Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll say this: less and less people "trust" Hillary so the PR damage for her campaign may've already been done. Otherwise why are so many "liberal" new sources sniffing around VP Biden to run for POTUS?
How dare you expose the truth to these people, have you not seen how it is for right wingers, they just want to scream their absurdities, and not allow the voice of reason be heard, in fox the moderators/gop activists cut off their guests when they don't like what they say...
I think it might be time for some of you to Get a life> No, most FOX moderators do not cut people off unless the people won't shut up and answer the question and that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread anyway. BTW: oh never mind!!!!!
Except Hillary is polling way ahead of Chris Christie (or any other Republican) in the polls right now. This is playing out exactly like how Benghazi was supposed to completely destroy her and lead to her imprisonment. It's just a right-wing echo chamber thing at this point.
Sure she is, but have you paid any attention to the difference now compared to say, 3 or so months ago? Obviously you haven't. Her lead is dwindling daily. Maybe not when it comes to Christie but compared to others in the race and compared to what we all saw a few months ago. Whether she ends up in trouble or not, she is losing her grip on the "walk back into the Whitehouse." She appears to be in a similar situation (for different reasons) Romney was in 4 years ago. That is why the Democrat insiders are trying to find another viable candidate. That is what the GOP did last time. It didn't work, as we all know.
As I've said before, the SecState is an Original Classification Authority over everything in the State Department. The SecState's authority is to determine what is and is not classified. If there is anything that "ought to be considered classified," it is only because the SecState has previously created that rule.
This seems to be something people misunderstand about classified information. There is a whole body of national ethics about that--government information is not supposed to be classified except specifically as designated by an Original Classification Authority. Nothing in the US is automatically classified "just because."
For instance, if all the products from a certain reconnaissance system are classified, it's because the designated Original Classification Authority has gone on record stating that some specific aspect of the collection technology must be kept secret for the security of the nation, and that aspect would be revealed by the public release of the information.
For the Department of State, it might be a matter of who the information came from (the SecState may not want to reveal he's got special personal relationships with certain other foreign ministers). But the point is that it's the Original Classification Authority who makes that determination, and he can revise at will whatever determinations his predecessors might have made.
He can also change at will within his own department what co-equal Original Classification Authorities might have determined for their own departments. CIA may have designated something as TOP SECRET/Not releasable to foreign nationals, but the SecState might decide to release it to a certain foreign minister anyway. The SecState can do that, even to the consternation of the CIA. The only superior Original Classification Authorities to the SecState are the vice-president and president.
Original Classification Authorities make the rules and change them at will. My point here is that for officials who are Original Classification Authorities, the situation is 'way too legally murky to claim any slam-dunk prosecutions for the handling of classified materials.
As I have said before, there are rules and regulations (via executive order issued by Obama shortly after taking office) detailing how information is to be declassified. The President set the rules and only he (or Congress) can change them at will. The SecState just can't will a document declassified (there is a process for that, which is more stringent that just sending an email containing classified information to unauthorized persons or through unauthorized channels). The only documents that are declassified just as a matter of course are those documents that have "timed" out. And, note, per 1.6(h) of Executive Order 13526 (see below), "all declassified records shall be appropriately marked to reflect their declassification" before being made public; nothing like that happened here. Moreover, even if what you write was so simple (it's not), there is no argument/claim by the Clinton camp that she declassified any document. So why continue to bring up what you do?
And, yes, some things are classified in the US "just because," including the names of clandestine officers, communications between heads of state, and aerial surveillance feeds (some of which was in at least two emails found on the Clinton server).
But just read through the Executive Order in effect now that establishes the protocols for dealing with classified information and how such information may be declassified: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ty-information Don't take my word for it.
AGAIN: even if everything that you wrote is true as you write it, there is NOTHING to suggest that Hillary declassified anything that was sent via the servers; and documents aren't declassified, per the Executive Order (above), just because they are made public as a result of "unauthorized disclosure."
As I have said before, there are rules and regulations (via executive order issued by Obama shortly after taking office) detailing how information is to be declassified. The President set the rules and only he (or Congress) can change them at will.
Which would make the SecState answerable to presidential disciplinary action, not to the courts. The only law concerning classified material governing the SecState is applicable only if she deliberately transferred classified information to an unauthorized person.
We'll see what the FBI investigation unfolds. Either way, regardless of whether certain documents/information was not marked as being "classified," that would not determinate in itself whether the law was violated. Indeed, there are certain things that are classified by their very nature (including the aerial surveillance and identifications of clandestine agents), regardless of whether documents including that information are labeled as such. But, note, even if Hillary isn't personally charged here (I still think she will be), charges are coming against someone (or people) in her inner-circle; also, note, the fact that several documents that were clearly classified weren't labeled as such is a red flag and suggests that there was tampering with labels/identifications in order to try to get around the rules. In any event, even if only someone from her inner-circle is charged, that will hurt Hillary tremendously as it's unwanted scandal.
This post seems like you are trying to split political witch-hunt hairs.
The whole email thing never gets out unless the Obama administration makes sure it gets out. It came out through an internal investigation.
What is your source for this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
