That is one level that I overlooked, because it does not seem to be used very much. Because of that and because “(c)” has multiple meanings, that single usage is a lot murkier territory. I never saw it when I was in the military, but I am very familiar with how Secret and Top Secret information is handled and communicated.
Here is an interesting site that goes into the Confidential emails in a lot more depth: Factcheck.org article, which states that apparently two of three listings of (c) for confidential on the emails were in error and it is unclear what the situation was regarding the third.
It can be further confusing if you come across it on an unclassified system. Then you wouldn’t be expecting classified paragraphs. I was confused as to why Clinton said she didn’t know what it meant other than as a sub paragraph. I would have thought she had been briefed on classification markings as SoS. But if she was working on an unclassified system, then it would make sense she wouldn’t understand a paragraph marked as (c) to be classified if the whole email wasn’t classified in some way and was on an unclassified system. So somebody was doing it wrong by even sending something that was partially classified, or someone after the fact marked the paragraphs confidential thus causing confusion. No wonder Comey said there was carelessness if one or more people were forwarding mail that someone else had marked as classified in some way (in an improper way).
Why do we assume that she read them all? How many of these e-mails have to do with minor and mundane, day-to-day proceedings of the State Dept., not all of which rise to the level that might pose a threat to national security? Indeed, few if any. She has staff for that sort of thing, right?
Your Mudzania scenario sounds quite plausible. But in the meantime, of course, Trump is making hay over how RIDICULOUS it is that Hillary is claiming she doesn’t know what a C means! When every schoolchild knows what a C means!!!11!!!1!!! Etc.
It all comes down to the low-information voters, of course (as always): anyone who bothers to inform themselves about the Whole Email Thing will realize there’s not much there, while Trump’s beloved ‘poorly educated’ will go on being outraged that ‘Hillary is claiming not to know what C means.’
Further, the pervading mindset seems to be that Comey cut her some slack. Perhaps it is precisely the opposite. We know, for instance, that his staff one level below him was unanimous in their opinion that there wasn’t any actionable shit. He didn’t have any right-wing zealots on his staff? The FBI, notorious haven for lefty pinkoes?
So, the facts are that there is no there, there. Comey was stuck with that, but what he could do to please his masters was editorial comments about “reckless” and “irresponsible”, but without any actual need to reveal anything, because, well, its secret, isn’t it? Perhaps rather than the honest conservative his reputation and legend declares, he did his level best to dribble some shit on Hillary, and that was the best he could do.
I’ve basically come to that conclusion (about Comey). At the time of his announcement and the hearings, I was impressed that he gave answers to some of the Democratic questioners that seemed to be to be unshaded by partisan sourness (in other words, when the answers tended to exonerate Clinton from blame, he didn’t try to make it sound otherwise).
But there’s no getting around the scolding tone of that statement. As our fellow-poster hulka has written on this board, Comey really had no business providing such editorial embellishments to his announcement that there was nothing worth prosecuting in anything Clinton had done–he just had to get his licks in (not quoting hulka here, but that was the jist).
Depends on how it’s exploited. A competent Republican team would make a lot of hay over the supposedly most qualified candidate in history not understanding how classified information is supposed to be handled. In the FBi interview, she pleaded ignorance.
Who are Comey’s masters? Did you forget why Obama made him FBi director? Because he was incorruptible.
Now he didn’t HAVE to comment on the case, but he was certainly within his rights to do so. What the FBI found may not have been actionable, but it sure was disturbing, and the public had a right to hear from someone who wasn’t a partisan hack just how disturbing her conduct was.
Now I understand why Clinton supporters would have preferred this debate to just be between her people and Republican people. Comey did more damage than ten thousand Republican operatives ever could. But that’s precisely because he’s a trusted figure.
And I see we’ve finally gone from not looking the gift horse in the mouth to realized just how effectively Comey shanked her.
It’s not hypocrisy, you just thought that Comey had “cleared” Clinton when in fact he’d done serious damage. Damage that would have probably ended just about anyone else’s candidacy.
Cite for the “serious damage” that Comey has caused Clinton?
She was winning before his report. She’s still winning after his report, and by solid numbers.
“There is no case here” is not the same result as “There is a real case here”. It does not swing the same weight. It does not carry the same penalty. It does not have the same effect, regardless of how hard Comey wags his fingers.
So give us an actual, tangible, way in which Clinton has been harmed by Comey’s report.
I swear, you sound just like someone who’d be ecstatic at the prospect of a Trump presidency. Regardless, Comey went well above and beyond. It really IS NOT his mandate to editorialize. How you go from claiming his impartiality to arguing that stating his own opinion is being impartial (let alone part of FBI SOP) is a prodigious feat of logic-twisting.
Let’s see just how clear I can make this. The assertion that she was reckless, ignorant, and dishonest is not a fact. It will (and can) never be a fact. It is your opinion, whether you will acknowledge it or not. I’m sure it’s the opinion of others as well. That still does not and will not magically morph it into a fact, no matter how much you or they say it.
Reckless- she mishandled classified information. Fact
Ignorant- she pleaded ignorance when questioned about her mishandling of classified information. Fact, because she admitted her own ignorance(more likely lied, but we’ll take stupid since she’s copped to it).
Dishonest- the majority of claims she made about her email account were later proven to be untrue. Fact.
Comey could have really let her have it if he had wanted to editorialize. He showed a lot of restraint. He never actually said she was either a liar or stupid.
But he went far above what was appropriate for his official role. As a LEO he should have stuck to the fact of “prosecutable” or “not prosecutable”. Anything he stated about how “almost guilty” he thought her to be is entirely out of bounds. If a second rate assistant district attorney in Podunkville did this when announcing a non indictment, they would be fired and/or likely sued.
