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

[Derec]

Since I am watching it live and the transcript has not yet been released, you will have to wait

I am asking because he was saying something very different when he first announced no charges.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's see...FBI investigates...no charges...republican congress summons FBI to ask about why no charges...

What a surprise.

Friday, January 20th, 2017: Inauguration Day
Monday, January 23rd, 2017: Articles of Impeachment filed

 

[Horatio Parker]

Let's see...FBI investigates...no charges...republican congress summons FBI to ask about why no charges...

What a surprise.

And supply HRC's campaign with a quote that the FBI has no evidence of her lying.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

And the Republican congressional posturing and public lynching of one of their own (FBI Director Comey) has begun

So far, zero actual questions for Director Comey... just pompous speechifying

The question now becomes how long they can drag this out. How many cans of dog food can they get out of this dead horse?

 

[RavenSky]

So going back to the fact that there was an average of two emails per exchange of this classified information - and I am assuming the documents were likely attachments? - I have to go back to the idea that as soon as the information was recognized as potentially classified, the conversation was taken to secure channels.

I believe Comey just testified that there were not classified attachments in the emails. It was conversations about classified subjects.

Then how was it marked? He made reference to marked documents.

It is not terribly clear (mainly because no one is actually asking any important questions, just pushing their own agendas), but it sounds like almost all, if not all, of the 110 emails in question were, as you noted, conversations about classified subjects. So my question is when/how were they marked?

ETA: Mr. Cartwright seems to be asking the correct questions now. And we seem to be down to only 3 documents that were marked at all at the time HRC got them; and of those three none were marked as any level of classified in the subject header. Apparently we are talking about emails that had a little (c) or (u) next to a paragraph somewhere in the email itself.

And I still haven't heard if she sent or received any of these three emails (though I am admittedly working while listening and so am sure I've missed some stuff)

 

[ZiprHead]

We have the rethug who said he would send a referral to the FBI to investigate Hillary for perjury this afternoon. And the beat goes on...

 

[ZiprHead]

I believe Comey just testified that there were not classified attachments in the emails. It was conversations about classified subjects.

Then how was it marked? He made reference to marked documents.

It is not terribly clear (mainly because no one is actually asking any important questions, just pushing their own agendas), but it sounds like almost all, if not all, of the 110 emails in question were, as you noted, conversations about classified subjects. So my question is when/how were they marked?

ETA: Mr. Cartwright seems to be asking the correct questions now. And we seem to be down to only 3 documents that were marked at all at the time HRC got them; and of those three none were marked as any level of classified in the subject header. Apparently we are talking about emails that had a little (c) or (u) next to a paragraph somewhere in the email itself.

And I still haven't heard if she sent or received any of these three emails (though I am admittedly working while listening and so am sure I've missed some stuff)

Yes, that's it. I was going to reply with that before you did the ETA.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Let's see...FBI investigates...no charges...republican congress summons FBI to ask about why no charges...

What a surprise.

And supply HRC's campaign with a quote that the FBI has no evidence of her lying.

To them perhaps. Although I am sick to death of this email farce, she most definitely lied to us about the whole thing. She did send classified material, she was not given the OK to use her own server (they didn't know as she claimed) and the whole idea supposedly was so she wouldn't need multiple devices, yet she used multiple devices.

The thing I find interesting and haven't seen discussed is why she really wanted to use her own server in the first place. I think that's obvious. While HRC alone is responsible for her choice to use her own server, to me it would make sense to do so to make it more difficult for the Republicans to come up wit yet another "scandal" against her, like the last 30 years. Ironic it actually resulted in yet another one.

 

[RavenSky]

Then how was it marked? He made reference to marked documents.

It is not terribly clear (mainly because no one is actually asking any important questions, just pushing their own agendas), but it sounds like almost all, if not all, of the 110 emails in question were, as you noted, conversations about classified subjects. So my question is when/how were they marked?

ETA: Mr. Cartwright seems to be asking the correct questions now. And we seem to be down to only 3 documents that were marked at all at the time HRC got them; and of those three none were marked as any level of classified in the subject header. Apparently we are talking about emails that had a little (c) or (u) next to a paragraph somewhere in the email itself.

And I still haven't heard if she sent or received any of these three emails (though I am admittedly working while listening and so am sure I've missed some stuff)

Yes, that's it. I was going to reply with that before you did the ETA.

So if I am understanding the full situation correctly, we have 3 emails that contained one or more little (c) markings somewhere in the body of the email, but no indication of classified content in the subject header.

And then we have approximately 107 emails that were retroactively declared contemporaneously "classified", but said emails contained no markings whatsoever to indicate that the contents were classified. And in all cases, these emails were in "chains" that mathematically could not have exceeded 2.1154 each. And in no case was a person without proper security clearance involved in the "chain".

I would love it if it turned out one of those Republican congressmen were the sender of one of those 110 emails. It is entirely possible.

Now Mr. Farenthold wants to know "what we need to get you guys to prosecute". Gee, how about we apply that to Bush and Cheney, you dipshit?

Director Comey just said that one of his own employees would NOT be prosecuted "for this".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

IMHO, a lot of the talking point defense by Hillary are red herrings. Whether someone marked such classified thing or not (including by the way Hillary not marking them herself when sending emails) isn't relevant to whether classified info was discussed. Anyone with access to secure information should know that there are topics not to touch and to also err on the side of caution. Erring on the side of caution not only would mean not to discuss the thousands of work-related emails with people without security clearance high enough to discuss them, but also don't have such work-related emails on a private email server to begin with.

So suppose someone whom Hillary communicates with, such as Sid Blumenthal, has no security clearance. She sends an email to him about a classified subject, such as Libya military intervention. She wouldn't have marked it as classified (her issue) but shouldn't be sending it in the first place (her issue) and should not be sending it over a private email server (also her issue). Suppose instead she receives an email from Sid Blumenthal about a classified topic to which he has no clearance. That's his issue (not hers). However, when she goes on discussing it with him that's her problem. When she goes on discussing it without classified marking, also her issue. That she did so on her private email server, also her problem. Now, thirdly, suppose that Sid Blumenthal DID have security clearance. Suppose he sent such email to her about a classified topic with no marking. That she responds without marking it herself is an issue for her. BUT that she responds on her private email server is still an issue--in fact, that's the common problem in all these scenarios.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, and suppose that she accidentally sends her hairdresser the nuclear launch codes when she meant to only book an appointment to get her bangs trimmed. Then suppose that her hairdresser was actually a member of Al Quaida. The terrorists would then have America's nuclear codes and millions of innocents would die.

Is that the type of risk you want to take with who's in the White House?

Trump 2016.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...but the professionals wouldn't do their job of providing a reasonable system so she made do...

huh?

The government system wasn't very workable.

 

[ksen]

Yes, that's it. I was going to reply with that before you did the ETA.

So if I am understanding the full situation correctly, we have 3 emails that contained one or more little (c) markings somewhere in the body of the email, but no indication of classified content in the subject header.

And then we have approximately 107 emails that were retroactively declared contemporaneously "classified", but said emails contained no markings whatsoever to indicate that the contents were classified. And in all cases, these emails were in "chains" that mathematically could not have exceeded 2.1154 each. And in no case was a person without proper security clearance involved in the "chain".

I would love it if it turned out one of those Republican congressmen were the sender of one of those 110 emails. It is entirely possible.

Now Mr. Farenthold wants to know "what we need to get you guys to prosecute". Gee, how about we apply that to Bush and Cheney, you dipshit?

Director Comey just said that one of his own employees would NOT be prosecuted "for this".

You're making a great case that she was incompetent.

 

[RavenSky]

IMHO, a lot of the talking point defense by Hillary are red herrings. Whether someone marked such classified thing or not (including by the way Hillary not marking them herself when sending emails) isn't relevant to whether classified info was discussed. Anyone with access to secure information should know that there are topics not to touch and to also err on the side of caution. Erring on the side of caution not only would mean not to discuss the thousands of work-related emails with people without security clearance high enough to discuss them, but also don't have such work-related emails on a private email server to begin with.

Which is where "careless" comes in

So suppose someone whom Hillary communicates with, such as Sid Blumenthal, has no security clearance. She sends an email to him about a classified subject, such as Libya military intervention. She wouldn't have marked it as classified (her issue) but shouldn't be sending it in the first place (her issue) and should not be sending it over a private email server (also her issue).

This never happened.

Suppose instead she receives an email from Sid Blumenthal about a classified topic to which he has no clearance. That's his issue (not hers). However, when she goes on discussing it with him that's her problem. When she goes on discussing it without classified marking, also her issue. That she did so on her private email server, also her problem.

This also never happened

Now, thirdly, suppose that Sid Blumenthal someone DID have security clearance. Suppose he sent such email to her about a classified topic with no marking. That she responds without marking it herself is an issue for her. BUT that she responds on her private email server is still an issue--in fact, that's the common problem in all these scenarios.

The FBI have determined that no classified information was shared with anyone lacking proper security clearance. Continuing to name Sid Blumenthal is a nonsense red herring.

But to the point of two people with proper security clearance having an email exchange wherein the content was or should have been marked as classified on the non-state-department system. Yes, it is a problem for BOTH people involved (hence my wish to know if any of the congress-critters were involved), but in the determination of FBI Director Comey it did not rise to the level of criminality.

 

[RavenSky]

So if I am understanding the full situation correctly, we have 3 emails that contained one or more little (c) markings somewhere in the body of the email, but no indication of classified content in the subject header.

And then we have approximately 107 emails that were retroactively declared contemporaneously "classified", but said emails contained no markings whatsoever to indicate that the contents were classified. And in all cases, these emails were in "chains" that mathematically could not have exceeded 2.1154 each. And in no case was a person without proper security clearance involved in the "chain".

I would love it if it turned out one of those Republican congressmen were the sender of one of those 110 emails. It is entirely possible.

Now Mr. Farenthold wants to know "what we need to get you guys to prosecute". Gee, how about we apply that to Bush and Cheney, you dipshit?

Director Comey just said that one of his own employees would NOT be prosecuted "for this".

You're making a great case that she was incompetent.

Over 3 emails in 4 years? Not even a little bit.

 

[RavenSky]

Could they PLEASE let this poor man go to the bathroom! It's been 4 and a half hours, and he said an hour ago he needed to go

 

[ZiprHead]

You're making a great case that she was incompetent.

Actually it sounds to me like the entire department was pretty lax about security. Note the point about ambassadors and their staffs discussing drone strikes.

 

[RavenSky]

Could they PLEASE let this poor man go to the bathroom! It's been 4 and a half hours, and he said an hour ago he needed to go

Spoke a moment too soon... they finally let him go to the bathroom

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Could they PLEASE let this poor man go to the bathroom! It's been 4 and a half hours, and he said an hour ago he needed to go

Well, keeping people in interrogations when they really need to pee is a fairly standard technique used to get people to slip up and unintentionally reveal the crimes they've committed. It's only fair turn around that the country's top cop is now himself subjected to it when he's covering up his complicity in a major act of treason.

- - - Updated - - -

Could they PLEASE let this poor man go to the bathroom! It's been 4 and a half hours, and he said an hour ago he needed to go

Spoke a moment too soon... they finally let him go to the bathroom

Pussies. That's why the terrorists are winning.

By terrorists, I mean Clintons.

 

[Tristan Scott]

So if I am understanding the full situation correctly, we have 3 emails that contained one or more little (c) markings somewhere in the body of the email, but no indication of classified content in the subject header.

And then we have approximately 107 emails that were retroactively declared contemporaneously "classified", but said emails contained no markings whatsoever to indicate that the contents were classified. And in all cases, these emails were in "chains" that mathematically could not have exceeded 2.1154 each. And in no case was a person without proper security clearance involved in the "chain".

I would love it if it turned out one of those Republican congressmen were the sender of one of those 110 emails. It is entirely possible.

Now Mr. Farenthold wants to know "what we need to get you guys to prosecute". Gee, how about we apply that to Bush and Cheney, you dipshit?

Director Comey just said that one of his own employees would NOT be prosecuted "for this".

You're making a great case that she was incompetent.

You've made a great case that it doesn't matter what she did or didn't do. You would never support her. Vote for Trump.

 

[RavenSky]

You're making a great case that she was incompetent.

Actually it sounds to me like the entire department was pretty lax about security. Note the point about ambassadors and their staffs discussing drone strikes.

I agree, and that was one of the points Director Comey made on Tuesday, too.

I suspect, though, that if every congressional Republican currently engaged in faux-outrage had all of their emails placed under the same scrutiny as HRC's was, they would be shown just as lax.