Repugnants "for" Bernie still in love with debunked 'classified info' hysteria

[Bill USA]

Repugnants are so in love with the 'classified' info in Hillary's emails meme.. they just can't give it up even though it's been reported that no information in emails received by Clinton was classified AT THE TIME THEY WERE RECEIVED.

see; http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1810912

FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret"

FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret"

Government Officials: None Of The Emails Were Marked As "Classified" When They Were Sent. The Washington Post reported that when the ICIG first "found information that should have been designated as classified" in four emails from Clinton's server -- two of which he now says contain "top secret" information -- government officials acknowledged that the emails were not marked as classified when they were sent (emphasis added):

[blockquote style="border:1ps solid #000000;padding:10px;background:#ddffee;"] The Justice Department said Friday that it has been notified of a potential compromise of classified information in connection with the private e-mail account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while serving as secretary of state.

A Justice official said the department had received a "referral" on the matter, which the inspector general of the intelligence agencies later acknowledged came from him.

The inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, said in a separate statement that he had found information that should have been designated as classified in four e-mails out of a "limited sample" of 40 that his agency reviewed. As a result, he said, he made the "security referral," acting under a federal law that requires alerting the FBI to any potential compromises of national security information.

(...)

Officials acknowledged that none of the e-mails reviewed so far contain information that was marked classified when they were sent. But a new inquiry would prolong the political controversy Clinton is facing over her un­or­tho­dox e-mail system. (The Washington Post, 7/24/15)(more)

FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton Herself

FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton Herself

Reuters: Inspector General Referral Is Not Criminal. Reuters reported on July 24 that there was "no criminal referral over [the] Clinton emails":

[div class="excerpt" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:10px;"] The Justice Department said Friday it has received a request to examine the handling of classified information related to the private emails from Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, but it is not a criminal referral. (Reuters, "No Criminal Referral over Clinton Emails" 7/24/15)

AP: U.S. Official Said That Request Of DOJ "Doesn't Suggest Wrongdoing By Clinton Herself." The Associated Press quoted an anonymous U.S. official who noted that the referral did not implicate Clinton in any wrongdoing:

[div class="excerpt" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:10px;"] The New York Times first reported the referral. The Clinton campaign said Friday that she "followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials." Spokesman Nick Merrill said emails deemed classified by the administration were done so after the fact, not when they were sent.

One U.S. official said it was unclear whether classified information was mishandled and the referral doesn't suggest wrongdoing by Clinton herself. (Associated Press, 7/24/15)
(more)


[font size="+1"] These Repugnants 'for' Bernie are actually making the Bernie campaign look both bad and stupid (as stupid as Republicans who are enthralled by the Alternate Universe that lives in their imaginations)
[/font]

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. That's a relief. Anything else troubling you today?

[grasswire]

2. Now you are looking just silly. nt

[Bill USA]

3. the chanting of the hysterical theory goes on.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1898037

[ebayfool]

4. David Brock is Media matters. No thanks, I don't take her lapdog's opinion as "Fact". n/t

[Bill USA]

6. standard Republican position: ignore reality if it contradicts their alternate universe - content

is from Reuters, NYT, AP. THe Reuters article referred to a statement from the Justice Department

The Justice Department said Friday it has received a request to examine the handling of classified information related to the private emails from Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, but it is not a criminal referral. (Reuters, 7/24/15)

here's the content from MMA which is an excerpt from an AP article.

AP: U.S. Official Said That Request Of DOJ "Doesn't Suggest Wrongdoing By Clinton Herself." The Associated Press quoted an anonymous U.S. official who noted that the referral did not implicate Clinton in any wrongdoing:

[div class="excerpt" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:10px;"] The New York Times first reported the referral. The Clinton campaign said Friday that she "followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials." Spokesman Nick Merrill said emails deemed classified by the administration were done so after the fact, not when they were sent.

One U.S. official said it was unclear whether classified information was mishandled and the referral doesn't suggest wrongdoing by Clinton herself. (Associated Press, 7/24/15)
(more)



...the REpublicans hate Brock because he blew the whistle on the Right Wing's INfrastructure which manufacture Big Lies... in his books: Blinded by the Right and The Republican Noise Machine.


... the entire content of the MediaMatters article is made up of excerpts from other well known news sources. Again, the Repugnants refuse to recognize facts that expose the myths that make up the Republican Alternate Universe.

[ebayfool]

8. Standard Clintonian response ... Link to articles from Brock containing outdated, cherry picked ...

articles from last year and try to pass it off as unpartisan opinion. Brock = bullshit.

[Bill USA]

10. the information in MM article comes from the AP, NYT, Reuters - referring to statements by DoJ.. can

you understand that Brock does not write for AP, NYT or Reuters... nor does he speak for the Justice Department. Am I going too fast for you?

[ebayfool]

16. Yes, from IIRC 7/15. As in outdated. As in cherry picked. As in molded into a tidy opinion piece ...

by Brock. Am I going too fast for YOU?

[Bill USA]

22. got any actual evidence of classified info (at the time received by HRC) ? LOL

[angrychair]

5. Stop, your looking silly

You are using links from 2015 that are opinions based on incomplete information.

You have done nothing to validate your premise.

[Bill USA]

9. articles referenced in MM article includes a description from Justice department of the referral

You think the Justice Department doesn't know what they are talking about when commenting on the referral they received?

NOTE the statement excerpted below is a statement of fact -- not opinion. [font size="+1"] Do you understand that?[/font]

The Justice Department said Friday it has received a request to examine the handling of classified information related to the private emails from Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, but [font color="red"]it is not a criminal referral[/font]

FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton Herself


Reuters: Inspector General Referral Is Not Criminal. Reuters reported on July 24 that there was "no criminal referral over [the] Clinton emails":

[div class="excerpt" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:10px;"] The Justice Department said Friday it has received a request to examine the handling of classified information related to the private emails from Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, but [font color="red"]it is not a criminal referral[/font]. (Reuters, "No Criminal Referral over Clinton Emails" 7/24/15)

[angrychair]

11. August, 2015

There is much more information in public domain since then. More importantly, there is likely mountains of information not in the public domain. In fact, we know there is because Justice blocked a FOIA request made to the FBI on certain information not in the public domain, citing "information material to an ongoing investigation" as its reason.

Any Investigation and the information related to it, are not stagnant, you do realize that?

[Bill USA]

13. Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community - NOT A CRIMINAL REFERRAL

https://oig.state.gov/whats-new/9811

[link:Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community|Full statement]

Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the
Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails

Yesterday the Office ofthe Inspector General ofthe Intelligence Community (IC IG} sent a
congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG
support to the State Department IG (attached).

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of
40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which
have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings
and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State
Department; rather these em ails contained classified information when they were generated
and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This
classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.


IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security
officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the refe rral was to notify security
officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive
that are not in the government's possession.[font size="+1"] An important distinction is that
the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security
referral made for counterintelligence purposes[/font]. The IC IG is statutorily
required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate
IC security officials.

[angrychair]

17. Information is not stagnant

There is much more information in public domain since then. More importantly, there is likely mountains of information not in the public domain. In fact, we know there is because Justice blocked a FOIA request made to the FBI on certain information not in the public domain, citing "information material to an ongoing investigation" as its reason.

This was not the only component of the the investigation. Different investigation, different focus. This has no explicit connection with the current FBI investigation.
Any Investigation and the information related to it, are not stagnant, you do realize that?

[Bill USA]

23. any evidence of classified info (at the time it was received by HRC?)

[frylock]

20. July 24, 2015

[scscholar]

7. And if there had been...

the FBI would have arrested her a year ago. Instead, by proving that they have nothing proves they have nothing.

[angrychair]

12. It is still under active investigation

There are numerous cited references here on DU, specifically detailing the status of the investigation.

If it really was "nothing at all" or if it really was just a "security review" then yes it would have ended months ago. That is not the case.

[Bill USA]

14. "it would have ended months ago"... oh, you're an authority on this case?

"or if it really was just a "security review" then yes it would have ended months ago." .... really? Your being updated by the FBI? ROFL!

[angrychair]

18. It's not a "security review"

FBI doesn't do that. Justice does not give people immunity from prosecution for a "security review". Non-partisan career Justice Department prosecutors are not involved in "security reviews".

[Old Codger]

15. Have you studied and trained

Really really hard to get to the point that you are at or did it just come naturally?

[frylock]

19. lol @ Media Matters.

[AgingAmerican]

21. From David Brock no less