27 Aug 2015, 11:07 am
rickyp wrote:FateMeanwhile, it just gets better and better for Hillary, right?
The article offers nothing but speculation.
example so the true number of her “unclassified” emails that were actually classified may be in the thousands (Or it could be zero. )
All of this from a supposed expert on security who lost his job because he sent "Dick pics" through email.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tions.html
We know it wasn't zero. The IG's have told us that. And, I would venture to say so has Hillary--by implication. Her story would not have shifted so much if it was plausible.
She used a personal email account because it would be easier to carry just one device. But it turned out that she frequently used two.
The vast majority of her work emails went to government employees at government addresses, and thus “were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department.” But the State Department did not automatically archive emails while Clinton was Secretary of State, and only a small percentage of emails were officially preserved.
She turned over more than 55,000 printed pages of emails. But only after the State Department demanded that she do so. And she destroyed 30,000 emails.
She fully complied with the federal records laws by preserving her e-mails after she left office. But State Department regulations require employees separating from service to return all official records in their possession when they leave office. Clinton waited two years before returning any official emails.
Other Secretaries of State used a private email account. But the only two who served when email was ubiquitous were Condollezza Rice and Colin Powell. Rice didn’t used email. Powell occasionally used a personal e-mail account, but did not conduct State Department business exclusively on a private server. In any event, State Department policy at the time did not plainly foreclose such occasional use.
There was “no classified material” in Clinton’s emails. But inspector generals for the State Department and the intelligence community found that out of the 40 emails they initially reviewed, at least four contained classified information and two were “top secret.” Since then, hundreds of additional Clinton emails with classified information have been identified.
The State Department permitted what Clinton did. But the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual permitted occasional private e-mail use only under certain carefully delineated conditions designed to guard against compromise of sensitive government information. The State Department did not permit Clinton to email exclusively on a private server. As Judge Emett Sullivan recently said, “we wouldn’t be here [in court] today if [Clinton] had followed government policy.”
None of the information contained in Clinton’s emails was classified at the time the emails were sent. But the State Department and Intelligence Community inspector generals have flatly rejected this claim.
Okay, but the emails weren’t marked classified when sent. But Reuters has reported that at least 30 email threads from the documents released to date contain information provided in confidence to U.S. officials by foreign-government counterparts. These documents were “born classified.” Any public official would have known that information from foreign governments about the world’s hot-spots is classified and, in any event, not ripe for dissemination on a homebrewed server.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... il-scandal
Glenn Kessler gave her two Pinocchios, which was quite generous:
Clinton’s very careful and legalistic phrasing raises suspicions. She refers to “classified material,” which could be code for documents, leaving open the possibility of “classified information” having been received. She also says she “did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified,” which of course leaves open the possibility of receiving classified information that was not correctly marked.
The Miliband e-mail is now labeled by the State Department to contain classified information, unfit for public disclosure. That holds true for other information that Clinton and her aides routinely exchanged over an unsecure network. The question thus turns on whether Clinton should have at the time recognized that this information could be deemed as classified and should have taken better steps to protect it.
At The Fact Checker, we judge statements through the perspective of an ordinary citizen. The classification rules are complex but, legal technicalities aside, the question is whether classified information was exchanged over her private e-mail system. Never mind the IG’s concerns. According to the State Department redactions of the released e-mails, the answer is yes. Clinton earns Two Pinocchios for excessively technical wordsmithing.
And then there's this poll:
You get 394 responses just by combining the top three results of “Liar, Dishonest and Untrustworthy.” You pretty much have to add up all of the other words on the list to catch up with those three. And this isn’t just a list of responses by Republicans… that’s everyone. What’s truly amazing is that this is clearly the prevailing American perception at this point and yet, Clinton is still the Democrat frontrunner. I’m not sure if that says more about her or the party.
Can she win if the first word that pops into people's minds about her is "liar?"
Maybe, but that would be a very sad statement about the US.
