Stuff that's TS/SCA is usually unmistakable in its sensitivity.
Dude, you dont need to be vague. We have the emails. Show me the examples of what is unmistakable. Quote me something.
I'm referring to the emails which couldn't be released to Congress due to their classification level, not the wikileaks dump.
So either she lied about the lack of classified material, or she lied about being well aware of the classification requirements. You can make a (flimsy, IMHO) argument that the low-level classified stuff was easy to assume it wasn't classified. Stuff that's TS/SCA is usually unmistakable in its sensitivity.
She did not knowingly transmit any classified information. The closest anything came to being marked classified is the two emails in the OP. And that wasn't something she originated, that was just something in a quote pyramid that she sent.
This isn't "she gave the Reich blueprints to our 75mm cannon! Send her to rot!" This is "she mentioned a plan to make a phone call which wasn't yet public knowledge."
I'm not exactly shitting myself with fear that the Chinese had access to this information a few hours before it was included in the press release. We aren't talking about a FOMC statement.
Obfuscation. Content isn't the issue here, it's policy. As I have said before, go violate security policy where you work, then try to use "hey no harm, no foul" as your defense.
This isn't getting better for her.At a contentious hearing of the House oversight committee, Mr. Comey acknowledged under questioning that a number of key assertions that Mrs. Clinton made for months in defending her email system were contradicted by the F.B.I.’s investigation.
Mr. Comey said that Mrs. Clinton had failed to return “thousands” of work-related emails to the State Department, despite her public insistence to the contrary, and that her lawyers may have destroyed classified material that the F.B.I. was unable to recover. He also described her handling of classified material as secretary of state as “negligent” — a legal term he avoided using when he announced on Tuesday that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against her.
The F.B.I. director repeatedly suggested that someone in the federal government who had done what Mrs. Clinton and her aides did would probably be subject to administrative sanctions.
Asked whether those sanctions could include firing or the loss of security clearance, Mr. Comey said that they could. While an F.B.I. employee who mishandled classified evidence in the way that Mrs. Clinton did would not be prosecuted either, he said sternly, “they would face consequences for this.”
Republicans were not mollified, and they expressed particular frustration with Mr. Comey when he said that the F.B.I. did not examine Mrs. Clinton’s statements to Congress about her email server to determine whether she had perjured herself.
Mr. Comey said to do that would have required a formal request from Congress, known as a referral.
“You’ll have one in the next few hours,” responded Representative Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican who is the committee chairman. His office said later that the committee would probably issue the referral on Friday, a move that would ensure their scrutiny of Mrs. Clinton’s emails extends past the end of the criminal case.
The State Department is also reopening an internal review looking at possible disciplinary action against current employees who may have been involved in the handling of Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
So, to wit:
1. The FBI Director who recommended no indictment has indicated that the facts don't match her testimony.
2. He has indicated that anyone else in the Federal government who had done this would be facing penalties and probably dismissal, revocation of security clearance, etc.
3. He has left the door open for Congress to request the FBI to open a perjury investigation, which they are leaping on like a hungry dog on a filet mignon.
If you'll care to remember, it wasn't the blowjob that got Bill in hot water, it was lying about the blowjob. The emails may not be what sinks Hillary, but rather lying about them.
Author
Topic: Anyone ever read those Clinton emails? (Read 5145 times)