean she broke any laws.

Her actions were wrong because they were against the law.

Has she been charged with a crime?

(09-01-2015 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Her actions were wrong and she has since admitted that she should not have done it this way.

That still doesn't mean she broke any laws.

Doesn't matter now. The scandal has legs. She is a danger to our Nation... whatever brings her down...is good.


Oh and BTW. She Broke the Law.