Much Ado About Nothing: Clinton's Emails

[SillyAmerican]

News reports now indicate that 999 emails have been characterized as "classified", with some 328 of the latest 7800 pages of email containing problematic content.

If any of the Clinton emails contain the following information:

• satelite images of North Korean military facilities
• satelite images of terrorist activities in Yemen
• telephone intercepts of Yemen foreign agents speaking with each other
• Ambasador Stevens' itinerary in the days before he was murdered

Then the questions.

(1) Could such messages rise to the level of failing to safeguard national security secrets? If no, why not? If yes, do you think an indictment is justified?

(2) Given US Code 18, Section 1001 about making material, misleading, or false statements that expend or waste law enforcement's time, if Mrs. Clinton provided her lawyers with false information that her lawyers then gave to the FBI, is she still culpable under this code? (Any legal precedents here?)

(3) Does FBI Director James Comey's especially tough stance on national security issues afford him a unique view of Hillary Clinton's problems? Given Comey's stern handling of General Petraeus, if Hillary Clinton is shown to have handled unsecured confidential information, what do you think his recommendation will be to the Attorney General? And if the FBI recommends for an indictment, will the AG follow through, or find some reason not to?

(4) Does the recommendation from the FBI need to be released prior to the Iowa caucuses? Has there ever been a similar Presidential election cycle in which a party's frontrunner was being scrutinized by a law enforcement agency during the primary process?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Link?

[SillyAmerican]

Link?

Hot Air at http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/01/new-release-of-hillary-e-mails-7800-pages-328-classified/
ABC News at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-email-coming-today/story?id=35488800
Fox News at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/01/nearly-1000-clinton-emails-had-classified-info.html

[Ebsy]

I'm guessing all these emails were classified after the fact and thus there is literally nothing problematic going on.

[emailking]

If any of the Clinton emails contain the following information:

• satelite images of North Korean military facilities
• satelite images of terrorist activities in Yemen
• telephone intercepts of Yemen foreign agents speaking with each other
• Ambasador Stevens' itinerary in the days before he was murdered

Now where are you getting all that from? What is this apparent hypothetical based on?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I have always believed that the e-mail affair, in and of itself, is a tempest in a teapot.  Like Benghazi, the matter is purely political, designed to diminish Hillary's standing and approval rating.  In the end, it's not even the scandal Bridgegate is, and Christie isn't going to be indicted in this decade.

What the GOP accomplished was what they intended to accomplish.  They pounded Hillary's approval rating downward to where her "inevitability" is in the past, and brought back to the public's consciousness her penchant for doing it her way (even when there is no overwhelming reason to do so) and being less than candid.  The whole e-mail affair also brought to the fore her unlikeability and the reasons for it.  She's not the doofus some of the GOP candidates are, but some of the doofus candidates are giving her a run for her money in the polls because they are either more likeable or more authentic.  (Hillary is one of the most arrogant and plastic public figures I have ever seen, and I doubt she has anyone she could honestly call a friend who would stick by her if she were down and out; Bill is the likeable one of this power couple.)  The GOP owes a debt of gratitude (and, probably, of real currency as well) to the taxpayers for the Trey Gowdy Circus that brought all of this about.

[SillyAmerican]

If any of the Clinton emails contain the following information:

• satelite images of North Korean military facilities
• satelite images of terrorist activities in Yemen
• telephone intercepts of Yemen foreign agents speaking with each other
• Ambasador Stevens' itinerary in the days before he was murdered

Now where are you getting all that from? What is this apparent hypothetical based on?

Various articles. Here's a sampling:

North Korean emails:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/1/hillary-clinton-emails-contained-spy-satellite-dat/?page=all

Anwar Al-Awlaki emails: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/11/hillary-clinton-emails-anwar-al-awlaki-216122

Ambasador Stevens' emails: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/11/andrew-napolitano/did-hillary-clinton-emails-reveal-location-ambassa/

Spy satellite emails: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/12/the-spy-satellite-secrets-in-hillary-s-emails.html

My question is this: if there are examples of any of these types of things having been on Hillary Clinton's server (and yes, I realize it's still a big "if"), will people continue to look on this as a vast right-wing conspiracy? Or will people otherwise inclined to support Mrs. Clinton start to take the accusations a bit more seriously?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Is SillyAmerican a Torie sock or does he just try to live up to his nick?

[SillyAmerican]

I'm guessing all these emails were classified after the fact and thus there is literally nothing problematic going on.

So you're saying Secretary of State Clinton bears no responsibility for knowing the classification status of her email messages? If she typed something or forwarded something on, it's not her responsibility to distinguish those messages which contain sensitive content? I find that a little difficult to understand; as a department head, I'd think she'd know which things might be sensitive and subject to a more limited disclosure.

As President, do you think Mrs. Clinton would be in favor of her Secretary of State or other department heads making use of a private email server? Why or why not?

[SillyAmerican]

Is SillyAmerican a Torie sock or does he just try to live up to his nick?

Yup, Torie sock. That's me.

[SillyAmerican]

I have always believed that the e-mail affair, in and of itself, is a tempest in a teapot.  Like Benghazi, the matter is purely political, designed to diminish Hillary's standing and approval rating.  In the end, it's not even the scandal Bridgegate is, and Christie isn't going to be indicted in this decade.

I think security concerns have larger implications than can be attributed to pure politics. As a result, I'm of the opinion that the accusations being brought against the Secretary are at least as serious as those that were levelled against General Petraeus (which is the reason behind my asking question #3).

[emailking]

If any of the Clinton emails contain the following information:

• satelite images of North Korean military facilities
• satelite images of terrorist activities in Yemen
• telephone intercepts of Yemen foreign agents speaking with each other
• Ambasador Stevens' itinerary in the days before he was murdered

Now where are you getting all that from? What is this apparent hypothetical based on?

Various articles. Here's a sampling:

North Korean emails:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/1/hillary-clinton-emails-contained-spy-satellite-dat/?page=all

Anwar Al-Awlaki emails: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/11/hillary-clinton-emails-anwar-al-awlaki-216122

Ambasador Stevens' emails: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/11/andrew-napolitano/did-hillary-clinton-emails-reveal-location-ambassa/

Spy satellite emails: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/12/the-spy-satellite-secrets-in-hillary-s-emails.html

My question is this: if there are examples of any of these types of things having been on Hillary Clinton's server (and yes, I realize it's still a big "if"), will people continue to look on this as a vast right-wing conspiracy? Or will people otherwise inclined to support Mrs. Clinton start to take the accusations a bit more seriously?

Seems like kind of a leap to go from that to proposing her e-mails may have contained actual satellite images.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm guessing all these emails were classified after the fact and thus there is literally nothing problematic going on.

LOL, that excuse doesn't work.

[wolfsblood07]

Trey Gowdy and the others on the committee ended up looking like fools grasping at straws.  Hillary beat us, and they made her look good, thus increasing her chances of being elected.  We are falling into the Clinton trap on this!
We have to beat Clinton on issues and her failed record, not this b.s.

[Ebsy]

I'm guessing all these emails were classified after the fact and thus there is literally nothing problematic going on.

LOL, that excuse doesn't work.

How can you be responsible for knowing the classification status of information before it has been given a classification status?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm guessing all these emails were classified after the fact and thus there is literally nothing problematic going on.

LOL, that excuse doesn't work.

How can you be responsible for knowing the classification status of information before it has been given a classification status?

As a department head, she had training to be an Original Classification Authority, who knows when to mark information they create as classified. And not be a dumbass who stores it on their personal email server.

[SillyAmerican]

I'm guessing all these emails were classified after the fact and thus there is literally nothing problematic going on.

LOL, that excuse doesn't work.

How can you be responsible for knowing the classification status of information before it has been given a classification status?

Ok, so let's take a step back and think about what you're actually saying. Clearly, somebody is responsible for assigning a classification status to sensitive documents, right? So it's fairly clear that the criteria used to make those assignments exists, and it exists independently of any particular document, correct? Ok, so given that that's the case, don't you think a department head would know what that criteria is? The Secretary of State is asking everyone the exact question you ask here: How can I be responsible for knowing the classification status of the information in a particular email message before a classification has been assigned? My answer is "You're the Secretary of State! You weren't instructed about the nature of sensitive information? You have no clue as to what's sensitive and what's not? You are completely unaware of the criteria used in assigning a classification status? How can that be the case? Once again, you are the Secretary of State! Now the woman wants to be President? How can she be trusted to operate in that role, given the fact that she has no idea what a piece of sensitive information looks like?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trey Gowdy and the others on the committee ended up looking like fools grasping at straws.  Hillary beat us, and they made her look good, thus increasing her chances of being elected.  We are falling into the Clinton trap on this!
We have to beat Clinton on issues and her failed record, not this b.s.

The GOP made it worse by using taxpayer money to embarrass her.  The whole Trey Gowdy Circus was about taking points and people get that.

Hillary's credentials for the big job are her time in the Senate and her time as Secretary of State.  She was average, at best, in both.  One cannot point to her as one could point to, say, HHH or Ted Kennedy and point out significant liberal accomplishments.  She's not the least qualified candidate running, not by a longshot, but her actual accomplishments are very, very limited.  Like Bush 41, she was "there".  That's not my idea of an inspiring leader.  If being at the bottom of acceptable levels of competence for the job is OK, I guess Hillary won't be a disaster.  But the Democrats have more capable people who decided that the couldn't overcome her celebrity.