True story. GTS once sourced a paper defending a position he was taking on something. When I asked who wrote the piece, it turned out that it was actually him who wrote it.

I LOL'd.

How can you all sit there debating emails as if it really mattered when it is common knowledge that Bill and Hilary murdered 19 people in their rise to the top? Have you no decency?

(09-01-2015 04:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 04:06 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 03:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 03:51 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 03:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Source?

It is also just common sense. Most people would have been fired long ago for doing what she did and I don´t even deal with classified info of the sort the Secretary of State deals with on a daily basis.

I get all that, but is it really a crime when the original information was not classified, but was classified later? That's all I'm asking as I tried to find chapter and verse, but could not.

The bolded is the entire point. Just because it was not classifed then is not an excuse. It should have been classified then and Hillary should have classified it. Either our Sec of State could not recognize whether something should be classified or she just did not care in the first place.

But the poster said it was a crime. If it was, there should be a public law cite saying as much. That's all. But the notion that she is tasked with retroactively being able to classify past e-mail exchanges in perpetuity is just plan ludicrous.

She is not tasked with doing anything retroactively. Those emails should have been classified BEFORE they were sent in the first place. That is the entire point. She is the boss reporting only to the POTUS. If she did not know something should have been classifed in the first place then she should have never been Secretary of State t begin with.

(09-01-2015 05:02 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 04:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 04:06 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 03:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 03:51 PM)VA49er Wrote:  It is also just common sense. Most people would have been fired long ago for doing what she did and I don´t even deal with classified info of the sort the Secretary of State deals with on a daily basis.

I get all that, but is it really a crime when the original information was not classified, but was classified later? That's all I'm asking as I tried to find chapter and verse, but could not.

The bolded is the entire point. Just because it was not classifed then is not an excuse. It should have been classified then and Hillary should have classified it. Either our Sec of State could not recognize whether something should be classified or she just did not care in the first place.

But the poster said it was a crime. If it was, there should be a public law cite saying as much. That's all. But the notion that she is tasked with retroactively being able to classify past e-mail exchanges in perpetuity is just plan ludicrous.

She is not tasked with doing anything retroactively. Those emails should have been classified BEFORE they were sent in the first place. That is the entire point. She is the boss reporting only to the POTUS. If she did not know something should have been classifed in the first place then she should have never been Secretary of State t begin with.

But you can't in any way possible know that? They haven't even been "officially" classified yet. The ones flagged so far were just redacted because they might be classified.

They're possibly classified now because facts and circumstances have changed...not because they should have been classified from the jump. You're missing that key point.

We really need to wait until this all plays out before trying to put someone behind bars!

(09-01-2015 04:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  True story. GTS once sourced a paper defending a position he was taking on something. When I asked who wrote the piece, it turned out that it was actually him who wrote it.

I LOL'd.

Now that is some funny ****.

(09-01-2015 05:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:02 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 04:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 04:06 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 03:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I get all that, but is it really a crime when the original information was not classified, but was classified later? That's all I'm asking as I tried to find chapter and verse, but could not.

The bolded is the entire point. Just because it was not classifed then is not an excuse. It should have been classified then and Hillary should have classified it. Either our Sec of State could not recognize whether something should be classified or she just did not care in the first place.

But the poster said it was a crime. If it was, there should be a public law cite saying as much. That's all. But the notion that she is tasked with retroactively being able to classify past e-mail exchanges in perpetuity is just plan ludicrous.

She is not tasked with doing anything retroactively. Those emails should have been classified BEFORE they were sent in the first place. That is the entire point. She is the boss reporting only to the POTUS. If she did not know something should have been classifed in the first place then she should have never been Secretary of State t begin with.

But you can't in any way possible know that? They haven't even been "officially" classified yet. The ones flagged so far were just redacted because they might be classified.

They're possibly classified now because facts and circumstances have changed...not because they should have been classified from the jump. You're missing that key point.

We really need to wait until this all plays out before trying to put someone behind bars!

I´ll just put it this way, if this was anyone else working in that important of a position they would have been fired long ago for incompetence. It is only because we are talking about HRC that this is still even being debated. The fact that the emails may even be considered to possibly be classified now is proof said emails should have NEVER been sent over a private email account. The incompetence is astounding.

If I had done what Hillary did, I'd be behind bars for a long time, and I would make no argument that I did not deserve to be there.

This and other threads make me realize just how difficult it is to explain information security laws and requirements to those who are not familiar with the concepts and workings of the national security systems.

What Hillary did is pretty much beyond the pale. It's not a gray area, not even remotely close. What she did is a serious criminal offense. If any information was actually hacked off her server, and if such hacked information could in any way be linked to any incident such as Benghazi (realizing full well that both of those are unproved ifs, although both possible), then there's a strong case it's a capital offense. I find it difficult to comprehend that we are debating whether something is even a crime, when it could very easily be a capital offense.

It's like someone took a gun into a movie theater and killed 50 people, and we're debating whether we can charge him for jaywalking when he crossed the street to enter the theater.

You have explained it pretty well. It seems to be a simple matter of some don't care.

But I suspect these same folk would show their thorough understanding of her wrongs if it were say someone of a differing party.

(09-01-2015 05:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I had done what Hillary did, I'd be behind bars for a long time, and I would make no argument that I did not deserve to be there.

This and other threads make me realize just how difficult it is to explain information security laws and requirements to those who are not familiar with the concepts and workings of the national security systems.

What Hillary did is pretty much beyond the pale. It's not a gray area, not even remotely close. What she did is a serious criminal offense. If any information was actually hacked off her server, and if such hacked information could in any way be linked to any incident such as Benghazi (realizing full well that both of those are unproved ifs, although both possible), then there's a strong case it's a capital offense. I find it difficult to comprehend that we are debating whether something is even a crime, when it could very easily be a capital offense.

It's like someone took a gun into a movie theater and killed 50 people, and we're debating whether we can charge him for jaywalking when he crossed the street to enter the theater.

Maybe the part I bolded is true. I mean I go through updated info security training annually so I have to think that the Dept of State, which handles much more classifed info than I ever would, has the same if not more training. I just can not think of a reason that ANYONE would have throught doing what she did was ok by any stretch of the imagination.

Lmao at this clown. I've never seen somebody so in love with Hillary. Love is blind i guess.

Quote:Hillary Careful NOT To Send Sensitive Information

Yet, it is still a crime to send sensitive information.

All of this could have been avoided had she used the servers she was supposed to use

talkingpointsmemo.com
How appropriate.

Gunga Tom.

(09-01-2015 03:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Interesting...

Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton and her aides at the State Department were acutely aware of the need to protect sensitive information when discussing international affairs over email and other forms of unsecure electronic communication, according to the latest batch of messages released by the agency from Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.

The State Department made public roughly 7,121 pages of Clinton's emails late Monday night, including 125 emails that were censored prior to their release because they contain information now deemed classified. The vast majority concerned mundane matters of daily life at any workplace: phone messages, relays of schedules and forwards of news articles.

But in a few of the emails, Clinton and her aides noted the constraints of discussing sensitive subjects when working outside of the government's secure messaging systems — and the need to protect such information.

Latest Clinton Emails Show Careful Attempts To Avoid Sending Sensitive Info

I hope you leftists continue to try and make excuses for that evil witch.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/...tcmp=hpbt3

Maybe sending e-mails that pretend to value the sensitivity of some information is one of the tips found in the book she read about how to delete e-mails.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tips-dele...d=33046042

(09-01-2015 08:49 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Maybe sending e-mails that pretend to value the sensitivity of some information is one of the tips found in the book she read about how to delete e-mails.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tips-dele...d=33046042

WOW. Yeah, nothing to see here folks.

(09-01-2015 08:00 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Gunga Tom.

The amount of water carrying that is done for the Clintons beyond belief. No way in hell would conservatives be defending Cheney if he had done this...no way.

Seems she wasn't careful about sending sensitive information at all.

Un***in believable. Did we not just have this exact conversation effectively shutting down Mach? Tom is Mach reincarnated on this very topic. Owl and I grow tired of this crap.