Clinton email problems

Is Clinton going to survive this email fiasco?  It seems to be getting worse.  I can't imagine why she thought it was a good idea.

tjohn said:

Is Clinton going to survive this email fiasco?  It seems to be getting worse.  I can't imagine why she thought it was a good idea.

Probably because she wanted complete control over them and thought she could get away with it.

Her problem now is that as more and more surfaces her lies become more evident.

Examples:

She constantly claims she never received or sent an e-mail marked 'classified'. While it may true it is irrelevant. Based on it's content a document is classified when it is written, not when it is marked. She was given classes on how to determine that. She has, on her server, documents now marked above 'top secret'. Is she saying she was too dumb to recognize their importance even if they weren't marked?

Every e-mail sent to a foreign official is automatically classified material until it is determined it is not. Was she unaware of that?

She claims everything she did was authorized, yet an e-mail exists wherein she chides a State Dep't official for not using the Government server when she was doing the same thing. As far as I know, there is no record of her being authorized to do so by anyone having such authority. Did she authorize herself to violate regulations?

BCC said:

Every e-mail sent to a foreign official is automatically classified material until it is determined it is not. Was she unaware of that?

According to Clinton's website:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

During her time at State, she communicated with foreign officials in
person, through correspondence, and by telephone. The review of all of
her emails revealed only one email with a foreign (UK) official.

is that what you are referencing, or are you aware of more than one email to a foreign official?

BCC said:

Examples:

She constantly claims she never received or sent an e-mail marked 'classified'. While it may true it is irrelevant. Based on it's content a document is classified when it is written, not when it is marked. She was given classes on how to determine that. She has, on her server, documents now marked above 'top secret'. Is she saying she was too dumb to recognize their importance even if they weren't marked?

You're wrong !!!

You should really research before you impart your wisdom.

Documents and email can be born classified or can be classified later. A friend was invited with 50 others to a hotel lunch meeting with a governmental official. The invite was emailed. Later, the email was classified.

Madame Clinton claims the so called secret emails were innocuous and wants them released, proving so. She did say they were not classified when she go them. They were classified later. The state department confirmed that they were not classified when they were sent.

To enlighten you and hopefully help in your future imparting of wisdom, try reading this:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/29/10873106/hillary-clinton-email-top-secret

An extract:

According to a statement by the State Department, "These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent."

In other words, they do not contain information that was "born classified," but rather fall into the vast gray area of things that do not seem obviously secret at the time but are later deemed that way — not always for good reason.

The problem was not so much secrecy itself as bureaucratic disarray; something that contains no obviously sensitive information might nonetheless be reflexively classified, or might be classified because the information at some point passed through someone or something that also handles classified information. Or maybe the information is banal but it was later wrapped into a report or document that is itself classified for different reasons.

The problem, in other words, isn't that the rules for classification are too strict. It's that the rules are unclear, messy, or contradictory, to the degree that the rules exist at all, and individual people and agencies have learned to overclassify to stay on the safe side.

paulsurovell said:

BCC said:

Every e-mail sent to a foreign official is automatically classified material until it is determined it is not. Was she unaware of that?

According to Clinton's website:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

During her time at State, she communicated with foreign officials in
person, through correspondence, and by telephone. The review of all of
her emails revealed only one email with a foreign (UK) official.

is that what you are referencing, or are you aware of more than one email to a foreign official?

'Clinton said she did not use her email to send or receive classified information, but the State Department and two Inspectors General said some of these emails do contain classified information. Was her statement inaccurate?

'Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked
classified at the time she sent or received them.'

This is the crux of the matter, and while it may be true, it is tendentious bullsh*t.. It was irrelevant
whether or not they were marked and I have already explained why.

'After reviewing a sampling of the 55,000 pages of emails, the Inspectors General have proffered that a
small number of emails, which did not contain any classified markings and/or dissemination controls, should have been classified at the time they were sent. The State Department has said it disagrees with
this assessment.'

The State Dep't no longer disagrees now that they have had to turn over documents marked 'above top secret'.

More misleading bullsh*t.

'CLINTON: About the emails she's turned over, she said: "You know, the State Department had between 90 and 95 percent of all the ones that were work-related. They were already on the system." Later, she added, "We learned that from the State Department."

THE FACTS: It's unclear where that figure comes from, but it doesn't appear that all those emails were
saved at State.

Asked about Clinton's claim at Friday's press briefing, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said: "Ninety to 95 percent is something that her campaign has been using. I'm not aware of the source of that."

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-fact-check-clinton-critics-benghazi-emails-071632455--politics.html;_ylt=A0LEVjdkPK5WklUA.lwnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMHZ0NG9yBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM3BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

A nice way of saying she is FOS

BG9 said:

BCC said:

Examples:

She constantly claims she never received or sent an e-mail marked 'classified'. While it may true it is irrelevant. Based on it's content a document is classified when it is written, not when it is marked. She was given classes on how to determine that. She has, on her server, documents now marked above 'top secret'. Is she saying she was too dumb to recognize their importance even if they weren't marked?

You're wrong !!!

You should really research before you impart your wisdom.

Documents and email can be born classified or can be classified later. A friend was invited with 50 others to a hotel lunch meeting with a governmental official. The invite was emailed. Later, the email was classified.

Madame Clinton claims the so called secret emails were innocuous and wants them released, proving so. She did say they were not classified when she go them. They were classified later. The state department confirmed that they were not classified when they were sent.

To enlighten you and hopefully help in your future imparting of wisdom, try reading this:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/29/10873106/hillary-clinton-email-top-secret

An extract:

According to a statement by the State Department, "These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent."

In other words, they do not contain information that was "born classified," but rather fall into the vast gray area of things that do not seem obviously secret at the time but are later deemed that way — not always for good reason.

The problem was not so much secrecy itself as bureaucratic disarray; something that contains no obviously sensitive information might nonetheless be reflexively classified, or might be classified because the information at some point passed through someone or something that also handles classified information. Or maybe the information is banal but it was later wrapped into a report or document that is itself classified for different reasons.

The problem, in other words, isn't that the rules for classification are too strict. It's that the rules are unclear, messy, or contradictory, to the degree that the rules exist at all, and individual people and agencies have learned to overclassify to stay on the safe side.

This is what the the extract said:

'According to a statement by the State Department, "These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent.'

These are the key words.

'Documents and email can be born classified or can be classified later.'

'Born classified' means the document is classified because of it's content as soon as it is written. It usually cannot be marked classified at the time it is sent because the writer has no authority to do so. It is expected that some one like the SoS who receives such a document can tell from the content that it is classified, especially when it ends up being classified 'above top secret' and the SoS has been given classes on how to recognize such documents.

We are not talking about some low level classification which could be missed because of over classification.

Perhaps you might want to do a little research of your own before getting sarcastic with me.

To me, it seems she made some bad judgments in how to and how not to use email. But I think it's important to put these decisions in their context. We are talking about a period which was pretty recent, but in those few years, email culture has changed. At the time, it was just getting traction in government. Before that, it was for eccentric people. It's good that we have tight rules on how it is used in government, but the rules and the culture did not exist, and it's not reasonable to hold her to a standard that was created after her acts. We have to acknowledge how consensus has changed a lot since then, even though it was a short time ago.

Whatever...

Seems like Mtierney is a Republican.  Buys into the non-stop Clinton-hating, Obama-hating, no solution negativity.

The internet and secure electronic communications have been a staple in the Federal Government long before the Obama Administration. The idea that the Department of State and the Secretary of State was unaware of how the Secretary and her Staff were in violation of security procedures is simply not credible.

So your answer to my second question is No?

BCC said:

paulsurovell said:

BCC said:

Every e-mail sent to a foreign official is automatically classified material until it is determined it is not. Was she unaware of that?

According to Clinton's website:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

During her time at State, she communicated with foreign officials in
person, through correspondence, and by telephone. The review of all of
her emails revealed only one email with a foreign (UK) official.

is that what you are referencing, or are you aware of more than one email to a foreign official?

'Clinton said she did not use her email to send or receive classified information, but the State Department and two Inspectors General said some of these emails do contain classified information. Was her statement inaccurate?

'Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked
classified at the time she sent or received them.'

This is the crux of the matter, and while it may be true, it is tendentious bullsh*t.. It was irrelevant
whether or not they were marked and I have already explained why.

'After reviewing a sampling of the 55,000 pages of emails, the Inspectors General have proffered that a
small number of emails, which did not contain any classified markings and/or dissemination controls, should have been classified at the time they were sent. The State Department has said it disagrees with
this assessment.'

The State Dep't no longer disagrees now that they have had to turn over documents marked 'above top secret'.

More misleading bullsh*t.

'CLINTON: About the emails she's turned over, she said: "You know, the State Department had between 90 and 95 percent of all the ones that were work-related. They were already on the system." Later, she added, "We learned that from the State Department."

THE FACTS: It's unclear where that figure comes from, but it doesn't appear that all those emails were
saved at State.

Asked about Clinton's claim at Friday's press briefing, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said: "Ninety to 95 percent is something that her campaign has been using. I'm not aware of the source of that."

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-fact-check-clinton-critics-benghazi-emails-071632455--politics.html;_ylt=A0LEVjdkPK5WklUA.lwnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMHZ0NG9yBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM3BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

A nice way of saying she is FOS

Tom_Reingold said:

To me, it seems she made some bad judgments in how to and how not to use email. But I think it's important to put these decisions in their context. We are talking about a period which was pretty recent, but in those few years, email culture has changed. At the time, it was just getting traction in government. Before that, it was for eccentric people. It's good that we have tight rules on how it is used in government, but the rules and the culture did not exist, and it's not reasonable to hold her to a standard that was created after her acts. We have to acknowledge how consensus has changed a lot since then, even though it was a short time ago.

I'm sorry Tom, but I think you're being a little naive about this. Change in email culture aside, there was no "getting traction in government." When I was still in the service in the 2005 timeframe, we were using NIPR (unclassified, every day email), SIPR (Secret email) and JWICS (TS/SCI emails). According to my friends that are still in, this hasn't changed. These different levels were brought in long before that time. Contrary to what you say, the rules did exist. When I first joined back in 2000, there was a constant stress on classified material in general (storage, 2 person integrity, emails, etc…). I was held accountable as a student freshly out of bootcamp, and the guidance hasn't changed much since then. She needs to be held accountable for what she knew or should have known. The woman has a law degree from Yale for Christsake. You can't argue she's stupid. At best she's incompetent, at worst, she blatantly disregarded safeguards around code word level material. My political affiliations aside, if I did what she did when I was in the military, best case would I would have been forced to resign my commission and sent to mast, worst case was I would have gone to Leavenworth. 

prisoners_dilemma said:

Tom_Reingold said:

To me, it seems she made some bad judgments in how to and how not to use email. But I think it's important to put these decisions in their context. We are talking about a period which was pretty recent, but in those few years, email culture has changed. At the time, it was just getting traction in government. Before that, it was for eccentric people. It's good that we have tight rules on how it is used in government, but the rules and the culture did not exist, and it's not reasonable to hold her to a standard that was created after her acts. We have to acknowledge how consensus has changed a lot since then, even though it was a short time ago.

I'm sorry Tom, but I think you're being a little naive about this. Change in email culture aside, there was no "getting traction in government." When I was still in the service in the 2005 timeframe, we were using NIPR (unclassified, every day email), SIPR (Secret email) and JWICS (TS/SCI emails). According to my friends that are still in, this hasn't changed. These different levels were brought in long before that time. Contrary to what you say, the rules did exist. When I first joined back in 2000, there was a constant stress on classified material in general (storage, 2 person integrity, emails, etc…). I was held accountable as a student freshly out of bootcamp, and the guidance hasn't changed much since then. She needs to be held accountable for what she knew or should have known. The woman has a law degree from Yale for Christsake. You can't argue she's stupid. At best she's incompetent, at worst, she blatantly disregarded safeguards around code word level material. My political affiliations aside, if I did what she did when I was in the military, best case would I would have been forced to resign my commission and sent to mast, worst case was I would have gone to Leavenworth. 

I guess you missed the part where it was reported that the emails were not marked secret when sent.

I think Prisoners_dilemma summed it up pretty well.  Clinton is not stupid.  She is not  incompetent.  I would guess that some sense that she didn't have to follow the same rules as everybody else was her undoing in this case.

BG9 said:

prisoners_dilemma said:

Tom_Reingold said:

To me, it seems she made some bad judgments in how to and how not to use email. But I think it's important to put these decisions in their context. We are talking about a period which was pretty recent, but in those few years, email culture has changed. At the time, it was just getting traction in government. Before that, it was for eccentric people. It's good that we have tight rules on how it is used in government, but the rules and the culture did not exist, and it's not reasonable to hold her to a standard that was created after her acts. We have to acknowledge how consensus has changed a lot since then, even though it was a short time ago.

I'm sorry Tom, but I think you're being a little naive about this. Change in email culture aside, there was no "getting traction in government." When I was still in the service in the 2005 timeframe, we were using NIPR (unclassified, every day email), SIPR (Secret email) and JWICS (TS/SCI emails). According to my friends that are still in, this hasn't changed. These different levels were brought in long before that time. Contrary to what you say, the rules did exist. When I first joined back in 2000, there was a constant stress on classified material in general (storage, 2 person integrity, emails, etc…). I was held accountable as a student freshly out of bootcamp, and the guidance hasn't changed much since then. She needs to be held accountable for what she knew or should have known. The woman has a law degree from Yale for Christsake. You can't argue she's stupid. At best she's incompetent, at worst, she blatantly disregarded safeguards around code word level material. My political affiliations aside, if I did what she did when I was in the military, best case would I would have been forced to resign my commission and sent to mast, worst case was I would have gone to Leavenworth. 

I guess you missed the part where it was reported that the emails were not marked secret when sent.

All I keep hearing is that there's no chance in hell she couldn't have known they should have been classified, and that they didn't belong where they were.  And she knows that asking for their release is nothing more than a diversion, knowing they likely won't be released now, thus enabling her to pretend that it's not her fault she can't clear her name when she's clearly willing to.

I think it was more than her sense is entitlement. She also feels victimized, partially for good reason, by the conservative right, and wanted some wiggle room for her foreign policy communications, so as not to  have had to be writing every email to be picked apart under some right wing pressure in the future. But karma got in the way.

That must be why Colin Powell used a personal email account while he was Sec of State.

Amused said:

The internet and secure electronic communications have been a staple in the Federal Government long before the Obama Administration. The idea that the Department of State and the Secretary of State was unaware of how the Secretary and her Staff were in violation of security procedures is simply not credible.

prisoners_dilemma said:

Tom_Reingold said:

To me, it seems she made some bad judgments in how to and how not to use email. But I think it's important to put these decisions in their context. We are talking about a period which was pretty recent, but in those few years, email culture has changed. At the time, it was just getting traction in government. Before that, it was for eccentric people. It's good that we have tight rules on how it is used in government, but the rules and the culture did not exist, and it's not reasonable to hold her to a standard that was created after her acts. We have to acknowledge how consensus has changed a lot since then, even though it was a short time ago.

I'm sorry Tom, but I think you're being a little naive about this. Change in email culture aside, there was no "getting traction in government." When I was still in the service in the 2005 timeframe, we were using NIPR (unclassified, every day email), SIPR (Secret email) and JWICS (TS/SCI emails). According to my friends that are still in, this hasn't changed. These different levels were brought in long before that time. Contrary to what you say, the rules did exist. When I first joined back in 2000, there was a constant stress on classified material in general (storage, 2 person integrity, emails, etc…). I was held accountable as a student freshly out of bootcamp, and the guidance hasn't changed much since then. She needs to be held accountable for what she knew or should have known. The woman has a law degree from Yale for Christsake. You can't argue she's stupid. At best she's incompetent, at worst, she blatantly disregarded safeguards around code word level material. My political affiliations aside, if I did what she did when I was in the military, best case would I would have been forced to resign my commission and sent to mast, worst case was I would have gone to Leavenworth. 

+1 You have it exactly right.

paulsurovell said:

So your answer to my second question is No?

BCC said:

paulsurovell said:

BCC said:

Every e-mail sent to a foreign official is automatically classified material until it is determined it is not. Was she unaware of that?

According to Clinton's website:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

During her time at State, she communicated with foreign officials in
person, through correspondence, and by telephone. The review of all of
her emails revealed only one email with a foreign (UK) official.

is that what you are referencing, or are you aware of more than one email to a foreign official?

'Clinton said she did not use her email to send or receive classified information, but the State Department and two Inspectors General said some of these emails do contain classified information. Was her statement inaccurate?

'Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked
classified at the time she sent or received them.'

This is the crux of the matter, and while it may be true, it is tendentious bullsh*t.. It was irrelevant
whether or not they were marked and I have already explained why.

'After reviewing a sampling of the 55,000 pages of emails, the Inspectors General have proffered that a
small number of emails, which did not contain any classified markings and/or dissemination controls, should have been classified at the time they were sent. The State Department has said it disagrees with
this assessment.'

The State Dep't no longer disagrees now that they have had to turn over documents marked 'above top secret'.

More misleading bullsh*t.

'CLINTON: About the emails she's turned over, she said: "You know, the State Department had between 90 and 95 percent of all the ones that were work-related. They were already on the system." Later, she added, "We learned that from the State Department."

THE FACTS: It's unclear where that figure comes from, but it doesn't appear that all those emails were
saved at State.

Asked about Clinton's claim at Friday's press briefing, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said: "Ninety to 95 percent is something that her campaign has been using. I'm not aware of the source of that."

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-fact-check-clinton-critics-benghazi-emails-071632455--politics.html;_ylt=A0LEVjdkPK5WklUA.lwnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMHZ0NG9yBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM3BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

A nice way of saying she is FOS

After all that all you can come up with is some nitpicking quibble, and even that is wrong.

'In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified"
stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.'

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

BG9 said:

prisoners_dilemma said:

Tom_Reingold said:

To me, it seems she made some bad judgments in how to and how not to use email. But I think it's important to put these decisions in their context. We are talking about a period which was pretty recent, but in those few years, email culture has changed. At the time, it was just getting traction in government. Before that, it was for eccentric people. It's good that we have tight rules on how it is used in government, but the rules and the culture did not exist, and it's not reasonable to hold her to a standard that was created after her acts. We have to acknowledge how consensus has changed a lot since then, even though it was a short time ago.

I'm sorry Tom, but I think you're being a little naive about this. Change in email culture aside, there was no "getting traction in government." When I was still in the service in the 2005 timeframe, we were using NIPR (unclassified, every day email), SIPR (Secret email) and JWICS (TS/SCI emails). According to my friends that are still in, this hasn't changed. These different levels were brought in long before that time. Contrary to what you say, the rules did exist. When I first joined back in 2000, there was a constant stress on classified material in general (storage, 2 person integrity, emails, etc…). I was held accountable as a student freshly out of bootcamp, and the guidance hasn't changed much since then. She needs to be held accountable for what she knew or should have known. The woman has a law degree from Yale for Christsake. You can't argue she's stupid. At best she's incompetent, at worst, she blatantly disregarded safeguards around code word level material. My political affiliations aside, if I did what she did when I was in the military, best case would I would have been forced to resign my commission and sent to mast, worst case was I would have gone to Leavenworth. 

I guess you missed the part where it was reported that the emails were not marked secret when sent.

I explained very carefully to you why that is irrelevant and you still repeat it. Stop embarrassing
yourself.

yahooyahoo said:

That must be why Colin Powell used a personal email account while he was Sec of State.

Amused said:

The internet and secure electronic communications have been a staple in the Federal Government long before the Obama Administration. The idea that the Department of State and the Secretary of State was unaware of how the Secretary and her Staff were in violation of security procedures is simply not credible.

How many times does it have to be repeated that Powell was operating under different regulations

BCC said:

prisoners_dilemma said:

Tom_Reingold said:

To me, it seems she made some bad judgments in how to and how not to use email. But I think it's important to put these decisions in their context. We are talking about a period which was pretty recent, but in those few years, email culture has changed. At the time, it was just getting traction in government. Before that, it was for eccentric people. It's good that we have tight rules on how it is used in government, but the rules and the culture did not exist, and it's not reasonable to hold her to a standard that was created after her acts. We have to acknowledge how consensus has changed a lot since then, even though it was a short time ago.

I'm sorry Tom, but I think you're being a little naive about this. Change in email culture aside, there was no "getting traction in government." When I was still in the service in the 2005 timeframe, we were using NIPR (unclassified, every day email), SIPR (Secret email) and JWICS (TS/SCI emails). According to my friends that are still in, this hasn't changed. These different levels were brought in long before that time. Contrary to what you say, the rules did exist. When I first joined back in 2000, there was a constant stress on classified material in general (storage, 2 person integrity, emails, etc…). I was held accountable as a student freshly out of bootcamp, and the guidance hasn't changed much since then. She needs to be held accountable for what she knew or should have known. The woman has a law degree from Yale for Christsake. You can't argue she's stupid. At best she's incompetent, at worst, she blatantly disregarded safeguards around code word level material. My political affiliations aside, if I did what she did when I was in the military, best case would I would have been forced to resign my commission and sent to mast, worst case was I would have gone to Leavenworth. 

+1 You have it exactly right.

it can't be "exactly right" because it's really not saying anything.

What does this prove Hillary is guilty of exactly? I don't even see particularly bad judgement here. ANYONE in a high level of government who had their email checked for after the fact classification of emails would be found "guilty" of these same problems. Our security classification system is Kafka-esque. Besides being absurd, but that's a separate issue.

There's nothing more tiring than watching people count the number of angels on a pinhead as they  desperately try to build a Clintonian corruption case based on technicalities.

What people don't realize is that the Clintons, given their long period of intense scrutiny have been among the most scandal-free politicians of our generation. People have been throwing sh** against the wall to see what would stick for more than 20 years now. But it all falls off the wall eventually.

The only real "scandal" had to do with how Prez Clinton used his penis.

Well Benghazi didn't pan out so they need some new hobbyhorse.

Does anyone think that in light of these four emails that "president Cruz" sounds better than "president Clinton"? 

I am rather unhappy about the lack of choice in the Democratic primary.  The Republican Party, love it or hate it, has done an excellent job of building a political base taking control of states and the House and gaining seats in the Senate.  Fortunately for the Democrats, the current Republican primary process makes it hard for them to field a candidate with good mainstream appeal.

The problem, of course, is that to a large part of the country "The Clintons" are guilty of... something. It doesn't really matter what, they will never be trusted.

'Course one could argue you shouldn't really trust any politician, but that's beside the point.

@prisoners_dilemma, I'll take your word for it. I agree that she should be accountable for anything she's done wrong, and she may have done wrong. I don't have an expectation of the outcome of any further investigations if they're done right. I agree she's neither stupid nor incompetent. She might have felt above the rules and broken them. Or maybe she didn't break the rules. Time will tell.

TarheelsInNj Feb 1, 2016 at 09:32am
The problem, of course, is that to a large part of the country "The Clintons" are guilty of... something. It doesn't really matter what, they will never be trusted.
'Course one could argue you shouldn't really trust any politician, but that's beside the point.

Republicans MO:  

example 1)  for years Republicans and talking heads(FOX) just keep saying, 'you can't trust the media' 'the media is all liberal bias'.  Say it enough and the sheep will just accept the lies as truth.  

2) for decades the republicans have tried to smear the Clintons - wasting a ton of taxpayer money to do it.  Doesn't matter that they've found NOTHING, but it keeps the word 'scandal' and the 'clintons' in the same sentence, and that's all that's needed for their sheep.

3) republicans, forever, have been on the wrong side of the moral issues. LOL when they find out that their base doesn't really care about all that anyway, cuz...Trump.

To me, it just adds up to the fact that the Republicans have absolutely no ideas.  They just have their wealthy corporations running the show.

This was previously posted:

'Documents and email can be born classified or can be classified later.'

'Born classified' means the document is classified because of it's content as soon as it is written. It usually cannot be marked classified at the time it is sent because the writer has no authority to do so. It is expected that some one like the SoS who receives such a document can tell from the content that it is classified, especially when it ends up being classified 'above top secret' and the SoS has been given classes on how to recognize such documents.

We are not talking about some low level classification which could be missed because of over classification.

As was this:

Examples

She constantly claims she never received or sent an e-mail marked 'classified'. While it may true it is irrelevant. Based on it's content a document is classified when it is written, not when it is marked. She was given classes on how to determine that. She has, on her server, documents now marked above 'top secret'. Is she saying she was too dumb to recognize their importance even if they weren't marked?

Every e-mail sent to a foreign official is automatically classified material until it is determined it is not. Was she unaware of that?

What part of it don't any of you understand and which of you would like to refute any of it?