Abedin-Clinton email: "The British Foreign Minister says he wants to find a good fish and chips restaurant on his visit."
Clinton- Abedin. "The British are such a pain "

Inspector General McCullogh: "That is a private discussion from a foreign government to a senior member of our State Department. Obviously, a Top Secret communication..."

freeman3 wrote:Abedin-Clinton email: "The British Foreign Minister says he wants to find a good fish and chips restaurant on his visit."
Clinton- Abedin. "The British are such a pain "

Inspector General McCullogh: "That is a private discussion from a foreign government to a senior member of our State Department. Obviously, a Top Secret communication..."

Per Google:

No results found for Abedin-Clinton email: "The British Foreign Minister says he wants to find a good fish and chips restaurant on his visit.".

Nice try. No, actually, it was pretty feeble.

Yeah, but you don't know what it's in those emails and all my hypothetical example was designed to show is that that the stuff in the email could be (almost certainly is) minor. That Reuters story tells us nothing about content. Clinton is not going to jail over an email chain containing discussions about minor stuff. Need something significant, I think.

freeman3 wrote:Yeah, but you don't know what it's in those emails and all my hypothetical example was designed to show is that that the stuff in the email could be (almost certainly is) minor. That Reuters story tells us nothing about content. Clinton is not going to jail over an email chain containing discussions about minor stuff. Need something significant, I think.

With all due respect, you are speaking from a position of complete ignorance. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... s-Doc.html

fate

"Yes. You see when I was Secretary of State no one told me that a private server might not be as secure as a government server so my email might have been hacked.

So, are you agreeing that there is a department that should be responsible for cyber security.?
Strikes me as pretty damn silly if each individual employee is responsible for security analysis ....
And that no one is actually policing all those individuals ...
Please reread you sources and you'll find that the use of private servers was not limited to Clinton but was pervasive at State...
Note: I'm not disagreeing that Hillary made a bad choice in using a private server. I just can't understand how she's at fault when it 1) was allowed 2) was part of an obviously messy and confused classification system that offers little value 3) wasn't stopped by any agency expert who would have immediately, or should have known immediately, the problems...
There's a lot wrong here that isn't Hillary...and because of that she won't take the fall..
You yourself said previously that the Attorney General will never follow through on anything. So why do you bother?

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Yeah, but you don't know what it's in those emails and all my hypothetical example was designed to show is that that the stuff in the email could be (almost certainly is) minor. That Reuters story tells us nothing about content. Clinton is not going to jail over an email chain containing discussions about minor stuff. Need something significant, I think.

With all due respect, you are speaking from a position of complete ignorance. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... s-Doc.html

That's a link worth clicking ...

The State Department contends that the email you referenced should not even be classified. Unless we see the email in full we don't know.

Oh , that we might have picked up the test from a satellite? That's the information that is so secret. Give me a break.

rickyp wrote:fate

"Yes. You see when I was Secretary of State no one told me that a private server might not be as secure as a government server so my email might have been hacked.

So, are you agreeing that there is a department that should be responsible for cyber security.?

You're being so stupid, there's really nothing to add to that.

Strikes me as pretty damn silly if each individual employee is responsible for security analysis ....

Do you have a source for that?

Again, who did Hillary ask? Who told her this was cool?

Answers: she asked no one. No one told her this was okay. Prove me wrong.

And that no one is actually policing all those individuals ...
Please reread you sources and you'll find that the use of private servers was not limited to Clinton but was pervasive at State...

Mostly Clinton emails. And, any "private server" would have been in violation of the orders SHE gave her subordinates.

Note: I'm not disagreeing that Hillary made a bad choice in using a private server. I just can't understand how she's at fault when it 1) was allowed 2) was part of an obviously messy and confused classification system that offers little value 3) wasn't stopped by any agency expert who would have immediately, or should have known immediately, the problems...

So, obviously, you missed the point of my quotation marks.

"Hi, I want to be President."

"Okay, what are your qualifications?"

"Well, first of all, I am a victim."

"A victim?"

"Yes. You see when I was Secretary of State no one told me that a private server might not be as secure as a government server so my email might have been hacked."

"Oh. I see. Well then, you're certainly ready to be President."

"Yes, Whiner-in-Chief is one of the descriptions."

Painting herself as a know-nothing victim is a way to go. I just don't think it is a good way to go.

There's a lot wrong here that isn't Hillary...and because of that she won't take the fall..

That is your ignorant opinion.

You yourself said previously that the Attorney General will never follow through on anything. So why do you bother?

Because the FBI will either give her no choice or, if she refuses to do the right thing, many will resign and tell the press what they found. She will be a smoldering wreck of a candidate.

Ray Jay wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Yeah, but you don't know what it's in those emails and all my hypothetical example was designed to show is that that the stuff in the email could be (almost certainly is) minor. That Reuters story tells us nothing about content. Clinton is not going to jail over an email chain containing discussions about minor stuff. Need something significant, I think.

With all due respect, you are speaking from a position of complete ignorance. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... s-Doc.html

That's a link worth clicking ...

clicked it.

We hear about NK launches on the news, so obviously not classified.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Yeah, but you don't know what it's in those emails and all my hypothetical example was designed to show is that that the stuff in the email could be (almost certainly is) minor. That Reuters story tells us nothing about content. Clinton is not going to jail over an email chain containing discussions about minor stuff. Need something significant, I think.

With all due respect, you are speaking from a position of complete ignorance. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... s-Doc.html

That's a link worth clicking ...

clicked it.

We hear about NK launches on the news, so obviously not classified.

Um, yeah, what about all the redacted parts of that email? Are they on the news too?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Yeah, but you don't know what it's in those emails and all my hypothetical example was designed to show is that that the stuff in the email could be (almost certainly is) minor. That Reuters story tells us nothing about content. Clinton is not going to jail over an email chain containing discussions about minor stuff. Need something significant, I think.

With all due respect, you are speaking from a position of complete ignorance. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... s-Doc.html

That's a link worth clicking ...

clicked it.

We hear about NK launches on the news, so obviously not classified.

Um, yeah, what about all the redacted parts of that email? Are they on the news too?

The redacted parts are just about whether they like their ballistic missiles with ketchup or tartar sauce.

fate

Um, yeah, what about all the redacted parts of that email? Are they on the news too?

maybe. over classification and undue secrecy is a huge problem.

CIA documents from 1962 about the Berlin Wall were only recently declassified.
"Why in the world did we feel compelled to even classify East Germany press reports? And why is so much still classified, now that the wall has long been demolished, Germany reunified and the Cold War ended?" asked James Warren in the New York Daily News. "It's just dumb."

There was a law passed in 2010 ordering the nation's top intelligence agencies to review their classification procedures. Those reports on government secrecy were finished in 2014. But they haven't been released.
They are classified.

rickyp wrote:fate

Um, yeah, what about all the redacted parts of that email? Are they on the news too?

maybe. over classification and undue secrecy is a huge problem.

CIA documents from 1962 about the Berlin Wall were only recently declassified.
"Why in the world did we feel compelled to even classify East Germany press reports? And why is so much still classified, now that the wall has long been demolished, Germany reunified and the Cold War ended?" asked James Warren in the New York Daily News. "It's just dumb."

There was a law passed in 2010 ordering the nation's top intelligence agencies to review their classification procedures. Those reports on government secrecy were finished in 2014. But they haven't been released.
They are classified.

Unless you can prove that law or East Germany or anything in your post was redacted from that email, your whole post is speculative at best, and irrelevant at worst.

Well done!

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Yeah, but you don't know what it's in those emails and all my hypothetical example was designed to show is that that the stuff in the email could be (almost certainly is) minor. That Reuters story tells us nothing about content. Clinton is not going to jail over an email chain containing discussions about minor stuff. Need something significant, I think.

With all due respect, you are speaking from a position of complete ignorance. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... s-Doc.html

That's a link worth clicking ...

clicked it.

We hear about NK launches on the news, so obviously not classified.

Um, yeah, what about all the redacted parts of that email? Are they on the news too?

I don't know. Neither do you, I'd wager, which is my point.

danivon wrote:I don't know. Neither do you, I'd wager, which is my point.

Actually, I do know. They're not on the news. That's why they're redacted.

Keep sticking your head in the sand. It's fine. The FBI will ferret it out and you will still deny that anything is known.

That's fine.

I suppose a perp walk might convince you. Maybe. However, this Administration reserves such embarrassments for makers of irrelevant internet videos who can be blamed for its own incompetence.