Bucky wrote:What's our groupthink on that

Bucky wrote:as to the discussion at at hand:

incredibly stupid. i actually think it's a bunch of techno id10ts not realizing the risk in what they're doing, DESPITE clicking through their mandatory security training. To them, it's not leaving a "top secret" dossier sitting on top of a table at starbucks while they go to the bathroom. and the reason was probably something as stupid as hillary wanted to do email on a blackberry but the government didn't support that.

now the lying that's been implied on certain "news" outlets...that's actually more troubling. What's our groupthink on that

Woody wrote:That would mean she's capable of empathy

Bucky wrote:as to the discussion at at hand:

incredibly stupid. i actually think it's a bunch of techno id10ts not realizing the risk in what they're doing, DESPITE clicking through their mandatory security training. To them, it's not leaving a "top secret" dossier sitting on top of a table at starbucks while they go to the bathroom. and the reason was probably something as stupid as hillary wanted to do email on a blackberry but the government didn't support that.

now the lying that's been implied on certain "news" outlets...that's actually more troubling. What's our groupthink on that

Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced a proposal on Wednesday to eliminate tuition at in-state public colleges and universities for families with annual incomes up to $125,000 — largely embracing a core position of Senator Bernie Sanders, who had pledged to make tuition at public institutions free for all students.

swishnicholson wrote:I never had a great interest in the case anyway though, since it's origins were with the Benghazi investigation. The search and seizure that ensued had nothing to do with the original bogus case anyway and should never have held even the possibility of criminal charges. It was a witch hunt with probably the best possible outcome, in that it exposed a risky and misguided practice but from which we can (hopefully) move on to the next distraction.

SK790 wrote:i honestly wish the whole investigation could have been a legitimate investigation rather than political theater for the right over the better part of 5 years. if anything, the right has made Clinton look like the victim with their over-the-top rhetoric about the whole thing. at least to people like me who are to the left, but think corruption in politics is a major issue.

JUburton wrote:

SK790 wrote:i honestly wish the whole investigation could have been a legitimate investigation rather than political theater for the right over the better part of 5 years. if anything, the right has made Clinton look like the victim with their over-the-top rhetoric about the whole thing. at least to people like me who are to the left, but think corruption in politics is a major issue.

why wasn't the FBI investigation legitimate? each side spun it as they'd like but I'm assuming the FBI did their job here. just because assholes like Paul Ryan come in and say they didn't do their job and were biased (an FBI directed by a republican, initially in the Bush administration) doesn't mean that it wasn't by the book.

SK790 wrote:

JUburton wrote:

SK790 wrote:i honestly wish the whole investigation could have been a legitimate investigation rather than political theater for the right over the better part of 5 years. if anything, the right has made Clinton look like the victim with their over-the-top rhetoric about the whole thing. at least to people like me who are to the left, but think corruption in politics is a major issue.

why wasn't the FBI investigation legitimate? each side spun it as they'd like but I'm assuming the FBI did their job here. just because assholes like Paul Ryan come in and say they didn't do their job and were biased (an FBI directed by a republican, initially in the Bush administration) doesn't mean that it wasn't by the book.

That was poor phrasing. The investigation was obviously legitimate. I guess I meant politically, I wish there would have been a legitimate debate on this instead of over the top commentary from one side and deflection from the other.

did not send classified material and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified

It is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

Among those was the fact that “a very small number” of emails sent on her server bore markings that indicated they were classified, contradicting not only previous statements of Mrs. Clinton’s but also claims by the State Department that none had.

While he did not identify any, he was evidently referring to two emails that one of Mrs. Clinton’s close aides, Monica R. Hanley, sent to prepare her for telephone calls with foreign leaders, according to a State Department official familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss classified information.

One email, dated Aug. 2, 2012, noted that Kofi Annan, the former secretary general of the United Nations, was stepping down as special envoy trying to mediate the war in Syria. A second one, sent in April 2012, discussed Mrs. Clinton’s call to the newly inaugurated president of Malawi.

Each was marked with a small notation, “(C),” indicating it contained information classified as “confidential.”

Other paragraphs in the note about Mr. Annan’s resignation were marked “(SBU),” for “sensitive but unclassified.” That designation appears in more than 1,000 of the 30,000 work-related emails that Mrs. Clinton turned over to the State Department, including some later “upgraded” to higher levels of classification. The official said that the notations were part of “a standard process” when preparing a phone call, which would be “confidential” until it occurred and then considered unclassified.

Far more serious were those that were unmarked, according to Mr. Comey. He referred at one point to eight chains that were classified as “top secret,” and at another point to seven with the additional designation as “special access programs.” Only a small number of officials are allowed access to those programs, which are the nation’s most sensitive intelligence operations.

Mr. Comey did not detail any of the information contained in the emails, but the State Department announced in January that it would not release to the public 22 emails contained in seven chains of emails and replies, even in a redacted form, as thousands of others have been over the last year. Those emails have been widely reported to include information about the Central Intelligence Agency’s program to use drones to track and kill terrorism suspects.

State Dept spox Kirby just now says two emails that Comey said were 'marked classified' were wrongly marked, and were not classified

In the handling of classified information, however, any carelessness is cause for concern. Mr. Comey noted that people who are careless often face administrative punishment, echoing some officials at the State Department who have privately suggested that a similar misstep could severely harm their careers.

SK790 wrote:

JUburton wrote:

SK790 wrote:i honestly wish the whole investigation could have been a legitimate investigation rather than political theater for the right over the better part of 5 years. if anything, the right has made Clinton look like the victim with their over-the-top rhetoric about the whole thing. at least to people like me who are to the left, but think corruption in politics is a major issue.

why wasn't the FBI investigation legitimate? each side spun it as they'd like but I'm assuming the FBI did their job here. just because assholes like Paul Ryan come in and say they didn't do their job and were biased (an FBI directed by a republican, initially in the Bush administration) doesn't mean that it wasn't by the book.

That was poor phrasing. The investigation was obviously legitimate. I guess I meant politically, I wish there would have been a legitimate debate on this instead of over the top commentary from one side and deflection from the other.

pacino wrote:the initial idea for the server was the biggest mistake i think she made. it's just stupid.