• 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!

Proof: Hillary Sent Classified Info

NonoBadDog

NonoBadDog

Hates Kittens
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
17,226
Reaction score
6,895
Location
Mountains
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Proof: Hillary Sent Classified Info | The Weekly Standard

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly claimed that, “The State Department has confirmed that I did not send nor receive material marked classified."

But Clinton did indeed send classified information in emails. In an email released today by the State Department, part of her comments are redacted, because they are classified.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the statement will be modified to this time. I bet it is that she never KNOWINGLY sent classified information. By the dates it was classified WHEN she sent it.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
Why is this such an issue? There should be no question that she did or didn't send classified information in the open net. This is either criminal or it isn't.
Click to expand...

It is criminal. She claimed that she there wasn't any classified information on her server. Then she claimed (after they found classified information on her server) that she didn't knowingly have any classified information on her server. Her latest claim is that she didn't send any classified information in any of her emails. I guess that was a lie also. So far she is batting zero.
 
I don't know if what was blacked out was classified. Maybe it was. But as someone who worked in that world for 20 years I can say there are types of unclassified information that you can't release to the public and is exempt from the FOIA. For example PII protected under the Privacy Act.

Again, I'm not saying that is the case here.
 
NonoBadDog said:
It is criminal. She claimed that she there wasn't any classified information on her server. Then she claimed (after they found classified information on her server) that she didn't knowingly have any classified information on her server. Her latest claim is that she didn't send any classified information in any of her emails. I guess that was a lie also. So far she is batting zero.
Click to expand...

So what's with the courts?
 
NonoBadDog said:
It is criminal. She claimed that she there wasn't any classified information on her server. Then she claimed (after they found classified information on her server) that she didn't knowingly have any classified information on her server. Her latest claim is that she didn't send any classified information in any of her emails. I guess that was a lie also. So far she is batting zero.
Click to expand...

Sadly, very sadly, it doesn't matter to some.
 
joG said:
So what's with the courts?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are asking. Are you asking why it isn't court now or are you asking about one of the 50 suits before the court for FOIA enforcement?
 
BrewerBob said:
I don't know if what was blacked out was classified. Maybe it was. But as someone who worked in that world for 20 years I can say there are types of unclassified information that you can't release to the public and is exempt from the FOIA. For example PII protected under the Privacy Act.

Again, I'm not saying that is the case here.
Click to expand...

The dates show the date that it will be declassified is exactly 15 years after it was considered that it was classified. That means it was classified on the date it was sent.
 
joG said:
So what's with the courts?
Click to expand...

The court does not initiate cases - it rules on matters brought before it. The problem is not with the courts it is with the DOJ failing to attempt to enforce the law, much like it did with the IRS denying applications from political opponents for tax exempt status while granting tax exempt status for political friends. No criminal charges = no court involvement.
 
joG said:
Why is this such an issue? There should be no question that she did or didn't send classified information in the open net. This is either criminal or it isn't.
Click to expand...

Republicans blew their wad on the pointless Benghazi hearings. Now there's no will to pursue the more legitimate issue with sending classified E-MAILS.

Ted Cruz and his ilk misunderstood "Green Eggs and Ham". It's no surprise that they'd miss the point in "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".
 
NonoBadDog said:
The dates show the date that it will be declassified is exactly 15 years after it was considered that it was classified. That means it was classified on the date it was sent.
Click to expand...

Well that clarifies that. :)
 
reinoe said:
Republicans blew their wad on the pointless Benghazi hearings. Now there's no will to pursue the more legitimate issue with sending classified E-MAILS.

Ted Cruz and his ilk misunderstood "Green Eggs and Ham". It's no surprise that they'd miss the point in "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".
Click to expand...

The FBI is the one handling this. Comey, Director of the FBI, was appointed by Obama. I bet you do have a point in a round about way however. It seems Comey and Obama aren't seeing eye to eye this week. Comey was hauled to the White House for a drubbing yesterday. It could one of two reasons, the FBi investigation or the statement about the anti cop rallies.
 
NonoBadDog said:
It is criminal. She claimed that she there wasn't any classified information on her server. Then she claimed (after they found classified information on her server) that she didn't knowingly have any classified information on her server. Her latest claim is that she didn't send any classified information in any of her emails. I guess that was a lie also. So far she is batting zero.
Click to expand...

The caveat here being, "...didn't send or receive documents marked classified (interpreted to mean 'no classified markings')". Of course, we all know this was a change from her initial statement that she didn't send or receive any classified material until it was discovered that some of her emails did contain some classified information.

I think the biggest reason the DOJ won't push this issue is because:

1) there was no smoking gun, per se, no email detailing a plan between herself and her staff not to send documents to her with classified markings; and,
2) the volume of classified text discovered to have been "unknowingly transmitted" is small compared to the volume of email documents sent or received.

Besides, now that the GOP has but confirmed that the Benghazi hearing(s) were politically motivated, I seriously doubt anything more will come of this, not unless someone finds something of critical importance, i.e., her server was hacked, a TOP SECRET document is discovered to have been sent to/received by her or that email detailing purposeful intent to remove classified markings from documents before emailing such to her.

Short of any of those three things, I seriously doubt anything more will come of this situation. The focus will, instead, shift back to her actions in relation to the Clinton Foundation while she was SoS.
 
Objective Voice said:
The caveat here being, "...didn't send or receive documents marked classified (interpreted to mean 'no classified markings')". Of course, we all know this was a change from her initial statement that she didn't send or receive any classified material until it was discovered that some of her emails did contain some classified information.
Click to expand...

That's a natural succession.
 
"State deemed 268 emails classified at the lowest classification tier, according to spokesman John Kirby, who said that none of these emails "were marked classified at the time they were sent or received." There are now between 600 and 700 emails newly marked as classified since the releases began in May.

Read more: Obama drawn into Clinton email controversy - POLITICO
 
ecofarm said:
That's a natural succession.
Click to expand...

It is and I can certainly see the distinction, i.e., classified document/material -v- classified information -v- documents with classification markings.

I think people can and will forgive what can easily be viewed/explained away as an oversight as opposed to an overt scheme to transmit classified information via email by removing classified markings even from specific paragraphs of text. This is why I felt it important to include, "...that email detailing purposeful intent to remove classified markings from documents before emailing such to her" as one of the criteria it will take before any charges are brought against her. (see post #13) Until that happens, it's all moot at this point.
 
Last edited:
NonoBadDog said:
I have no idea what you are asking. Are you asking why it isn't court now or are you asking about one of the 50 suits before the court for FOIA enforcement?
Click to expand...

Okay. Is it before a criminal court? If so, we should watch, but all is running a clean course. Don't you think? But then it should be the criminal court precedings one should follow.
 
reinoe said:
Republicans blew their wad on the pointless Benghazi hearings. Now there's no will to pursue the more legitimate issue with sending classified E-MAILS.

Ted Cruz and his ilk misunderstood "Green Eggs and Ham". It's no surprise that they'd miss the point in "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".
Click to expand...

This is not political and I find it rather horrific that you seem to think it is.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The court does not initiate cases - it rules on matters brought before it. The problem is not with the courts it is with the DOJ failing to attempt to enforce the law, much like it did with the IRS denying applications from political opponents for tax exempt status while granting tax exempt status for political friends. No criminal charges = no court involvement.
Click to expand...

I would have expected the rule of law to take precedence over political schmooze.
 
joG said:
I would have expected the rule of law to take precedence over political schmooze.
Click to expand...

Prosecutorial discretion has been an important part of our fundamental transformation. For example, an illegal alien is simply an undocumented person now.

No charges filed means no conviction is possible thus the presumption of innocense remains. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Prosecutorial discretion has been an important part of our fundamental transformation. For example, an illegal alien is simply an undocumented person now.

No charges filed means no conviction is possible thus the presumption of innocense remains. ;)
Click to expand...

Discretionary prosecution is one important sign of unfree societies and authoritarian regimes.
 
joG said:
Discretionary prosecution is one important sign of unfree societies and authoritarian regimes.
Click to expand...

It could well lead in that direction or it could lead to anarchy - what it definitely does is make hypocrites out of those that see it as OK for the POTUS but not for state/local executives. If one can use prosecutorial discretion by liberals on conservatives then it can also be used to lean on (or grant a free pass to) blacks, gays or any other segment of the population for political purposes.
 
joG said:
Okay. Is it before a criminal court? If so, we should watch, but all is running a clean course. Don't you think? But then it should be the criminal court precedings one should follow.
Click to expand...

The FBI is still investigating. I don't hold much hope of an honest response from the DOJ. There is a fight brewing between Comey and Obama right now. No idea how that is going to work out.
 
NonoBadDog said:
The FBI is still investigating. I don't hold much hope of an honest response from the DOJ. There is a fight brewing between Comey and Obama right now. No idea how that is going to work out.
Click to expand...

I think the FBI will refer charges. Then they'll die on the vine at Justice. The prevailing belief seems to be, as you can see reflected here at DP, that without an indictment, the whole thing can be papered over. After all, lying is virtually the same as breathing for the Clintons, so not too much can be made of an already known character flaw. This is why we see so much of the "so what?" around here. Because Ben Carson....
 
humbolt said:
I think the FBI will refer charges. Then they'll die on the vine at Justice. The prevailing belief seems to be, as you can see reflected here at DP, that without an indictment, the whole thing can be papered over. After all, lying is virtually the same as breathing for the Clintons, so not too much can be made of an already known character flaw. This is why we see so much of the "so what?" around here. Because Ben Carson....
Click to expand...

Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:

We seem to be living through the biggest disconnect in history when it pertains to "justice" being the norm for all in this country. The "fast and furious" gun-running scandal; the IRS scandal which targeted conservative organizations; the Solyndra scandal which makes the taxpayers responsible for the $585 million dollar loan given to them; Sebelius violating the Hatch Act on Obamacare; the failure to protect the Benghazi compound even after several hundred requests were made; the Black Panther scandal on voter intimidation; BHO attacking Libya without congressional approval; the Pigford scandal which attempted to recompense a few black farmers for discrimination but which turned into a free-for-all for many to collect billions of taxpayer dollars even though they were never discriminated against; and others.

Justice should be the same for all, but it hasn't worked out that way. Maybe we need to remove the blindfold from Lady Justice so it's fair for everyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom