FBI recommends no charges against Mrs Clinton: let the accusations begin. Will this help or hurt HRC?

[Artemus]

Another view of things
The FBI, Credibility, and Government

From a legal standpoint, that’s absurd.

Scott Adams is not qualified to make a judgment from a legal standpoint.

 

[Will Wiley]

Another view of things
The FBI, Credibility, and Government

Scott Adams is not qualified to make a judgment from a legal standpoint.

Because he doesn't have degree in law?

Who is qualified to make a judgement? Anyone with a law degree? Anyone who is a judge(or similar)?

If you are talking technically, then a judgement can only be made by a court.
Is that what you mean?

Or are you merely saying Scott Adams is not a lawyer, and therefore is not qualified to say anything about the law?

 

[Artemus]

Scott Adams is not qualified to make a judgment from a legal standpoint.

Because he doesn't have degree in law?

Who is qualified to make a judgement? Anyone with a law degree? Anyone who is a judge(or similar)?

If you are talking technically, then a judgement can only be made by a court.
Is that what you mean?

Or are you merely saying Scott Adams is not a lawyer, and therefore is not qualified to say anything about the law?

I'm saying that Scott Adams is not qualified to make a judgment from a legal standpoint. If you can provide evidence that he is then please do so.

A former Assistant Attorney General (including a time acting AG) of the United States as well as current director of the FBI, on the other hand, is indeed qualified to make a judgment from a legal standpoint.

 

[Will Wiley]

Because he doesn't have degree in law?

Who is qualified to make a judgement? Anyone with a law degree? Anyone who is a judge(or similar)?

If you are talking technically, then a judgement can only be made by a court.
Is that what you mean?

Or are you merely saying Scott Adams is not a lawyer, and therefore is not qualified to say anything about the law?

I'm saying that Scott Adams is not qualified to make a judgment from a legal standpoint. If you can provide evidence that he is then please do so.

As I pointed out only a court can make a judgement from a legal standpoint.

A former Assistant Attorney General (including a time acting AG) of the United States as well as current director of the FBI, on the other hand, is indeed qualified to make a judgment from a legal standpoint.

No he is not. Only a court can make a judgement.

You are trying to say something but you need to be more precise in your language. Words have meanings. A judgement, from a legal standpoint, has a particular meaning.

Comey can have an opinion, even a very convoluted and contradictory one, but he cannot make a judgement

 

[maxparrish]

There are plenty of laws that do not require intent: manslaughter, culpable negligence in Florida (that I thought Zimmerman should be charged with), and reckless endangerment to name 3. Negligence itself doesn't sound like it requires intent but rather recklessness and gross negligence sounds like it might require deliberate recklessness, not deliberate outcome. Note the difference.

Doesn't really matter what any of us armchair prosecutors (or any of the Republicans in congress) think... the FBI Director said that, per their findings, she did not break any laws and that this is why he did not recommend prosecution. He made it excruciatingly clear that he was NOT simply saying "not enough evidence to convict"; but rather not enough evidence of any laws being broken. He specifically stated that this would be his finding whether it was her or some lowly FBI employee or anyone else.

I know that won't satisfy you or plenty of others, but that is what he (the Bush appointee) said

Your editorializing is unsupported. Let Comey speak for himself:

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information..."

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges."

He literally said there is evidence of law breaking, but not enough for a reasonable prosecutor under criminal law. One can fully agree with Comey's statements (as some do) and still believe that she likely or possibly broke laws (as some also do).

As most rational and reasonable folk already know there is a difference between a person noting an insufficiency of evidence versus asserting that law breaking did not happen.

To repeat: please quote where he asserted, as a matter of fact, she did not break the law.

 

[Artemus]

Double post.

 

[Artemus]

As I pointed out only a court can make a judgement from a legal standpoint.

A former Assistant Attorney General (including a time acting AG) of the United States as well as current director of the FBI, on the other hand, is indeed qualified to make a judgment from a legal standpoint.

No he is not. Only a court can make a judgement.

I see. We're playing word games. I'll rephrase the statement. Scott Adams is not qualified to give an assessment, evaluation, appraisal, analysis, recommendation, or any other synonym from a legal standpoint. He is just pissing in the wind like the rest of us. If you have evidence that he is then please provide it.

James Comey, on the other hand, is qualified to make a <insert synonym here> from a legal standpoint.

And no, having a law degree does not automatically make one qualified. I would not ask Judge Judy for her opinion on the case even though she is extremely qualified to comment on family law.

 

[Will Wiley]

As I pointed out only a court can make a judgement from a legal standpoint.


No he is not. Only a court can make a judgement.

I see. We're playing word games. I'll rephrase the statement. Scott Adams is not qualified to give an assessment, evaluation, appraisal, analysis, recommendation, or any other synonym from a legal standpoint. He is just pissing in the wind like the rest of us. If you have evidence that he is then please provide it.

James Comey, on the other hand, is qualified to make a <insert synonym here> from a legal standpoint.

And no, having a law degree does not automatically make one qualified. I would not ask Judge Judy for her opinion on the case even though she is extremely qualified to comment on family law.

Comey is in the worst position to make an appraisal because his future very likely depends on Hillary Clinton.
He is clearly compromised. His legal qualifications don't suddenly mean he isn't human.

He has had enormous pressure on him and like most of us would have he cracked. He came out sounding like a corrupt fool. Though Clinton supporters are less likely to see that
Or as Scott Adams thinks he sacrificed himself rather than play such a big role in who will be President.

 

[Artemus]

You are trying to say something but you need to be more precise in your language. Words have meanings. A judgement, from a legal standpoint, has a particular meaning.

Since this is a public forum and not a legal setting, nor am I commenting from (or qualified to comment from) a legal standpoint, the legal definition is irrelevant. But red-herring word games, are fun, aren't they?

But let's get back to the issue at hand. Why should anyone give a rat's ass about what Scott Adams thinks?

 

[Artemus]

Comey is in the worst position to make an appraisal because his future very likely depends on Hillary Clinton.
He is clearly compromised. His legal qualifications don't suddenly mean he isn't human.

His future depended on Bush as well, and yet he stood up to him and was not compromised. Provide evidence that he is "clearly compromised" now.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I see. We're playing word games. I'll rephrase the statement. Scott Adams is not qualified to give an assessment, evaluation, appraisal, analysis, recommendation, or any other synonym from a legal standpoint. He is just pissing in the wind like the rest of us. If you have evidence that he is then please provide it.

James Comey, on the other hand, is qualified to make a <insert synonym here> from a legal standpoint.

And no, having a law degree does not automatically make one qualified. I would not ask Judge Judy for her opinion on the case even though she is extremely qualified to comment on family law.

Comey is in the worst position to make an appraisal because his future very likely depends on Hillary Clinton.

Curious, who wouldn't be in the worst position to make an appraisal right now? Darryl Issa?

He is clearly compromised. His legal qualifications don't suddenly mean he isn't human.

So if he did say charges should be made, would you be arguing that he was clearly compromised?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, the only person who can revoke that clearance is Obama and he gives even less of a crap about this bullshit than Clinton does. There'll be a few weeks of noise but then all anyone will really remember is that she wasn't charged with anything.

Um, she doesn't currently hold a government position, so she doesn't currently have a security clearance.

You leave the job, your 'need to know' goes away, so does any need to have access.

At the worst, her next application for a clearance might have some red flags in the background check, but not necessarily.

The security clearance given to the President is exactly 'Need to know.' They tell the pres what the president needs to know. He (she) won't have access to the nuclear launch codes themselves, but will be followed around by a guy who has a rather specific clearance to be her footballer, for example.

She (he) won't have the codes for secure transmissions on Air Force One, but there's an office of AF communicators on the plane for those details.

 

[maxparrish]

Quite aside from needlessly lurid speculations on Comey's motives there seems to be increasing evidence that while his agency's review was extensive, Comey treated Clinton with delicacy and deference, accepting the coordinated staff cover story and a her single 3hr. interview (conducted AFTER the decision was made not to prosecute) as definitive. Unlike other security investigation cases, they did not execute a search warrant of her home and offices, many associates (including her husband) were not interviewed, etc. Clearly he chose not to be as vigorous as, for example, Fitzgerald (who empaneled a grand jury for sworn testimony).

More importantly, increasing commentary by legal professionals suggests Comey was wrong. And it is not just those right of center who suggests as much:

https://beckandlee.wordpress.com/20...egal-analysis/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true

If so, Comey gave her a pass.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, they're going to drag it out. My point is that dragging it out won't work.

Depends on their goals. I agree it won't work in derailing Mrs. Clinton POTUS bid. But, these partisans also have to throw raw meat to their rabid Clinton-hater part of their base.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, the only person who can revoke that clearance is Obama and he gives even less of a crap about this bullshit than Clinton does. There'll be a few weeks of noise but then all anyone will really remember is that she wasn't charged with anything.

Um, she doesn't currently hold a government position, so she doesn't currently have a security clearance.

You leave the job, your 'need to know' goes away, so does any need to have access.

At the worst, her next application for a clearance might have some red flags in the background check, but not necessarily.

The security clearance given to the President is exactly 'Need to know.' They tell the pres what the president needs to know. He (she) won't have access to the nuclear launch codes themselves, but will be followed around by a guy who has a rather specific clearance to be her footballer, for example.

She (he) won't have the codes for secure transmissions on Air Force One, but there's an office of AF communicators on the plane for those details.

The security clearance being talked about is the daily intelligence briefings that she and Trump will get when they're the official nominees of their party so that whomever wins is up to date on everything when they get into the office. Ryan wants her barred from that because she might inadvertently email information about it to a Jewish person. Obama's the one who makes a decision about that.

 

[ZiprHead]

Just to reiterate.:

CARTWRIGHT: All right. You were asked about markings on a few documents. I have the manual here. Marking classified national security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little "c"s on them.

Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

COMEY: No.

CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. Right?

COMEY: Correct.

CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little "c" in the text someplace?

COMEY: No. They were three e-mails. The "c" was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the e-mail or in the text.

CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what's not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

...

CUMMINGS: I wanted to clear up some things. I want to make sure I understand exactly what you testified to on the issue of whether Secretary Clinton sent or received e-mails that were marked as classified.

On Tuesday you stated, and I quote, "only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings, and I emphasis bore markings, indicating the presence of classified information."

Republicans have pounced on this statement as evidence that Secretary Clinton lied. But today we learned some significant new facts and I hope the press listens to this. First you clarify that you were talking about only three e-mails out of 30 thousand. Your office is reviewed. Is that right?

COMEY: Three, yes.

CUMMINGS: Three out of 30 thousand, is that right?

COMEY: Yes at least 30 thousand.

CUMMINGS: At least 30 thousand. Second, you confirmed that these three e-mails were not properly marked as classified at the time based on Federal guidelines and manuals.They did not have a classification header; they did not list the original classifier, the agency, officer of origin, reason for classification, or date for declassification. Instead these e-mails included only a single quote see parenthesis, end parenthesis and then end of quotation mark for confidential on one paragraph lower down in the text, is that right?

COMEY: Correct.

CUMMINGS: Third, you testified that based on these facts it would have been a quote "reasonable inference for Secretary Clinton to" quote "immediately" end of quote conclude that these e-mails were not in fact classified. So that was also critical new information. But there's one more critical fact that these e-mails were not in fact, and that is this Director, and to the press these e-mails were not in fact classified.

The State Department explained to us yesterday -- they reported that these e-mails are not classified and that including the little C on these e-mails was a result of a human error. The bottom line is that those little Cs should not have been on those documents because they were not in fact classified.

When Representative Watson Coleman asked you a few minutes ago about this you testified that you had not been informed. And I understand that, I'm not beating up on you I promise you. But can you tell us why Director Comey -- because I want -- because republicans are pouncing saying the Secretary lied and I want to make sure we're clear on this. Can you tell us why Director Comey did you consult, and we're just curious, did you consult about these three e-mails out of the more than 30 thousand or did this just not come up? What happened there?

COMEY: Yes I'm not remembering for sure while I'm here. I'm highly confident we consulted with them and got their view on it. I don't know about what happened yesterday. Maybe their view has changed or they found things out that we didn't know. But I'm highly confident we consulted with them about it.

CUMMINGS: So this is solely different than what we understood yesterday. Today we learned that these e-mails were not in fact classified, they should not have been included in those -- they should not have included those straight (ph) markings. They were not properly marked as classified and the Director of the FBI believes it was reasonable for Secretary Clinton to assume that these documents were not classified.

...

CUMMINGS: Today 10s of thousands of Secretary Clinton's e-mails are probably available on the State Department's website. And our staff have been reviewing the e-mails that were retroactively determined to include classified information. Based on this review, it appears that these e-mails included more than one thousand individuals who sent or received the information that is not redacted as classified. Let me make that clear. About one thousand people sent or received the same information that was contained in Secretary Clinton's e-mails and retroactively classified. Were you aware of that?

COMEY: No, the number doesn't surprised me though.

CUMMINGS: Why not?

COMEY: Because this was -- they were doing the business of the State Department on this e-mail system, so I don't know how many thousands of people work in the State Department. But it doesn't surprise there'd be lots of people on these chains.

CUMMINGS: And would you agree that something needs to be done with regard to this classification stuff because classified things are classified then they're not classified, then they are retroactively classified. I mean does that go into your consideration when looking at a case like this?

COMEY: Yes I don't pay much attention to the up classified stuff because we're focused on intent. So if someone classifies it later, it's impossible that you formed intent around that because it wasn't classified at the time. I know that's a process -- I wasn't familiar with it before this investigation, but I don't spend a lot of time focused on it in the course of a criminal investigation.

CUMMINGS: I understand. We also reviewed who these people are and they include a host of very experienced career diplomats with many years of experience. So let me ask you this. When you received this referral from the Inspector General about Secretary Clinton's e-mails, did you also receive any referrals for any of the other one thousand people who sent and received those e-mails? Did you?

COMEY: No.

 

[RavenSky]

Just to reiterate.:

CARTWRIGHT: All right. You were asked about markings on a few documents. I have the manual here. Marking classified national security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little "c"s on them.

Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

COMEY: No.

CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. Right?

COMEY: Correct.

CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little "c" in the text someplace?

COMEY: No. They were three e-mails. The "c" was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the e-mail or in the text.

CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what's not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

...

CUMMINGS: I wanted to clear up some things. I want to make sure I understand exactly what you testified to on the issue of whether Secretary Clinton sent or received e-mails that were marked as classified.

On Tuesday you stated, and I quote, "only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings, and I emphasis bore markings, indicating the presence of classified information."

Republicans have pounced on this statement as evidence that Secretary Clinton lied. But today we learned some significant new facts and I hope the press listens to this. First you clarify that you were talking about only three e-mails out of 30 thousand. Your office is reviewed. Is that right?

COMEY: Three, yes.

CUMMINGS: Three out of 30 thousand, is that right?

COMEY: Yes at least 30 thousand.

CUMMINGS: At least 30 thousand. Second, you confirmed that these three e-mails were not properly marked as classified at the time based on Federal guidelines and manuals.They did not have a classification header; they did not list the original classifier, the agency, officer of origin, reason for classification, or date for declassification. Instead these e-mails included only a single quote see parenthesis, end parenthesis and then end of quotation mark for confidential on one paragraph lower down in the text, is that right?

COMEY: Correct.

CUMMINGS: Third, you testified that based on these facts it would have been a quote "reasonable inference for Secretary Clinton to" quote "immediately" end of quote conclude that these e-mails were not in fact classified. So that was also critical new information. But there's one more critical fact that these e-mails were not in fact, and that is this Director, and to the press these e-mails were not in fact classified.

The State Department explained to us yesterday -- they reported that these e-mails are not classified and that including the little C on these e-mails was a result of a human error. The bottom line is that those little Cs should not have been on those documents because they were not in fact classified.

When Representative Watson Coleman asked you a few minutes ago about this you testified that you had not been informed. And I understand that, I'm not beating up on you I promise you. But can you tell us why Director Comey -- because I want -- because republicans are pouncing saying the Secretary lied and I want to make sure we're clear on this. Can you tell us why Director Comey did you consult, and we're just curious, did you consult about these three e-mails out of the more than 30 thousand or did this just not come up? What happened there?

COMEY: Yes I'm not remembering for sure while I'm here. I'm highly confident we consulted with them and got their view on it. I don't know about what happened yesterday. Maybe their view has changed or they found things out that we didn't know. But I'm highly confident we consulted with them about it.

CUMMINGS: So this is solely different than what we understood yesterday. Today we learned that these e-mails were not in fact classified, they should not have been included in those -- they should not have included those straight (ph) markings. They were not properly marked as classified and the Director of the FBI believes it was reasonable for Secretary Clinton to assume that these documents were not classified.

...

CUMMINGS: Today 10s of thousands of Secretary Clinton's e-mails are probably available on the State Department's website. And our staff have been reviewing the e-mails that were retroactively determined to include classified information. Based on this review, it appears that these e-mails included more than one thousand individuals who sent or received the information that is not redacted as classified. Let me make that clear. About one thousand people sent or received the same information that was contained in Secretary Clinton's e-mails and retroactively classified. Were you aware of that?

COMEY: No, the number doesn't surprised me though.

CUMMINGS: Why not?

COMEY: Because this was -- they were doing the business of the State Department on this e-mail system, so I don't know how many thousands of people work in the State Department. But it doesn't surprise there'd be lots of people on these chains.

CUMMINGS: And would you agree that something needs to be done with regard to this classification stuff because classified things are classified then they're not classified, then they are retroactively classified. I mean does that go into your consideration when looking at a case like this?

COMEY: Yes I don't pay much attention to the up classified stuff because we're focused on intent. So if someone classifies it later, it's impossible that you formed intent around that because it wasn't classified at the time. I know that's a process -- I wasn't familiar with it before this investigation, but I don't spend a lot of time focused on it in the course of a criminal investigation.

CUMMINGS: I understand. We also reviewed who these people are and they include a host of very experienced career diplomats with many years of experience. So let me ask you this. When you received this referral from the Inspector General about Secretary Clinton's e-mails, did you also receive any referrals for any of the other one thousand people who sent and received those e-mails? Did you?

COMEY: No.

You beat me to it, thank you. These are critically important passages, and should refute entirely this nonsense about HRC "lied". It won't, but it should.

 

[Artemus]

Just to reiterate.:

CARTWRIGHT: All right. You were asked about markings on a few documents. I have the manual here. Marking classified national security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little "c"s on them.

Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

COMEY: No.

CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. Right?

COMEY: Correct.

CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little "c" in the text someplace?

COMEY: No. They were three e-mails. The "c" was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the e-mail or in the text.

CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what's not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

...

CUMMINGS: I wanted to clear up some things. I want to make sure I understand exactly what you testified to on the issue of whether Secretary Clinton sent or received e-mails that were marked as classified.

On Tuesday you stated, and I quote, "only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings, and I emphasis bore markings, indicating the presence of classified information."

Republicans have pounced on this statement as evidence that Secretary Clinton lied. But today we learned some significant new facts and I hope the press listens to this. First you clarify that you were talking about only three e-mails out of 30 thousand. Your office is reviewed. Is that right?

COMEY: Three, yes.

CUMMINGS: Three out of 30 thousand, is that right?

COMEY: Yes at least 30 thousand.

CUMMINGS: At least 30 thousand. Second, you confirmed that these three e-mails were not properly marked as classified at the time based on Federal guidelines and manuals.They did not have a classification header; they did not list the original classifier, the agency, officer of origin, reason for classification, or date for declassification. Instead these e-mails included only a single quote see parenthesis, end parenthesis and then end of quotation mark for confidential on one paragraph lower down in the text, is that right?

COMEY: Correct.

CUMMINGS: Third, you testified that based on these facts it would have been a quote "reasonable inference for Secretary Clinton to" quote "immediately" end of quote conclude that these e-mails were not in fact classified. So that was also critical new information. But there's one more critical fact that these e-mails were not in fact, and that is this Director, and to the press these e-mails were not in fact classified.

The State Department explained to us yesterday -- they reported that these e-mails are not classified and that including the little C on these e-mails was a result of a human error. The bottom line is that those little Cs should not have been on those documents because they were not in fact classified.

When Representative Watson Coleman asked you a few minutes ago about this you testified that you had not been informed. And I understand that, I'm not beating up on you I promise you. But can you tell us why Director Comey -- because I want -- because republicans are pouncing saying the Secretary lied and I want to make sure we're clear on this. Can you tell us why Director Comey did you consult, and we're just curious, did you consult about these three e-mails out of the more than 30 thousand or did this just not come up? What happened there?

COMEY: Yes I'm not remembering for sure while I'm here. I'm highly confident we consulted with them and got their view on it. I don't know about what happened yesterday. Maybe their view has changed or they found things out that we didn't know. But I'm highly confident we consulted with them about it.

CUMMINGS: So this is solely different than what we understood yesterday. Today we learned that these e-mails were not in fact classified, they should not have been included in those -- they should not have included those straight (ph) markings. They were not properly marked as classified and the Director of the FBI believes it was reasonable for Secretary Clinton to assume that these documents were not classified.

...

CUMMINGS: Today 10s of thousands of Secretary Clinton's e-mails are probably available on the State Department's website. And our staff have been reviewing the e-mails that were retroactively determined to include classified information. Based on this review, it appears that these e-mails included more than one thousand individuals who sent or received the information that is not redacted as classified. Let me make that clear. About one thousand people sent or received the same information that was contained in Secretary Clinton's e-mails and retroactively classified. Were you aware of that?

COMEY: No, the number doesn't surprised me though.

CUMMINGS: Why not?

COMEY: Because this was -- they were doing the business of the State Department on this e-mail system, so I don't know how many thousands of people work in the State Department. But it doesn't surprise there'd be lots of people on these chains.

CUMMINGS: And would you agree that something needs to be done with regard to this classification stuff because classified things are classified then they're not classified, then they are retroactively classified. I mean does that go into your consideration when looking at a case like this?

COMEY: Yes I don't pay much attention to the up classified stuff because we're focused on intent. So if someone classifies it later, it's impossible that you formed intent around that because it wasn't classified at the time. I know that's a process -- I wasn't familiar with it before this investigation, but I don't spend a lot of time focused on it in the course of a criminal investigation.

CUMMINGS: I understand. We also reviewed who these people are and they include a host of very experienced career diplomats with many years of experience. So let me ask you this. When you received this referral from the Inspector General about Secretary Clinton's e-mails, did you also receive any referrals for any of the other one thousand people who sent and received those e-mails? Did you?

COMEY: No.

Is there a direct link to this particular exchange in a transcript somewhere. I need to forward it to a few people.

 

[maxparrish]

Just to reiterate.:

CARTWRIGHT: ... Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little "c" in the text someplace?

COMEY: No. They were three e-mails. The "c" was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the e-mail or in the text.

CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what's not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

...

CUMMINGS: I wanted to clear up some things. I want to make sure I understand exactly what you testified to on the issue of whether Secretary Clinton sent or received e-mails that were marked as classified.

On Tuesday you stated, and I quote, "only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings, and I emphasis bore markings, indicating the presence of classified information." ... (etc.)

Do you honestly think the entire investigation is only over three emails marked with a "c", and as to whether or not that is indicative of classified information? Your exhaustive quote of Comey, as well as that of Cummings trying to put words in his mouth, tells us almost nothing about Hillary's culpability on the transmission and storage of over the other 107 memos containing confidential, secret, top secret and SAP (a sort of super secret) information, especially those classified at the time.

As for inferences, OF COURSE one can infer that she did not know the information was a marking for secret...on the other hand, given her position and experience, we can also infer that she (or her staff) should have known it might have been. It depends if you believe Hillary and/or staff are so remarkably unimaginative and intellectually challenged to infer that markings may have suggested they were classified.

As is much of the case to exonerate Hillary and/or her staff, it requires a very generous suspension of disbelief of the obvious.

 

[RavenSky]

Just to reiterate.:

CARTWRIGHT: All right. You were asked about markings on a few documents. I have the manual here. Marking classified national security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little "c"s on them.

Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

COMEY: No.

CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. Right?

COMEY: Correct.

CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little "c" in the text someplace?

COMEY: No. They were three e-mails. The "c" was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the e-mail or in the text.

CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what's not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

...

CUMMINGS: I wanted to clear up some things. I want to make sure I understand exactly what you testified to on the issue of whether Secretary Clinton sent or received e-mails that were marked as classified.

On Tuesday you stated, and I quote, "only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings, and I emphasis bore markings, indicating the presence of classified information."

Republicans have pounced on this statement as evidence that Secretary Clinton lied. But today we learned some significant new facts and I hope the press listens to this. First you clarify that you were talking about only three e-mails out of 30 thousand. Your office is reviewed. Is that right?

COMEY: Three, yes.

CUMMINGS: Three out of 30 thousand, is that right?

COMEY: Yes at least 30 thousand.

CUMMINGS: At least 30 thousand. Second, you confirmed that these three e-mails were not properly marked as classified at the time based on Federal guidelines and manuals.They did not have a classification header; they did not list the original classifier, the agency, officer of origin, reason for classification, or date for declassification. Instead these e-mails included only a single quote see parenthesis, end parenthesis and then end of quotation mark for confidential on one paragraph lower down in the text, is that right?

COMEY: Correct.

CUMMINGS: Third, you testified that based on these facts it would have been a quote "reasonable inference for Secretary Clinton to" quote "immediately" end of quote conclude that these e-mails were not in fact classified. So that was also critical new information. But there's one more critical fact that these e-mails were not in fact, and that is this Director, and to the press these e-mails were not in fact classified.

The State Department explained to us yesterday -- they reported that these e-mails are not classified and that including the little C on these e-mails was a result of a human error. The bottom line is that those little Cs should not have been on those documents because they were not in fact classified.

When Representative Watson Coleman asked you a few minutes ago about this you testified that you had not been informed. And I understand that, I'm not beating up on you I promise you. But can you tell us why Director Comey -- because I want -- because republicans are pouncing saying the Secretary lied and I want to make sure we're clear on this. Can you tell us why Director Comey did you consult, and we're just curious, did you consult about these three e-mails out of the more than 30 thousand or did this just not come up? What happened there?

COMEY: Yes I'm not remembering for sure while I'm here. I'm highly confident we consulted with them and got their view on it. I don't know about what happened yesterday. Maybe their view has changed or they found things out that we didn't know. But I'm highly confident we consulted with them about it.

CUMMINGS: So this is solely different than what we understood yesterday. Today we learned that these e-mails were not in fact classified, they should not have been included in those -- they should not have included those straight (ph) markings. They were not properly marked as classified and the Director of the FBI believes it was reasonable for Secretary Clinton to assume that these documents were not classified.

...

CUMMINGS: Today 10s of thousands of Secretary Clinton's e-mails are probably available on the State Department's website. And our staff have been reviewing the e-mails that were retroactively determined to include classified information. Based on this review, it appears that these e-mails included more than one thousand individuals who sent or received the information that is not redacted as classified. Let me make that clear. About one thousand people sent or received the same information that was contained in Secretary Clinton's e-mails and retroactively classified. Were you aware of that?

COMEY: No, the number doesn't surprised me though.

CUMMINGS: Why not?

COMEY: Because this was -- they were doing the business of the State Department on this e-mail system, so I don't know how many thousands of people work in the State Department. But it doesn't surprise there'd be lots of people on these chains.

CUMMINGS: And would you agree that something needs to be done with regard to this classification stuff because classified things are classified then they're not classified, then they are retroactively classified. I mean does that go into your consideration when looking at a case like this?

COMEY: Yes I don't pay much attention to the up classified stuff because we're focused on intent. So if someone classifies it later, it's impossible that you formed intent around that because it wasn't classified at the time. I know that's a process -- I wasn't familiar with it before this investigation, but I don't spend a lot of time focused on it in the course of a criminal investigation.

CUMMINGS: I understand. We also reviewed who these people are and they include a host of very experienced career diplomats with many years of experience. So let me ask you this. When you received this referral from the Inspector General about Secretary Clinton's e-mails, did you also receive any referrals for any of the other one thousand people who sent and received those e-mails? Did you?

COMEY: No.

Is there a direct link to this particular exchange in a transcript somewhere. I need to forward it to a few people.

Here is State Department John Kirby's statement: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/0...y-information-regarding-clinton-emails/211397

Here is the source I saw earlier today. It is not as complete as what Ziprhead posted above, but it is part of it: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/0...ed-clinton-email-discrepancy-overblown/211420

Here is the full transcript of the hearing: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1607/07/ath.02.html