5 Month's Worth of Gaps Discovered in Hillary's Emails.
- Thread starter 73chief
- Start date
Before you start typing in CAPS you should probably better know what you're talking about. If my "private email" is Google or AOL that would be true, but the Clintons registered their own domain and had their own private email server built (by the guy who said he would plead the 5th before congress).
....and apparently you didn't bother to read the part I'd posted, where OTHER State Dept employees DID use Google, AOL, etc., and those services DO have the same emails on their servers that HC's does...
....and apparently you didn't bother to read the part I'd posted, where OTHER State Dept employees DID use Google, AOL, etc., and those services DO have the same emails on their servers that HC's does...
Read the 2nd sentence of your prior post again and get back to me, I'll wait.
That doesn't make it right and Colin Powell isn't running for president. Far as I am concerned Powell should probably be brought up on charges as well.
Uh....that's my point. How is the server/system she used different from any other non-'.gov' email server....???
And, as I'd posted (which can be verified with your own Google search), MANY State Dept employees sent information over Google and other email services when using their own personal emails....
....and apparently you didn't bother to read the part I'd posted, where OTHER State Dept employees DID use Google, AOL, etc., and those services DO have the same emails on their servers that HC's does...
BTW, if those other do have the same emails on their servers as Hillary (with classified information) then as others said they should be investigated and prosecuted as well. I don't recall hearing that Powell had classified information in emails on a private server/account (saying you may have work related emails is not the same as saying you had emails that contained confidential/classified info), but I also don't follow this stuff as closely as others.
Very honestly neither of us know the answer to that question. I have no idea what security measures were in place on the Clinton server, most Service Providers (those that are going to stay in business anyway) likely have reasonable protections in place. Regardless, if there are state department emails with classified info on them regardless of who it is they should be investigated and likely prosecuted.;
Agree, but note Huey says "likely had". We KNOW Clinton had emails with classified information on them on her personal server.
I see....so Google and their execs need to 'go to jail', because information was sent by a State Dept employee over GMail, which was NOT listed as 'classified' at the time, nor in the header or body of the email, but someone DECIDED it was 'classified' later, and since Google has that information somewhere on its servers, they are in violation of the Espionage Act....
Again....the information provided by the State Dept is that none of the emails had information LABELED as classified at the time it was sent. If someone decided that certain information needed to be considered classified later, that's not going to be easy to prosecute anyone for.
The 'real' news I have seen on this issue, outside of the blogosphere and Op Eds/pundits, is that the FBI is focusing their investigation on the SOURCE of specific classified information, meaning the ORIGINAL email that contained the information and whether the information was considered 'classified' at that time.
It's getting comical that some of you are willing to throw an honorable and respectable man like Colin Powell under the bus just to continue this ridiculous witch hunt.
It's pretty clear that they're not dealing with facts at this point.
You're so far up Hillary's skirt it's insane. If our Secretary of State isn't smart enough to understand what information should be considered classified, I sure as hell don't want that person as the President of this country. And LOL at Google Execs going to jail. It's not about the server dummy, it's about what SHE used it for.
Again - doesn't make it right just because little Johnny stole doesn't mean it's okay for Jimmy to do so.
Add on that Hillary's position within the Administration makes her privy to much higher classified information and you have a HUGE security issue. This is what those still suckling on Hillary's breasts keep overlooking, she is claiming ignorance - ignorance is NOT an excuse.
Translation:
I don't have a salient response here, so I'll just prattle on with random sentences.
You do realize, don't you, that whether it was labeled is irrelevant to the points at issue?
SOSs using private emails was pretty consistent behavior while both Powell and Clinton were in office. If they were wrong in their use, it deserves a light slap on wrists and not much more. You can be critical of them, but keep that criticism in check knowing that they were behaving in a way consistent with how others in the same position had typically behaved.
Nice try.
1. You want to cling to the Dem party line about whether the emails were tagged as classified. It doesn't matter either legally or otherwise, the SOS should probably be able to determine that or they shouldn't be in that role.
2. It's entirely possible to use both a government and personal email account and and not put classified info on a non-govenrment server. I have both a personal and a corporate email account too. While I might at times use the personal account for work purposes to say "when are you available for a meeting", I know enough not to send stuff via my personal email that includes company confidential info (and it's not even flagged "confidential"!!). Hillary didn't even use her .gov account and ran ALL her business thru the personal account, from what I've read/seen Powell admittedly said he used both but I don't recall seeing that he used the personal account for sharing classified info.
3. I've said multiple times if there were others using their personal account to share/send classified info, they should also be investigated and if found to have violated the law prosecuted. You're the one who wants to turn this into a Democrat/Republican thing, in my mind it's about competence and accountability regardless of who it is.
I'm not in the "lock her up and throw away the key" crowd (unless she shared classified info with those that had not right or clearance to see it), but at the very minimum is she is proven to have violated security policy then she should be prohibited from having high level security clearance from this point on. Sort of tough to be POTUS in that case.
Do you have a link that says they used private emails to send classified information (whether stamped or not)?
And you can't see how that is different from Hillary (you know, who the FBI has found emails on her private server containing classified info)? Troll on brother!
Why is it so difficult for you to understand: ANY government official who sent information over a non-'.gov' email address ended up with that information on some non-government server, somewhere. If some of that information was later considered 'classified', then ANY server the information went over has a copy of it. It doesn't matter if it's HC's server, Google or otherwise.
The law is that the recipient of the information needs to KNOW the information is classified, not simply that they held it or stored it.
Many of the talking points you are reverting to here are coming from the political blogosphere, and have little relevance to the actual issues. I'm intelligent enough to see through that, but apparently most here are not. I'll wait for formal charges to be filed by FBI or other entities regarding ACTUAL actions, not speculation and pundit disinformation.
The fact that even after Colin Powell used personal emails for State Dept contact, no formal policy change was made - that's a failure of the government systems (and poor judgement on HC's part, or bad advice she was given in being allowed to set her system up). But that's entirely different from being illegal or criminal. Singling her out and ignoring the activities of dozens of others smells like political hatchet jobs, not real issues. But, again, I'm not as naive as most here, because I don't fall in lockstep with either political party....
I'm not sure why you keep claiming that there were classified documents on her server while she was SOS. There is no evidence of that. You're just looking desperate.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand: ANY government official who sent information over a non-'.gov' email address ended up with that information on some non-government server, somewhere. If some of that information was later considered 'classified', then ANY server the information went over has a copy of it. It doesn't matter if it's HC's server, Google or otherwise. You don't seem to understand that I'm not arguing that point at all, but rather you are using "considered" in the context of when it was formally flagged as classified which in my understanding isn't what the policy states.
The law is that the recipient of the information needs to KNOW the information is classified, not simply that they held it or stored it. Again I agree, but I also think the SOS should generally know what type of information is classified without having to look at a flag/tag. It seems Hillary exclusively used her private account, do you think she believe that nothing in any of her thousands of emails contained classified information?
Many of the talking points you are reverting to here are coming from the political blogosphere, and have little relevance to the actual issues. I'm intelligent enough to see through that, but apparently most here are not. I'll wait for formal charges to be filed by FBI or other entities regarding ACTUAL actions, not speculation and pundit disinformation. Sorry, I don't read the political blogosphere.
The fact that even after Colin Powell used personal emails for State Dept contact, no formal policy change was made - that's a failure of the government systems (and poor judgement on HC's part, or bad advice she was given in being allowed to set her system up). But that's entirely different from being illegal or criminal. Singling her out and ignoring the activities of dozens of others smells like political hatchet jobs, not real issues. But, again, I'm not as naive as most here, because I don't fall in lockstep with either political party.... I also don't fall in lockstep with either party. I've said many times if Powell was found to use personal emails for state department contact that contained classified information he should be investigated as well (I am distinguishing, again, between just routine "business use" and something that contained classified info as I don't think the former is really a big deal). I really couldn't care less that Hillary had a private email server, the matter at hand is whether she knowingly used it to store/send classified information. I also don't consider poor judgement or ignorance something I'd be fond of having as a valid excuse when it comes to National Security Policy for our next President.
So all of the reports that stated specifically that there were emails on her server that contained classified information were lies?
Excellent points. Since using private emails was acceptable during this time, it seems likely that many of the people communicating with both Powell and Clinton were also using private emails. So they would also be in violation and should face prison sentences if the GOP talking points were to make any sense. But thinking critically, the GOP talking points don't make any sense. You can't take an accepted practice, common to many people, INCLUDING the Republicans, and try isolating it, years later, to attack just one person. The law doesn't work that way.
I also find it distasteful that the GOP is trying to use the Espionage Act, a law written a full century ago, as justification to go after Hillary. There is nothing in that law that supports the GOP claims. Literally the gist of the law is that when handling sensitive documents, like security secrets, you cannot handle said documents with gross negligence. Despite the Republican wishes, using private emails, a common practice on both sides, doesn't constitute gross negligence. Heck, the GOP can't even prove that security secrets were even transmitted with private emails. Their whole case falls apart once you start digging at it.
What about these documents not being classified while she was SOS do you not understand?
Huey, please show where I've said having a private email account wasn't acceptable. You're trying too hard here.
What about a SOS having enough between their ears to know what type of information is considered classified whether flagged or not do you not understand?
JFC - it's not okay, even if someone else did it I have said that repeatedly. Your logic seems to be "well if Johnny stole it's okay for Jimmy" - ITS NOT!
Uh...no.
It's like a candy jar was sitting out with a sign saying 'Free- take one please'. Johnny helped himself to one candy each day he stopped by. A week later, Jimmy saw the same sign and had one free candy, too, each day of the week.
A week later, the same candy jar now has a sign that says 'Candy - 50 cents each'.
Your position is that both Johnny and Jimmy are thieves, because they 'stole candy' that now costs 50 cents. The reality is that the cost of the candy was labeled differently at the time they took it.
And, for another poster - it's not about the 'type of information' on servers being classified - it's either listed as classified and identified as such or it's not. It can be 'sensitive' information, but that's different from formally classified intel.
Just like the 'type' of candy might be free or typically cost 50 cents. It's either labeled/identified as free or costing 50 cents or it's not. I'm reserving judgments on that for formal investigators to make decisions on whether the information was improperly handled, not pundits.
This seems to be a point of contention as to what the law/policy actually states. Many have stated it's the content and not the actual stamp, which would seem to make more sense as the content doesn't change from the time it's sent/received to when it's actually flagged as confidential. Would there really be any value in retroactively flagging something as confidential after it's been "no big deal" for quite some time?
Not sure I would use candy in a jar as a comparison to emails that could contain information that is key to national security.....
I'm struggling to even figure out what your complaint is at this point?
Private emails were acceptable while she was SOS
None of her emails contained classified material at the time she was SOS
Where you going with this?
Wrong, it's you refusing to see any other view than your highly political one. Question, for those emails that are now considered classified did the content of the emails on Hilary's server change? Was the information in them any more confidential now than it was when they were sent/received?
It wasn't classified at all when she received it, sent it, or anything else. It didn't become classified until later. How are you not getting this?
