Latest Breaking News

Mike Nelson

(10,943 posts)

26. Republicans and the "Media" will never be satisfied...

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 08:51 PM

Aug 2015

...the aim is to use her name in conjunction with "scandal" "criminal" "illegal" "classified" etc. etc... Whitewater! Benghazi!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

69 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

State Department flags 305 more Clinton e-mails for review [View all] jpak Aug 2015 OP

Which means none of them were marked classified or they wouldn't have to be reviewed. pnwmom Aug 2015 #1

^^^This!^^^ SoapBox Aug 2015 #2

You are right, and the media is a problem for all the candidates. The other day when the inane reporter still_one Aug 2015 #56

Not exactly. former9thward Aug 2015 #5

Actually, there is someone sitting there marking them classified. jeff47 Aug 2015 #6

No, I really really want Dems to stop assuming she's guilty based on news reports. pnwmom Aug 2015 #8

Guilty implies a law was broken. jeff47 Aug 2015 #11

No, this is nothing like Patraeus. pnwmom Aug 2015 #7

Um....no. jeff47 Aug 2015 #9

I got it Jeff! artislife Aug 2015 #59

So... Erich Bloodaxe BSN Aug 2015 #3

I think you better re-read the article. That's not the point at all. Metric System Aug 2015 #4

No. Not a single one so far has been proven to be classified. n/t pnwmom Aug 2015 #10

So they're releasing redacted emails for entertainment value? jeff47 Aug 2015 #12

That doesn't mean that the information was classified at the time it was written pnwmom Aug 2015 #14

You keep trying to invent an after-the-fact classification system. jeff47 Aug 2015 #19

pnwmom has her talking points and she is sticking to them. candelista Aug 2015 #23

Maybe this will make you reconsider. pnwmom Aug 2015 #32

Because I also know people who work with classified information and that's what they tell me. pnwmom Aug 2015 #28

Because I need to link to all the media quoting intelligence agencies saying it was jeff47 Aug 2015 #30

This is from the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University. Read it and weep pnwmom Aug 2015 #31

Why would I weep? jeff47 Aug 2015 #36

I'm surprised that any progressive would support retroactive classification, pnwmom Aug 2015 #37

And yet again you conflate marking with classification. jeff47 Aug 2015 #38

Links please. But Grassley has already proven to be a liar, so don't bother with him. n/t pnwmom Aug 2015 #39

You were already given them repeatedly. You consistently ignore them. jeff47 Aug 2015 #40

Here's a link to Media Matters. pnwmom Aug 2015 #41

Where's the claim that retroactive classification is happening? jeff47 Aug 2015 #42

So Media Matters is wrong, and you, with your earlier references to discredited NYTimes articles, pnwmom Aug 2015 #43

No, me actually quoting the State department is right. jeff47 Aug 2015 #44

Where is this mysterious quote of yours by a named spokesperson? n/t pnwmom Aug 2015 #45

It's in the link you provided. jeff47 Aug 2015 #49

!!!! pnwmom Aug 2015 #51

Reading. It's something worth trying. jeff47 Aug 2015 #54

You need to take a ride in the way-back machine pnwmom Aug 2015 #55

State is saying nothing is classified, retroactive or not. jeff47 Aug 2015 #57

So you are somehow using State's assertion that nothing was classified against Hillary? pnwmom Aug 2015 #58

No, I'm using State's assertion that nothing was classified against you. jeff47 Aug 2015 #63

I admire your loyalty (if that's the right word). candelista Aug 2015 #25

We all knew that the M$M will milk this sadoldgirl Aug 2015 #13

Classified or not classified - asiliveandbreathe Aug 2015 #15

What will be really interesting to find out madville Aug 2015 #16

It may not be that simple. Someone can read a classified document and then compose an email 24601 Aug 2015 #17

We're thinking along the same lines madville Aug 2015 #18

There's a better explanation: the miracles of xeroxing. candelista Aug 2015 #21

I agree this is the one really fishy thing. Vinca Aug 2015 #24

And what would have been the point of a photoshop job? Are you accusing Hillary of being a traitor? pnwmom Aug 2015 #34

No. Of course I'm not. Vinca Aug 2015 #61

I think it's a lot more likely they weren't going to do the Rethugs any favors pnwmom Aug 2015 #62

No. The reports I've seen said none of the information in the emails appeared to have been pnwmom Aug 2015 #33

The most above-top-secret doc was a satellite map! candelista Aug 2015 #46

I haven't read that. Could I see your link, please? n/t pnwmom Aug 2015 #47

Here are some links. candelista Aug 2015 #50

Thank you. That second excerpt from McCullough's letter referred to CURRENT classification. pnwmom Aug 2015 #53

Unmarked "Classified" information: candelista Aug 2015 #64

Yes. And that does NOT rule out that, as reports say, it may be RETROACTIVELY classified. pnwmom Aug 2015 #66

The issue of who originated, on an unclassified system an email that contains classified information 24601 Aug 2015 #22

But the question of whether this is all speculation or not isn't trivial either. pnwmom Aug 2015 #48

The media has not yet reported that any of them were composed by Hillary. pnwmom Aug 2015 #29

reviewers better hurry, theres probably thousands of 'Freedom of Info.' requests for those emails. Sunlei Aug 2015 #20

Republicans and the "Media" will never be satisfied... Mike Nelson Aug 2015 #26

Is Hillary losing it? ORjohn Aug 2015 #27

Thank you for helpfully pointing this out, Bernie Sanders Supporter. 6000eliot Aug 2015 #52

Donation Honor ORjohn Aug 2015 #65

Another donation! Thank you! 6000eliot Aug 2015 #67

Appreciation ORjohn Aug 2015 #68

I'm not going to form a solid opinion until the investigation is complete Bradical79 Aug 2015 #35

The underlying problem MFrohike Aug 2015 #60

Someone does not like HC Puzzledtraveller Aug 2015 #69