I’m on record, on these boards, as disliking Hillary Clinton. I think this would-be scandal-mongering is bullshit.
I’ve spent 29 years in the military virtually all with a TS or TS SCI clearance, and I can tell that is very very UNcommon and NOT routine at all. But what authority would you make that judgement on your own??? I’ve not once seen that don’t, without contacting the originator.
From Wiki:
"Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive media watchdog in the United States. The organization has a stated mission of “comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media”. Set up as a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization, MMfA was founded in 2004 by journalist and political activist David Brock as a counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center. It is known for its aggressive criticism of conservative journalists and media outlets, including its "War on Fox News.
Nice objective cite you have there.
Typical killing of the messenger, in any case in many politicized cases like the ICE vs dreamers, Obamacare, and many others **the experts MMfA consulted were correct and FOX and others were totally wrong. **. Incidentally I do not use a source when they usually get it wrong, but some I have encountered continue to use their sources, no matter how many times they get burned by them.
My 18 years in the Navy (active duty and civilian, with TS and SCI clearance for part of that and Secret for all) tell me differently – most often, classified markings are removed when they’re added by mistake (which is frequently). I’m not saying anyone can make this decision on their own – I’m saying that it’s a rather frequent occurrence.
Scandals can be bullshit, but scandalmongering is an important part of the vetting process, and you won’t see me whining about it when the media and liberals turn up the heat on the GOP candidate.
Well, I might whine about a PARTICULAR scandal that’s not really fair to my candidate, but I won’t whine about the process.
Candidates should be thoroughly vetted and made to answer for everything. If it’s all BS, the answers should be easy. Especially from a candidate so well prepared and intelligent as Hillary Clinton.
Well, I guess if one gets to decide when and where anything is classified, she’ll never have to worry. Makes me wonder how anyone is ever found guilty of mishandling classified material with your ruleset.
Indeed. Not sure what this has to do with what I said, though, since I never said anyone “gets to decide when and where anything is classified”.
The “would-be” part stayed inside when the scandal horse left the barn.
The FBI doesn’t seem to think it is.
Cite? Pretty sure that the FBI is not investigating Clinton.
They are going to indict her email account. Email accounts are persons, my friend.
Which Clinton are you referring to?
The FBI has not yet announced that they are specifically investigating Hillary. It is known that the FBI is investigating Hillary’s emails, Hillary’s email servers, Hillary’s security protocol and proceedures, as well as the actions of anyone involved with all of the above. Of course, that would include Hillary, wouldn’t it?
*Last Updated Aug 5, 2015 2:31 PM EDT
WASHINGTON – A U.S. government source confirmed to CBS News’ Pat Milton that the FBI is looking into Hillary Clinton’s private email system to see if there was any exposure of classified information, and if so, the extent of exposure and why it occurred.
The source said the probe is in the preliminary stages, and the FBI, as part of the inquiry, has been in contact with the technology company based in Denver that helped manage her private system. The Washington Post first reported the FBI’s involvement Tuesday evening.
The FBI also reached out to Clinton attorney David Kendall to question him about a thumb drive he has that holds “copies of work e-mails Clinton sent during her time as secretary of state,” according to the Post.
Kendall confirmed this to CBS News’ Nancy Cordes, saying in a statement, “Quite predictably, after the IC (Intelligence Community) IG (inspector general) made a referral to ensure that materials remain properly stored, the government is seeking assurance about the storage of those materials. We are actively cooperating.”
The State Department also told CBS News’ Margaret Brennan that the action taken by the FBI stems from the same referral from the IC IG first reported in recent weeks. It is therefore a step in the process that is already underway, and not a new action.
The request for the Justice Department investigation came after the inspector general for the State Department and the inspector general for the intelligence community wrote a memo in late June suggesting that Clinton’s private account had “hundreds of potentially classified emails” in it, and they were concerned about the possibility that classified information may have been compromised. The Justice Department has said that Clinton herself is not the target of the investigation.*
Okay, your cite agrees with me that the FBI is not investigating Clinton or any wrongdoing by Clinton, but rather investigating any possible release of classified info from her email server.
At some point in the future this might change, but right now, the FBI is not investigating Hillary Clinton for any wrongdoing.
Dammit
Re: the talking points that Sam Stone brought up.
Does it strike anyone as completely inane that a “set of talking points” would be Classified? “Here’s the things we want you to talk about. Make sure everyone listening has security clearance first.”
At the end of the day–and that day may be many years from now–I’m willing to bet substantial sums of money that the information that the CIA thinks is classified from the private server is stuff that most ordinary citizens would be appalled that the government considers it classified. I think it’s going to turn out to be stuff like the drone program that the CIA pretends is secret in order to fight off accountability (so they can invoke the state secrets doctrine in court, among other reasons).
To me the better framing of the scandal was that the private server was an attempt to avoid transparency, since even though it was technically still subject to FOIA, Clinton would have more control over it. But, naturally, the GOP is going to choose a national security framing instead of a government transparency framing, because they believe in killing terrorists and not in accountability for killing terrorists.
I can’t really blame the GOP, because that’s where the FBI is going. In the absence of an investigation, sure, the transparency issue is the point to harp on and that’s how it all started. When it was first revealed that she had a private email account, most people thought it was kinda shady, but par for the course with her. But once the FBI got involved, that became the most important issue.
Would be someone on an Internet forum assuming they knew the topic of the “talking points.” As if “talking points” would never be used in a classified meeting. :rolleyes:
And of course “Hillary” is not being “investigated.” An extremely egregious breech of information security is being investigated. You people really have vivd imaginations. I refer you to my first post in this thread regarding speculating on things you know nothing about…
It’s generally used in a public relations context. Have you mentioned where you got your expertise in how classified information gets handled?