Keirador wrote:Yet Greg uses the New York Post and we're cool with that?
I didn't know he used the Post.
But the sad thing is that both sides spend more time lying than actually reporting facts. But Bezos is leaning on his newspaper to support the Clintons.
Keirador wrote:I'm not familiar with this, though I'd point out 1) the header may have been the classified item 2) sounds like a Jack Sullivan problem.
It is. But as her foreign policy adviser, that he is now getting questioned by the FBI (with his boss and another staffer, all represented by the same lawyer), it becomes a big issue for the Clintons.
Or do you think one of her major staffers getting charged, or making a deal for immunity and then reporting other stuff won't be that good for the Clintons?
Probably should have made that point more clear
Oh yeah, the idea she didn't know it was unusual is pure propaganda. The Department went through months of trying to align Clinton's personal preferences with normal security routines and ultimately just gave up. To me the single most disturbing part of this story is that allegedly she was offered a desktop computer that was compatible with security routines and her own email preferences, but (allegedly) she nixed that idea because SHE WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE USE OF A DESKTOP COMPUTER. WHAT. WHAT. NO. THAT CAN'T BE.
Yeah, others used private emails but no one had servers. Never heard the story about eth desktop-she did ask for a blackberry like Obama's, but the CIA said no because apparently that program was discontinued or something-but thats actually hilarious. Especially since desktops were a thing first.
And Clinton should remember when the x86 was just becoming a thing too.
Agree completely. It was a "mistake" the same way a husband tells his wife he has a business trip and then takes his mistress to Cancun. Yeah, I guess that was a "mistake" . . . but some real planning and intent went into making that mistake.
Now I'm kinda sympathetic to Hillary's tendency towards secrecy. It's not like the media has treated her real well over the last quarter century so I get wanting to be private and control the information that comes out about you. But regardless, this was a pretty clear run around the spirit of the law.
I with you on the sympathy, just that in this case its unneeded. In the example with the husband, its like if the wife wanted a threesome in Cancun or something. Of the people at the table deciding which emails were personal or public, she'd have chosen half, either as her staffers or hires she made as secretary and neither her boss Obama or successor Kerry or the DOJ Attorney General would want anything bad to happen.
This is straightforward speculation, right? Is there any evidence that relevant records that should have been turned over were instead deleted? Or is this just more "you can tell she's dirty just by looking at her bitch face?"
You said that not me. Although the chances of me looking at any politician and not thinking they're either conning me, hiding something, lying, or BSing is probably lower than the chances of me quantum tunneling through the chair I'm sitting in now, or spontaneously combusting.
There were 60,000 emails on her server, roughly. Something like half were submitted and thats what State, the Feds and everyone else have been going through this year. Heres on article, another, and here from her website
How many emails were in her account? And how many of those were provided to the State Department? wrote:Her email account contained a total of 62,320 sent and received emails from March 2009 to February 2013. Based on the review process described below, 30,490 of these emails were provided to the Department, and the remaining 31,830 were private, personal records.
Anyways, the FOIA applies to pretty much every government record that isn't classified, except for a handful-for example, the private medical file of Hillary Clinton, if thats in a gov file somewhere isn't applicable. Nor would an officials tax returns. But while its pretty easy to determine this, its not up to a single person to determine it for themselves.
The way that most departments work-especially now that they've automated stuff and by law, most agencies have to have a FOIA office now, although they're all underfunded. Republican doing-is that emails in their system automatically go through this selection process. Then they get archived, and if requested, released. If not, deleted (and actually Clinton's emails would have been deleted by now).
Also from the Foreign Affairs Manual
5 FAH-1 H-915 DRAFTING WORKING EMAILS
(CT:CH-33; 01-16-2014)
a. All working emails must be marked with the appropriate classification and sensitivity.
b. The overall classification reflects the highest classification level of the message (subject, paragraph, table, or graph).
c. Mark each element (e.g., subject line, paragraph) of a classified working email to show its appropriate classification level using (S) for Secret, (C) for Confidential, (SBU) for Sensitive but Unclassified, or (U) for Unclassified.
d. Top Secret working emails may only be sent via a Department network authorized for that level.
e. All working emails in the OpenNet environment will be marked automatically as unclassified. If classified security information, properly marked or not, is processed on OpenNet or unclassified (U) systems, it must be reported immediately as a security violation. See 12 FAM 550.
f. All messages in the ClassNet environment must be marked with the appropriate classification every time a working email is sent or a recipient replies. For more information about classification, see 12 FAM 510.
g. All sensitive, working emails on both OpenNet and ClassNet must be marked with a sensitivity choice so the message will be labeled appropriately.
h. SMART-to-SMART messages only: Working email replies and forwards inherit the classification and sensitivity of the original message. Classified, working emails without sensitive content should be marked Non-Sensitive. For more information about sensitivity, see 5 FAH-1 H-913 or 12 FAM 540.
