Based on leaks her lawyers (who I believe don't hold national security clearances) didn't sort very well and work related stuff was deleted. She was already using multiple devices and multiple accounts so it isn't clear to me how she got her yoga routines mixed up with her drone strikes and regime changes. Maybe she's crap at: remembering, keeping records, not being sniped by imaginary people, telling the truth, choosing a lawyer, choosing a campaign chairman, email, and having more than one thing on her plate at a time.
Best most qualified presidential candidate evar. /sarc
Based on leaks her lawyers (who I believe don't hold national security clearances) didn't sort very well and work related stuff was deleted. She was already using multiple devices and multiple accounts so it isn't clear to me how she got her yoga routines mixed up with her drone strikes and regime changes. Maybe she's crap at: remembering, keeping records, not being sniped by imaginary people, telling the truth, choosing a lawyer, choosing a campaign chairman, email, and having more than one thing on her plate at a time.
Best most qualified presidential candidate evar. /sarc
From your link:They did have clearance, your bullshit talking point was already debunked. The rest is just you spouting more bullshit.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-lawyer-top-secret-clearance-121736
You aren't interested in the truth otherwise you'd be doing your own homework and debunking easily debunkable bullshit instead of trying to fling more shit.
From your link:
Clearances, especially Top Secret ones, are normally granted in connection with specific matters and do not entitle recipients to all information classified at that level, absent an agency’s determination that an individual has a “need to know.”
We know that some of the classified information was classified by entities other than State. Was he blessed by those other agencies?
Based on leaks her lawyers (who I believe don't hold national security clearances) didn't sort very well and work related stuff was deleted. She was already using multiple devices and multiple accounts so it isn't clear to me how she got her yoga routines mixed up with her drone strikes and regime changes. Maybe she's crap at: remembering, keeping records, not being sniped by imaginary people, telling the truth, choosing a lawyer, choosing a campaign chairman, email, and having more than one thing on her plate at a time.
Best most qualified presidential candidate evar. /sarc
We've been thorough this. They were classified at the time. Then they weren't marked. Then Hillary didn't know what C meant. Then she didn't remember her training.Yes, they were classified after the fact. How you can be so concerned about an issue and yet be willfully ignorant about it is beyond me.
We've been thorough this. They were classified at the time. Then they weren't marked. Then Hillary didn't know what C meant. Then she didn't remember her training.
Its disturbing to me that we have to keep going over this.Yes we've been through this before and you still can't get it right!
They were retro actively classified. The ones that were marked were not only incorrectly marked, they weren't supposed to be classified in the first place.
Its disturbing to me that we have to keep going over this.
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
"110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received."
"determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received."
"classified information at the time they were sent or received."
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
A server that should never have existed in the first place. The whole intent of FOIA is to provide transparency into government, and in the wake of the shenanigans of the Bush administration, Obama promised transparency and accountability. Surely you can see the dilemma of his SoS establishing a private server and being the sole arbitrator of what constitutes official electronic correspondence. The email classification security clearance aspect, which by the way would be career ending for little people like us had the FBI investigated and ruled our actions as negligent, was not enough to justify criminal charges. What she did was wrong. The response and timeline of her staff indicates that their first inclination was cover up and damage control rather than honesty. She deserves to be President. She also deserves scrutiny for her actions.So, the SoS & other cabinet level officials don't have the right to privacy, even on their own server?
Even if it is leaked to the public domain it isn't unclassified and doesn't absolve anyone with a responsibility to protect it.
I showed you the email. Why were her people saying that she elected to delete emails when a subpoena was in place?
That's intent and changes the discussion from Hilary's temporary amnesia narrative.
WikiLeaks Verified account @wikileaks
There is no US election. There is power consolidation. Rigged primary, rigged media and rigged 'pied piper' candidate drive consolidation.
What do you mean "bullshit"? Do you deny that the documents they have leaked are valid? The Dems haven't so far, afaik.
Go read any US newspaper comments section for the conservative "patriots" opinions on DDOS attacks today as being Obama's fault, because, uh, Obama and the InternetPolice™ should be able to stop DDOS attacks, because, uh, Conservatives clearly know jack fucking shit about technology besides what allows them to look at porn and Breitbart.comI honestly don't give a fvck about the documents, Russia is running a op that is fooling morons in our country into thinking Wikileaks is some legit outlet that isn't politically allied with any government. IOW, you are cheering on a foreign government in the hacking and/or leaking information in an attempt to influence another election. If you don't live in America than go ahead and cheer them on.
If you are an American citizen that approves of Russia's actions then please proceed...
Go read any US newspaper comments section for the conservative "patriots" opinions on DDOS attacks today as being Obama's fault, because, uh, Obama and the InternetPolice™ should be able to stop DDOS attacks, because, uh, Conservatives clearly know jack fucking shit about technology besides what allows them to look at porn and Breitbart.com
Mr. Assange is still alive and WikiLeaks is still publishing. We ask supporters to stop taking down the US internet. You proved your point. pic.twitter.com/XVch196xyL
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 21, 2016
@wikileaks – America owes you, bigly! Thank you and God bless you! pic.twitter.com/gvElqdeiOa
— David Duke (@DrDavidDuke) October 21, 2016
I honestly don't give a fvck about the documents, Russia is running a op that is fooling morons in our country into thinking Wikileaks is some legit outlet that isn't politically allied with any government. IOW, you are cheering on a foreign government in the hacking and/or leaking information in an attempt to influence another election. If you don't live in America than go ahead and cheer them on.
If you are an American citizen that approves of Russia's actions then please proceed...
What evidence is there that Wikileaks is aligned with Russia? If anything the Todd and Clare story (unknowns attempting to get Assange to accept a million dollars from Russia, then later trying to frame him with pedo solicitation) would indicate otherwise.
Do some homework, like how the leaks have hurt other people while benefiting Russia (look at local activity regarding taking back areas)
that the leaks are coming out of RT before Wikileaks even releases them (recently documented here)
Que? What does "taking back areas" mean; are you saying that Wikileaks helped the invasion of Crimea? A quick Google returns leaks from 2006 regarding Russian influence in Ukraine, which would be the opposite of what you're suggesting. Are you referring to how the leaks ultimately source from what are likely Russian agents? I don't think Wikileaks cares who sends them the stuff as long as they have some way of vetting it for validity. Unless you have evidence that they are intentionally withholding anti-Trump hacks, you're just relying on conspiracy theories.
iirc you're referring to a story where Trump (or his campaign) referenced a false report that originated from RT or some other website, not something from Wikileaks itself.
Leaked information has consequences, including outing certain people which Wikileaks has done in spades. Regarding Wikileaks not caring who gives them info, that's a great cover story, bro. Regarding the RT beating Wikileaks, no on Trump but he did wave something that had just been put up on RT, meaning that his campaign has someone monitoring RT or maybe someone getting direct info from them. Regardless, Wikileaks is trying to have a deleterious effect on our election, thus they are an enemy of ours. It's that plain and simple, except for the simple minded. I've engaged you enough and I've learned long ago that you are a waste of my time because you have a world view that you have to fit everything in to.
One that I disagree with.
Wikileaks tried to have a deleterious effect on our government's surveillance systems as well. And Russia's foreign involvements. And various large corporations. Maybe they're an enemy of "us"; "we" publicly discussed killing their leadership on the news, so maybe that's not surprising. You've successfully backtracked away from your initial claim that Wikileaks is politically allied with Russia, so I'll take that as an admission of wrongness.
I barely notice you on this forum btw, not sure what you're butthurt about, sugarplum.