PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: bflynn on November 03, 2016, 07:45:19 PM
-
The FBI has found emails from Hillary's email server among the 630,000 emails on Anthony Weiner's computer. These emails are not duplicates of ones that Hillary has already released. There is no information about how many emails there are.
This comes just a day after the determination that at least 5 foreign intelligence agencies hacked her email, despite her assertion that national security was never compromised.
If you are a Hillary fan, your last hope for her avoiding obstruction of justice is that these emails are not related to the FBI investigation. But I just cannot see that. The agents who have looked know that someing is interesting or else they would not have pushed this forward.
Overall, Hillary has shown VERY poor judgment. Abysmal judgment. And I think the reason is that she has such poor judgment is because she is 100% focused on how to advance Hillary Clinton, not on how to serve. It seems bizzare to even write the phrase "to serve" applied to Hillary.
I will state again - I believe Hillary will be accused of Obstruction of Justice and that it is the end of her career.
-
Predictions:
"it's old news"
"but other people have done worse"
"vast right-wing conspiracy"
-
Predictions:
"it's old news"
"but other people have done worse"
"vast right-wing conspiracy"
"can't verify the emails"
"but it came from Russian hacks"
"it's Bush's fault"
-
Will be severely downplayed or ignored by the MSM.
-
Will be severely downplayed or ignored by the MSM.
Or more likely spun to look like a Trump/Putin collusion.
-
Predictions:
"it's old news"
"but other people have done worse"
"vast right-wing conspiracy"
They came from Anthony Weiner's computer. None of that washes.
Obstruction of Justice. She makes Nixon look like an altar boy.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/hillary-deleted-email-showing-she-forwarded-classified-information-to-her-daughter/
Chelsea doesn't hold a security clearance and doesn't work for the government.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/hillary-deleted-email-showing-she-forwarded-classified-information-to-her-daughter/
Chelsea doesn't hold a security clearance and doesn't work for the government.
Obstruction of justice because she didn't disclose that email to the FBI either.
Perjury because she told Congress that she had never sent confidential emails.
Illegal disclosure of classified information to a non-authorized person.
How could anyone consider this acceptable in a candidate? One is a criminal and one is mean.
-
How could anyone consider this acceptable in a candidate? One is a criminal and one is mean.
(D)
-
How could anyone consider this acceptable in a candidate? One is a criminal and one is mean.
Remember when many were criticizing some of us for encouraging people to vote for Trump because he is "not Hillary"?
I believe that more people will be voting for Hillary because she is "Not Trump".
I will stick with Trump because he is "Not Hillary", and I don't seem to get criticized for that as much as I used to.
-
Too bad that the email sent to Chelsea was not classified when it was sent. Since the info originated from someone else (trade commissioner) in the administration and was sent to some members of Congress, I'm curious whether it was sent via an unclassified net and HRC merely forwarded it to Chelsea. She might have just extracted the info from the email or attached the whole message. It makes little difference since the material was unclassified at the time in question.
I know my comments go against the beliefs of many on this board who would like nothing better than to prosecute HRC. Too bad. I don't see any reasonable person seeing this email as any smoking gun.
-
Too bad that the email sent to Chelsea was not classified when it was sent. Since the info originated from someone else (trade commissioner) in the administration and was sent to some members of Congress, I'm curious whether it was sent via an unclassified net and HRC merely forwarded it to Chelsea. She might have just extracted the info from the email or attached the whole message. It makes little difference since the material was unclassified at the time in question.
I know my comments go against the beliefs of many on this board who would like nothing better than to prosecute HRC. Too bad. I don't see any reasonable person seeing this email as any smoking gun.
Just the tip of the iceberg.
-
http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/11/729071-chelsea-clinton-is-suddenly-wrapped-up-in-hillarys-email-scandal-classified-info-sent-to-her-in-now-deleted-email/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=partners&utm_campaign=bencarson&utm_term=prm6
-
Too bad that the email sent to Chelsea was not classified when it was sent. Since the info originated from someone else (trade commissioner) in the administration and was sent to some members of Congress, I'm curious whether it was sent via an unclassified net and HRC merely forwarded it to Chelsea. She might have just extracted the info from the email or attached the whole message. It makes little difference since the material was unclassified at the time in question.
I know my comments go against the beliefs of many on this board who would like nothing better than to prosecute HRC. Too bad. I don't see any reasonable person seeing this email as any smoking gun.
Assuming that you ever held a clearance, I'm sure you understand that information doesn't have to be marked classified to be classified.
Assuming that you ever held a clearance, I'm sure you remember your responsibility wrt forwarding emails and identifying if the email has any classified information (even if not properly portion marked)
-
Too bad that the email sent to Chelsea was not classified when it was sent. Since the info originated from someone else (trade commissioner) in the administration and was sent to some members of Congress, I'm curious whether it was sent via an unclassified net and HRC merely forwarded it to Chelsea. She might have just extracted the info from the email or attached the whole message. It makes little difference since the material was unclassified at the time in question.
I know my comments go against the beliefs of many on this board who would like nothing better than to prosecute HRC. Too bad. I don't see any reasonable person seeing this email as any smoking gun.
Hahahahahahaha...
The lengths that brain numbed progressives will go to excuse criminal activity when it's one of their own is truly sad.
-
Too bad that the email sent to Chelsea was not classified when it was sent. Since the info originated from someone else (trade commissioner) in the administration and was sent to some members of Congress, I'm curious whether it was sent via an unclassified net and HRC merely forwarded it to Chelsea. She might have just extracted the info from the email or attached the whole message. It makes little difference since the material was unclassified at the time in question.
I know my comments go against the beliefs of many on this board who would like nothing better than to prosecute HRC. Too bad. I don't see any reasonable person seeing this email as any smoking gun.
It is not "the" smoking gun, it is one of many.
Hillary lied to Congress. She lied to the FBI. She deleted emails which were under subpoena. She forwarded classified information to unauthorized personnel and you bet your behind that it doesn't have to be marked. She denied the existence of emails under subpoena.
But now they are finding copies of the other emails because emails have at least two copies if not more - yours and the other person's. Everything that she denied is unravelling.
Even if she wins the electoral college, she will be tied up in obstruction of justice charges for at least the next year or two. The transition will be interrupted by hearings and grand juries, her presidency will never launch and trust for the Democrat party will set new record lows, causing the election of a stronger Republican Congress in 2 years and an even stronger Republican government in 4 years. From the standpoint of an independent moderate, the best thing that could happen for the Democrat party is that Hillary loses this because the legality of her being in office will be questioned before she even starts.
-
Too bad that the email sent to Chelsea was not classified when it was sent. Since the info originated from someone else (trade commissioner) in the administration and was sent to some members of Congress, I'm curious whether it was sent via an unclassified net and HRC merely forwarded it to Chelsea. She might have just extracted the info from the email or attached the whole message. It makes little difference since the material was unclassified at the time in question.
I know my comments go against the beliefs of many on this board who would like nothing better than to prosecute HRC. Too bad. I don't see any reasonable person seeing this email as any smoking gun.
Since you are so physically close to the source, I've got to ask: does Hillary wear grannie panties or a thong?
-
Since you are so physically close to the source, I've got to ask: does Hillary wear grannie panties or a thong?
Do they make Bleachbit for the eyes?
-
Do they make Bleachbit for the eyes?
What is read, can not be in-read. Probably one of the most disgusting mental images I have ever experienced. Please, someone post a picture of a young Racquel Welch or something to cleanse the visual palate!
:)
-
Assuming that you ever held a clearance, I'm sure you understand that information doesn't have to be marked classified to be classified.
Assuming that you ever held a clearance, I'm sure you remember your responsibility wrt forwarding emails and identifying if the email has any classified information (even if not properly portion marked)
I have had a security clearance- compartmented, special access/program level, you name it. I also have seen much material that was overly classified. Confidential material is especially difficult to ascertain why it is "classified" as it often is of such mundane nature you'd easily expect it to be found in a newspaper or online (and often can be found there). It's not so easy seeing something without classification markings and automatically saying "OMG, this is Confidential material and should be protected!." The latest email to draw attention to HRC is an email sent by the Trade Commissioner to Congressman on an unclassified network that wasn't marked in any way as classified, that was subsequently classified Confidential long after it was received and forwarded by HRC. Is the Trade Commissioner on the hot seat for sending classified material? It seems everyone criticizing HRC makes no distinction between Confidential material and more highly classified material that should be more obvious is much more serious a security violation. Rudy Guiliani (SP?) even used Top Secret in the same sentence as Confidential as if they were both equally egregious security violations if mishandled just because both are "classified."
-
It is not "the" smoking gun, it is one of many.
Hillary lied to Congress. She lied to the FBI. She deleted emails which were under subpoena. She forwarded classified information to unauthorized personnel and you bet your behind that it doesn't have to be marked. She denied the existence of emails under subpoena.
But now they are finding copies of the other emails because emails have at least two copies if not more - yours and the other person's. Everything that she denied is unravelling.
Even if she wins the electoral college, she will be tied up in obstruction of justice charges for at least the next year or two. The transition will be interrupted by hearings and grand juries, her presidency will never launch and trust for the Democrat party will set new record lows, causing the election of a stronger Republican Congress in 2 years and an even stronger Republican government in 4 years. From the standpoint of an independent moderate, the best thing that could happen for the Democrat party is that Hillary loses this because the legality of her being in office will be questioned before she even starts.
I don't understand why anyone would vote for someone who lies most of the time--Trump-- over someone who lies some of the time--HRC. Yeah, I would like my pick to be honest 100% of the time but given a choice, I'll go with someone who at least has some tendency to tell the truth most of the time.
-
I don't understand why anyone would vote for someone who lies most of the time--Trump-- over someone who lies some of the time--HRC. Yeah, I would like my pick to be honest 100% of the time but given a choice, I'll go with someone who at least has some tendency to tell the truth most of the time.
So Hillary just "lies some of the time"........
You need to have your doctor cut wayyyyy back on the dosage pal.
-
I don't understand why anyone would vote for someone who lies most of the time--Trump-- over someone who lies some of the time--HRC. Yeah, I would like my pick to be honest 100% of the time but given a choice, I'll go with someone who at least has some tendency to tell the truth most of the time.
Do you REALLY believes she has a tendency to tell the truth most of the time? That is truly amazing.
I think you have it completely backwards as to who tells the truth and who lies more often.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I have had a security clearance- compartmented, special access/program level, you name it. I also have seen much material that was overly classified. Confidential material is especially difficult to ascertain why it is "classified" as it often is of such mundane nature you'd easily expect it to be found in a newspaper or online (and often can be found there). It's not so easy seeing something without classification markings and automatically saying "OMG, this is Confidential material and should be protected!." ...
Apparently it's been long enough that you've forgotten almost all of your security training...if you ever actually held a clearance at any level.
You can tell something is classified Confidential or Secret or "you name it" by referring to the Security Classification Guide.
You never ever assume that something is unclassified just because you've seen it online or in Aviation Leak and Spy Technology.
And you never treat something as unclassified because you think it's overclassified. Didn't you receive any training regarding what to do about something that is incorrectly marked?
-
I have had a security clearance- compartmented, special access/program level, you name it. I also have seen much material that was overly classified.
So is it your claim that if you believe something is "overly classified", then you don't need to really observe protocol? Was Hillary justified for playing fast and loose with information that she believed to be overly classified?
What would have happened to you if you did what she did with regards to her private server for classified correspondence?
-
I think what Witmo is referring to is the fact that the FBI found many of the "classified" emails HRC mishandled weren't classified at the time of handling. If they weren't classified, perhaps they could have been over-classified. Given his experience with said material, if HRC's and Witmo's accounts are true they are then logically sound.
Of course, that won't fit in the ideological vitriol that some on here continually use for their mental masturbation. Hence the veiled ad hominem on Witmo's experience.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
I think what Witmo is referring to is the fact that the FBI found many of the "classified" emails HRC mishandled weren't classified at the time of handling. If they weren't classified, perhaps they could have been over-classified. Given his experience with said material, if HRC's and Witmo's accounts are true they are then logically sound.
Of course, that won't fit in the ideological vitriol that some on here continually use for their mental masturbation. Hence the veiled ad hominem on Witmo's experience.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
I truly respect and admire Witmo's experience and service. I am just mystified by his complete denial of Hillary's criminality (or his unapologetic acceptance of it).
As to whether the information was classified at the time or not is an interesting question. But Hillary was not just a peon. She was the Secretary of State, and as such she should have been a much better judge of what was classified. And the rule is if it is unclear whether something should be classified, then it is classified.
-
I think what Witmo is referring to is the fact that the FBI found many of the "classified" emails HRC mishandled weren't classified at the time of handling. If they weren't classified, perhaps they could have been over-classified. Given his experience with said material, if HRC's and Witmo's accounts are true they are then logically sound.
Of course, that won't fit in the ideological vitriol that some on here continually use for their mental masturbation. Hence the veiled ad hominem on Witmo's experience.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
do people understand the difference between being marked classified and being classified?
-
So is it your claim that if you believe something is "overly classified", then you don't need to really observe protocol? Was Hillary justified for playing fast and loose with information that she believed to be overly classified?
What would have happened to you if you did what she did with regards to her private server for classified correspondence?
I never said I didn't observe protocol concerning any classified material I had access t, or that one doesn't need to protect classified material even if I considered it overclassified as I didn't make those calls so don't put words into my mouth. Most of the classified material in question was either not classified at the time or was not marked as classified when she received it and passed it on. Those of you who think people that deal with classified material on a regular basis sit around with the classification security guide staring them in the face have never dealt with classified material. Sure, intel folks sequestered in a SCIF, producing classified material daily are familiar with the classification guides applicable to the material they are producing. Users of classified intel rely on the originating entity to properly classify the material. You don't have many users arguing about whether something they receive is properly classified. HRC used the appropriate classified nets for classified material she knew to be classified. The fact that material she had on her server ended up getting classified at some later time is hardly a prosecutable offense and the FBI recommendation not to prosecute is appropriate. The people who get prosecuted for security violations knowingly compromise material that they knew to be classified.
-
given the experience you claim to have, it's pretty funny to talk about not having the SCG available.
-
given the experience you claim to have, it's pretty funny to talk about not having the SCG available.
I never said I didn't have access to any SCG. As I wasn't a producer of intel, only a consumer, I relied on the producer to properly classify the material and I handled it accordingly.
-
I never said I didn't have access to any SCG. As I wasn't a producer of intel, only a consumer, I relied on the producer to properly classify the material and I handled it accordingly.
Then you failed to fulfil part of your obligation of having a clearance. Specifically, you had a responsibility to know the SCG and identify improperly marked information. Note that I'm not saying you had to review every piece of information, but relying on the producer is inappropriate (and downright lazy).
(I guess you never were a derivative classifier...)
-
The people who get prosecuted for security violations knowingly compromise material that they knew to be classified.
Sorry but this is clearly and demonstrably false, intent is irrelevant in crimes involving mishandling of classified information. Intent does not show up in the law/regulations governing mishandling of classified information, Comey made up that up out of whole cloth when he first let her off the hook.
The applicable statute deals with gross negligence, which was in fact proven, intent is not present in the mishandling law. The entire and only point to having a law dealing with negligence is to be able to charge and punish for negligence which is unrelated to intent (intent is featured in other laws relating to treason, spying, etc.), but not negligence. Comey did not say she was innocent, far from it he went on a 15 minute rant elaborating a litany of her errors, all he said was no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges - two totally and completely different things.
All this does is continue to serve as a direct reminder that there are two sets of rules, one applicable for we mere peons and the apparatchiks of power that do not support the Left (or fall out of favor for whatever reason), and another for the high muckity mucks. The system is indeed rigged, if only someone were pointing that out.... oh wait
In only 8 years this administration has succeeded in politicizing, weaponizing and ruining nearly every institution of power in the US, the IRS, the DoD, State Department, DoJ, EPA, HUD/HHS, and now even the FBI - it is the most pathetic period of time in the history of our nation IMO.
'Gimp
-
There has to be a regulation forbidding holding public office of any kind, unless and until completely cleared of charges made, and while under investigation. This regulation undoubtedly exists. Copies of it should be made available big league.
-
I think what Witmo is referring to is the fact that the FBI found many of the "classified" emails HRC mishandled weren't classified at the time of handling. If they weren't classified, perhaps they could have been over-classified. Given his experience with said material, if HRC's and Witmo's accounts are true they are then logically sound.
Of course, that won't fit in the ideological vitriol that some on here continually use for their mental masturbation. Hence the veiled ad hominem on Witmo's experience.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!