CNN continues to trumpet false narrative WRT the sending of "classified" emails

[Gabi Hayes]

Two talking heads discussed the contradictory Comey testimony, in which he claimed that several emails were sent/received that were classified, in the face of her claims that none were.

they cited his response in congress to leading questions wrt her insistence of not knowing that anything she sent/received were classified

they left it at THAT, failing to even mention the subsequent questioning be dems that left him backtracking his earlier insistence that there were two or three classified emails, admitting that those were the only real 'smoking guns' amongst the myriad emails he so cavalierly accused her of being so careless with, even though NONE of them were marked classified at the time. you all know the story of the confusing markings, the confrontation with which left Comey stuttering, muttering, and finally admitting that, indeed, they were, at best confusingly marked.

not ONE WORD on this, the FIFTH time this has been on CNN/MSNBC since about 10 this morning.

Brian Fallon did an excellent job on both networks refuting this BS charge, citing, in a much more felicitous manner than I have, how what Hillary said matched what Comey denied explicitly, but then had to ADMIT was correct, implicitly, when he could not state that ANY single email was marked classified in a clearly identifiable manner.

He said this about an hour before the CNN report I cite above, which just happened, so they completely IGNORED his statement, choosing to report only the accusations/conclusions, with no opportunity for a response.

surprised?

[Gabi Hayes]

1. crickets?

five different segments on this today, since 10AM, CDT

almost every surrogate for T has tried to redirect the conversation to this BS topic, with the hosts accepting whatever wild accusation was ejected without so much as a peep, despite the reality of the situation, which was that Comey was FORCED to CONTRADICT himself during his congressional testimony

and what did the media do? EXACTLY what it did when the Clinton's were found to have nothing whatsoever to do with the so-called Whitewater scandal.......nothing

Dana Bash just furthered the lies about Hillary/Comey, cutting off any chance of response by going to the Orange One's crazed ramblings in Ohio....stay tuned

[Hortensis]

66. I turned on Chuck Todd briefly and turned off when

he went to a whole segment "analyzing" Hillary's emails.

[Gabi Hayes]

2. after allowing matt schlapp, very obnoxious liar (he was one of the most truculent, overbearing

jackasses during the melania plage fiasco) go on and on with the ridiculous falsehood about US corporations paying the highest taxes in the world, then rolling out the obvious garbage of trickle down economics, IMMEDIATELY cut off the dem for bringing up Trump's taxes. after not allowing him to finish, they went to trump raving live in Columbus

[unitedwethrive]

3. The Clinton campaign needs to address this, although they clearly don't want to.

A huge segment of the population, including some Hillary supporters, believes the narrative that she lied about knowingly sending classified emails on her private server.

The initial Comey statement was quickly spread in the media, but the subsequent congressional hearing hardly got press at all. Rachel didn't even talk about it that evening.

Very few people actually listened to the entire hearing, or read accurate summaries of what transpired. So, a majority of the population still believes the original narrative.

[Gabi Hayes]

4. out of three dems, brian fallon did an excellent job dispelling the myth of Comey's

contradictory testimony

problem is, it's being IGNORED

and this, along with everything that stems from whitewater (in which they were SCAMMED) to Benghazi to her emails, is part of a twenty five year long, carefully orchestrated campaign by the farthest reaches of the right wing, from Floyd what's his name, to David Bossie, to RM Scaiffe, to the current bunch of propagandists, whose goal has been realized: drive Hillary's approval ratings into the ground, forcing the false narrative which the low information news consumer swallows whole. oops, left something out: the media, which has, from the beginning....are you reading this, Jeff Gerth, not only went along with the outlandish charges from the right, MADE up out of whole cloth much of the crooked Clinton legend.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. I don't see why she doesn't just say

"I unknowingly received and sent emails that contained classified information . The emails weren't marked as classified, and I didn't realize they contained classified information, otherwise I would have immediately deleted them and then taken corrective action against those who sent them to me."

[Gabi Hayes]

13. here you go....this is in answer to your post below. let's see what you can

come up with that refutes this:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

◾Comey said three emails had “portion markings” on them indicating that they were classified, but they were not properly marked and therefore could have been missed by Clinton. He said the emails were marked as classified with the letter “C” in the body of the email.
◾Kirby said the State Department believes that at least two of the emails were mistakenly marked as confidential. He could not speak to the third email, saying ​the department didn’t have​ “all of the records and documents that the FBI used in their investigation.”
◾Comey told the committee he is “highly confident” that FBI investigators consulted with the State Department about the marked emails. But he said he did not know that the department believes that any of them were marked in error.

much more detail at the link

knock yourself out

[SickOfTheOnePct]

15. I've already posted the text and link

showing that you are incorrect about the 100+ emails. You're concentrating on the 2 or 3 emails that had incomplete markings. The 100+ didn't have markings, but they were still classified.

[Gabi Hayes]

18. no, they were not. see post 16.

he walked that BS back during the hearings. your link doesn't even deal with the hearings. it's from his unprofessional press conference. why are you using that horsebadorty for your insistence on Hillary's statements?

come on back with something that addresses his having to eat his most calumnious words on a nice, tasty bed of crow feathers

[Gabi Hayes]

5. KC (casey?) Hunt just brought up, for the sixth time since 10AM, the emails,

once again spreading the false narrative, mentioning that she lied about not sending any classified emails, and stopping there, without mentioning the other side of the story......no long, drawn out exegesis, as was done the other five times, just a casual dropping into the stream, which is exactly how the false narrative is created:

EDIT: Hillary lies, therefore is impossible to trust

repeat

repeat

repeat

repeat

Trump hates lobbyists:

repeat

repeat

repeat

repeat

Manafort is one of the sleaziest lobbyists extant:

ignore

ignore

ignore

Trump lies so often you NEVER know when he isn't:

ignore

ignore

ignore

ignore

ignore

[Gabi Hayes]

6. Jake Tapper on now. he excoriated Comey either last week or 2 weeks ago, but

I can't find it anywhere. if anyone has it, please link it.

I wonder if the emails/comey/Hillary dustup will be mentioned, and I wonder how he's going to address it this time. If he holds true, he'll be the first journalist today to tell the whole story, as I watched him do way back when

[Gabi Hayes]

7. Tapper just allowed Jeff flake to deride Hillary's fox comments as I typed this.

tapper just let it SLIDE!

I was going to predict that, but I didn't really think he'd ignore his VERY strong rebuke of Comey.

No wonder I can't find it.

could he have possibly taken a spanking from whatever Zucker brother is his boss.

he's expanding on it after the break

can't wait to see what he has to say. sounds like he's going to reverse his position

surprised?

[lpbk2713]

8. They might be finally acknowledging ...

that the old Benghazi horse has at long last been beat to
a pulp and now it's time to bloviate on something else .

[Gabi Hayes]

10. this is just the latest propaganda spaghetti string they throw up against the wall.

when it plays out, another "scandal" will surely take its place. Benghazi might be it, if they treat it the way they did the emails, without so much as ONE MENTION of Comey's backtracking.

btw Patricia Smith was allowed to ramble on and on and on about her son, the 'highlight' being that she holds Hillary ''DIRECTLY responsible'' for her son's death, while fulsomely (and clumsily, as most trumpeteers do), praising "the Donald," as she called him.

so that makes seven, IIRC, segments on Hillary's Pinocchio nose today.

WAIT, steve kornacki just mentioned it in brief, while prefacing a round of possible electoral scenarios, once again furthering the false narrative without mentioning Comey's self-contradictions

so that makes eight, with the major one being Tapper's inexcusable whitewashing of his previous rebuttal wrt Comey's charges

[SickOfTheOnePct]

9. It's not a false narrative

There were 100+ emails that contained classified information at the time Hillary received or sent them. They weren't marked as classified, but that doesn't change the fact that they were classified.

There were 2000+ that contained information that was classified after the fact.

You seem to be concentrating on the three that had (C) portion markings, but those weren't the only classified emails involved.

[Gabi Hayes]

12. EDIT: see post #12 here. I think you're wrong. what I remember seeing/reading was that those

100 emails were found to be classified after the fact, and the only ones they could actually claim to be classified were 2 or 3, with at least two of the them having confusing markings

did you see the testimony? I did, and that's exactly where Comey had to contradict himself

please provide a link to the existence of a hundred emails that were classified at the time of sending/receipt

thanks

have to go pay my property tax....will be back with links to support what I've presented here. hope I can believe my lying eyes and ears.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. Text and citation below

From Comey's statement on the day he announced he was recommending against charges:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/05/james-comey-full-statement-clinton-email-fbi/86707988/

[Gabi Hayes]

16. here we go....who you going to believe?

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/

◾More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department contained classified information, including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received. (Most emails were retroactively deemed to contain classified information by the U.S. agencies from which the information originated.)
◾Some of the emails containing classified information “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information,” contrary to Clinton’s claims that none was marked classified. Comey did not provide a specific number.
◾“[S]everal thousand work-related emails” were not turned over to the State Department in 2014, but were recovered by the FBI. Comey said “three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received.”

'some of the emails,' meaning the 110 emails out of the 'more than 2000' mentioned above. that was IT, out of the THOUSANDS of emails supposedly classified.

and of those, the "specific number" was......are you ready for this: THREE, as cited above.

THAT is what he testified to. USA today contributed, just as are CNN/MSNBC today, to the false narrative of two thousand, no, wait a minute, more than a HUNDRED; no, wait a minute, I guess it's three; two of which were incorrectly marked, and I dunno about the third.

I SAW him testify to that. so if you want to prove your case, go get the transcripts of his testimony, and show to me that, in the end, there were more than three classified emails, two of which weren't even classified. they were confidential:

Mr. Comey said today that there were three documents with the markings, but he did not elaborate on the subject except to say that it also bore the notation (C), indicating that it was classified as “confidential.” Presumably it was one of the emails that the F.B.I. reconstructed from Mrs. Clinton’s servers – or one that her lawyers did not turn over along with the others.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/james-comey-testifies-before-congress/confidential-emails-with-a-c/

even the fact checkers need to be fact checked, because they didn't bother to specify that those two thousand plus were NOT classified. comey admitted to that in his walk back testimony to the dems, which I saw. so, for the last time, it boiled down to THREE mismarked emails, which weren't even CLASSIFIED at all! just ''confidential''

your USA Today citation is from his press conference, isn't it? (Yes)

from your link:

FBI Director James Comey's statement on Clinton emails, as prepared for delivery at Tuesday's press briefing:

that makes it WORTHLESS, because he was forced by dems at the hearings to repudiate almost everything he said about the socalled classified material.

can you find something more relevant? something that refutes what I claim to have seen? if I'm wrong, fine, but I know what I heard, which has been discussed at length here.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

19. Everything in your first quote confirms what I posted

And he wasn't forced to repudiate the information about the 100+ emails that contained information that was classified at the time they were sent/received.

From Comey's testimony:

Chaffetz: IS IT REASONABLE OR UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT HILLARY CLINTON WOULD RECEIVE AND SEND CLASSIFIED INFORMATION?

Come: AS SECRETARY OF STATE, REASONABLE THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE WOULD ENCOUNTER CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IN THE COURSE OF THE SECRETARY'S WORK.

Chaffetz: VIA E-MAIL?

Comey: SURE. DEPENDING UPON THE NATURE OF THE SYSTEM. TO COMMUNICATE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A CLASSIFIED RATED E-MAIL SYSTEM.

Chaffetz: BUT YOU DID FIND MORE THAN 100 E-MAILS THAT WERE CLASSIFIED THAT HAD GONE THROUGH THAT SERVER CORRECT?

Comey: THROUGH AN UNCLASSIFIED SERVER CORRECT.


https://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe&start=1366

Enter "classified" in the "Search this transcript" box, and the video and transcript are fourth in the list, 22:58 long.

I'm not blaming Hillary for this, I'm blaming whomever on her staff introduced classified information to an unclassified system. But she needs to acknowledge that even though it was unintentional on her part, she did in fact receive and send emails that contained classified information.

[Gabi Hayes]

28. I see your point at the end, and she should have done a better job of dealing with that,

but that doesn't alter the fact that this was just another in a series of high tech lynchings by the pugs....the latest in a series of bogus investigations that began, officially, with the whitewater land deal (federal prosecution of which allowed hacks like Jeff Gerth to help transmogrify into the never ending Starr witch hunt (remember the name of the guy he replaced cause he couldn't FIND anything? sound familiar?). point is, no matter WHAT she said, it would never be enough. LOCK HER UP!!!!!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/whitewater/lyonsarticle.html

twas ever thus, for over 20 years......

to provide some perspective, which differs from the unrelenting BS laid on by repubs and liberal media over the email 'scandal':

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/07/hillary_s_email_scandal_was_overhyped.html

of {the} 52 email chains—that contained classified information, just eight had material that she ''should have known'' was “top secret”; 36 of them had “secret” information; and eight more had stuff that she should have known was “confidential.”

....................


As anyone who’s ever had a security clearance will tell you, the labels secret and confidential mean next to nothing. When I worked on Capitol Hill in the late 1970s, the government gave me a secret clearance on my first day of work, pending the investigation into my worthiness to hold a top secret badge. As far as anyone knew, I might have been a Soviet spy, carting out confidential and secret documents every night and making copies for my handler. But they also knew the risk was low because there was nothing in those documents that the Soviets would have paid a dime for. The same is true of our various adversaries and stuff marked secret today.

Top secret information is another matter, but the stuff that showed up in Clinton’s private email wasn’t so special. Seven of the eight email chains dealt with CIA drone strikes, which are classified top secret/special access program—unlike Defense Department drone strikes, which are unclassified. The difference is that CIA drones hit targets in countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where we are not officially at war; they are part of covert operations. (Defense Department drone strikes are in places where we are officially at war.)

But these operations are covert mainly to provide cover for the Pakistani and Yemeni governments, so they don’t have to admit they’re cooperating with America. Everyone in the world knows about these strikes; nongovernment organizations, such as New America, tabulate them; newspapers around the world—including the New York Times, where some of the same reporters are now writing so breathlessly about Clinton’s careless handling of classified information—cover these strikes routinely.

the above paragraph is exactly what the fools for scandal got away with when they started the whitewater inquisition.

The last chain was about a conversation with the president of Malawi, which conversations are always classified. pretty important, huh?

In other words, even if Russian, Chinese, Iranian, or Syrian spies had hacked into Clinton’s email servers, and if they’d pored through 60,000 emails and come across these eight chains that held top secret material, they would not have learned anything the slightest bit new or worthy of their efforts. The FBI’s discoveries should be viewed in that context.

the fault lies with State, but the pugs hung her over it, with happy media cooperation. as you said, she could have handled it better, but at the time, how was she supposed to know the stuff (unmarked) was top secret? This just adds to the FALSE narrative about her being untrustworthy. one can parse her words over the sending/receiving "classified" information, but she, in reality did not KNOW it was classified.

remember, they were trying to get her indicted for all this, and you can be certain that they will call hearings as soon as they go back into session. so we have that to look forward to.

I'm guessing that's why she's sticking to her story, because if she changes it in the fall, she's certain to get nailed for the big P.

does it come down to parsing? perhaps, but the very worst that can be said is that she didn't know the system well enough to recognize the classification category of EVERY SINGLE email sent to her. I hope you read the vegetarian analogy in Slate, which I thought quite apt....not going to link it because of the DU copyright.

did you read the wonkette article? hope it provides some perspective, along with the one from Slate.

[Lee-Lee]

40. "Confidential" is a level of classification and items marked such are classified

It's the lowest level, but Confidential is the first level of classified information, coming just under Secret.

That's basic stuff anyone with a security clearance understands, as well as the fact that (c) in front of a paragraph marks it as classified at that level.

The big question to me is how did that get emailed to her. It's impossible to accidentally do that, classified systems don't email to unclassified ones. Someone intentionally had to cross data between systems.

[Gabi Hayes]

21. I was wrong about the upclassification of the 110 emails.....

that was the 1900 others....now, here's the big big but:

http://wonkette.com/603829/comey-hearings-just-a-bunch-of-house-republicans-stepping-on-own-dicks-again

this link has the actual testimony (in quoted and clip form), which corrects your assertion that those 110 emails contained improperly handled classified information, as is mentioned in the link provided. I can't cut and paste from there, for some reason, but none of them had headers marked 'classified,' or even 'confidential,' for which they are normally checked, according to State Dept. regs; that gets us down to the three, with the contested markings, also dealt with at the link cited.

this is the crux of the issue.....when you go through emails in bulk, they are SUPPOSED to have headers which warn of classified info. the pubs, and you, are trying to insist that it's Hillary's fault for not making sure every one of those emails was gone through individually to check for classified stuff.

this is all dealt with in the link. Please read it, and watch the clips. perhaps you'll see what I was getting at.

that said, why are you so hot on proving Hillary is a liar about this subject?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. I've already said that I don't blame Hillary

I blame whomever on her staff introduced classified information to an unclassified system.

What you don't seem to understand is that correctly marked or not, and the vast, vast majority were not correctly marked, the information was still classified.

As for your claim that I'm trying to prove that Hillary is a liar, that's not the case at all. I simply responded to your claim that saying she received/sent classified information on an unclassified is a false narrative.

It's not a false narrative at all, because she did. Did she do so intentionally? I don't believe she did. But that's irrelevant to the fact that it happened, and saying that it happened isn't pushing a false narrative.

[uponit7771]

25. Its irrelevant that they were classified if she didn't know and even Comey said an expert wouldn't

... be able to tell if they were classified or not.

Why the pretzel logic on this!?

She didn't even do it KNOWINGLY so that outweighs intentions cause she COULD not have them either way

[SickOfTheOnePct]

27. Comey didn't say an expert

Wouldn't know they were classified.

[uponit7771]

30. quoted text and link

MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what’s classified and what’s not classified and we’re following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/07/hearing-backfires-gop-fbi-director-clinton-email-judged-classified.html

I guess if I wasn't being word smithed he indicated that an expert would NOT know if the emails were classified.

That would be more accurate but not change the point at all

[Gabi Hayes]

35. those three are a no go.....total BS....it's the 52, and, especially the eight "top secret"

ones that form the crux. is there any reference to those?

they weren't marked either, and I don't know what was said regarding them, other than what I've linked here from wonkette and slate.

the main discussions seem to be about the three mismarked ones, the story surrounding them being complete garbage.

fine and good with the media discussing this, but since about noon, they just DROPPED the Fallon explanation, which put everything in perspective.

both msnbc and cnn had him on, and he poked a stake in their narratives. could that be why they aren't going into that aspect anymore?

where's my tinfoil?

[uponit7771]

37. NOT MARKED CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME = NOT CLASSIFIED........ period full stop.

That they were marked classified post hoc is what FAUX news is intimating to keep up with their bullshit ass'd meme.

AT THE TIME is VERY important in this narrative and its sophistry to leave that information out

[TipTok]

75. If I read classified information on a secure server...

... marked or not, and then move to my non-secure system and regurgitate it without markings that is a violation in itself.

Lack of marking is not a mitigating factor. If anything it makes it worse.

Anyone with even a hint of experience can take a solid assessment of what is and is not sensitive and it is our responsibility to identify, report and remove spillage across systems.

[Gabi Hayes]

76. so...is Hillary the culprit?>>>>> edit header

I guess comey claimed that she should have known this material was considered classified, you know things like who was having an appointment at the UN, or what the president of Malawi was talking about, right? she should have known that important stuff like that was classified, according to comey. is she responsible for winnowing out the classified from the unclassified with every email she sends/receives, or is that something that should be handled before it comes into her purview?

you obviously are familiar with this scenario. do you think the republicans are making as much out of this as they possibly can, or are they justified in continuing the investigation by having seven or eight more hearings on this, as they did with Benghazi?

[TipTok]

78. Honestly....

I think there should have been repercussions.

PVT Snuffy, who works in operations, sends me an e-mail green side that talks about the big mission next week and asks if can make sure that the map files are uploaded...

I know, just by reading it, this is information that should not be on this system and I need to a) report to the security/intel nerds b) have sit down with a written narrative of what happened, why it was wrong and the legal penalties that he could face.

If I ignore it and respond back that I will indeed make sure that the map files for the big mission next week are uploaded then I am equally as guilty and I'm in the same boat and my boss has to have the same conversation with me.

Same thing technically applies at the high levels. If Huma Abedin sends an e-mail talking about a classified issue and Hillary Clinton doesn't stop it there and instead replies then she is also liable. She also personally owns the system so should be responsible for what happens on it even if she isn't in the e-mail chain.

Lots of things are sensitive, some are secret and few are top secret. Obviously at her level the ratios likely varied wildly as she was involved with lots of high level stuff.

I'm bothered by the use of the system in the first place. I'm bothered by the data that was sent across it and I'm bothered by the lack of consequences.

No one is perfect and almost everyone with a clearance has made a mistake in one way or another (e-mails to talking about something you shouldn't in the chow hall) but the whole system and the way it was used was just an open and obvious invitation to compromise.

It looks like it was created to avoid transparency and avoid retention of records that would have taken place on a government system.

In the end, I treat it like I treat the OJ case. I think it should have gone another way but it didn't and I'm moving on with my life.

[uponit7771]

24. Those emails were classified post hoc and NOT MARKED CLASSIFIED and Comey himself said and expert

... wouldn't be able to deem them classified.

Stop people

[SickOfTheOnePct]

26. Doesn't matter if they were marked or not

100+ contained info that was classified at the time they were sent and 2000+ were classified after the fact.

[uponit7771]

31. Come intimated that it did matter after Cartwright asked if she was an expert would she know if the

... emails were classified or not.

No Classified titles not classified emails

Did she EXPLICITLY have to say KNOWING SENT!?!?!

REALLY!?!!

That's not implied at all!?!?!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

33. She sent and received

Classified information on an unclassified system. Knowingly? Probably not. But that doesn't change the fact that she did it.

To claim that it's pushing a false narrative to state that she did something that she actually did is itself false.

[uponit7771]

36. This is false on its face, if they're not marked classified AT THE TIME then they weren't classified

... AT THAT TIME... the fact that they were marked classified post hoc does NOT mean she sent any classified data AT THE TIME.

Its straight up sophistry to not include the AT THE TIME part seeing NOT ONE of the emails on her server were MARKED classified at the time sent or received!!

[TCJ70]

38. You're way off base here...

...from Comey's statement about the investigation:

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received."

This means that 110 emails contained information that was classified AT THE TIME (to use your vernacular) they were sent. This happened. Full stop. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

Also:

"Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

She had a responsibility. She was careless about it. End of story.

[uponit7771]

39. Again, those 110 emails were NOT MARKED classified at the time !! I really don't understand what

... people are missing here.

You have to INCLUDE all the data and not leave anything out of the narrative like the M$M does

It does not matter at all that there was classified data in them if they are NOT MARKED classified then the email IS NOT CLASSIFIED !!

That's EXACTLY what Cartwright asked Comey and Comey affirmed that even and EXPERT would be hard pressed in know

But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

omfg

Comey DIRECTLY contradicted this notion in the GOP congressional hearings ... Comey EXPLICITLY replied

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/07/hearing-backfires-gop-fbi-director-clinton-email-judged-classified.html

MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what’s classified and what’s not classified and we’re following the manual,

the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified

. Am I correct in that?

JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

DO NOT believe ANY ... ANY M$M narrative without discernment !!!

[TCJ70]

43. The markings don't matter to whether or not it was classified...

...tell you what, here's a hypothetical:

I send you a package from my cheese company. I mark my packages "Cheese" if they contain cheese. One day, you get a package that happens to not be marked, but still contains cheese inside. Is it NOT cheese simply because I haven't marked it?

[uponit7771]

46. No, in this context the contents would NOT be cheese even to an expert. Comey said that in the...

... quote I just posted.

So in this context UNLESS the box is marked cheese even an expert would NOT know if its cheese AT THAT TIME.

So that takes out these M$M notions

1. Clinton sent or received classified email - she didn't, none of the emails had classified headers on them at the time

MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don’t think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c’s on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

JAMES COMEY: No.

2. Clinton had classified email on her server - She did NOT have classified emails on her server, NONE of the emails had a classified header

3. The emails that were retroactively classified by the sending depts constitute classified emails - They were NOT classified AT THE TIME she handled them.

[TCJ70]

47. This is the kind of blind devotion and unwillingness to see a problem that is frustrating...

...it most definitely is cheese because you can open it, see it, smell it, taste it. A marking does not make it cheese, it just is. Much like classified material, marking or not, it just is. Knowingly or unknowingly transmitting it does not make something NOT what it is. You're focused way too much on Hillary and not the question at hand: were the contents of the email classified or not? The answer is yes no matter how you slice it.

[uponit7771]

48. In YOUR context it is cheese in THIS context Comey said it wasn't EVEN to a cheese expert!!!

Did you even read the quote I posted upthread?!

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/07/hearing-backfires-gop-fbi-director-clinton-email-judged-classified.html

MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what’s classified and what’s not classified and we’re following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?



JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

SO NO...

It would NOT be reasonable for a cheese EXPERT to see it was cheese !!!

Also,

The SD said the "markings" (not the headers) were placed WRONGLY in those emails Comey stated in his press conference so EVEN THOSE can't be deemed "cheese" in this case cause they weren't cheese either.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/state-dept-now-says-fbi-got-it-wrong/25101/

In yet another development which helps make clear that Clinton did nothing demonstrably wrong with her email, the two emails sent to her by her aides in 2012 were harmless in nature. Both were merely used to schedule phone calls with foreign leaders, and on their face, clearly could not have possibly been classified at the time. Sure enough, a spokesman for the State Department has confirmed that they were not classified.

So that nullifies even your own scenario WITHIN your context

The ONLY emails TODAY that can even be deemed classified are the ones that were RETROACTIVELY deemed classified

Clinton DID NOT LIE

[SickOfTheOnePct]

49. Yep, willful ignorance

An email that contains classified information is, by definition, a classified email, whether it's marked as such or not.

The people truly at fault here, IMO, are the people who knowingly and willfully mishandled classified information by removing the headers and markings and then moving it down. None of them should be permitted to ever hold a clearance again.

[TCJ70]

50. Exactly. N/t

[lapucelle]

54. Who removed headers and markings"

What are you talking about?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

55. Whomever moved the emails down from classified systems

to an unclassified system.

[lapucelle]

60. You seem to have an inside track to some kind of conspiracy theory.

Provide a link to facts or testimony that backs up your suspicions, whatever they may be.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

62. No conspiracy theory at all

But common sense tells you that if information was on a classified system and was then found on an unclassified system, it had to have been moved there, and it's impossible to do it accidentally, as the different systems are not connected to each other.

Anyone that works with classified information on a daily basis knows that this can't happen unless someone purposely does it. Those are the people at fault here, not Hillary Clinton.

[lapucelle]

53. Your analogy is missing an important element

With the emails, there are two variables: classified information and regular information.

Now suppose I'm a frequent buyer of your cheese. I order both full fat and reduced fat cheese from your company. Whenever you send me the cheese, you only mark it 100% cheese when it's full fat. You always send the reduced fat cheese unmarked.

One day you send me full fat cheese, but you forget to mark it. Am I wrong to conclude that it's reduced fat cheese?

This analogy is better, but it is still not on point with the situation at hand because how much fat something has is a fact. Designating something classified is a judgement. The FBI standards for classification are different from those used by the State Department.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

56. The FBI didn't determine the emails were classified

The originators/owners of the information determined they were classified at the time the emails were received/sent.

[lapucelle]

58. You actually need to link to something that supports what you're saying.

You seem to be the only person who knows this.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

61. No problem

From Comey's statement when he recommended against charges:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/05/james-comey-full-statement-clinton-email-fbi/86707988/

I'm not the only one to know it, and if you had bothered to read the thread, you would have known it too, as links had already been provided.

[Gabi Hayes]

68. 'determined by' does not mean 'marked'

where does it say they were 'marked?'

[SickOfTheOnePct]

73. No one has claimed they were marked

But the information, and thus the emails, were classified, marked or not.

[lapucelle]

51. I don't know where you getting this stuff about 100 emails

Does it have anything to do with Comey repeating the canard that Hillary "knew or should have known that the information was classified", The FBI and the State Department have different standards for classification, so even if Comey thinks a piece of information would be classified, it doesn't mean that State would give it the same designation.

In addition, the three emails with "markings" did not have classified headings which State Department employees rely on in determining how to assess information they receive. There were section markings in the form of a (c). Two of the emails should never included those (c) markings at all.

(C) is the marking that the State Department uses for confidential information (rather than classified), so this led to further confusion on Comey's part.

Hillary had a good reason to infer that any communication sent to her from or forwarded to her to any state.gov address did not contain classified information. The State Department and its employees do not use the state.gov system for classified communications.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

52. The 100+ emails info

comes from both Comey's statement and his testimony in front of Congress.

Comey didn't make the determination as to what was classified, it was made by the owners of the information contained in the 100+ emails that were classified (though not marked as such) at the time they were received/sent.

The State Department doesn't get to declassify information that was classified by another agency/organization (no agency does), so it's irrelevant what the State Department's standards were.

As I've said repeatedly, I don't blame Hillary, I blame her staff members who knowingly and willfully removed classification markings and headings and then moved the data from classified systems to an unclassified system. None of those people should be permitted to ever have a security clearance again.

[lapucelle]

57. You need to actually link to a source that confirms your facts.

There was no testimony by Comey concerning 100+ classified emails.

And if by this "I blame her staff members who knowingly and willfully removed classification markings and headings and then moved the data from classified systems to an unclassified system" you mean the occasion when staff was instructed to remove markings and send on an unclassified system, you left out an important instruction TURN TO NONPAPER. That's a process for rendering classified information unclassified, and it's standard operating procedure at State. Comey testified about it at the hearing, but I guess you missed that part.

https://fam.state.gov/searchapps/viewer?format=html&query=NON-PAPER&links=NON,PAPER&url=/FAM/05FAH01/05FAH010610.html#X611

[SickOfTheOnePct]

59. No problem

From Comey's statement when he recommended against charges:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/05/james-comey-full-statement-clinton-email-fbi/86707988/

From Comey's testimony:

Chaffetz: IS IT REASONABLE OR UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT HILLARY CLINTON WOULD RECEIVE AND SEND CLASSIFIED INFORMATION?

Come: AS SECRETARY OF STATE, REASONABLE THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE WOULD ENCOUNTER CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IN THE COURSE OF THE SECRETARY'S WORK.

Chaffetz: VIA E-MAIL?

Comey: SURE. DEPENDING UPON THE NATURE OF THE SYSTEM. TO COMMUNICATE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A CLASSIFIED RATED E-MAIL SYSTEM.

Chaffetz: BUT YOU DID FIND MORE THAN 100 E-MAILS THAT WERE CLASSIFIED THAT HAD GONE THROUGH THAT SERVER CORRECT?

Comey: THROUGH AN UNCLASSIFIED SERVER CORRECT.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe&start=1366

Enter "classified" in the "Search this transcript" box, and the video and transcript are fourth in the list, 22:58 long.

And no, I'm not talking about the nonpaper issue - I'm talking about the fact that it isn't possible to get classified information onto an unclassified system unless you physically move it, via thumb drive or CD/DVD. And the markings/headings were obviously removed, since if they hadn't been, everyone receiving the emails would have known that they were classified.

[lapucelle]

63. That's the "known or should have known" nonsense.

So let me try to get the theory straight. Staff physically removed classified information from a classified system and then put the information on an unclassified system (making sure to remove the classified markings) in order to...something. Those were the 100+ emails Comey was referencing. And Comey never mentioned this nefarious scheme to Congress and still didn't recommend charges for the staffers because...something.

Alternate theory: some people do not understand Comey's testimony.

Recommendation:revisit Occum's razor.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

64. Not sure why you see it as some kind of conspiracy

Someone had to have moved the data, and it had to be done physically - there is no other way.

Since all documents/emails have markings/headings when on classified systems, those headings had to have been removed, since they weren't there when found by the FBI.

True, he didn't recommend charges, and I wouldn't have expected him to. But the State Department has resumed its investigation into the obvious mishandling of classified information. While no charges will be filed, it's highly likely that those involved will not be permitted to have clearances in the future, nor should they.

It's very easy to understand Comey's statement and testimony unless you happen to be wearing blinders.

[lapucelle]

65. For some reason, it just seems to fit.

“A conspiracy theory is an explanatory or speculative hypothesis suggesting that two or more persons, or an organization, have conspired to cause or cover up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation typically regarded as illegal or harmful.

The term conspiracy theory has derogatory connotations, suggesting explanations that invoke conspiracies without warrant, often producing hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of historical events or simple facts.”

[Gabi Hayes]

69. thank you for knowing what you're talking about. as of today,

the media are STILL talking this up, in terms of trump's missed opportunity to capitalize on the LYING!

this is the 25 year old narrative that will never, ever end

never

[Rex]

17. Not at all, the MSM is trying everything possible to make this a horse race. nt

nt

[glennward]

20. Call them on it. Twitter is fastest way. E-mail bombs and Tweets. nt

[Gabi Hayes]

22. that's a good idea. too bad nobody here is paying any attention. I'll see what the email add is.

I don't have a twit acct., and refuse to get one.

CNN/Anderson Cooper contributed once again to the false narrative. I was away for a couple hours, so I'll guess that that's another two times, at least, that they're shoveling that bullshit under the fence at makes 12 times, with Eight of them lacking any response.

this is exactly how they developed the Hillary untrustworthy narrative, as I've said before. that's why she isn't really dealing with it, because the myth has been made 'fact'

what's the ratio of Hillary outright lies to Tball's? I'm no expert on hers, but there's no question that it's got to be in the hundreds to one. does anybody here, by this time, not think that his default answer to almost everything is AT LEAST an exaggeration, a misleading statement, or an outright LIE? he just makes shit UP! what about that stuff with the phantom contact from the NFL, re: debates, or the MADE UP publicists, Barron and Miller? the list is almost endless.

[skylucy]

29. Thank you! I watched all the Comey testimony etc. and I also have been

watching in disgust as CNN and MSNBC continue to trumpet their crap about this matter. It is obvious that they are misleading viewers about this. Are they just ignorant or are they deliberately using this false narrative knowing full well they are misleading viewers? I wish Hillary's campaign would go after them about this more forcefully. Thanks again for posting about this.

[Gabi Hayes]

32. yr wlcm. they've repeated this meme on CNN at least twice since the last time I mentioned

it, in passing each time....thanks Anderson...with ZERO response from anyone

just solidifying the narrative.

that puts it up to at least 14 since this morning, and I'm sure they talked it up before I started watching.

[kentuck]

44. I think some of these reporters should be asked?

Did you watch the Comey testimony before Congress? All of it?

[TCJ70]

34. Well...she did, so it's not a false narrative.

Comey said as much in his statement about the FBI investigation.

[kentuck]

41. They can't let it go...

because it is all they have...

[Lee-Lee]

42. The big question is who was emailing her classified information

Last edited Tue Aug 2, 2016, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)

It's impossible to email between classified systems and unclassified ones just to prevent this kind of problem.

You can't email between the systems that hold this data and her email addresses. Your not supposed to ever use removable media between the two, a CD-R or USB Drive (when even allowed) is never allowed to to go into an unclassified system if it's ever been in a classified one, it must be labeled with the proper label. You can't read stuff on a classified system then retype or summarize it in your own words and pretend it is not classified.

To make that happen someone was either manually copying data from one to the other or they were using some form of removable media to copy and paste.

Both are a HUGE no-no, and whoever was doing that knew better. That person or persons need their clearance revoked immediately at a minimum.

The fact that the (c) classification marks supposedly showed up on some of the emails means they were other copied and pasted or scanned direct from classified documents, that doesn't just show up on its own. Who did that? That person had to knowingly be violating the protocols and regulations for handling classified information.

Who emailed her that data that was classified at the time? Where did they get that from? Why haven't they had their clearance removed?

[glennward]

45. I tweeted Morning Joe and his guest on this. Don't let them get away with it.

The segments of the hearing in which Comey had to backtrack on his allegations needs to be put into an ad and every HC spokesperson needs to hit this hard.

[lapucelle]

67. CNBC got the story straight when it broke.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/13/three-facts-that-prove-clinton-wasnt-careless-with-her-emails-commentary.html

[Gabi Hayes]

70. I spent HOURS looking for stories like this, and found almost none. glad you did.

Third, Comey used the expression "extreme carelessness" because he said Clinton "should have known" that more than 100 emails that were sent to her private server using nonsecure communications channels contained classified information, albeit without any classification markings. But what he did not say is that more than 300 State Department officials, including many longtime, nonpartisan career professionals and diplomats, also used the same nonclassified channels to send her these emails allegedly containing classified information.

If over 300 State professionals and experts didn't recognize classified information in the emails they sent to Clinton, and they used nonsecure channels to send them to her, then how can Clinton plausibly be accused, alone, of showing "extreme carelessness" because she "should have" known what 300-plus government professionals did not? I don't think she can.

and she got four pinocchios for this???????

I didn't realize that jeff gerth and susan Schmidt have crawled out of their filth quagmires to spread the BS again

this has been, if not the most egregious, one of the top couple, examples of complete malfeasance on the part of the media since the primary campaign started, certainly since comey had his little Whitewater-style press conference. old habits die hard, don't they. have to fault Obama for being so foolish in keeping this wingnut on board though. the FIRST
thing he should do after the election is fire his sorry ass, 10 year term be damned.

[Gabi Hayes]

71. just as I finished the above cnn teased another story on the emails!!!!!

not kidding

will they allow somebody like lanny davis (with whom I have no love) be allowed to tell the other side of the story?

they had a woman on msnbc yesterday, who was aggressively interrogated by some ignoramus. the host kept citing comey's press conference, and when reminded that the exculpatory testimony came in front of congress, IGNORED her, and went back to comey's walked back BS from the presser.

that and two stints by brian fallon, which I mentioned here already, were part of a total of maybe FIVE instances in which the facts were actually presented. at least 20 other segments since I started this thread have projected the propaganda forward without so much as a mention of a possible alternate explanation, merely touting the four Pinocchio accusation.

nauseating

[Gabi Hayes]

72. wrong about the state dept emails. the host just showed the ''Jew'' email

in order to play up the DNC disorder, trying to equate that with the massive breakdown at the RNC

she has a HUGE smile on her face as she presents this tidbit, and is looking disappointed as Erol Louis tells her that she's barking up the wrong tree wrt dem disorder

then she gleefully touts the supposed 80 million bucks raised in july by the pugs, and implies that things are just going to be swell with them after all, still sporting the huge, happy grin

[Gabi Hayes]

74. bringing this back, because they're going CRAZY over this again, and not allowing

ANY counter-explanation.... they cut off a former WJC advisor who was explaining the reality concisely yesterday or thurs....can't remember

they're going after this HARD now. it's going to turn into her Swifboating.

think I'm crazy? maybe, but wait and see how long this takes to die down, especially if trump manages to keep a cork in it for any extended period of time.

[liberal N proud]

77. Well, the Donald had a terrible week, to be fair the media is trying to give Hillary one

They need to level the polls and Hillary was starting to make headway against the years of attacks. A runaway election just isn't sensational enough.

[uponit7771]

79. +1

[Gabi Hayes]

80. it's expanding like the blob.....it's on tv all the time...four times since 8:15 this morning

at cnn and msnbc. even bill press is getting the story wrong, castigating her for not owning up, which she DID! what more can she do, except prostrate herself as kentuck suggests. this reply is for that thread, as much as to provide a place where, if one chooses, they can dredge through this thread to find an explanation for what really happened between Hillary, comey, the pugs, and the media, who are now turning this into a swiftboat scenario, completely ignoring the facts of this circus.

it's as if comey's testimony didn't HAPpen. and that's the crux of the whole story.

[GummyBearz]

82. Between CNN and your posts I've heard about this 20 times in 2 days

I'm not sure which of you is giving it more talking time, but I'd prefer to hear HRC's current stance on political issues instead

[Gabi Hayes]

84. cnn and msnbc have mentioned this four times since 9AM.

send them an email....I did. it won't do any good. they don't WANT to talk about anything of substance, for the most part. the other area of concentration today, besides the email, is the economic game, centered around what promises to be a trump speech, filled with crazy crazy proposals that will put us much farther into debt that we'll be in the same position we are in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.....we'll never get out.

[kentuck]

81. Comey could have clarified his comments..

but he chose not to do so. Why? Does he have something against Hillary?

[Gabi Hayes]

83. only since whitewater, during which he was one of Starr's chief inquistors

Fricking Obama should TYPE out a statement in which comey specifically deals with the testimony he gave to congress in which he STATED that not ONE SINGLE email was clearly marked secret. he pretty much was forced to admit that during questioning by a few adept democratic congressmen. it's all there, but the media are ignoring it.

instead, they choose, once again, to EAGERLY carry republican swampwater, beating this story to death, exactly the way they did with swiftboat (that was actually worse, because there was NOTHING there at all.....Hillary has done a very poor job of responding to this, and should have studied the responses of Brian Fallon and two other surrogates who did an excellent job of explaining the facts that are apparently too confusing for the media to even make the most cursory attempt at understanding)

and....as soon as the election is over, he should FIRE comey, regardless of who wins. and won't it be sweet, if Hillary does, that her first official act is to demand his resignation?

[Gabi Hayes]

85. prediction.....within ten minutes of now, both cnn and msnbc will have a segment on the emails

tick......

t

[Gabi Hayes]

86. tock....wrong again!

msnbc had maniac economist on for almost fifteen minutes, and cnn had a panel centering on trump's economic message, shoehorning in a quick segment on how he's calling Hillary all kinds of names, without giving any time to discuss what a complete psychological disaster trump's fevered brain is

[Gabi Hayes]

87. here we go: 10:27 and they're off...including the 'short circuited' comment

this time, though, they actually mentioned the mismarked emails!!!!!

and it was a reporter, not a Hillary surrogate. perhaps the truth will slowly trickle out

nothing on cnn yet!

[Gabi Hayes]

88. now they're showing trump talking about the short circuit...so they're not letting

it go.

howard dean is on. will he explain it well?

Yes! dean talking about a wingnut attack group led by Giuliani

the host isn't buying it, saying the pubs aren't buying it, but he goes right back at her, telling her that's what they DO

she hits him with the polling saying she's untrustworthy, and will it hurt her in the election. he nails her saying that's ALL they talk about, and people like the host are HELPING them by talking about it all the time.

why don't we talk about Russian connection with trump for example.

finally, she lets it go, switching to the 'overconfident' meme. these shills are AMAZING. that's another one of their tropes....that she's too confident, which, of course, implies that it will lead to her downfiall

[Gabi Hayes]

89. like trump, I'll take the credit for seeing what this would lead to

they're releasing the entire dump, and I mean dump, of FBI materials on the email inquisition, which I'm surprised they're doing, cause I'm sure Chaffetz etal were slobbering over the prospect of leaking selectively damning day-by-day driblets. at least the entire context can be provided.

all depends on how the media handle it, which does not make me optimistic, but hey......

this should get his out of the way by the time of the first debate, I hope.

of course, the hearings that will start the day after labor day will cause quite the ruckus, unless the dems can get past the media barrage and highlight just HOW ridiculous the 'evidence' is against Hillary.