Who went through her 60,000 emails to determine what was personal and work related?
Who went through her 60,000 emails to determine what was personal and work related?Wait are you saying it was illegal for her to give that information to her lawyer who was specifically provided with security clearances so that he could handle it and stored it in a safe that was provided by the state department for that express purpose?
http://www.law.com/sites/articles/2...nce-email-safeguards/?slreturn=20160606144425
This is exhibit A for the sort of nonsense you've been peddling since the beginning about this. Either you're nearly entirely ignorant of what you have repeatedly claimed to be so sure about or you're being deliberately deceptive. So again yes, some honesty would be heartily welcomed.
Major Jason Brezler notified the Marine Corps that he had sent a classified briefing via commercial email as a warning to fellow Marines about a corrupt police chief. 3 Marines were killed by the chief's servant 17 days later. Brezler was prosecuted.
Clearly honesty is not the best policy, so why wouldn't you go with the ignorance defense?
Amen. Legality aside, honorable intentions have great value in my world.All that said, I fervently hope Maj. Brezler wins his appeals.
As for Comey, I believe he does need to clarify his thought process under oath. In his mind what is the threshold for gross negligence independent of intent?
Or he can just let Congressional Republicans make fools of themselves like they usually do.As for Comey, I believe he does need to clarify his thought process under oath.
Ah, I did not know her attorney had been "specifically provided with security clearances so that he could handle it and stored it in a safe that was provided by the state department for that express purpose". I stand corrected. What about everyone else to whom she disseminated classified material? For your point to stand, Hillary not only has to assume that as Secretary of State she would never be handling classified and/or sensitive documents, but also remain oblivious for four years. Do you really wish to stake that position as honest?Wait are you saying it was illegal for her to give that information to her lawyer who was specifically provided with security clearances so that he could handle it and stored it in a safe that was provided by the state department for that express purpose?
http://www.law.com/sites/articles/2...nce-email-safeguards/?slreturn=20160606144425
This is exhibit A for the sort of nonsense you've been peddling since the beginning about this. Either you're nearly entirely ignorant of what you have repeatedly claimed to be so sure about or you're being deliberately deceptive. So again yes, some honesty would be heartily welcomed.
I think when he says that they were labeled classified, we can safely assume that the label was prominent. Ever seen a classified document with an inconspicuous label? Kinda defeats the point, eh? Every classified document I've ever seen has had a VERY prominent stamp. Now, granted I've only seen them after they were leaked or declassified, but somehow I doubt they only stamp big bold classifications when they are declassified. But hey, whatever allows you to vote for her with a clear(ish) conscience.No, I'm not assuming that at all, but that's now the second consecutive time that you're putting words in someone's mouth. If Comey's original statement was so damning, why the need to add the fictional bit about big red labels, other than to make the emails seem more conspicuous? Comey didn't say they were "clearly and obviously" marked, and give then extraordinary amount of editorializing he did on the issue, I think it's safe to assume that if the emails had been so conspicuously marked, he would have said as much.
I'm not saying that Clinton couldn't have known, or even that she shouldn't have seen it. I'm only saying that it wasn't intentional. Which is essentially the same thing Comey is saying when he says "careless" etc.
Amen. Legality aside, honorable intentions have great value in my world.
Some other little corrections: Hillary was SecState for four years and had over 2,200 classified messages, some few of which were actually labeled as such when she sent them. And let's not forget, we have only the forty thousand she turned over in printed form plus the thirty thousand that the FBI was able to capture from other government accounts. We don't know how many escaped notice, since her server was wiped and her backups destroyed.I share your anger that Major Brezler was prosecuted as he was. I'm not just saying that, it really does stink. From the facts I know, he was an honorable man doing what he thought was right. I wish that had been taken into account.
In previous posts, you have seemed more measured and intelligent than many. So when deny that you weren't directly comparing his case with Hilary's, saying only that it was "context" and stating that the signal difference is honesty, I am saddened at what I feel is your obfuscation of the clear LEGAL difference between the two cases.
As another poster pointed out, Maj. Brezler exhibited deliberate intent to contravene the rules, whereas, as AG Comey pointed out, Hilary did NOT.
The difference?
Maj. Brezler knowing and deliberately attached two pieces of classified info to an unsecured e-mail, (albeit in a good cause, imho.)
Whereas Hilary, over the course of SEVEN to EIGHT years and SIXTY THOUSAND PLUS e-mails, as the point person for American foreign policy, while dealing with a technically obsolescent system that often imposed critical delays, let slip 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information (perhaps needed commentary on it and NOT the actual documents?) at the time they were sent or received.
The AG rightly concluded that this was neither deliberate nor GROSS negligence, even as he excoriated her carelessness.
That's the cold (some would say dispassionate) eye of the law AND THE CRITICAL LEGAL DIFFERENCE, which it would seem your post set out to deliberately obscure, by appealing solely to emotion.
This critical legal difference is not a strawman, which you tried to label it when called out on the point.
All that said, I fervently hope Maj. Brezler wins his appeals.
Ah, I did not know her attorney had been "specifically provided with security clearances so that he could handle it and stored it in a safe that was provided by the state department for that express purpose". I stand corrected. What about everyone else to whom she disseminated classified material? For your point to stand, Hillary not only has to assume that as Secretary of State she would never be handling classified and/or sensitive documents, but also remain oblivious for four years. Do you really wish to stake that position as honest?
I think when he says that they were labeled classified, we can safely assume that the label was prominent. Ever seen a classified document with an inconspicuous label? Kinda defeats the point, eh? Every classified document I've ever seen has had a VERY prominent stamp. Now, granted I've only seen them after they were leaked or declassified, but somehow I doubt they only stamp big bold classifications when they are declassified. But hey, whatever allows you to vote for her with a clear(ish) conscience.
Again, for your point to stand, Hillary not only has to assume that as Secretary of State she would never be handling classified and/or sensitive documents, but also remain oblivious for four years. Is this really something you wish to defend?
It's speculative but not unreasonable. The FBI had enough evidence to demonstrate negligence but perhaps not enough to cross the threshold of criminal intent. How do you balance that fine line where a reprimand is clearly in order but perhaps indictment is a stretch?
It turned into a big game of "not it".
The Lynch-Clinton meeting happened either because Lynch wanted to take herself out of play OR Clinton sought to mitigate her as a wild card.
As for Comey, I believe he does need to clarify his thought process under oath. In his mind what is the threshold for gross negligence independent of intent?
I don't blame him for doing so. Why tarnish the FBI with a recommendation for indictment based on evidence that is reasonable but not compelling. Don't you find his choice of words interesting in framing his decision? He left the door ajar just enough....Or he can just let Congressional Republicans make fools of themselves like they usually do.
Fair enough, although if so she got it wrong over two thousand times, including some documents that were actually labeled. That seems a bit much to me to be accidental.It most certainly doesn't mean that as in your previous post you mentioned that Secretary Rice basically never used email so it is clearly not just possible but has been recently done where a secretary handles classified materials through means other than email.
Seriously you've gotten so many things wrong about this topic does it seem fair to say that you don't really have a strong enough grasp to make strong judgments?
I find Comey's choice of words interesting in his decision. I never questioned his integrity.Based on his record, Comey's integrity is beyond reproach-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey#Bush_years_.282002.E2.80.932005.29
It's tough to let go of the high hopes & emotional investment in the whole idea that she's a criminal who's got to be guilty of something, Goddammit!
Step back & get a little perspective. It really is a picayune matter in the context of post-9/11 post ownership society America. It's not like she exploited a national tragedy to invade another country for no good reason.
But do keep clutching at your fucking pearls when the vapors overtake you.
I don't blame him for doing so. Why tarnish the FBI with a recommendation for indictment based on evidence that is reasonable but not compelling. Don't you find his choice of words interesting in framing his decision? He left the door ajar just enough....
As another poster pointed out, Maj. Brezler exhibited deliberate intent to contravene the rules, whereas, as AG Comey pointed out, Hilary did NOT.
The AG rightly concluded that this was neither deliberate nor GROSS negligence, even as he excoriated her carelessness.
That's the cold (some would say dispassionate) eye of the law AND THE CRITICAL LEGAL DIFFERENCE, which it would seem your post set out to deliberately obscure, by appealing solely to emotion.
This critical legal difference is not a strawman, which you tried to label it when called out on the point.
The classified stuff is well labeled, and Hillary and her staff signed agreements to preserve their confidentiality prior to being given their clearances. The equivocation by her supporters is amusing.
At it's best, this makes her "trust issue" that much worse.
I don't blame him for doing so. Why tarnish the FBI with a recommendation for indictment based on evidence that is reasonable but not compelling. Don't you find his choice of words interesting in framing his decision? He left the door ajar just enough....
The classified stuff is well labeled, and Hillary and her staff signed agreements to preserve their confidentiality prior to being given their clearances. The equivocation by her supporters is amusing.
At it's best, this makes her "trust issue" that much worse.
Did you miss the date when it was marked "Classified?"
1/29/2016
It wasn't classified at the time.
Vast right winged conspiracy? Apparently James Comer didn't get the memo.I myself am filled with nothing but honorable intentions, as my morality derivies wholly from my own internal self rewarding good wishes, which is why I would avoid having to face a situation that pits my personal conscience against the law like the plague. I long ago determined that the only way I could in conscience violate the law would be by up front paying the consequences. However, I noticed that Perknose implied that Clinton used a private server because the government one was inefficient but I have assumed she did so to avoid the vast right winged conspiracy, which,by the way, I think is by no means a paranoid delusion, from accessing her record. What do you make of that?
I find Comey's choice of words interesting in his decision. I never questioned his integrity.
I also don't understand why there was no investigation into the decisions leading to the invasion of Iraq, so I am not sure how invoking Bush's failures have any relevance to Clinton's failures.
Also, she didn't exploit a national tragedy to justify invasion of a foreign country, but she did vote in favor of it.
His words absolutely have legal weight. The role of the executive branch is to enforce the laws, not interpret them. Gross negligence independent of intent is the threshold. Some would contend that the evidence he clearly cited meets the criteria for gross negligence. Was it lack of evidence or lack of political will to recommend indictment? Not an unreasonable question to ask although I have no faith in how congressional republicans will choose to pursue it.All that matters is the decision. His words are just his opinion, have no legal weight.
Do you ever get dizzy?He said it's over. You said it's not & tried to use his own words against him.
What part of obsessing on the picayune do you fail to comprehend?
She voted to trust the honor & integrity of GWB. So did a lot of people, including the American public. It was acknowledged as a mistake.