As the FBI statement points out (and we have known for weeks), some of it was indeed marked classified in addition to the larger proportion that was classified at the time, in addition to the larger proportion whose classification happened post hoc.
Actually, didn’t he say it WAS classified at the time, not MARKED classified?
I had a conversation with an IT person from a federal agency a few weeks ago. Her take? (paraphrased) “Her excuses are complete bullshit and it’s utterly obvious she knew exactly what she was doing. She had lots of warnings, tons of people saying she was doing the wrong thing, signed a frillion forms, had training on classified information and federal IT rules, and she still arrogantly decided the rules don’t apply. But I will still vote for her, because I’m not stupid.”
Right now, leading Congressional Trump supporter Darrell Issa is complaining that Comey gave Hillary a pass. And that Hillary’s actions were worse than David Petraeus’.
No. Well, he said both types existed. I posted the full statement above.
My favorite Facebook spittle-flying right-wing re-poster “Friend” has reposted, three times in the past hour or two, rants claiming the director of the FBI was somehow ‘bought off’ by the Clintons. Hee.
Jesus Christ could be your nominee and you STILL wouldn’t be able to exploit it.
All the Republicans are butthurt. Their golden parachute failed to open and now they are stuck with nothing more than a troglodyte with a comb-over shooting blanks at a brick wall.
In other news, Obama gave a great speech in Charlotte today. He asked why we expect airline pilots and surgeons to have the appropriate background, but not a future president.
Would you say that it happens more than .03% of the time? That’s what I’ve been wondering about. They found approximately 110 emails that were mishandled out of 30000 available. That’s a .03% error rate.
To me this sounds really low but again, we’re talking about an issue that is very important so maybe this is a zero tolerance issue which I don’t believe is humanly possible to attain for reasons that you mentioned above. How would you rate this ratio based on your experiences?
True but this can be said about lots of folks. The technology is still new; the people aren’t. We all expect them to change their way of thinking and acting on a dime but I can see how for people who email has only been a reality for a small sliver of their life might underestimate the need for certain security measures.
It’s not good but it is what it is and I’m pretty forgiving about that one as long as the lessons are learned. I have a lot of experience in tech support and the amount of disregard of all things security related makes me a pragmatist. Should a person in a high position be more prudent than an average person? Yes, but it’s unrealistic to expect them to be perfect, especially if their background as well as their life is not technologically based at all.
That’s kinda why I disagree with your statement about their ego’s being the issue but other than that I agree with everything you wrote above. I blame ignorance more than ego for not listening to the experts but either way, it’s not lost on me to see how the right side of the aisle disregards the experts on most issues that they disagree with ( I’m not a scientist but… ) but expect that they can hold the lefts feet to the fire for doing the same thing. It’s hypocricy at it’s lowest hanging level.
I believe it’s because we’ve made laws and regulations regulating pilots and surgeons where the rules for the presidency are more lax. That’s how I set my expectations anyway.
I’ve worked in healthcare IT. I had to take all kinds of courses on HIPAA. It is a Big Deal. If I had a server like Hillary did, and it was full of patient information, I would go to prison. Why does she get a free pass for something that could have endangered the nation? State secrets are an even bigger deal than health information.
Nonsense. I’m quite aware of the way politics have worked throughout history, and I’m also well aware of the way governance in general has worked throughout history. Rule of law is an aberration, Self-governance is an aberration, and it’s always questionable to think that aberrational conditions can last long. That was the thrust of Franklin’s line about “a republic if you can keep it.” Those aberrational conditions have lasted as long as they have in western civilzation, in large part because the governing class – including politicians – have practiced a virtuous hypocrisy.
Of course they lied, cheated, took bribes, etc. But they had the good taste to lie about it, and claim they were in fact holding themselves to “a higher standard”. … and in fact they had to do this because the voting populace would not have stood for politicians openly admitting to anything else. " Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue," etc. That has changed in recent decades: voters are pretty much willing to accept dishonesty so long as it’s from their side, and are OK with cheating so long as they win.
This recent email diversion was just a clever ploy by Clinton to get The Republic Party off the real scandal. The Clinton White House Christmas Card scandal of 1994. The Republics in Congress were on it but got sidetracked. Actually did take 140 hours of testimony over 10 days. But they let it go. Ask anyone who has followed the corrupt Clinton’s carefully and they’ll all tell you, the Christmas Card Scandal sends both Bill and Hillary to Leavenworth for a long time. But the wienie, scandal weary Republics let them off.
No, you would get sued, pay a fine, and look for a new job. If you did it intentionally, then you might face prison time. See the parallel?
Probably higher than that. Maybe .1 to .5% or so, but that’s a top-of-the-head estimate.
I’ll have you know that they were worth Twice what he paid and then some!
I don’t completely disagree. But that also goes both ways: in 2008 the GOP nominated a guy famous for his willingness to buck his own party and make compromises, and he got painted as a unhinged bloodthirsty warmonger. In 2012 they nominated a milqutoast centrist technocrat, and he got painted as a hate-filled right winger.
Now you have Trump, and the left has no vocabulary for him that they haven’t already been using on garden-variety Republicans for years.
Don’t remember McCain or Romney being called racist bigots, or radically incompetent.
Before you reply consider that also very important Republicans like Romney and several right wing media outfits have called Trump that.
I worked with a doctor about ten years ago who ran a server in her house with her patient information on it. How do you think she got away with it or is she likely in the big house now?
I’m not sure why where the doctor stores their patient files matters as long as they’re protected and accessible only by appropriate staff.
Only a slight exaggeration – choosing Palin was pretty unhinged, and doubling down to get more Americans (and Iraqis, of course) killed for nothing was pretty bloodthirsty.
He campaigned pretty damn right-wing – remember 47%? Self-deportation? I don’t remember the Obama campaign saying he was “hate-filled”.