Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)
-   Political Threads (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=66)
-   -   Hillary Email issues (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=90335)

The Dad Fisherman 07-07-2016 08:34 PM

Comey's comments pretty much summed up how she screwed up....

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1103864)
You mean these comments.....

"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."

Don't know how you can spin this any other way..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

fishbones 07-08-2016 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103894)
Even the FBI said the deleting appeared routing cleaning up of old emails.

I'm assuming you meant to say "routine" and not "routing" there. And your statement is wrong. No one from the FBI said the deleting appeared to be routine cleaning of old emails. Don't make stuff up and expect people to go along with it. You make yourself look stupid and I know that you're not. You're delusional and misguided, but not stupid. Just try sticking to the truth from now on. No more "I'm assuming", "I think", or "I believe" statements. Just the facts, as Joe Friday would say.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence 07-08-2016 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1103897)
Clinton broke the law. Comey signified multiple cases on where she did. He said it was not prosecutable because he could not prove the intent.

Then why did the FBI director say in his judgement she didn't break the law?

spence 07-08-2016 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 1103910)
No one from the FBI said the deleting appeared to be routine cleaning of old emails.

Ok.

Quote:

"I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed."

James B. Comey
FBI Director

Washington, D.C.
July 05, 2016

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system

spence 07-08-2016 09:26 AM

Now the State Department is saying none of the emails were marked classified.

fishbones 07-08-2016 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103943)
Ok.

You used the quote about "additional emails". Next time listen to the statement in its entirety. You're missing out on some interesting stuff by only reading and listening to what fits your agenda. The hearing yesterday was, for the most part, pretty interesting to listen to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

fishbones 07-08-2016 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103944)
Now the State Department is saying none of the emails were marked classified.

Correct, the email headers were not marked. They're saying the (c) markings were in the paragraphs in the body of the emails.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence 07-08-2016 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 1103953)
You used the quote about "additional emails". Next time listen to the statement in its entirety. You're missing out on some interesting stuff by only reading and listening to what fits your agenda. The hearing yesterday was, for the most part, pretty interesting to listen to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Be more specific. I've read his statement multiple times and watched a good portion of the hearing...

fishbones 07-08-2016 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103956)
Be more specific. I've read his statement multiple times and watched a good portion of the hearing...

You should watch about the last 90 minutes of it since clearly "a good portion" didn't include that. Or, maybe you weren't paying attention.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence 07-08-2016 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 1103954)
Correct, the email headers were not marked. They're saying the (c) markings were in the paragraphs in the body of the emails.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, in just three emails...and the State Department is saying that the information wasn't really classified, someone just forgot to remove the markings.

spence 07-08-2016 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 1103957)
You should watch about the last 90 minutes of it since clearly "a good portion" didn't include that. Or, maybe you weren't paying attention.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didn't include what.

fishbones 07-08-2016 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103966)
Didn't include what.

Go back and read.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Dad Fisherman 07-08-2016 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103936)
Then why did the FBI director say in his judgement she didn't break the law?

That's not what he said....

Reading is Fundamental...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ecduzitgood 07-08-2016 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103965)
Yes, in just three emails...and the State Department is saying that the information wasn't really classified, someone just forgot to remove the markings.

So Hillary never sent or received anything classified?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT 07-08-2016 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103875)
Unless you can prove she knew she was making a false statements I don't think a perjury charge is going to stick. She likely did think she had turned over all relevant emails and because a whopping 3 (out of 30,000) emails had a (C) marking in the email text how can you know she even read them?

"Unless you can prove she knew she was making a false statements I don't think a perjury charge is going to stick."

Mark Furhman got charged with perjury, with no one able to try to show that he knew he was lying. How do you prove intent to lie, unless the person confesses?

"She likely did think she had turned over all relevant emails"

She said she turned over all work-related emails. Comey said there were "thousands" of work emails that she didn't turn over. Thousands.

"a whopping 3 (out of 30,000) emails had a (C) marking in the email text how can you know she even read them?"

So it's OK to you, if she concluded that the information was not classified and thus safe to send to her personal server, without having read the emails? Great. Maybe she can give the briefcase with the nuclear codes to Putin, after all, if she doesn't open the briefcase, it's not HER fault.

Do you listen to yourself?

spence 07-08-2016 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1103975)
That's not what he said....

Reading is Fundamental...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Did Hillary Clinton break the law?" Chaffetz asked.

"In connection with her use of the email server? My judgment is that she did not," Comey said.

Fly Rod 07-08-2016 01:45 PM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...nal-email.html

sburnsey931 07-08-2016 03:59 PM

I am curious about the 30 thousand personal emails deleted......the FBI recovered "several thousand" work related.... I wonder if they found emails pertaining to the " Clinton Foundation"... showing the sale of influence world wide. I remember a leaked email about HRC asking someone to set up a charity of at least 50k with no restrictions on its use..... I am just curious though....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Dad Fisherman 07-08-2016 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103996)
"Did Hillary Clinton break the law?" Chaffetz asked.

"In connection with her use of the email server? My judgment is that she did not," Comey said.

That's not what he said to the American people.....

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence 07-08-2016 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1104025)
That's not what he said to the American people.....

Right, because speaking before the House Panel isn't being in front of the American people? Or perhaps you're saying the most honorable person in the room changed his story?

If he thought she broke the law, it would be because he had sufficient evidence to prove it, which he clearly said he did not...

Nebe 07-08-2016 05:02 PM

All these people know that she is going to be the next president. It would be career suicide to take this further and risk "payback" next year.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

afterhours 07-08-2016 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1104030)
All these people know that she is going to be the next president. It would be career suicide to take this further and risk "payback" next year.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo! Sad but true.

ecduzitgood 07-08-2016 05:31 PM

Comey wasn't there during the Hillary Clinton interview and I recall he said he didn't speak to all the agents that interviewed Hillary. He also had the agents doing the investigation sign a non disclosure agreement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence 07-08-2016 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood (Post 1104034)
Comey wasn't there during the Hillary Clinton interview and I recall he said he didn't speak to all the agents that interviewed Hillary. He also had the agents doing the investigation sign a non disclosure agreement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clearly Comey is part of the Clinton Foundation's Illuminati division.

ecduzitgood 07-08-2016 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1104035)
Clearly Comey is part of the Clinton Foundation's Illuminati division.

Are you saying he was present during the FBI interview of Hillary?
Are you saying he spoke to all the agents who interviewed Hillary?
Are you saying he didn't make the agents investigating Hillary sign a confidentiality agreement?
Or are you just deflecting?

You want a conspiracy theory here you go...

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/07/comey-...related-cases/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence 07-08-2016 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fly Rod (Post 1104002)

I think the situations are quite a bit different. That's not to say that his punishment isn't too harsh, though I can see the military drawing much straighter lines than the State Department.

...but in this case you have someone knowingly moving a large number of well marked classified documents onto a private system and then knowingly exposing some of that information.

...versus an unintentional drip of some classified bits onto an unclassified system.

Hey, if he can use the argument to lessen his punishment that may be a good thing. I don't think he was trying to do anything wrong by warning his team.

The Dad Fisherman 07-08-2016 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1104039)

...versus an unintentional drip of some classified bits onto an unclassified system..

When I read statements like this, I drop to my knees and thank God almighty.....that you have absolutely nothing to do with national security
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence 07-09-2016 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1104044)
When I read statements like this, I drop to my knees and thank God almighty.....that you have absolutely nothing to do with national security
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not saying it's not important, but the recent IG report found both Powell and aids to Rice all had classified information transmitted on their personal email accounts.

It was a system problem and State tightened up the rules after Clinton as a result.

detbuch 07-09-2016 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1104058)
I'm not saying it's not important, but the recent IG report found both Powell and aids to Rice all had classified information transmitted on their personal email accounts.

Making a surface comparison is a sly trick, the rational being that it will be accepted without a deeper analysis. Powell's and Rice's statements as abbreviated by Reuters:

"Powell has said the State Department was technologically backward when he joined in 2001 and that he had to fight to get an Internet-connected computer installed in his office, from which he continued to use his personal email account.

Georgia Godfrey, Rice's chief of staff at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, said Rice did not use email while at the State Department, and that the 10 emails to her staff were reports on 'diplomatic conversations.'"

A deeper analysis of the comparison to Hilary's personal email account is this by Guy Benson in a Feb. 5, 2016 article in Townhall:

"'Condi and Colin did it, too!' relies on a thoroughly bogus equivalency. Above all else, neither Rice nor Powell set up and used a recklessly unsecure private emails server on which they conducted all of their official business, against "clear cut rules" implemented in 2005. (A former CIA director and Secretary of Defense have each stated that her [Clinton's] vulnerable server was likely penetrated by foreign powers like the Russians and Chinese). This review identified ten -- total -- emails that have now been assigned retroactive, low-level classification levels. Only two of them went to then-Secretary of State Powell, with the others going to Rice's aides, and both of those are now classified at the lowest level ("confidential"). As mentioned above, Hillary's server contained 1,600 classified emails and counting, including the most sensitive level of intelligence in existence (SAP, beyond-top-secret). There is no comparison between the conduct of Hillary Clinton and that of her immediate predecessors. Beyond her exclusive use of an improper and unsecure server, Sec. Clinton was personally and specifically warned about the vulnerability of her email scheme in 2011, when a State Department security expert sounded the alarm over foreign hackers seeking to infiltrate US secrets by targeting high-ranking officials' private emails. Mrs. Clinton carried on with her arrangement anyway.

"In summary, Hillary Clinton's server is the scandal. It's possible that Rice's aides and Sec. Powell may have acted improperly (though the email rules were set forth after Powell left office). They may have been sloppy with a small number of low-level classified information on an ad hoc basis. The rules and laws pertaining to the US government's data security must be followed. By everyone. But Clinton mishandled hundreds upon hundreds of classified emails, which held state secrets at the highest classification levels. In fact, just this week, the State Department deemed another seven Clinton emails too sensitive to release in any form, even with redactions, bringing that total to 29. Intelligence officials who've seen some of the documents in question say they betray operational intelligence, the leakage of which puts covert missions and lives at risk. A former NSA official has intelligence community sources who say Clinton's emails included the true identities of CIA operatives and assets, including foreign nationals working for the agency. Unlike Powell and Rice, Mrs. Clinton exhibited ongoing gross negligence by exposing reams of sensitive and classified intelligence to foreign governments. She ignored her sworn duty to safeguard secrets, 'marked and unmarked,' and declined to alter her behavior after she was admonished of an explicit vulnerability pertaining to personal email use. And unlike Powell and Rice, Hillary has consistently lied about this scandal. Her smug assertion that the (twice expanded) FBI investigation won't go anywhere amounts to waving a red flag in front of career investigators and intelligence officials, who are reportedly fuming over her irresponsible, and likely criminal, conduct. Remember, the probe reportedly entails more than just her email misconduct, Gen. David Petraeus was charged for classified intelligence spillage that was far more limited and contained, and a former US Attorney General says there's already sufficient evidence to justify an indictment. Clinton seems confident that her political power and privilege will shield her from accountability in the end, sending a less-than-subtle message to the Justice Department, which has already been influenced by two public White House statements.


It was a system problem and State tightened up the rules after Clinton as a result.

It was not a "system" problem. It was a Hilary Clinton problem.

spence 07-09-2016 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1104063)
It was not a "system" problem. It was a Hilary Clinton problem.

Powell sure sounds a lot like Clinton...

"I have reviewed the messages and I do not see what makes them classified." Powell said. "The emails were from my Executive Assistant and forwarded messages sent by two of our Ambassadors to State Department staff members. My Executive Assistant thought I should see them in a timely manner so sent them to my personal account. Both messages were unclassified. There was no reason not to forward them in this manner. ... The Ambassadors did not believe the contents were Confidential at the time and they were sent as unclassified. That is a fact. While they have not yet clarified this point, the State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't. If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."

Your author is pretty sloppy with the facts. Clinton didn't mishandle "hundreds upon hundreds of classified emails" as they suggest, nor did anyone expose a CIA source.

ecduzitgood 07-09-2016 01:48 PM

The last paragraph is a hoot..

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...ficers-n510741

Clinton insists she didn't send or receive information marked classified. But she signed a non-disclosure agreement acknowledging that information can be classified regardless of whether it is "marked or unmarked."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch 07-09-2016 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1104069)
Powell sure sounds a lot like Clinton...

"I have reviewed the messages and I do not see what makes them classified." Powell said. "The emails were from my Executive Assistant and forwarded messages sent by two of our Ambassadors to State Department staff members. My Executive Assistant thought I should see them in a timely manner so sent them to my personal account. Both messages were unclassified. There was no reason not to forward them in this manner. ... The Ambassadors did not believe the contents were Confidential at the time and they were sent as unclassified. That is a fact. While they have not yet clarified this point, the State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't. If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."

Your author is pretty sloppy with the facts. Clinton didn't mishandle "hundreds upon hundreds of classified emails" as they suggest, nor did anyone expose a CIA source.

However it "sounds" to you, the Clinton and Powell cases are way different. And you're a "sloppy" and selective reader. Still, as always, you spin.

You can choose to read the portion of the article in anyway you choose to spin it. Others will read it differently.

detbuch 07-10-2016 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1104069)
Powell sure sounds a lot like Clinton...

Above all else, neither Rice nor Powell set up and used a recklessly unsecure private emails server on which they conducted all of their official business, against "clear cut rules" implemented in 2005.

Your author is pretty sloppy with the facts. Clinton didn't mishandle "hundreds upon hundreds of classified emails" as they suggest,

"Hillary's server contained 1,600 classified emails and counting, including the most sensitive level of intelligence in existence (SAP, beyond-top-secret). There is no comparison between the conduct of Hillary Clinton and that of her immediate predecessors."

nor did anyone expose a CIA source.

He didn't say that anyone did. What did he say that was untrue?

ecduzitgood 07-26-2016 08:30 AM

http://nypost.com/2016/07/25/clinton...sians/?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Dad Fisherman 07-26-2016 11:14 AM

If hackers are REALLY good....you never even know they were here...

ecduzitgood 07-29-2016 08:18 PM

She really should stop thinking she is smarter than everyone else and do as the left tells Trump.....shut up, oh well more icing for the cake..

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...e-serve-226428

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ecduzitgood 08-02-2016 09:45 AM

Maybe Hillary and her staff just didn't know what they were doing.

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/art...FTemplate-Main
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ecduzitgood 08-03-2016 11:43 AM

May not be the Russians

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nsa-whist...122519001.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

JohnR 08-03-2016 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood (Post 1105705)
Maybe Hillary and her staff just didn't know what they were doing.

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/art...FTemplate-Main
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Or they were to to STFU, and salute

BTW - Newsmax is on par with Huffington for excellence

ecduzitgood 08-03-2016 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1105828)
Or they were to to STFU, and salute

BTW - Newsmax is on par with Huffington for excellence

It does list sources so it should be easy to refute....time will tell.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com