- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
What interpretation of "secure fax" do you think makes the plain language of the emails less criminal?
Stating what a secure fax is within the government accomplishes both.
Nope, it is illegal activity. You're like a defense attorney arguing that we really don't know what the defendant meant by "I will pay you to murder my husband."
I can imagine a plausible reason why you'd presume my motives.
"Further, according to the Associated Press, the State Department said a review showed that the document in question was sent "apparently by secure fax, after all," and was never was sent to Clinton by email.... State Department spokesperson John Kirby said Friday that it is not uncommon for non-classified documents to be crafted and shared on the classified system."
In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure" - CBS News
Every interpretation of 'secure fax' that does not guarantee that the contents of the TPs were not classified. Even your interpretation qualifies.
Terrible analogy.
Remember Sandy Berger? He was Bill Clinton's National Security Advisor who removed classified documents from the National Archives prior to testifying at the 9/11 committee, presumably to prevent the possibility of perjuring himself.
Hillary did the exact same thing. And she'll probably get off too just like Berger did.
What does this have to do with anything? Try to stay on topic.Lol so are you also ok with cops investigating cops who abuse shoot and kill the citizens?
Do you know the classification status or if the document was even classified? Where is that confirmation?You are smart enough to know by the links showing the e-mail chain that this claim is simply not true.
Still not confirmed if the TPs were classified ....What he also doesn't give an explaination for is why said document would be stripped of classification markings and sent unsecure if it started as an unclassified document.....
the issue is hillary's specifically ordering a subordinate to strip from the document its classification header in order to send it by unprotected methods"Further, according to the Associated Press, the State Department said a review showed that the document in question was sent "apparently by secure fax, after all," and was never was sent to Clinton by email
i am sure there have been, altho that may be the exception rather than the rule. but that does not dismiss hillary's willingness to violate law in directing a subordinate to ignore security protocol.... State Department spokesperson John Kirby said Friday that it is not uncommon for non-classified documents to be crafted and shared on the classified system." ...
What does this have to do with anything? Try to stay on topic.
Do you know the classification status or if the document was even classified? Where is that confirmation?
Still not confirmed if the TPs were classified ....
Nothing is going to happen to Hillary, people need to move on.
Its not a smoking gun because its missing several key pieces of information such as if the information was classified and if the header was removed... I mean look at the law cited in the OP link...the issue is hillary's specifically ordering a subordinate to strip from the document its classification header in order to send it by unprotected methods
that it eventually was successfully sent by secure methods does not forgive hillary's illegal order to her subordinate to ignore protocol relative to transmitting confidential material
this is THE smoking gun that tells us hillary's every insistence that her choice of communication methods was an inadvertent error was a lie
Its of huge question if there is any violation of law here...i am sure there have been, altho that may be the exception rather than the rule. but that does not dismiss hillary's willingness to violate law in directing a subordinate to ignore security protocol
I never knew that the FBI and the State Department were the same agency...Has to do with letting agencies investigate themselves. you seem ok if it protects hillary, I am wondering if your position is the same with other government agencies like police departments.
Im a Bernie supporterAs a hillary supporter,
She doesnt have my votewhat would she have to do to loose your vote?
Many of which are FAUX scandals being politically manipulated. Is this one of them? Its too early for me to tell. But examples of FAUX scandals, Benghazi attack, "speaking fees", etc.she is embroiled in scandal after scandal,
Again, where is the verification that this information was classifiedcaught in lie after lie, in this case you have been shown by people like me who have handled classified information
Hillary Clinton calls on him to turn it into a "non-paper". She says, "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure" Lets look into what a "non-paper" is in regards to state department lingo.how we know that it was classified simply by the idea that hillary instructed her aid to strip the classification markings prior to sending it as an unsecure email.
Its not a smoking gun because its missing several key pieces of information such as if the information was classified and if the header was removed... I mean look at the law cited in the OP link...
Its of huge question if there is any violation of law here...
I never knew that the FBI and the State Department were the same agency...
Im a Bernie supporter
She doesnt have my vote
Many of which are FAUX scandals being politically manipulated. Is this one of them? Its too early for me to tell. But examples of FAUX scandals, Benghazi attack, "speaking fees", etc.
Again, where is the verification that this information was classified
Hillary Clinton calls on him to turn it into a "non-paper". She says, "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure" Lets look into what a "non-paper" is in regards to state department lingo.
"However, it’s not clear that the request was quite the smoking gun Clinton’s critics think it was. In her email, the former secretary directed staff to turn the talking points into “non-paper” before sending it through non-secure channels. In the State Department, the term “non-paper” appears to have a pretty specific meaning.
As about 30 seconds on Google will reveal, the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual defines non-paper as, “A written summary of a demarche or other verbal presentation to a foreign government. The non-paper should be drafted in the third person, and must not be directly attributable to the U.S. Government. It is prepared on plain paper (no letterhead or watermark). The heading or title, if any, is simply a statement of the issue or subject. (For example: ‘Genetically-Modified .. of facts that the department felt comfortable sharing with a foreign government – and that seems pretty likely given the context – it’s probably a stretch to suggest that the FBI will be opening a criminal inquiry about it anytime soon."
The Latest Clinton Email ‘Smoking Gun’ May Be All Smoke | The Fiscal Times
like sandy berger? please show us how hillary removed classified documents from the National Archives like sandy berger
Its not a smoking gun because its missing several key pieces of information such as if the information was classified and if the header was removed... I mean look at the law cited in the OP link...
Its of huge question if there is any violation of law here...
I never knew that the FBI and the State Department were the same agency...
Im a Bernie supporter
She doesnt have my vote
Many of which are FAUX scandals being politically manipulated. Is this one of them? Its too early for me to tell. But examples of FAUX scandals, Benghazi attack, "speaking fees", etc.
Again, where is the verification that this information was classified
Hillary Clinton calls on him to turn it into a "non-paper". She says, "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure" Lets look into what a "non-paper" is in regards to state department lingo.
"However, it’s not clear that the request was quite the smoking gun Clinton’s critics think it was. In her email, the former secretary directed staff to turn the talking points into “non-paper” before sending it through non-secure channels. In the State Department, the term “non-paper” appears to have a pretty specific meaning.
As about 30 seconds on Google will reveal, the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual defines non-paper as, “A written summary of a demarche or other verbal presentation to a foreign government. The non-paper should be drafted in the third person, and must not be directly attributable to the U.S. Government. It is prepared on plain paper (no letterhead or watermark). The heading or title, if any, is simply a statement of the issue or subject. (For example: ‘Genetically-Modified Organisms.’)”
If what Clinton was doing in that email was specifying that the talking points were to be turned into an anodyne statement of facts that the department felt comfortable sharing with a foreign government – and that seems pretty likely given the context – it’s probably a stretch to suggest that the FBI will be opening a criminal inquiry about it anytime soon."
The Latest Clinton Email ‘Smoking Gun’ May Be All Smoke | The Fiscal Times
Do you realize what storyline you decided to buy into?
That Hillary spent 4 years as SofS and never received an email with classified information from any Department in the Administration.
That person would have to have been appointed for some reason other than qualifications and everybody else would have to have known it.Yeah, she didn't, and I'm the Duke of Franklin County, too.
Fox & Friends Pushes Baseless Claims About The FBI Probe into Clinton's Use of Private Email……..
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/01/12/fox-amp-friends-pushes-debunked-and-dubious-cla/207919
Fox & Friends Touts Unfounded Claims About Clinton's Email, Including One From A Discredited Republican Lawyer…………
(YES, I know MediaMatters is a liberal site and therefore nothing they print is true………. ONLY PROBLEM one has trying to run that baloney as an argument is……………MediaMatters provides links to news reports from respected and reliable media news sources
Faux is cited as source of “news report” in the bevy of RW media news reports……. Another case of Faux inventing the news?
And Media Reports Have Repeatedly Confirmed That The FBI Probe Is Neither Criminal in Nature nor Targeting Hillary Clinton
National Security Experts Say There's No Evidence That Hillary Clinton Broke Any Laws by Requesting Talking Points Be Sent To Her Over A "Non-secure" Channel
NY Times: Hillary Clinton "Is Not A Target Of The Investigation."
CNN: Clinton "Has Not Personally Been Declared The Subject Of The Investigation Into Her Emails."
Don’t hold your breath waiting for HC to be indicted for some yet to discovered “crime”
....this isn't "going against established procedures". This is committing a felony. This is a federal crime.That's what got me, too.
I mean, having one set of classified emails (i.e., talking points) marked down doesn't mean there was this overarching plan to downgrade and transmit all of her classified documents that way. However, if this had become a "pattern of behavior" by Hillary as Secretary of State to the point where documents were exchanged w/classified marking removed prior to electronic transmission via fax or email, then I'd say she has a definite problem. But this doesn't prove a pattern of behavior nor does it indicate a preconceived plan to deceive. It simply means on this one occasion, Hillary made the decision to go against established procedures.
Provide the smoking gun that makes it plainly clear that Hillary informed her immediate staff (admin aids) to remove classified marking from all classified documents before transmitting them then I'm sold. A 1-time occurrence (though still in violation of protocol and the law) doesn't quite amount to some grand, preconceived directive to transmitted classified documents in this manner throughout her tenure as Secretary of State.
If you are too "busy" to read the material and citations.............It is now my job to do it for you?........And yes some of the cites are from NYT and WP............Like so what?
And for your information.........
The FBI and others is required to send a "target" letter to anyone who is the target of a federal investigation..............
.But in this case the FBI is NOT investigating HC..........and therefore a target letter would be superfluous ..........
AS I said...............Don't hold your breath waiting for HC to be indicted for some yet to discovered “crime”.........
BTW
Remember what Been-gone-zi amounted to?
"Further, according to the Associated Press, the State Department said a review showed that the document in question was sent "apparently by secure fax, after all," and was never was sent to Clinton by email.... State Department spokesperson John Kirby said Friday that it is not uncommon for non-classified documents to be crafted and shared on the classified system."
In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure" - CBS News
Every interpretation of 'secure fax' that does not guarantee that the contents of the TPs were not classified. Even your interpretation qualifies.
Terrible analogy.
The TPs had a classified heading. That is crystal clear. If it wasn't a classified heading there would be no reason to remove it. It will transfer to a non secure network with a ,....... never mind. You are doing that circle thing again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?