There were bits below that which were classified. See herefor the full email. They’re claiming that the (C) indicates classified information. I.e., that it was known the info was classified when the email was sent.
Unless there are major details redacted, that sounds like the kind of mundane information that a SoS would feel entitled to declassify without more than a second thought.
Little mundane details that happen to be marked classified, but have no conceivable risk to national security, are routinely “marked down” by classified workers without concern. If it’s a violation of law, it’s the kind of violation that happens probably hundreds of thousands of times per week in government offices around the country.
Well sort of. According to a recent Morning Consult poll:
But she running against Trump so it doesn’t matter if it’s a scandal or not.
Faux News. Yeah, I’ll believe what they say in about the year 2477.
But, Clinton didn’t write that email. It was sent to her with the allegedly naughty bits.
Christ, is this the level of political discourse now? Are people even reading this evidence befor saying how damaging it is?
“Clinton abused her email by RECEIVING classified information typed by someone else and responding that 7:30 is a good time for a phone call!! We need a three year congressional investigation so we can learn what someone wrote, when they wrote it, and why it makes Clinton look bad!”
-
Sure, the insecure server stored technically classified emails.
-
But obviously Hillary Clinton has good enough judgment to have only retained or replied to classified emails that were not real security threats.
-
And there’s no point in discussing whether Hillary Clinton has shown good judgment about the security of emails unless it would cause you to vote for someone else.
Are these three positions you hold simultaneously?
Are you talking to me, or some fantasy little green man whispering in your ear? It must be the Great Gazoo, because I don’t know where you get those ideas.
A simple “no” would have sufficed. Which of those positions do you not hold?
Considering how lax or over-confident most people, even many participating in this thread, are about their own computer security, is it not surprising that this issue has little traction?
I think that’s a big piece of it. People underestimate the amount of effort that foreign governments and entities put into spying on the US Secretary of State, how easy it is to breach a vulnerable server, and the intelligence value of relatively routine information when collected in real time.
But I may be projecting, because I did all of those things, before learning more about them.
It does have traction, just not much on this board. I linked above and quoted that even among Dems a quarter think this is a “major problem”, only 20% of the total population think this was ethical behaviour. It’s easy to imagine it at least in part explains Hillary’s poor positive/negative polling. But, luckily she’s running against Trump and his craziness has more traction.
Its a matter of quantity over quality, Hillary deals in minor quantities, Trump delivers in carloads.
Also, its Hillary. I blame both her and Horndog Bill for leading the Dems to be Republican Lite. Most likely, its more him than her. But I kinda like Bill, and I don’t like her. Its not fair, but there it is.
I hold the positions I’ve written about in this thread. You can read them at your leisure.
I worked in financial services with its own host of security provisions and protocols, and many, many people took shortcuts that they were just told not to do. Lazy and duplicated and written-down passwords, reviewing client files while logged into the Starbucks wi-fi, not sending secure emails as SECURE EMAILS, stuff like that.
And with this issue, people are measuring what they are hearing about Hillary, comparing it to what they’re doing in their lives, and saying “meh.” So, yeah, most might see it as unethical, but many of those see it as the sort of unethical thing that they themselves are (or can be) guilty of doing.
So you want me to go through and quote the exact posts where you said things that caused me to believe you held those positions before you explain to me how your actual positions differ? I’ll pass. Not sure why you’re being so hostile.
Since you attributed my position as being that we should not discuss Clinton’s judgment unless a certain condition is satisfied, I take your three summaries of “my” opinions to be silly strawmen that I feel no need to spend much time correcting. I’ve been discussing this matter for nine pages; surely you see the contraction of attributing that view to me.
That isn’t true. Most would not describe using “password” for your password then leaving the reminder sticky note on your monitor as illegal or unethical, just stupid or lazy. And she did a lot more than that by using her own poorly secured server. If you are going to fool yourself into thinking the poll results I posted indicate a collective “meh” then I will just leave you to your hyperpartisan bubble.
The view I attributed to you was “And there’s no point in discussing whether Hillary Clinton has shown good judgment about the security of emails unless it would cause you to vote for someone else.”
Here’s what you’ve said in this thread about the relevance of the issue:
So, it strikes me as a fair summary of your position. Spending nine pages arguing that the issue isn’t worth talking about doesn’t really contradict you holding the view that the issue doesn’t merit discussion.
If someone says that X is a big deal, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to inquire if X is a bigger deal than Y. And if we find out that X is less of a big deal than, say, five, ten, 15, or 20 other letters of the alphabet, then it means that X isn’t as big a deal as is being portrayed.
That doesn’t mean that discussion of X must end. Ergo, strawman.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. All you’ve demonstrated is that Hillary Clinton’s judgment over the security of her information is less important than her judgment about any number of other possible areas of bad judgment. That doesn’t prove that it is less important than it was portrayed to be. I have not claimed that this is the political equivalent of her thinking we should start a trade war with China. I have claimed that it reflects quite poorly on her judgment in a way that matters more than you admit in your characterization of it as merely “B-b-b-but she didn’t listen to her IT people!”
And it strikes me as telling that in the same series of posts in which you deny that her judgment about information security issues matters, you ask us to rely on her judgment about information security issues.
Ergo, strawman, indeed.