• 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!

Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Sho[W:217]

Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

Absentglare said:
That's so obviously and laughably false, and if true, undermines your vendetta against Hillary.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely and uniformly true. A classified email can only be created from classified information.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

Absentglare said:
Correct, so you are again admitting that the private server complaint was a red herring in the discussion of mishandling classified information.
Click to expand...

The private server was by definition unclassified. The critical fact was not that it was private but that it was unclassified.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

Absentglare said:
...n...no, they didn't. Most of the information that was classified on her server was classified after the fact.

And for the two or three cases that were classified before being disseminated on unclassified networks: aren't you wondering why we never uncovered the name(s) of the people responsible for doing that? It should be straightforward to find the original author of an email containing classified information.

So, really, ask yourself: why don't we have these name(s)? (Hint: it's because none of them are "Hillary Clinton", and the only real goal of these proceedings was to manufacture controversy about Hillary Clinton)
Click to expand...

I'm sure the email chain was traced and users identified. The important point was her use of a private server inappropriate for classified information.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

Jack Hays said:
It's absolutely and uniformly true. A classified email can only be created from classified information.
Click to expand...

That's a different claim than the one i was responding to.

Jack Hays said:
The private server was by definition unclassified. The critical fact was not that it was private but that it was unclassified.
Click to expand...

Correct. The status of her server as private is only relevant with respect to criticisms regarding the records act.

Jack Hays said:
I'm sure the email chain was traced and users identified. The important point was her use of a private server inappropriate for classified information.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. As you said, classified information should have never been located on an unclassified network. Private or public is irrelevant: either one is unclassified and therefore inappropriate for classified information.

I believe you argued before that the status of the server as private meant that she had an even greater obligation to make sure that there was no classified information in her custody. I never saw any legal basis for this greater obligation.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

Absentglare said:
That's a different claim than the one i was responding to.



Correct. The status of her server as private is only relevant with respect to criticisms regarding the records act.



Incorrect. As you said, classified information should have never been located on an unclassified network. Private or public is irrelevant: either one is unclassified and therefore inappropriate for classified information.

I believe you argued before that the status of the server as private meant that she had an even greater obligation to make sure that there was no classified information in her custody. I never saw any legal basis for this greater obligation.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're trying to say with "Incorrect . . . "
When she decided to substitute her private server for a government system she took on herself (or, more precisely, she could not escape) the monitoring function that government would normally undertake. There may or may not be a legal basis for that, but I would not want as POTUS someone so irresponsible as not to see it.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

Jack Hays said:
Not sure what you're trying to say with "Incorrect . . . "
When she decided to substitute her private server for a government system she took on herself (or, more precisely, she could not escape) the monitoring function that government would normally undertake. There may or may not be a legal basis for that, but I would not want as POTUS someone so irresponsible as not to see it.
Click to expand...

I don't find that position unreasonable, but my understanding is that the state department has had an issue with being an informational security team player that both predated Hillary's tenure and endured beyond it. My perspective is that the criticism specifically directed towards Hillary Clinton is out of proportion.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

Absentglare said:
I don't find that position unreasonable, but my understanding is that the state department has had an issue with being an informational security team player that both predated Hillary's tenure and endured beyond it. My perspective is that the criticism specifically directed towards Hillary Clinton is out of proportion.
Click to expand...

You are correct that State had issues of its own, but that doesn't change anything. As SecState her responsibility was to address and fix that, not separate herself from it in a way that only made things worse.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

Jack Hays said:
You are correct that State had issues of its own, but that doesn't change anything. As SecState her responsibility was to address and fix that, not separate herself from it in a way that only made things worse.
Click to expand...

If her accusers had been more reasonable, she would have had a better opportunity to respond in kind.

It's similar to what happened to her husband. He was scared that they'd blow the blow job out of proportion, so he tried to sneakily lie about it.

I cannot defend the sneakiness or sliminess, but we also should recognize the environment which discouraged honesty.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

Absentglare said:
If her accusers had been more reasonable, she would have had a better opportunity to respond in kind.

It's similar to what happened to her husband. He was scared that they'd blow the blow job out of proportion, so he tried to sneakily lie about it.

I cannot defend the sneakiness or sliminess, but we also should recognize the environment which discouraged honesty.
Click to expand...

If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
Bill's erstwhile defenders are having second thoughts, on the pages of the New York Times and The Atlantic.
Hillary opted for her private server before she took office.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

Jack Hays said:
Someone had to.
Click to expand...

Please back that up. And I don't mean try to explain to me why its true.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

eohrnberger said:
"Hillary was quite prudent in her handling of classified material."
:lamo
Click to expand...

oh eorhn, you literally (and repeatedly) post things you've made up. When called out you refuse to back anything up. Unlike you I can step back from the conservative lies and hyperbole and put things into context.

It’s important to remember that only "a very small number" of her emails, two, were marked classified when they were first sent, and just 110 out of the 30,000 she turned over were classified but unmarked. Evidence seems to indicate that Clinton generally dealt with classified information in an appropriate manner.

FBI findings tear holes in Hillary Clinton's email defense | PolitiFact

Keep pushing your agenda and ideological driven falsehoods. All it does is discredit you, your position, and the falsehood narratives that you all are pushing.
Click to expand...

this kinda proves my point. You need to believe what I'm posting isn't true so magic presto I'm posting falsehoods. Please back up your claim I'm posting falsehoods.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

eohrnberger said:
It has been demonstrated that willful intent was required to transfer information from classified rated servers and networks to unsecured networks and devices
Click to expand...

No eohrn, its only been "demonstrated" that you were finally able to understand that there is a separate system for classified material and if it was on Hillary's server it shouldn't have been on the unsecure .gov server either. But nothing has been demonstrated to have been removed from the classified server. That's just another narrative you've created out of thin air to cling to "Hillary bad".

Hillary appears to have directed her staff to violation the statute, hence she is accountable for their actions on her orders
Click to expand...

Yes eohrn, it appears that way to you. You cant step back from the lies and hyperbole and look at the facts. The email you are refering to was about talking points for a phone call. If it was really classified then you would have seen the email and Comey would have had the "smoking gun" he was looking for. Oh look, you don't believe he was trying.
Section (f) of the statute requires no intent, that was a Comey invention to let Hillary escape justice, and is quite likely obstruction of justice
Click to expand...

this proves my point. You are determined to believe Comey was trying to let Hillary go. To make it more believable you convince yourself he's "guilty of obstruction of justice". Scientists should study your brain to see how you simply create narratives out thin air and cling to them. Eorhn, your hilarious narrative requires you to ignore his actions before the election. Yea, he was looking for any excuse to get Hillary. Hillary didn't give him one and just like you, he created one.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

Vern said:
Please back that up. And I don't mean try to explain to me why its true.
Click to expand...

It's quite simple. Classified email can only be created on a classified system. All classified systems are air-gapped (physically separated) from unclassified systems. The only way an email can move from a classified system to an unclassified system is to print it off the former and scan it onto the latter. Only a human user can do that.

In addition, classified information can be copied from the classified system and typed manually onto the unclassified system. Again, a human user is required.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

Vern said:
oh eorhn, you literally (and repeatedly) post things you've made up.
Click to expand...

Vern said:
Eohrn thank you for finally understanding what I've been telling you. Realizing your limitations in accepting reality when I post it, I brought CP into the discussion. Now as I’ve stated repeatedly, whatever was sent to Hillary’s email shouldn’t have been on the .gov server to begin. (see how my "narrative" doesn't have to evolve over time). Before you create a new narrative to continue to flail at Hillary, lets look at this. At no point did comey ever discuss “removed from classified server”. We know that she didn’t because it would have been the “smoking gun” Comey was looking for. When you ignore the thousands of emails that contained information that was classified after the fact you are only left with the 3 emails that had a [c] in the body of the email. 2 were confirmed to only be about a phone call. Comey had no information about the third one so it’s a safe assumption it too was about a phone call.

When you step back and look at it without the falsehoods and hyperbole, Hillary was quite prudent in her handling of classified material. The private server only made it easy for you to believe the lying conservative narratives (and the ones you made up). Just look how your “original” narrative was “intent is in the statute” and “.gov is secure”. Please don’t create another narrative based on wishful thinking.

And now we can discuss Comey’s actions. As I’ve stated, it seemed to me that he was looking for words to make it sound worse than it was. CP thinks he created a new “legal standard”. What proves me right is the stunt he pulled before the election.



Uh oh, I see a narrative forming in your head. Read the above part again about the thousands of emails containing info that was classified after the fact and that comey never addressed the issue of "who took it off the classified server". Just remember how your "30 years in the IT industry" failed you.
Click to expand...

I make things up? This is what you posted, and I'm left shaking my head as to how you can rationalize and spin so hard that Hillary's poor choices and actions, which have been shown to be in violation of the statute, suddenly become 'quite prudent'. :lamo:lamo

The earlier posts quite clearly, step by step, have demonstration that Hillary most certainly wasn't 'quite prudent'. That's in your mind only.

When called out you refuse to back anything up.
Click to expand...

You apparently have forgotten all the earlier posts which carefully laid out, step by step, where Hillary's actions were in violation of the statute.

Now you are trying to assert that violation of statutes is 'quite prudent'? :lamo:lamo

Yeah, in your mind only. :lamo

Unlike you I can step back from the conservative lies and hyperbole and put things into context.

It’s important to remember that only "a very small number" of her emails, two, were marked classified when they were first sent, and just 110 out of the 30,000 she turned over were classified but unmarked. Evidence seems to indicate that Clinton generally dealt with classified information in an appropriate manner.

FBI findings tear holes in Hillary Clinton's email defense | PolitiFact



this kinda proves my point. You need to believe what I'm posting isn't true so magic presto I'm posting falsehoods. Please back up your claim I'm posting falsehoods.
Click to expand...

The dishonesty of Vern, that I don't backup my arguments. Yeah, only if you ignore all the posts you don't like.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

Vern said:
No eohrn, its only been "demonstrated" that you were finally able to understand that there is a separate system for classified material and if it was on Hillary's server it shouldn't have been on the unsecure .gov server either. But nothing has been demonstrated to have been removed from the classified server. That's just another narrative you've created out of thin air to cling to "Hillary bad".



Yes eohrn, it appears that way to you. You cant step back from the lies and hyperbole and look at the facts. The email you are refering to was about talking points for a phone call. If it was really classified then you would have seen the email and Comey would have had the "smoking gun" he was looking for. Oh look, you don't believe he was trying.


this proves my point. You are determined to believe Comey was trying to let Hillary go. To make it more believable you convince yourself he's "guilty of obstruction of justice". Scientists should study your brain to see how you simply create narratives out thin air and cling to them. Eorhn, your hilarious narrative requires you to ignore his actions before the election. Yea, he was looking for any excuse to get Hillary. Hillary didn't give him one and just like you, he created one.
Click to expand...

"You are determined to believe Comey was trying to let Hillary go."

I am? No.

Comey's draft memos before Hillary was even interviewed made that were already then letting her go made that pretty clear.

And, no, this isn't out of thin air, aside from your ridiculous and disingenuous assertion that it was 'out of thin air'.

How about you try being honest for a change?
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

eohrnberger said:
I make things up? This is what you posted, and I'm left shaking my head as to how you can rationalize and spin so hard that Hillary's poor choices and actions, which have been shown to be in violation of the statute, suddenly become 'quite prudent'. :lamo:lamo.
Click to expand...

eorhn, read this slowly and as many times as necessary. You haven't shown her to be in violation of the statutes. You've simply created a scenario that you want to believe. Shocking. And eohrn how does the guy who repeatedly posted that "intent isn't in the statute" and that "the unclassified .gov server was the proper place of custody for classified info" feign umbrage at the claim he makes things up. And eorhn, you need the ""the unclassified .gov server was the proper place of custody for classified info" for your made up "intent" narrative.

And eorhn, "quite prudent" is an opinion based on me understanding the facts. You flailing at the facts doesn't change them. Not noticing a [c] in the body of 3 emails is not "gross negligence".

Comey testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on July 7. Comey said he believes three emails on Clinton's server contained information labeled classified at the time they were sent. This information was not properly marked in that the emails did not have a classification header, even though a "(c)" immediately preceded text in the body of the emails, designating confidential information. Without the clear classification header, it's reasonable to infer that Clinton did not realize these three emails contained classified information, he said.


and the [c] was about phone calls and put there by mistake. Please show the "gross negligence". Don't explain it again. Don't plead with to believe you. Show it.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

Vern said:
eorhn, read this slowly and as many times as necessary. You haven't shown her to be in violation of the statutes. You've simply created a scenario that you want to believe.
Click to expand...

If you want to talk about narratives being created this air, how about yours? That 'Hillary was quite prudent in handling classified information', which you created out of thin air.

Shocking. And eohrn how does the guy who repeatedly posted that "intent isn't in the statute" and that "the unclassified .gov server was the proper place of custody for classified info" feign umbrage at the claim he makes things up. And eorhn, you need the ""the unclassified .gov server was the proper place of custody for classified info" for your made up "intent" narrative.

And eorhn, "quite prudent" is an opinion based on me understanding the facts. You flailing at the facts doesn't change them. Not noticing a [c] in the body of 2 emails is not "gross negligence".
Click to expand...

Ahh, yes. Yet another narrative you like created out of thin air.

Comey testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on July 7. Comey said he believes three emails on Clinton's server contained information labeled classified at the time they were sent. This information was not properly marked in that the emails did not have a classification header, even though a "(c)" immediately preceded text in the body of the emails, designating confidential information. Without the clear classification header, it's reasonable to infer that Clinton did not realize these three emails contained classified information, he said.

and the [c] was about phone calls and put their by mistake. Please show the "gross negligence". Don't explain it again. Don't plead with to believe you. Show it.
Click to expand...

So the person that typed / scanned / transferred the classified information from its proper custody on a secure system into an unsecure system forgot to include the classification markings.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

eohrnberger said:
"You are determined to believe Comey was trying to let Hillary go."

I am? No.

Comey's draft memos before Hillary was even interviewed made that were already then letting her go made that pretty clear.

And, no, this isn't out of thin air, aside from your ridiculous and disingenuous assertion that it was 'out of thin air'.

How about you try being honest for a change?
Click to expand...

that's how you interpret his drafts. Remember when you "interpreted" Bush was president in 2000 or "intent was in the statute". so instead of seizing on a phrase or sentence fragment just look at the facts

Comey announced 'Hillary was extremely careless". The FBI doesn't announce the results of their investigations but Hillary got special treatement.
Comey's announcement before the election that they were going to look at Weiner's computer.

Being a conservative explains his actions. He announced what he knew was not criminal so he could say "extremely careless." That didn't stop Hillary so he suddenly discovered nothing on weiner's computer. And eohrn what really shreds your "narrative" is that nothing prevents the case being reopened and charges brought. And its Trump not doing it. You cant address those facts. Its why you have to make stuff up.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

Vern said:
. . . .
Click to expand...

None of your narratives changes the fundamental facts of the case:

Having demonstrated the willful intent was required to send classified information on unsecured networks and devices, such as the Internet and Hillary's private email server, we have this reporting to consider:



If so, Hillary definitely seems to have violated section (f) of the statute for one, and for two, she clearly had demonstrated intent to do so.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—



Demonstrated one better than 'gross negligence', we have willful intent from Hillary on this. And yet, Obama, Comey, Lynch, Bill obstructed this justice to be served.

You have yet to address any of this, as is your typical tactic: Ignore that with doesn't support your narrative.

But please, continue none the less. You only further discredit yourself, and the best irony, its self-inflicted.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

eohrnberger said:
If you want to talk about narratives being created this air, how about yours? That 'Hillary was quite prudent in handling classified information', which you created out of thin air.
Click to expand...


Eorhn, I realize you don't even read your links but if you're going to accuse me of "creating something out of thin air" you should at least read the blurbs I post from links if not the whole link. This references the emails with a [c] in the body of the email.

The State Department confirmed July 6 that it was aware of two emails that were marked confidential, the lowest level of classification, when they were sent. An aide sent the two emails to Clinton to prepare her for phone calls with foreign leaders, according to the New York Times. *

State Department spokesman John Kirby said call sheets are often classified when they are prepared. But then at some point before the call is made, someone with the appropriate authority will declassify them. These two call sheets sent to Clinton unnecessarily retained their confidential markings due to human error, Kirby said.

"Given these concerns, it’s reasonable to give Clinton a little benefit of the doubt regarding how she treated classified information that landed in her inbox unlabeled, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists."


Evidence seems to indicate that Clinton generally dealt with classified information in an appropriate manner.

]So the person that typed / scanned / transferred the classified information from its proper custody on a secure system into an unsecure system forgot to include the classification markings.
Click to expand...

eorhn, if it wasn't so sad it'd be funny as you continue to post "made up" narratives as you flail at my posts. You cant even find a conservative editorial to back up that "narrative". I accept your apology.
 
Re: Comey Draft Statement on Clinton Emails Called Her Actions 'Grossly Negligent,' New Memos Show

Vern said:
Eorhn, I realize you don't even read your links but if you're going to accuse me of "creating something out of thin air" you should at least read the blurbs I post from links if not the whole link. This references the emails with a [c] in the body of the email.

The State Department confirmed July 6 that it was aware of two emails that were marked confidential, the lowest level of classification, when they were sent. An aide sent the two emails to Clinton to prepare her for phone calls with foreign leaders, according to the New York Times. *

State Department spokesman John Kirby said call sheets are often classified when they are prepared. But then at some point before the call is made, someone with the appropriate authority will declassify them. These two call sheets sent to Clinton unnecessarily retained their confidential markings due to human error, Kirby said.

"Given these concerns, it’s reasonable to give Clinton a little benefit of the doubt regarding how she treated classified information that landed in her inbox unlabeled, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists."


Evidence seems to indicate that Clinton generally dealt with classified information in an appropriate manner.



eorhn, if it wasn't so sad it'd be funny as you continue to post "made up" narratives as you flail at my posts. You cant even find a conservative editorial to back up that "narrative". I accept your apology.
Click to expand...

"So the person that typed / scanned / transferred the classified information from its proper custody on a secure system into an unsecure system forgot to include the classification markings. "

This is a violation of the statute, without question.

Previously listed citations substantiate that Hillary instructed her staff to violate the statute, this makes her to have violated the statute as well.

Regardless of your creative reading and creative interpretation of Comey's draft memos, these show that Comey was predisposed to let Hillary go under any means necessary.

The fix was in. A two level justice system was invented by Comey giving Hillary that escape clause, one for the political elite with political connections, and one for everyone one else; not equal in the eyes of the law.

You can continue contort, spin, rationalize, creatively interpret all you want. It doesn't mean that it is either truthful or honest or accurate, and continuous repetition doesn't make it any more truthful. Big lie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom