The New American Politics thread

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

And if you clicked mine you'd see why that's still not relevant.

She sent three emails with partial markings that she did not know were classified. Comey himself said she didn't know. If you read the source material or what I posted you'll see how this perjury will not progress and wouldn't even be a point of discussion. I don't think you understand what is required for perjury.

This does not meet the criteria for perjury

Incompetence? Maybe. Perjury? Nope

Ok you appear to be trying to argue something that isn't related. The FBI and Comey didn't investigate Perjury charges, they investigated whether or not Clinton violated the Federal Records Act and also if Clinton intentionally passed on Classified information at the time she sent the emails. That is what they investigated.

The specific accusation of Perjury comes from her testimony to Congress and this specific statement:

Clinton's comment in question was one she made in testimony to Rep. Jim Jordan, in which she said "there was nothing marked classified on my emails." Comey told the committee that there was indeed classified information that had passed through Clinton's unauthorized email server that she used while as secretary of state.

Please note that this testimony came after she was being investigated.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Gozer

That is irrelevant. A document does not need to me marked to be considered (and treated like it's) classified. The content dictates whether or not it's classified.

It's very important to the perjury case. Because you can't make the case she committed perjury if she didn't knowingly mislead in her answer

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

The FBI...investigated whether or not Clinton violated the Federal Records Act

That's not correct, FRA was not investigated. See my link above from The Hill.

FRA violations are not severe enough to warrant FBI involvement.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Ok you appear to be trying to argue something that isn't related. The FBI and Comey didn't investigate Perjury charges, they investigated whether or not Clinton violated the Federal Records Act and also if Clinton intentionally passed on Classified information at the time she sent the emails. That is what they investigated.

The specific accusation of Perjury comes from her testimony to Congress and this specific statement:



Please note that this testimony came after she was being investigated.

She clarified the statement. The committee interviewed both Comey and Clinton where that statement came out. They asked Comey about that statement which is why he responded the way he did. Which is why it's not perjury. Seriously. Read. The. Source. Material.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It's very important to the perjury case. Because you can't make the case she committed perjury if she didn't knowingly mislead in her answer

If the Presidential nominee, former Senator, Secretary of State, and First Lady doesn't understand what classified means, then we have bigger problems than perjury.

You can't believe she's that obtuse.

[ResAlien]

That's good enough for me. Lock her up. Everyone was probably bought and paid for by the Clinton foundation.

Yes she's definitely guilty of perjury, all it took was a few people on the interwebs to point it out. Damn federal government and legal system couldn't find its own ass with both hands.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It's very important to the perjury case. Because you can't make the case she committed perjury if she didn't knowingly mislead in her answer

Well there were at least 3 marked as classified, so it is kind of moot for you to continue to argue that point.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Well there were at least 3 marked as classified, so it is kind of moot for you to continue to argue that point.

I find that argument to be a defense of Clinton. Missing, or not recognizing, three small markings on a mobile device is understandable.

Markings aren't imporant. Classification is determined by content.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

15,000 emails held back from the FBI.

That's not correct, a judge is ordering the state department to review and maybe release 15,000 emails, the FBI already had them and they were already part of the FBI's investigation, the emails are coming from the FBI, so they weren't held back from the FBI.

It's a question of if they should have been included with the 30,000 that were released or not (i.e. are they personal or not, the state department will have to evaluate each one).

The FBI said last month that there were thousands that were not turned over, they haven't said if this 15,000 includes those, is those, or is in addition to those they previously mentioned. No one's said how much overlap there is between the 30,000 released and these 15,000, could be none, could be mostly already released emails.

Clinton's lawyers didn't read each email one by one to separate them while the FBI probably did.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Gozer

If the Presidential nominee, former Senator, Secretary of State, and First Lady doesn't understand what classified means, then we have bigger problems than perjury.

You can't believe she's that obtuse.

CLINTON:#There was nothing marked classified on my e-mails, either sent or received.And I want to respond…

JORDAN: You used the right term there. Used “marked”. That’s the one—that’s what you—you used the revised statement there.

CLINTON: …well—but that’s—well, Congressman, there was a lot of confusion because many — many Americans have no idea how the classification process works. And therefore I wanted to make it clear that there is a system within our government, certainly within the State Department…

JORDAN: (inaudible) one more question (inaudible).

CLINTON: …where material that is thought to be classified is marked such, so that people have the opportunity to know how they are supposed to be handling those materials…

JORDAN: I got—I got one second.

CLINTON: …and that’s why it became clearer, I believe, to say thatnothing was marked classified at the time I sent or received it.

GOWDY: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail. Was that true?

COMEY: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent…

GOWDY: So it was not true?

COMEY: That’s what I said.

GOWDY: OK. Well, I’m looking for a little shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long.Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails, either sent or received. Was that true?

COMEY:#That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents. [Note: Comey adds in the exchange that follows below that she was not aware that these improperly marked emails contained classified so this answer is very incomplete.]

GOWDY:#Secretary Clinton said, “I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail, there is no classified material.” Was that true? [Note: This is not a statement she made during her testimony. It appears Gowdy is referring to her answer to a question at the March 2015 press conference.]

COMEY:#There was classified material e-mailed.

MEADOWS: * * * So let me go on to another one. On October 22, she [Sec. Clinton] said, “there was nothing marked classified on e-mails either sent or received,” and in your statement, you said, a “very small number of e-mails contained classified information, bore markings indicating the presence of classified information at the time.”So she makes a statement that says there was no markings. You make a statement that there was. So her statement was not true?

COMEY:#That one I actually have a little insight into her statement because#we asked her about that. There were three documents that bore#portion markingswhere you’re obligated when something is classified to put a marking on that paragraph. [Note: there is no such thing as “portion markings” in a properly classified document during the tenure of Secretary Clinton. What Comey is actually saying that the person who sent the email to Clinton was obligated to add paragraph markings but failed to add the header and footer markings, not to mention the other required information.]

MEADOWS: Right.

COMEY: There were three that bore “c” which means that’s confidential classified information.

MEADOWS: So a reasonable person who has been a Senator, a Secretary of State, a First Lady,#wouldn’t a reasonable person know that that was a classified marking?#As a secretary of state, a reasonable person? That’s all I’m asking.

COMEY:#Before this investigation, I probably would have said, yes. I’m not so sure. I don’t find it incredibly…

MEADOWS: Director Comey, come on. I mean, I have only been here a few years and I understand the importance of those markings. So you’re suggesting that a long length of time that she had no idea what a classified marking would be? That’s your sworn testimony today?

COMEY: No, no, not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be, but it’s an interesting question as to—the question about sophistication came up earlier—whether she was sophisticated enough to understand what a “c” means.

MEADOWS: So you’re saying the former Secretary of State is not sophisticated enough to understand a classified marking?

COMEY: That’s not what I said.

MEADOWS: That’s a huge statement.

COMEY: That’s not what I said.#You asked me did I assume someone would know. Probably before the investigation, I would have, I’m not so sure of that answer any longer.#I think it’s possible—possible that she didn’t understand what a “c” meant when she saw it in the body of the e-mail like that. [Note: Director Comey made no effort to explain that for the document to be properly classified it needed to state its classification at the top and bottom of the document, as well as the name of the person and department/agency who had classified it, and why, along with the date the classification ends. See, e.g.the National Archives instructions on classifying email at this link.]

MEADOWS: After years in the Senate and Secretary of State, I mean, that’s hard for me and the American people to believe, Director Comey. And I’m not questioning your analysis of it, butwouldn’t a reasonable person think that someone who has the highest job of handling classified information would understand that?

COMEY:#I think that’s the conclusion a reasonable person would draw. It may not be accurate…

Context matters. We can discuss other things like competency or intent, but that's not the current issue. There's no perjury.


She never said "I never sent classified emails" under oath

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Gozer

That is irrelevant. A document does not need to me marked to be considered (and treated like it's) classified. The content dictates whether or not it's classified.

If a high-ranking official of the government is exclusively communicating via non-secure channels, then she is negligent to the duty of protecting sensitive information.
Comey indicated that she was 'extremely reckless' but not 'gross negligence' which is hardly an exoneration.

As for the insinuations of a quid-pro-quo, we can only review emails, not phone calls or other methods of communication - which could reasonably be expected to have been used for this exact reason. There needs to be inference and common sense injected, in the court of public opinion.

As for the clarification of the Federal Records Act. Communications from government employees (on official channels - Hillary only used one email address, therefore it must be her official channel)..these communications are property of the State.
The intent, to me, is clear. She didn't want FOIA requests or congressional review of her activities to arise during her Presedential candidacy. That's a reasonable concern (since Congressional Republicans really are trying to bring her down) but it's evasion of the spirit and the letter of the law with the (correct) assumption that she is above the law.

I'm sorry sir, but you are not full informed on what you are talking about here. Timing of the application of a sensitivity labeling is the whole issue. A sensitivity labeled can be assigned to information long after it has been created and disseminated. The vast majority of government communication takes place across insecure channels, and information that may end up being classified at a later date is routinely disseminated across insecure channels.

The failure to secure the server in an appropriate way is where Clinton is at fault. The FRA didn't address the issue. The FRA was amended in 2014 to address the Clinton email server issue, which has been a problem for the past couple decades. This is not an isolated incident with the exception that the Republicans have made it an issue. The OMB controls these policies and it took the seven Republican witch hunts for them to close the hole of allowing for private servers. I know of individuals at all levels of government in the executive branch that employ private servers or channel their communications through a personal email address hosted by another interest. This is a wide spread problem that only governance and compliance enforcement can address. I for one am very happy of this amendment to the FRA as it makes the jobs of those who deal with securing systems that much easier.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Well there were at least 3 marked as classified, so it is kind of moot for you to continue to argue that point.

Honest question: what is perjury? I don't think you know the answer

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

She clarified the statement. The committee interviewed both Comey and Clinton where that statement came out. They asked Comey about that statement which is why he responded the way he did. Which is why it's not perjury. Seriously. Read. The. Source. Material.

I did read your material. It was still marked Classified.

You posted an editorialized link from someone who was White House Counsel to Nixon during Watergate.

Let that sink in for a moment.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I did read your material. It was still marked Classified.

You posted an editorialized link from someone who was White House Counsel to Nixon during Watergate.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Yes. That's why he's intimately familiar with these laws.

So you either don't know what Clinton said? Or what perjury is?

I'd like to hear your reasoning.

She never said "I never sent any classified emails" in that hearing,yet that's the basis for your perjury charge.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Itse

Please do explain.

The Clinton Foundation is purportedly a separate non-profit corporation, yet, its figureheads are leading members of a political party, and rulers of a country.

There was absolutely no transparency or clear-cut lines as to how those roles would be separated. If in her role as Sec. of State, she is required to meet with certain officials, billionaires, world leaders etc... who are also major donors to her personal foundation (which has made her MILLIONS of dollars), then that is corruption.

I'm not saying it is out and out criminal - although the case can be made that rules have been broken on their behalf - but it is certainly a situation of "where there is smoke, there is fire."

They are oligarchs, plain and simple, who have used their time in office to benefit financially, and politically.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Honest question: what is perjury? I don't think you know the answer

Let's leave the snark aside please.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I did read your material. It was still marked Classified.

You posted an editorialized link from someone who was White House Counsel to Nixon during Watergate.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Material can be disseminated and then labeled classified. What is done after the fact is the issue here. Comey was probably accurate in his comments, saying there was classified information on the server. The issue is when was the information received and what was done with it after the label had been assigned. If the data was received prior to the label, there was no dissemination of classified data. If the label was applied after it had been received it was then on Clinton to handle that information appropriately. If she did not forward that information there is no issue, other than storing the information in an insecure location, which she got nailed on. So Comey is probably 100% accurate in his comments and was honest in why there were no charges against Clinton. Timing is everything when it comes to handing sensitive and classified data.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Context matters. We can discuss other things like competency or intent, but that's not the current issue. There's no perjury.


She never said "I never sent classified emails" under oath

I think two arguments got conflated.
I wasn't carrying the torch for Chaffetz and their accusations of perjury.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by New Era

Material can be disseminated and then labeled classified. What is done after the fact is the issue here. Comey was probably accurate in his comments, saying there was classified information on the server. The issue is when was the information received and what was done with it after the label had been assigned. If the data was received prior to the label, there was no dissemination of classified data. If the label was applied after it had been received it was then on Clinton to handle that information appropriately. If she did not forward that information there is no issue, other than storing the information in an insecure location, which she got nailed on. So Comey is probably 100% accurate in his comments and was honest in why there were no charges against Clinton. Timing is everything when it comes to handing sensitive and classified data.

Nailed on? Really.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

That's not correct, a judge is ordering the state department to review and maybe release 15,000 emails, the FBI already had them and they were already part of the FBI's investigation, the emails are coming from the FBI, so they weren't held back from the FBI.

It's a question of if they should have been included with the 30,000 that were released or not (i.e. are they personal or not, the state department will have to evaluate each one).

The FBI said last month that there were thousands that were not turned over, they haven't said if this 15,000 includes those, is those, or is in addition to those they previously mentioned. No one's said how much overlap there is between the 30,000 released and these 15,000, could be none, could be mostly already released emails.

Clinton's lawyers didn't read each email one by one to separate them while the FBI probably did.

They were held back by her attorneys, and uncovered in the FBI probe.