Clinton: I didn't 'stop and think' about email system

[shirtless]

She was useless as a sos and would be the most damaging president America has ever had , that said she will probably be the president as most voters have short memories.

[spidermike007]

The Clintons are typically unable to apologize. Had Bill just fessed up a month into the Monica scandal, and simply said, "yes, I got blown, I like getting blown, it relieves stress for me, I am a sex addict and I need help. Please forgive me", it may have all gone away. But he could not. He was a good president, but a pathological liar.

[attrayant]

"Clinton: I didn't 'stop and think' about email system"

...eerily reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi's "let's pass it to find out what's in it".

The only thing those lines have in common is that they sound damning only when the surrounding context is removed. I notice you also changed some of the words while retaining the quotes, implying that's what she really said. How Trump of you.

[stevenl]

She has been lying about this for months. It is a little late for this lame excuse to convince anyone.

I think it is the truth.

And yes, she should have known better, so voters and media have every right to question her judgment in this.

[Ulysses G.]

Five CONFIRMED lies:

http://nypost.com/2015/08/16/hillary-clintons-5-e-mail-lies/

[hakuho]

evidently MikT does not understand the current sate of computer vulnerability; Russia, China and especially Israel have almost complete access to global Internet servers, as illustrated by the recent hacking of major U.S. govt. employees records by a foreign entity....so this is not serious? Perhaps it does not really matter, since Obama regularly publishes the tactical details of Mid East troop movements in the news media; and why do you assert that you have no consideration re Hilaries(sp) actions when that is obviously untrue?

[attrayant]

It is the office of the Secretary of State that is responsible for classifying and declassifying information in the first place. That means she was appointed, in part, based on her ability to understand what kind of information should and should not be classified. This is why the investigation into her files has thus far turned up a big fat nothing: she knows what constitutes classified information and therefore didn't send any via email.

If any classified information is ever found to have been sent by her, I'll reconsider my defense of HRC. But until that happens, you've got nothing.

[Ulysses G.]

If any classified information is ever found to have been sent by her, I'll reconsider my defense of HRC. But until that happens, you've got nothing.

She has received lots of it on her personal server. That is a fact. Her defense is that she did not know it was classified, because someone deleted the markings - maybe the member of her staff who is taking the fifth?

Edited September 6, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[attrayant]

Five CONFIRMED lies:

http://nypost.com/2015/08/16/hillary-clintons-5-e-mail-lies/

Ah the tabloid NY Post. You couldn't have set up a bigger target.

Clinton’s camp put out a long technical defense saying that the information wasn’t classified when she received it and that different agencies disagreed over what should be classified. But it begged the question: Why take the risk at all?

Because according to executive order #13526 on the classification of national security information:

Section 1.2.3:

{c} If there is significant doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it shall be classified at the lower level.

The NY Post loves to engage in JAQqing off - just asking questions that could be easily answered with a few minutes of searching, but leaving them unanswered serves to better stir the pot. Edited September 6, 2015 by attrayant

[attrayant]

If any classified information is ever found to have been sent by her, I'll reconsider my defense of HRC. But until that happens, you've got nothing.

She has received lots of it on her personal server. That is a fact. Her defense is that she did not know it was classified, because someone deleted the markings

Irrelevant. She was the Secretary of State - a classifying authority. That means she knows what should and should not be classified. Absent a classification mark, she used her professional judgement to ascertain whether or not a document should be classified.

That means if you send her a document that you seem to be worthy or classification status, but you don't apply the classification mark, and she subsequently evaluates the document and makes a determination that it's not classified, then it's not classified.

[Ulysses G.]

Ah the tabloid NY Post.

You are shooting the messenger. Please deal with refuting the substance of her lies - if you are capable of it.

What sort of nit-picking excuses are you going to make about similar charges from the Washington Post?

Hillary Clintons e-mail excuses never pan out

There is a reason Hillary Clintons poll numbers show voters think she is untrustworthy: She keeps telling them things that are not true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/07/26/hillary-clintons-e-mail-excuses-never-pan-out/

Hillary lies again

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/29/andrew-napolitano-hillary-clinton-lies-about-email/?page=all

Fact Checker: Hillary Clinton’s claim that ‘everything I did [on e-mails] was permitted’

In reality, Clinton’s decision to use a private e-mail system for official business was highly unusual and flouted State Department procedures, even if not expressly prohibited by law at the time. Moreover, while she claims “everything I did was permitted,” she appears to have not complied with the requirement to turn over her business-related e-mails before she left government service. That’s a major misstep that she has not acknowledged.

We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios, but Clinton’s excessive spin finally tipped us toward Three. She goes too far in suggesting her actions were ordinary – -and did not stretch the limits of existing laws and regulations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/09/hillary-clintons-claim-that-everything-i-did-on-emails-was-permitted/

Edited September 6, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[chuckd]

If any classified information is ever found to have been sent by her, I'll reconsider my defense of HRC. But until that happens, you've got nothing.

She has received lots of it on her personal server. That is a fact. Her defense is that she did not know it was classified, because someone deleted the markings

Irrelevant. She was the Secretary of State - a classifying authority. That means she knows what should and should not be classified. Absent a classification mark, she used her professional judgement to ascertain whether or not a document should be classified.

That means if you send her a document that you seem to be worthy or classification status, but you don't apply the classification mark, and she subsequently evaluates the document and makes a determination that it's not classified, then it's not classified.

" she subsequently evaluates the document and makes a determination that it's not classified, then it's not classified."

One small problem with your theory. As a classifying authority for the State Department you are correct. However, she has no authority to declassify any correspondence that has been previously or subsequently classified by another classifying authority. As an example, she cannot declassify anything that has been classified by the Intelligence Directorates.

You have obviously never heard of the "born classified" category. These communications are automatically classified by the system depending on their originating source. For instance, any communication emanating from a foreign government is automatically classified as "born classified". Her so called "professional judgement" would not and could not come into play on these situations. These message would require no markings to identify them. They are, very simply, "born classified".

As an authorizing authority, she was required to attend annual refresher courses on the classification system. Her ignorance of the law falls on deaf ears.

[chuckd]

Five CONFIRMED lies:

http://nypost.com/2015/08/16/hillary-clintons-5-e-mail-lies/

Ah the tabloid NY Post. You couldn't have set up a bigger target.

Clinton’s camp put out a long technical defense saying that the information wasn’t classified when she received it and that different agencies disagreed over what should be classified. But it begged the question: Why take the risk at all?

Because according to executive order #13526 on the classification of national security information:

Section 1.2.3:

{c} If there is significant doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it shall be classified at the lower level.

The NY Post loves to engage in JAQqing off - just asking questions that could be easily answered with a few minutes of searching, but leaving them unanswered serves to better stir the pot.

Section 1.2.3:

{c} If there is significant doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it shall be classified at the lower level."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your citation is incorrect. You are quoting Section 1.2.(c ), not 1.2.3.

There are three levels of Classification. they are...

Classified

Secret

Top Secret

What Section 1.2.(c ) says is if, for example, the FBI considers a document Top Secret but the State Department only considers it Secret, then the lower of the two ratings will prevail.

In any event all of them are still considered classified and none are eligible to be sent over an unsecured internet account.

I can promise you if I had pulled such a stunt such as she has over the 20+ years I had clearances, I would be enjoying my August days in Leavenworth, not Isaan.

[attrayant]

Handling unclassified information gets you life in prison? We seem to be back to square one.

[chuckd]

Handling unclassified information gets you life in prison? We seem to be back to square one.

Now you know I didn't say that.

I will say this, however...

"MISHANDLING classified information can get you life in prison."

[attrayant]

You have obviously never heard of the "born classified" category. These communications are automatically classified by the system depending on their originating source. For instance, any communication emanating from a foreign government is automatically classified as "born classified".

Wow, you really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find that 50 year-old clause. It was intended strictly for nuclear secrets, challenged as unconstitutional by the press, and the government opted not to fight it in court.

But since there isn't much meat on the bones of this thread let's run with it. Do you have evidence that HRC mishandled communications about nuclear secrets?

As for your assertion that "any communication emanating from a foreign government is automatically classified as born classified", that's not found anywhere in the previously cited executive order. What it does say is this:

1.6 {e}: Foreign government information shall retain its original classification markings or shall be assigned a U.S. classification that provides a degree of protection at least equivalent to that required by the entity that furnished the information. Foreign government information retaining its original classification markings need not be assigned a U.S. classification marking provided that the responsible agency determines that the foreign government markings are adequate to meet the purposes served by U.S. classification markings.

I'm reading a whole lot of "it's up to us" in that section.

[attrayant]

Handling unclassified information gets you life in prison? We seem to be back to square one.

Now you know I didn't say that.

I will say this, however...

"MISHANDLING classified information can get you life in prison."

You said this:

"If I had pulled such a stunt such as she has over the 20+ years I had clearances, I would be [in prison]." (edited for brevity)

Since it has not yet come to light that she has mishandled classified information, your phrase "such as she has" means that you doing the same thing (i.e. not mishandling classified information) would get you a prison term.

If, on the other hand, you're implying that she mishandled classified information, then you're making an assertion that as of yet is not supported by evidence.

[chuckd]

You have obviously never heard of the "born classified" category. These communications are automatically classified by the system depending on their originating source. For instance, any communication emanating from a foreign government is automatically classified as "born classified".

Wow, you really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find that 50 year-old clause. It was intended strictly for nuclear secrets, challenged as unconstitutional by the press, and the government opted not to fight it in court.

But since there isn't much meat on the bones of this thread let's run with it. Do you have evidence that HRC mishandled communications about nuclear secrets?

As for your assertion that "any communication emanating from a foreign government is automatically classified as born classified", that's not found anywhere in the previously cited executive order. What it does say is this:

1.6 {e}: Foreign government information shall retain its original classification markings or shall be assigned a U.S. classification that provides a degree of protection at least equivalent to that required by the entity that furnished the information. Foreign government information retaining its original classification markings need not be assigned a U.S. classification marking provided that the responsible agency determines that the foreign government markings are adequate to meet the purposes served by U.S. classification markings.

I'm reading a whole lot of "it's up to us" in that section.

1. On your born classified question. It is addressed in Section 1.1.(d) as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

1.1.(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security."

------------------------------------------------------------------

The presumption deems information received from a foreign government is Classified upon receipt.

2. There is no "it's up to us" in the use of the words "shall" rather than "may" in your 1.6.(e). It says foreign government information "shall" retain its original classification OR "shall" be assigned a US classification.

No equivocation whatsoever.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory comment on moderation has been removed, this topic is about Hillary's e-mail problems.

[chuckd]

Handling unclassified information gets you life in prison? We seem to be back to square one.

Now you know I didn't say that.

I will say this, however...

"MISHANDLING classified information can get you life in prison."

You said this:

"If I had pulled such a stunt such as she has over the 20+ years I had clearances, I would be [in prison]." (edited for brevity)

Since it has not yet come to light that she has mishandled classified information, your phrase "such as she has" means that you doing the same thing (i.e. not mishandling classified information) would get you a prison term.

If, on the other hand, you're implying that she mishandled classified information, then you're making an assertion that as of yet is not supported by evidence.

The simple fact she was using a server that had not been provided Facility Clearance by the Defense Security Service is evidence enough she violated federal regulations and laws.

Platte River, her server, had no such clearance.

It has already been established her site sent traffic in at least two satellite photos that were classified as Top Secret through this server. Numerous data redactions have been carried out by the State Department on the released emails that black out information not wanted in he public domain.

In addition to her use of a non-cleared contractor, Platte River, mentioned above, there is that little problem with giving her attorney a thumb drive containing classified documents. It would seem when she copied government communications on a thumb drive, she was in violation of US Code. Title 18, Section 1924, Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.

To wit:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

( For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

© In this section, the term "classified information of the United States" means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant tolaw or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

[chuckd]

Ah the tabloid NY Post. You couldn't have set up a bigger target.

Clinton’s camp put out a long technical defense saying that the information wasn’t classified when she received it and that different agencies disagreed over what should be classified. But it begged the question: Why take the risk at all?

Because according to executive order #13526 on the classification of national security information:

Section 1.2.3:

{c} If there is significant doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it shall be classified at the lower level.

The NY Post loves to engage in JAQqing off - just asking questions that could be easily answered with a few minutes of searching, but leaving them unanswered serves to better stir the pot.

Section 1.2.3:

{c} If there is significant doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it shall be classified at the lower level."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your citation is incorrect. You are quoting Section 1.2.(c ), not 1.2.3.

There are three levels of Classification. they are...

Classified

Secret

Top Secret

What Section 1.2.(c ) says is if, for example, the FBI considers a document Top Secret but the State Department only considers it Secret, then the lower of the two ratings will prevail.

In any event all of them are still considered classified and none are eligible to be sent over an unsecured internet account.

I can promise you if I had pulled such a stunt such as she has over the 20+ years I had clearances, I would be enjoying my August days in Leavenworth, not Isaan.

I apologize for quoting my own post but I discovered a mistake after the edit time ran out. The mistake was this...

There are three levels of Classification. they are...

Classified

Secret

Top Secret

The post should read...

There are three levels of Classification. They are...

Confidential

Secret

Top Secret

My apologies to the horde out there thirsting for knowledge. You know who you are.

[55Jay]

If any classified information is ever found to have been sent by her, I'll reconsider my defense of HRC. But until that happens, you've got nothing.

She has received lots of it on her personal server. That is a fact. Her defense is that she did not know it was classified, because someone deleted the markings - maybe the member of her staff who is taking the fifth?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-03/fbi-scours-clinton-server-for-evidence-of-spying

150 emails contain info deemed classified by the government.

6 emails were written by Clinton herself.

2 were found to contain information classified Top Secret.

The focus has now shifted to ascertaining if the server was compromised, by whom, and to what extent classified material was in the clear.

She resigned to avoid being fired over Bengazi. This email server thing was discovered by accident during that inquiry.

She delayed and deflected on this email thing for the better part of a year and is only now coming clean because the facts have come out. She a liability.

[hakuho]

Publicus and others do not seem to hold a mature and sensible evaluation as to what is partisan politics; when anyone who has reached the age of consent should know that whether you are pimping the right OR the left you have succumbed to the Machievellian brainwash of DIVIDE AND CONQUER...the oldest trick in existence. While the electorate agonizes over whether to vet Tweedledum or Tweedledumber the folks who run the show expand their equity..that would be the massive central banks and the multi-national corporations...who OWN you.

[Chicog]

She resigned to avoid being fired over Bengazi.

What was she going to get fired for?

Hang on, let me go through those seven investigations, 13 hearings and 25,000 pages of investigation that the GOP have initiated.

Oh, that's right. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

[Publicus]

Publicus and others do not seem to hold a mature and sensible evaluation as to what is partisan politics; when anyone who has reached the age of consent should know that whether you are pimping the right OR the left you have succumbed to the Machievellian brainwash of DIVIDE AND CONQUER...the oldest trick in existence. While the electorate agonizes over whether to vet Tweedledum or Tweedledumber the folks who run the show expand their equity..that would be the massive central banks and the multi-national corporations...who OWN you.

Elections in he United States are won by the two major and mainstream political parties appealing in specific terms to the mainstream vast middle of the electorate. The vast mainstream middle of the American electorate elects a black Democrat as president and the right wretches. If the vast mainstream middle elects a woman president the right will have a baby.

The American left is insignificant and unsubstantial. Sen Bernie Sanders is the first stirrings of the US left since the New Left Movement 1966-1975. The left does not make a lot of noise about its beliefs, values, choices.

The American political idea and system absorbs the marginal views so that the vast mainstream middle predominates in elections. When the system fails as it did in 1964 and a major party is seized by the marginals the party gets hammered at the polls by the vast mainstream majority middle.

Political discussion boards online are dominated by the right because the right are fierce and aggressive in their conservative good ol' days views of the world and of human events. The left has better things to do and the vast mainstream middle thinks everyone here should get a life.

[55Jay]

She resigned to avoid being fired over Bengazi.

What was she going to get fired for?

Hang on, let me go through those seven investigations, 13 hearings and 25,000 pages of investigation that the GOP have initiated.

Oh, that's right. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Indeed. She was planning to leave anyway. Good timing and a win win for both parties.

[sirineou]

Clinton: I didn't 'stop and think' about email system

Firstly I don't believe this for a moment, If true why not say so from the start?

But assume that it is true, do we want a president that does not stop and think?

[Asiantravel]

coming from a lawyer even the dog ate my homework excuse sounds more convincing than this

[chuckd]

The woman has no shame. She still hasn't apologized to the American people for her choice of using a private server.

Watch the interview. You'll walk away from this one shaking your head.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillary Clinton Tells NBC News She Is 'Sorry' for Email Confusion

by ALEX SEITZ-WALD

In an exclusive interview with NBC News/MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Friday, Hillary Clinton said she's "sorry" there's been so much controversy over her private email server, but declined to apologize for the decision to use it. She also suggested that GOP front-runner Donald Trump is unqualified to be president and weighed in on the surprisingly robust challenge to her candidacy from Democratic primary rival Bernie Sanders.

"At the end of the day, I am sorry that this has been confusing to people and has raised a lot of questions, but there are answers to all these questions," Clinton said of her email server after being pressed by Mitchell on whether she should apologize for the controversy that has dogged her campaign from the outset. "And I take responsibility and it wasn't the best choice."

It was just the third nationally televised interview for Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic 2016 front-runner, since announcing her campaign in April.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-sorry-email-controversy-n421851