Based on this evidence that the FBI has reported, how comfortable are you with trusting a President Hillary Clinton to handle classified information?
From Comey's news conference this morning:
there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Based on this evidence that the FBI has reported, how comfortable are you with trusting a President Hillary Clinton to handle classified information? (Note -- this isn't a thread to discuss if she should've been charged.)
Hillary operates outside the law and will use whatever information she feels she needs for her political purposes. Obama found the Constitution and the laws of the nation to be a hurdle he needed to overcome. For Hillary there is no hurdle. If her needs are in conflict with the law she'll just plow the law under.
50/50
ill somewhat trust her
but this is my stance with ALL politicians on this matter.
Essentially, you have no standards
LMAO . .
so trusting here 50/50 along with all other politicians = no standards in your opinion? LMAO ok :shrug:
Your anger is noted and your opinion is meaningless to me:2rofll:
1.) no, im right your opinion doesn't matter and your assessment was factually wrong1.)Wrong.
2.)No standards is having no form of stratification to trust the trustworthy politicians and vice versa.
3.) And I'm not angry at anything; I'm befuddled at what passes for an eligible voter in this society.
What seems to be avoided in any discussion is that most, if not all, of these emails with classified content were sent to or received by people that knew better than to "assume" that a use of xxxxx .com email address was SOP for the handling of classified material. If the system for handling classified material is so lax that nobody would qustion the use of a xxxx.com email adddress for many years then I do not trust that system.
bingo!!!
ive brought that up many times, this is nothign new and 100s have done the same.
Who responded to these emails were the group emails, who got the emails and replied and thoguht nothign of it etc etc
Hell even at my work when an email comes in from an outside source or unvalidated source its is flagged so that its obvious to the receiver or i never get it at all and its blocked. We also all know not to responded to these emails with anything proprietary, attachments are even blocked from going out to them and even normal emails are flagged, held and another pop-up box asks if you are sure you want to send the email and its logged.
If thats what my company does what the hell is the government doing?
I am in no means making excuses for hillary but my guess is even if they wanted to bring charges agaisnt her they choose not to based on the foresight that the majority of politicians (current and ex congress, presidents etc) would technically be "guilty" of the same things
So make an example of her and stop it from happening any longer. Instead, they do nothing and it goes on just like before.
bingo!!!
ive brought that up many times, this is nothign new and 100s have done the same.
Who responded to these emails were the group emails, who got the emails and replied and thoguht nothign of it etc etc
Hell even at my work when an email comes in from an outside source or unvalidated source its is flagged so that its obvious to the receiver or i never get it at all and its blocked. We also all know not to responded to these emails with anything proprietary, attachments are even blocked from going out to them and even normal emails are flagged, held and another pop-up box asks if you are sure you want to send the email and its logged.
If thats what my company does what the hell is the government doing?
I am in no means making excuses for hillary but my guess is even if they wanted to bring charges agaisnt her they choose not to based on the foresight that the majority of politicians (current and ex congress, presidents etc) would technically be "guilty" of the same things
Im all for stopping it from happening but you can't make an example out of her without doing it to so many others. Nor does it quite work that way. "IF" there was even enough evidence for a trial which has not be stated nor have we seen what would probably happen is all the politicians would go unpunished (or get smack on the hands) and all the assistants, handlers and probably mainly the IT and security people would take the fall. Id rather fix the problem because a witch hunt for hillary wont accomplish the goal at all IMO. It will come down to who was responsible for all these mishaps, that will fall to IT and security people.
1.)So if "everybody" breaks the negligence law concerning classified material handling then there was no need for the FBI, DOJ or "security experts" to have spent a single minute (or taxpayer dollar) looking into this matter.
2.) Many FBI agents being assigned to this total exercise in time (and money) wasting investigation of possibly violating a law that was never intended to be enforced is more of a crime than any mere negligence.
Im all for stopping it from happening but you can't make an example out of her without doing it to so many others. Nor does it quite work that way. "IF" there was even enough evidence for a trial which has not be stated nor have we seen what would probably happen is all the politicians would go unpunished (or get smack on the hands) and all the assistants, handlers and probably mainly the IT and security people would take the fall. Id rather fix the problem because a witch hunt for hillary wont accomplish the goal at all IMO. It will come down to who was responsible for all these mishaps, that will fall to IT and security people.
I don't think they needed to indict her to make an example out of her. Comey could have been more blunt with the fact that if she were currently in a position of government, her security clearance would have been revoked. And that someone with this kind of inability to keep information classified at top levels secure, should never be trusted with our nation's biggest secrets.
ANd again, if that happens then it domines to every other high official current and recent ex and probably trickles down to the same people.
Like I said im my company has a system in place that prevents this why doesnt the government, I know my instant question when this came up so many moons ago is how is it even possible? why do secure servers accept non secure traffic at the government level when my company doesn't even do that. Why was the presidents blackberry disabled in so many ways but theses servers aren't policed? etc etc
its just another example of the government getting caught with its pants down because this was "easier" for politicians than actually following protocol and the people in charge of that protocol let it happened . . .its pathetic from head to toe. AGain its just frustrating to me that my company has tighter security in ways than the government.
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?