Unless I'm misreading, it looks like the inspectors general are claiming at least one email released by state from Clinton's personal email account contained classified information. But it also looks like none of the emails- including those so far released - were classified at the time clinton had them. I don't now anything about who decides what's classified and what's not at state but I'll bet it's a clerical job and not something done by SecState. Bengazi is going to be an anti clinton meme come election time regardless, but it doesn't look like she will be under threat of any criminal investigation. The thing that upsets me most about the personal email account is the obvious intent to hide emails from FOI requests but I'm not sure that will be an issue since neither party seems at all interested in promoting the idea of open government.
The house committee is never going to get all the docs they subpoenaed. We went through the same charade multiple times in the last admin. Congress issues subpoenaes for docs or testimony, white house says no or drags feet, congress issues contempt of congress citations, white house ignores them or cites executive privilege. The subpoenas issued to Holder and Meirs back around 2005 make it clear congress has only a theoretical right to enforce their subpoenaes but no practical manner of enforcing compliance.
this coming from bureaucrats adds to the narrative she is dishonest and can't be trusted to tell the truth
LOL a "narrative" that a politician is dishonest and can't be trusted to tell the truth? In Webster's you could look up politician and it probably says "person who tells lies for a living". So far none of the candidates has told the kind of lie that could result in criminal charges and that's almost the only kind that will have any effect on the election.
She can be caught standing over a bloody corpse, covered in blood, with the knife in her hand, laughing hysterically. It won't matter.
of course, it doesn't help when they sprinkle in Vince Foster or Ron Brown (? the guy who died in a plane crash with a 'bullet hole' in his head) conspiracy crap. It only covers up the real shit the woman does.
this coming from bureaucrats adds to the narrative she is dishonest and can't be trusted to tell the truth
LOL a "narrative" that a politician is dishonest and can't be trusted to tell the truth? In Webster's you could look up politician and it probably says "person who tells lies for a living". So far none of the candidates has told the kind of lie that could result in criminal charges and that's almost the only kind that will have any effect on the election.
I think that most people can distinguish the typical "I'll lower your taxes and give you more free shit at the same time" types of lies from the personal integrity lies.
The linked article suggests (and I, like you do not know the procedure) that there is a procedure for classifying material and it sounds like State under her years relied on people outside the gov't. The intelligence agencies sound like they aren't happy about that.
I'm less comfortable than you about splitting hairs on "not classified at the time" for a few reasons: first, if she was ultimately the person in charge of categorizing the documents as classified, then should could classify them or not on the spot at the time when she would have to give them up or not. It's a different version of "I sent over all the documents that were not personal".."who decides if it's personal?" "Well, me".
2) I would think that most documents that should be classified would be readily discernible by anyone with enough competence to be SoS. At the least, you would know that they were sensitive and likely not appropriate for a personal email account (using the same logic as to why people shouldn't have personal access to classified material in the first place). So, the fact that you have a significant number that are now being retroactively classified sounds hinky. I suppose if anything can be considered "Clintonian" it's using legalese to get around something that logic would dictate is wrong. This strikes me as that.
3) She has stated that she used only one account for all correspondence. In order for her never to have classified info on that account, that would mean that she never once had sensitive or classified electronic correspondence coming to her. Is that possible for a SoS over however many years she was SoS? We've got people in our office...just regular flunkies...that receive hundreds of confidential, secure emails a day.
was prosecuted for it. And had his affair exposed. So.....
Hillary knowingly and intentionally gave classified information to her mistress and biographer? Do you have a source for that?
The standard is not really having a mistress. It's simply possession outside the workplace. WHo would write a law that says it's only illegal if you give it to your biographer or mistress? That would be one only designed to catch Petraeus. Why would they do that? How would they know before the law was written that Petraeus was going to do that? I think that you are asking too much here.
was prosecuted for it. And had his affair exposed. So.....
Hillary knowingly and intentionally gave classified information to her mistress and biographer? Do you have a source for that?
What Bill L said. It's not that Petraus shared the information with his mistress/biographer (who had some security clearance), it's that classified information was not handled properly, same as Clinton. Who, it could be argued, handled it less securely because she had it on a private server so it could not be monitored by government security.
And a significant amount of this stuff could be subject to a claim of executive privilege. The one thing that might turn into a "smoking gun" that might not be subject to a claim of executive privilege would be e-mail's to Sidney Blumenthal, as he wasn't a government employee at that time.
What it will do is increase Hillary's negatives with the relatively small number of truly independent voters. Of course if Trump trashes the Republicans it won't matter.
with due respect, neither you nor I have anything remotely approaching the necessary expertise to opine on what is and is not criminal mishandling of confidential emails. Your long post above, while sensible, cannot be jived with the extant system whereunder State employees were allowed to conduct State business over personal email.
Now that seems like a very stupid system to me, and I understand that the Obama admin changed them, but the rules were very, very clear that it was allowed and that the issue people have been discussing was compliance with the records retention rules for non-State email addresses.
But to address your specific point, i.e. my response to buford's lazy use of the word "it", I can absolutely see a big legal distinction between (1) knowingly passing classified information to an unauthorized person, and (2) possessing unclassified material on an allowed server which ultimately, years down the road, is reclassified. If #2 is inherently criminal, then you really cant use a private email address even though the rules then in effect specifically allows it.
If that's the case, then the system is inherently criminal Â
because what happens is what happened here...nothing is ever classified right up to the point where the public wants to see it and you arbitrarily decide if you want them to.
was prosecuted for it. And had his affair exposed. So.....
Hillary knowingly and intentionally gave classified information to her mistress and biographer? Do you have a source for that?
The standard is not really having a mistress. It's simply possession outside the workplace. WHo would write a law that says it's only illegal if you give it to your biographer or mistress? That would be one only designed to catch Petraeus. Why would they do that? How would they know before the law was written that Petraeus was going to do that? I think that you are asking too much here.
That ridiculous question he asks is sort of typical of the nonsense that the protect Hillary at any cost would ask.
the issue is, as ever, whether this was Hillary treading in legal and ethical gray areas because she assumed that any political harm would be limited, and that her team of harpies would effectively channel any outrage into the same string of loony right conspiracist bullshit about Hillary that has existed for two decades. Which is what seemed to be happening up until this, and probably will happen anyway.
In the face of a unified Republican party standing behind a mainstream candidate with independent appeal and sufficient conservative bonafides to keep the base happy, things like this might hand the Republicans the election. Of course, unicorns and Bigfoot might stroll in from the realm of cryptozoology in the meantime to say hello too.
with due respect, neither you nor I have anything remotely approaching the necessary expertise to opine on what is and is not criminal mishandling of confidential emails. Your long post above, while sensible, cannot be jived with the extant system whereunder State employees were allowed to conduct State business over personal email.
Now that seems like a very stupid system to me, and I understand that the Obama admin changed them, but the rules were very, very clear that it was allowed and that the issue people have been discussing was compliance with the records retention rules for non-State email addresses.
But to address your specific point, i.e. my response to buford's lazy use of the word "it", I can absolutely see a big legal distinction between (1) knowingly passing classified information to an unauthorized person, and (2) possessing unclassified material on an allowed server which ultimately, years down the road, is reclassified. If #2 is inherently criminal, then you really cant use a private email address even though the rules then in effect specifically allows it.
You know what 'IT' is, you just choose to spin it to come to Hillary's aide. Which is why people like her don't get called to account. If she needs this much protecting from scrutiny, is she really capable and reliable enough to be president?
What we seem to know is this: she committed serious infractions by using her private e-mail and having a private server. Any USG employee, especially with a top secret security clearance, knows you can't do that. (It has been pointed out by some that others have done it in the past).
It also appears she and/or her staff culled through her e-mails and deleted/erased thousands of them and then destroyed the server. That simply doesn't look good.
But one of the elephants in the room is there has been speculation that the Chinese and/or Russians hacked her server. If so, and if she did have politically-fatal or top secret e-mails stolen by their intelligence services, she is actually now exposed to potential blackmail.
I want an investigation, especially with this Justice Department. If she gets cleared in a few months, she can legitimately say, "This was all about nothing."
Democrat politics in particular, even an indictment won't mean a thing. It can be spun into making it look like a time wasting witch hunt. The only thing that might matter would be a conviction and that's certainly not going to happen in any meaningful time frame, if at all.
Democrat politics in particular, even an indictment won't mean a thing. It can be spun into making it look like a time wasting witch hunt. The only thing that might matter would be a conviction and that's certainly not going to happen in any meaningful time frame, if at all.
It works against Republicans. Even though a few investigations have cleared Christie personally on Bridgegate, it has pretty much knocked him out off the race. The never being actually convicted of anything spin does not work for everyone (and it should not work for fat Cowboy fans).
my guess is that they are looking for the wrong shit Â
now, what if she was cheerleading IRS, in some emails, directly or indirectly, while at State, as they set out to single out conservative political groups for intimidation, prior to the last election.
There, you would have the confluence of any number of crimes.
I want an investigation, especially with this Justice Department. If she gets cleared in a few months, she can legitimately say, "This was all about nothing."
However, a claim of executive privilege would further the narrative of dishonesty and prevarication.
Further, how much of a known quantity is Loretta Lynch? With Holder you would have gotten: "Investigation? Sure. What kind of investigation do you want?"
not sure if Christie is allowed in NYC, but he could join the hotdog eating contest over at Nathans on Cony Island, there is still that, know, like a consolation prize.
RE: RE: With the state of politics in general, and Â
Even though a few investigations have cleared Christie personally on Bridgegate, it has pretty much knocked him out off the race. The never being actually convicted of anything spin does not work for everyone (and it should not work for fat Cowboy fans).
True. But here you will have a much more docile media as opposed to one that's out for blood.
I thought about the Lynch element too, but when the FBI came out and said there was no evidence of a connection between Muslim extremism and the Marine killings...
This thread has already become ridiculous with rank speculation Â
Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.
The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.
The jump to assuming the HRC did something criminal ignores a lot. First, IG's dont deal in criminal statutes. They find facts and then ask prosecutors to decide if any criminal statutes were violated. Second, the Times article does not identify Clinton as a target of the investigation. Indeed, one my imagine that the problem was with people sending materials to Clinton, or the recent release of materials which maybe should have been classified. To that end, note the article says:
Quote:
In a second memo to Mr. Kennedy, sent on July 17, the inspectors general said that at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information. The inspectors general did not identify the email or reveal its substance.... The inspectors general also criticized the State Department for its handling of sensitive information, particularly its reliance on retired senior Foreign Service officers to decide if information should be classified, and for not consulting with the intelligence agencies about its determinations.
Look, again it seems crazy to me that government employees are doing government business over private email. Especially anyone in sensitive fields (defense, intel, diplomacy, treasury...). But apparently the regs applicable to State allowed just that, and a previous SoS had also used private email for public purpose. So if that is allowed, what you're left with is a story that she got non-classified material that years later was re-classified as secret.
I dont know how you can criminalize that in a world where private email usage was allowed. That's just first year law school stuff -- one has to have some way of knowing that their conduct was criminally culpable for it to be a crime. You cant have a crime where someone does something legal but then 5 years later some government official decides to change a status and render your already committed conduct illegal. It's like if you're driving 55 on a 55 road, and a year later the state changes it to a 35 road and sends you a speeding ticket for driving 55.
looking back the seeds of much trouble and horror in the world Â
may have been laid during the first Obama administration, Hills, not Kerry, with regards to naïve or doctrinaire ignoring of the situation with what became ISIL and associated bad people.
at least, from the perspective of 'what was our part or not' angle, obviously, not purely causal, but, regarding the lack of a plan to fill that void.
I thinis case it's more like the person who is in chargeof speed limit Â
is driving down the road at 55 and then when the cop pulls her over, decides that the speed limit is now 55.
Because in that case it makes Hillary look culpable, right?
Your scenario doesnt fit the purported facts. The NYT article doesnt suggest she was mishandling then-classified information. Rather, it appears to suggest that she had unclassified information, and then years later that information was changed in status to classified. Right? How does your hypothetical fit that?
Because she s the primary person in charge of deciding Â
I want an investigation, especially with this Justice Department. If she gets cleared in a few months, she can legitimately say, "This was all about nothing."
However, a claim of executive privilege would further the narrative of dishonesty and prevarication.
Further, how much of a known quantity is Loretta Lynch? With Holder you would have gotten: "Investigation? Sure. What kind of investigation do you want?"
As for Lynch we will see what happens with the Planned Parenthood case. If she investigates them or the videographer. That will give you the answer.
RE: Because she s the primary person in charge of deciding Â
what is classified and what isn't. So essentially she sets the rules for herself.
That's just a non-sequitur. And straight up ignores the facts. If she got to pick all the rules and did so here, there couldnt be any criminality, as a matter of logic.
The article specifically says who is deciding that the stuff is now classified, and it is low level people (indeed, that is the IG's complaint in part). As far as I can tell, roughly the facts are she got documents that were not classified and handled them as such. At some point later, I believe this year in connection with her email review (but possibly a bit earlier), these documents were re-reviewed and some were deemed to have classified information. She either turned that stuff over to State or destroyed it (depending on who you want to believe), but did not give it to someone she is fucking (or another 3rd party).
If you think the facts are different, let me know. It's a developing and poorly reported story, so I might be misunderstanding. But if those are the facts, then my hypothetical makes more sense. She drove 55 on those materials when 55 was the applicable speed limit. Later on the speed limit was changed to 35. You can go back and tell people that they therefore should have driven 35 all along. That's Soviet Russia shit right there.
The article seemed vague to me with respect to the reclassification issue. I'm not sure whether the paragraph you linked saying that nothing was classified at the time it was e-mailed applies to the 3000 released documents or the full 55,000. This vagueness is confirmed by the next paragraph which indicates at least one e-mail was classified.
I think some clarification is in order (by the NYT, not you).
I don't like Hillary. I know as a tried and true flaming liberal, I'm Â
the article is horrible. unpublishable in my opinion. I take it that there was another version last night that said that Clinton was the target of the IG's whatever (request??). But that was dropped, perhaps with other stuff, and what was left was an empty hole of vagueness.
So NY Times has changed title of the article and walked back their allegation
the DOJ probe is whether info that was retroactively classified
was accidentally released in the Freedom of information request of Clinton's email
in other words the investigation is about the release of some information that was later decided to be classified when the press requested what was in the Clinton Emails
but of course it was ALL HER FAULT !!! SHE IS DISHONEST !!!!
Seriously she requested to use private secure mail server set up by Secret Service for her Ex President husband it was to ok by relevant US Government Departments
so She used it ..
Clinton did exactly what every previous secretary of state had done.
please please tell me what is the scandal here?
It is amazing how the Right wing manufacturers these "scandals " to paint Hilary Clinton as untrust worthy and an entitled "liar"
You would think that after all these scandals Hillary would be dead in the water as a candidate and yet She is leading the polls.. Why is that ?
because these are FAUX SCANDALS
the article is horrible. unpublishable in my opinion. I take it that there was another version last night that said that Clinton was the target of the IG's whatever (request??). But that was dropped, perhaps with other stuff, and what was left was an empty hole of vagueness.
Jibberish means we don't know that there's an issue. But it also means we don't know there isn't.
RE: RE: Because she s the primary person in charge of deciding Â
what is classified and what isn't. So essentially she sets the rules for herself.
That's just a non-sequitur. And straight up ignores the facts. If she got to pick all the rules and did so here, there couldnt be any criminality, as a matter of logic.
The article specifically says who is deciding that the stuff is now classified, and it is low level people (indeed, that is the IG's complaint in part). As far as I can tell, roughly the facts are she got documents that were not classified and handled them as such. At some point later, I believe this year in connection with her email review (but possibly a bit earlier), these documents were re-reviewed and some were deemed to have classified information. She either turned that stuff over to State or destroyed it (depending on who you want to believe), but did not give it to someone she is fucking (or another 3rd party).
If you think the facts are different, let me know. It's a developing and poorly reported story, so I might be misunderstanding. But if those are the facts, then my hypothetical makes more sense. She drove 55 on those materials when 55 was the applicable speed limit. Later on the speed limit was changed to 35. You can go back and tell people that they therefore should have driven 35 all along. That's Soviet Russia shit right there.
You're right. There can't be criminality which, as is manifest here, is not the same as dishonesty. What I am saying is that at the time she got the documents they were not classified because she was nominally in charge of the classification. So, they can only be termed classified now.
IMO, it defies logic to have so many documents classified now that weren't obviously classifiable then. In fact, with time the trend should be toward declassification as opposed to classification. So, maybe it's a technicality but it's still a duck. Further, you still have to suspend reality to believe that the SoS was not allowed to handle classified documents during her tenure, which is pretty much what had to have happened in order for her not to have handled classified documents on her email account.
you have rules for secrecy, in other words the Secretary must keep certain things confidential, rules for transparency, that is; that all government employees, no matter how elevated, work for the people, and therefore are subject to rules regarding how they communicate, rules that don't typically apply to citizens.
So that's that. Two sets of regulations or laws.
But, in addition, you can bet that IF anything was redacted outside of normal procedure, then THAT in and of itself will turn out to have been breaking some other whole regulation or law, otherwise it would have not been redacted in the first place. They are not going to risk breaking set of laws 'A' just over something that looks bad, it will be about set 'B.'
The house committee is never going to get all the docs they subpoenaed. We went through the same charade multiple times in the last admin. Congress issues subpoenaes for docs or testimony, white house says no or drags feet, congress issues contempt of congress citations, white house ignores them or cites executive privilege. The subpoenas issued to Holder and Meirs back around 2005 make it clear congress has only a theoretical right to enforce their subpoenaes but no practical manner of enforcing compliance.
Yes this is from the right wing Breitbart, but it was caught by the left wing Daily Kos
Link - ( New Window )
LOL a "narrative" that a politician is dishonest and can't be trusted to tell the truth? In Webster's you could look up politician and it probably says "person who tells lies for a living". So far none of the candidates has told the kind of lie that could result in criminal charges and that's almost the only kind that will have any effect on the election.
I caught that.
Oh please. And I'm a Sanders supporter.
Yes this is from the right wing Breitbart, but it was caught by the left wing Daily Kos Link - ( New Window )
That's a very big difference.
Nothing sticks. Nothing will.
She can be caught standing over a bloody corpse, covered in blood, with the knife in her hand, laughing hysterically. It won't matter.
of course, it doesn't help when they sprinkle in Vince Foster or Ron Brown (? the guy who died in a plane crash with a 'bullet hole' in his head) conspiracy crap. It only covers up the real shit the woman does.
Hillary knowingly and intentionally gave classified information to her mistress and biographer? Do you have a source for that?
Quote:
this coming from bureaucrats adds to the narrative she is dishonest and can't be trusted to tell the truth
LOL a "narrative" that a politician is dishonest and can't be trusted to tell the truth? In Webster's you could look up politician and it probably says "person who tells lies for a living". So far none of the candidates has told the kind of lie that could result in criminal charges and that's almost the only kind that will have any effect on the election.
I think that most people can distinguish the typical "I'll lower your taxes and give you more free shit at the same time" types of lies from the personal integrity lies.
The linked article suggests (and I, like you do not know the procedure) that there is a procedure for classifying material and it sounds like State under her years relied on people outside the gov't. The intelligence agencies sound like they aren't happy about that.
I'm less comfortable than you about splitting hairs on "not classified at the time" for a few reasons: first, if she was ultimately the person in charge of categorizing the documents as classified, then should could classify them or not on the spot at the time when she would have to give them up or not. It's a different version of "I sent over all the documents that were not personal".."who decides if it's personal?" "Well, me".
2) I would think that most documents that should be classified would be readily discernible by anyone with enough competence to be SoS. At the least, you would know that they were sensitive and likely not appropriate for a personal email account (using the same logic as to why people shouldn't have personal access to classified material in the first place). So, the fact that you have a significant number that are now being retroactively classified sounds hinky. I suppose if anything can be considered "Clintonian" it's using legalese to get around something that logic would dictate is wrong. This strikes me as that.
3) She has stated that she used only one account for all correspondence. In order for her never to have classified info on that account, that would mean that she never once had sensitive or classified electronic correspondence coming to her. Is that possible for a SoS over however many years she was SoS? We've got people in our office...just regular flunkies...that receive hundreds of confidential, secure emails a day.
Quote:
was prosecuted for it. And had his affair exposed. So.....
Hillary knowingly and intentionally gave classified information to her mistress and biographer? Do you have a source for that?
The standard is not really having a mistress. It's simply possession outside the workplace. WHo would write a law that says it's only illegal if you give it to your biographer or mistress? That would be one only designed to catch Petraeus. Why would they do that? How would they know before the law was written that Petraeus was going to do that? I think that you are asking too much here.
Quote:
was prosecuted for it. And had his affair exposed. So.....
Hillary knowingly and intentionally gave classified information to her mistress and biographer? Do you have a source for that?
What Bill L said. It's not that Petraus shared the information with his mistress/biographer (who had some security clearance), it's that classified information was not handled properly, same as Clinton. Who, it could be argued, handled it less securely because she had it on a private server so it could not be monitored by government security.
What it will do is increase Hillary's negatives with the relatively small number of truly independent voters. Of course if Trump trashes the Republicans it won't matter.
Now that seems like a very stupid system to me, and I understand that the Obama admin changed them, but the rules were very, very clear that it was allowed and that the issue people have been discussing was compliance with the records retention rules for non-State email addresses.
But to address your specific point, i.e. my response to buford's lazy use of the word "it", I can absolutely see a big legal distinction between (1) knowingly passing classified information to an unauthorized person, and (2) possessing unclassified material on an allowed server which ultimately, years down the road, is reclassified. If #2 is inherently criminal, then you really cant use a private email address even though the rules then in effect specifically allows it.
Quote:
In comment 12383255 buford said:
Quote:
was prosecuted for it. And had his affair exposed. So.....
Hillary knowingly and intentionally gave classified information to her mistress and biographer? Do you have a source for that?
The standard is not really having a mistress. It's simply possession outside the workplace. WHo would write a law that says it's only illegal if you give it to your biographer or mistress? That would be one only designed to catch Petraeus. Why would they do that? How would they know before the law was written that Petraeus was going to do that? I think that you are asking too much here.
In the face of a unified Republican party standing behind a mainstream candidate with independent appeal and sufficient conservative bonafides to keep the base happy, things like this might hand the Republicans the election. Of course, unicorns and Bigfoot might stroll in from the realm of cryptozoology in the meantime to say hello too.
Now that seems like a very stupid system to me, and I understand that the Obama admin changed them, but the rules were very, very clear that it was allowed and that the issue people have been discussing was compliance with the records retention rules for non-State email addresses.
But to address your specific point, i.e. my response to buford's lazy use of the word "it", I can absolutely see a big legal distinction between (1) knowingly passing classified information to an unauthorized person, and (2) possessing unclassified material on an allowed server which ultimately, years down the road, is reclassified. If #2 is inherently criminal, then you really cant use a private email address even though the rules then in effect specifically allows it.
You know what 'IT' is, you just choose to spin it to come to Hillary's aide. Which is why people like her don't get called to account. If she needs this much protecting from scrutiny, is she really capable and reliable enough to be president?
It also appears she and/or her staff culled through her e-mails and deleted/erased thousands of them and then destroyed the server. That simply doesn't look good.
But one of the elephants in the room is there has been speculation that the Chinese and/or Russians hacked her server. If so, and if she did have politically-fatal or top secret e-mails stolen by their intelligence services, she is actually now exposed to potential blackmail.
There, you would have the confluence of any number of crimes.
However, a claim of executive privilege would further the narrative of dishonesty and prevarication.
Further, how much of a known quantity is Loretta Lynch? With Holder you would have gotten: "Investigation? Sure. What kind of investigation do you want?"
True. But here you will have a much more docile media as opposed to one that's out for blood.
The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.
The jump to assuming the HRC did something criminal ignores a lot. First, IG's dont deal in criminal statutes. They find facts and then ask prosecutors to decide if any criminal statutes were violated. Second, the Times article does not identify Clinton as a target of the investigation. Indeed, one my imagine that the problem was with people sending materials to Clinton, or the recent release of materials which maybe should have been classified. To that end, note the article says:
Look, again it seems crazy to me that government employees are doing government business over private email. Especially anyone in sensitive fields (defense, intel, diplomacy, treasury...). But apparently the regs applicable to State allowed just that, and a previous SoS had also used private email for public purpose. So if that is allowed, what you're left with is a story that she got non-classified material that years later was re-classified as secret.
I dont know how you can criminalize that in a world where private email usage was allowed. That's just first year law school stuff -- one has to have some way of knowing that their conduct was criminally culpable for it to be a crime. You cant have a crime where someone does something legal but then 5 years later some government official decides to change a status and render your already committed conduct illegal. It's like if you're driving 55 on a 55 road, and a year later the state changes it to a 35 road and sends you a speeding ticket for driving 55.
at least, from the perspective of 'what was our part or not' angle, obviously, not purely causal, but, regarding the lack of a plan to fill that void.
Because in that case it makes Hillary look culpable, right?
Your scenario doesnt fit the purported facts. The NYT article doesnt suggest she was mishandling then-classified information. Rather, it appears to suggest that she had unclassified information, and then years later that information was changed in status to classified. Right? How does your hypothetical fit that?
Quote:
I want an investigation, especially with this Justice Department. If she gets cleared in a few months, she can legitimately say, "This was all about nothing."
However, a claim of executive privilege would further the narrative of dishonesty and prevarication.
Further, how much of a known quantity is Loretta Lynch? With Holder you would have gotten: "Investigation? Sure. What kind of investigation do you want?"
As for Lynch we will see what happens with the Planned Parenthood case. If she investigates them or the videographer. That will give you the answer.
That's just a non-sequitur. And straight up ignores the facts. If she got to pick all the rules and did so here, there couldnt be any criminality, as a matter of logic.
The article specifically says who is deciding that the stuff is now classified, and it is low level people (indeed, that is the IG's complaint in part). As far as I can tell, roughly the facts are she got documents that were not classified and handled them as such. At some point later, I believe this year in connection with her email review (but possibly a bit earlier), these documents were re-reviewed and some were deemed to have classified information. She either turned that stuff over to State or destroyed it (depending on who you want to believe), but did not give it to someone she is fucking (or another 3rd party).
If you think the facts are different, let me know. It's a developing and poorly reported story, so I might be misunderstanding. But if those are the facts, then my hypothetical makes more sense. She drove 55 on those materials when 55 was the applicable speed limit. Later on the speed limit was changed to 35. You can go back and tell people that they therefore should have driven 35 all along. That's Soviet Russia shit right there.
I think some clarification is in order (by the NYT, not you).
But she sucks.
the DOJ probe is whether info that was retroactively classified
was accidentally released in the Freedom of information request of Clinton's email
in other words the investigation is about the release of some information that was later decided to be classified when the press requested what was in the Clinton Emails
but of course it was ALL HER FAULT !!! SHE IS DISHONEST !!!!
Seriously she requested to use private secure mail server set up by Secret Service for her Ex President husband it was to ok by relevant US Government Departments
so She used it ..
Clinton did exactly what every previous secretary of state had done.
please please tell me what is the scandal here?
It is amazing how the Right wing manufacturers these "scandals " to paint Hilary Clinton as untrust worthy and an entitled "liar"
You would think that after all these scandals Hillary would be dead in the water as a candidate and yet She is leading the polls.. Why is that ?
because these are FAUX SCANDALS
Colin Powell relied on personal emails while secretary of state - ( New Window )
Jibberish means we don't know that there's an issue. But it also means we don't know there isn't.
Quote:
what is classified and what isn't. So essentially she sets the rules for herself.
That's just a non-sequitur. And straight up ignores the facts. If she got to pick all the rules and did so here, there couldnt be any criminality, as a matter of logic.
The article specifically says who is deciding that the stuff is now classified, and it is low level people (indeed, that is the IG's complaint in part). As far as I can tell, roughly the facts are she got documents that were not classified and handled them as such. At some point later, I believe this year in connection with her email review (but possibly a bit earlier), these documents were re-reviewed and some were deemed to have classified information. She either turned that stuff over to State or destroyed it (depending on who you want to believe), but did not give it to someone she is fucking (or another 3rd party).
If you think the facts are different, let me know. It's a developing and poorly reported story, so I might be misunderstanding. But if those are the facts, then my hypothetical makes more sense. She drove 55 on those materials when 55 was the applicable speed limit. Later on the speed limit was changed to 35. You can go back and tell people that they therefore should have driven 35 all along. That's Soviet Russia shit right there.
You're right. There can't be criminality which, as is manifest here, is not the same as dishonesty. What I am saying is that at the time she got the documents they were not classified because she was nominally in charge of the classification. So, they can only be termed classified now.
IMO, it defies logic to have so many documents classified now that weren't obviously classifiable then. In fact, with time the trend should be toward declassification as opposed to classification. So, maybe it's a technicality but it's still a duck. Further, you still have to suspend reality to believe that the SoS was not allowed to handle classified documents during her tenure, which is pretty much what had to have happened in order for her not to have handled classified documents on her email account.
So that's that. Two sets of regulations or laws.
But, in addition, you can bet that IF anything was redacted outside of normal procedure, then THAT in and of itself will turn out to have been breaking some other whole regulation or law, otherwise it would have not been redacted in the first place. They are not going to risk breaking set of laws 'A' just over something that looks bad, it will be about set 'B.'