• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Key Clinton emails did not contain highly classified secrets, inquiry finds

jmotivator said:
In fact this story too has been pulled back after the initial publication. Key edit:


"A spokesman for Clapper said the review of the emails has not been completed. "ODNI has made no such determination and the review is ongoing," Clapper spokesman Brian Hale said."


So... Politico lied again.
Click to expand...

Funny, how that only happens when Republicans or other conservatives are involved. Or do you have an instance where a Democrat / Liberal / Progressive is treated like that by them?
 
Beaudreaux said:
Misleading? Hillary said she didn't remember signing such a document and that if it existed the State Department would have it on file, which (guess what) the State Department couldn't find it for the Select Committee to supply it for the subpoena, and said that Mrs. Clinton didn't sign one. And then, as if miraculously, the document surfaces AFTER Hillary has testified, and well, it turns out she actually did sign it and it does in fact exist.

Imagine that?

You see, the problem is not what Mrs. Clinton said, it is that she signed a document acknowledging criminal penalties for doing what she ultimately did do with classified documents, breaking the law. This is also the exact same document that got General Petraeus in trouble.
Click to expand...

You realize there is a difference between Hillary saying, "she did not remember signing" and saying, "she did not sign." The later is what was claimed by your link title and the former is what you just said now (also what was said by the content of your link). That is misleading.

And General Petraeus got in trouble because he KNOWINGLY handed over classified information to his publisher. Not because he signed a document that merely formalized a law already on the books.
 
ocean515 said:
As I wrote, I'm not familiar with the process, but I've got some problems with your explanation.

You write that information that is determined to be top secret at some point should be able to be distributed around before being classified as such, because some people need to see it. What would be the point of classifying it after the fact? At that point, who knows who has sent it on to others. Sorry, but I can't agree that your explanation is true.

As to your final point, I'm not sure how your explanation would work. Think of an analogy.

Complete hypothetical: If Hilary sent an email containing information about the level of bad guys in an area, and a report later came out stating that any information about the level of bad guys in a area is top secret because the source was a spy, how does that change the nature of Hilary's email, and the information in it?
Click to expand...

For starters, I said certain levels of classification. That statement should not be read to include all types of classification - namely a top secret classification that would probably be classified as such from the beginning. Also, I already explained the need for classification at a later point in time. FOIA requests or just a general release of the document to the public or other segments of the government might require some redaction and thus, a classification of that portion of the material as classified, AFTER it was initially reviewed by the original receiving party.

Now, as to your analogy, think about it this way. If the document was not classified as confidential when it was sent to Hillary and there was no indication as to the source of the information, then there is nothing to indicate that Hillary would have knowingly been sending an improper email. Now, the information is still confidential and the email could later be classified as confidential, but Hillary would not be guilty of any crime.
 
MrT said:
You realize there is a difference between Hillary saying, "she did not remember signing" and saying, "she did not sign." The later is what was claimed by your link title and the former is what you just said now (also what was said by the content of your link). That is misleading.

And General Petraeus got in trouble because he KNOWINGLY handed over classified information to his publisher. Not because he signed a document that merely formalized a law already on the books.
Click to expand...

I don't remember going to the restroom and taking a **** a few years back, but it's a pretty good bet that it happened. She knew what she had done, and that answer was what is called an equivocation, a lie. If it is untrue, it is still untrue. The equivocation part comes when she tells a lie that is impossible for anyone to prove - that's called trying to prove a negative. She is very talented at such speech, she is an attorney for goodness' sake. This ranks right up there with "it depends on the definition of IS" and "I did not have sexual relations, with that woman ..."

We cannot prove that she did not forget. She knows that. That's why making that statement is chosen by attorneys to have their clients use on the stand when asked a question that the truth could incriminate them, or at least make them look less than innocent. There are a few variants of this answer - "I do not recall." "I do not remember making that statement." "I don't have a memory of that." "Could you repeat the question?" - in hopes of the question being reworded to allow for one of these type of answers by parsing words.

If the document had not been found, then I would say that's it's possible for her to not remember. But, she has shown that she has detailed memories of every action she took that she feels would exonerate her, but has a marked loss of memory regarding all actions that could implicate her in breaking a law.

Down here in the south, we call that horse ****.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I don't remember going to the restroom and taking a **** a few years back, but it's a pretty good bet that it happened. She knew what she had done, and that answer was what is called an equivocation, a lie. If it is untrue, it is still untrue. The equivocation part comes when she tells a lie that is impossible for anyone to prove - that's called trying to prove a negative. She is very talented at such speech, she is an attorney for goodness' sake. This ranks right up there with "it depends on the definition of IS" and "I did not have sexual relations, with that woman ..."

We cannot prove that she did not forget. She knows that. That's why making that statement is chosen by attorneys to have their clients use on the stand when asked a question that the truth could incriminate them, or at least make them look less than innocent. There are a few variants of this answer - "I do not recall." "I do not remember making that statement." "I don't have a memory of that." "Could you repeat the question?" - in hopes of the question being reworded to allow for one of these type of answers by parsing words.

If the document had not been found, then I would say that's it's possible for her to not remember. But, she has shown that she has detailed memories of every action she took that she feels would exonerate her, but has a marked loss of memory regarding all actions that could implicate her in breaking a law.

Down here in the south, we call that horse ****.
Click to expand...

That's great. Your link still misrepresented the facts.
 
pbrauer said:
The truth finds Hillary correct again. :thumbs:
Read more: Hillary Clinton's emails did not contain highly classified secrets, inquiry finds. - POLITICO
Click to expand...

Lets parse this article just a little.


The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top-secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.
Click to expand...
Which it hasn't if you read the whole article.

After a review, intelligence agencies concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets, the source said. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an ongoing FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email setup.
Click to expand...
Which they haven't as we will see later in the article as it negates it's own statement later. It doesn't say which intel agencies have said this. It just says a "source".

Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III made the claim that two of the emails contained top-secret information; the State Department publicly stated its disagreement and asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office to referee the dispute. Now, that disagreement has been resolved in State’s favor, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Click to expand...
I bet the anon source is from the State Department.

A spokesman for Clapper said the review of the emails has not been completed. "ODNI has made no such determination and the review is ongoing," Clapper spokesman Brian Hale said.
Click to expand...
Says the above isn't true. I guess this isn't one of the agencies that made the claim that the article claims.

However, the source said State Department officials had already received instructions from intelligence officials that they need not use the strictest standards for handling the two emails in dispute – meaning that they aren’t classified.
Click to expand...
Yep, thought so, anon source is probably from the State Department.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said Friday he was unaware of any resolution of the classification issue regarding the messages McCullough's office said had been deemed "top secret." "As far as I know we’ve received no final decision by the intelligence community with respect to these two emails," Kirby said at a daily briefing for reporters. "As far as we know, that process is ongoing."
Click to expand...
State Department even saying that no determination has been made, probably to cover their ass because of the leak. The State Department says one thing and then says another. Usual for the State Department.

One curious twist to the classification dispute is that it is not entirely clear who has authority to resolve it. State spokesmen have repeatedly said that the diplomatic agency has asked Clapper's office to review the issue, but the intelligence chief's office has never acknowledged the power to override an intelligence agency's determination on classification or to order State not to release information it considers unclassified.
Click to expand...
Says that Clapper hasn't even acknowledged that they have the authority to change the classification and might not be able to change the classification. He might not even have the jurisdiction to rule on the issue but that won't stop the State Department from trying to cover for Hillary.

There is an interagency committee to hear appeals on declassification issues, the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel. The group, run out of an office at the National Archives, usually considers disputes about historical information. Kirby said Friday he was unsure whether that panel was involved in the current dispute or why State raised its concerns with Clapper's office instead.
Click to expand...
The State Department Judge shopping? Say it ain't so!!!

Politico is flushing their validity lately.
 
Last edited:
NonoBadDog said:
Lets parse this article just a little.



Which it hasn't if you read the whole article.


Which they haven't as we will see later in the article as it negates it's own statement later. It doesn't say which intel agencies have said this. It just says a "source".


I bet the anon source is from the State Department.


Says the above isn't true. I guess this isn't one of the agencies that made the claim that the article claims.


Yep, thought so, anon source is probably from the State Department.


State Department even saying that no determination has been made, probably to cover their ass because of the leak. The State Department says one thing and then says another. Usual for the State Department.


Says that Clapper hasn't even acknowledged that they have the authority to change the classification and might not be able to change the classification. He might not even have the jurisdiction to rule on the issue but that won't stop the State Department from trying to cover for Hillary.


The State Department Judge shopping? Say it ain't so!!!

Politico is flushing their validity lately.
Click to expand...

You have my approval to cross your fingers and hope she is indicted, but I must tell you there is a better of you winning Power ball than that happening.
 
pbrauer said:
You have my approval to cross your fingers and hope she is indicted, but I must tell you there is a better of you winning Power ball than that happening.
Click to expand...

I think what I am saying is that this is a trash article that contradicts itself. We all have to wait for the FBI to make their conclusions.
 
What happens if the FBI finds wrong doing and enough for an indictment? Do they then turn their findings over to the DOJ? We all know what will happen if that's the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom