Should Hillary talk to the FBI??

a reply to: UnBreakable

No I don't get personal. And losing what argument? Don't be silly I'm not losing the argument.

a reply to: Sillyolme


You are getting more and more agitated the closer Hillary gets to her indictment recommendation.... take a deep breath... you can still visit her at her home or prison... just won't be in the White House.... sorry bout that...maybe next time.

Since you have become quite the legal scholar, look up inference to intent and tell us how that could be applied to someone who got caught with 2200+ classified emails....

oh I forget... you say every single classified email was retroactively classified despite of what the Inspector Generals, State Department, CIA said... my bad

a reply to: RickinVa

You seem to be trolling rather than legitimately debating.

You have failed to make a convincing case that she is actually guilty of anything warranting an indictment..and more so, the investigation itself is not structured to deliver an indictment.

I understand you have a severe commitment and desire to seeing her indicted...but reality disagrees with you. Reality doesn't care how badly you want something.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: RickinVa

You seem to be trolling rather than legitimately debating.

You have failed to make a convincing case that she is actually guilty of anything warranting an indictment..and more so, the investigation itself is not structured to deliver an indictment.

I understand you have a severe commitment and desire to seeing her indicted...but reality disagrees with you. Reality doesn't care how badly you want something.

trolling my own thread...priceless.

what convincing case do you need?

2200 classified emails on a unclassified server is not enough?

CIA stating that top secret emails were classified prior to Hillary receiving them is not enough?

Hillary emailing classified information with Sidney Blumenthal who has no clearance is not enough?

2 Inspector Generals who stated that classified emails were found on Hillarys server is not enough?

Saudi Arabia and Boeing donating millions of dollars each to the Clinton Foundation prior to being granted a huge arms deal involving both of those entities, who Hillary lobbied for vigorously as Secretary of State is not enough?


What do you need for a convincing case? What would you like to discuss that is convincing proof to you? What hair dye color she uses?

Oh yeah I forgot,,,,nothing will convince you until the recommendations for indictments come down.

No my friend, you live in an alternate reality where Hillary Clinton is innocent... you and a couple of others in these threads.

Never heard of negligent handling of classified information have you? And exactly how easy it is to charge someone with that,,, you know... someone who got caught with a crap load of classified information outside of strict government control.



Tick Tock goes the FBI criminal investigation clock.

a reply to: RickinVa

This is definitely one of those scenarios where reality itself will sort this out for you in the very near future.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: RickinVa

This is definitely one of those scenarios where reality itself will sort this out for you in the very near future.

Yes sir it sure will...right after she is recommended for indictment.. would you like to attend our party we are having?

The front row is reserved for you and a couple of other guests of honor.


"the investigation itself is not structured to deliver an indictment."...lol thank you for a much needed laugh.

I guess you still think the FBI is going to indict her server but not her.... same ole same ole.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: RickinVa

This is definitely one of those scenarios where reality itself will sort this out for you in the very near future.

Just ask our friend Rick to prove what he is saying. It will fall apart on it's own from there.

He has absolutely no evidence to support his claims and cannot prove that the emails were classified before they were sent. Even the infamous 22 emails that everyone thinks is the smoking gun were retroactively classified.

a reply to: introvert


tsk tsk intro sweety..... you know that the State Department classifying something after Hillary turned it in does not over ride any previous classification that was placed on the material by a previous agency...

Or do you not understand even that simple concept?


Soon, it all be over... Hillary will drop after the indictment recommendation and you guys can move on to your next topic.

You guys ever wonder what is in those deleted emails that have been recovered? Still sticking to the old yoga class story?

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert


tsk tsk intro sweety..... you know that the State Department classifying something after Hillary turned it in does not over ride any previous classification that was placed on the material by a previous agency...

Or do you not understand even that simple concept?

That's the thing. Those 22 emails were not classified at the time of transmission. The State Department spokesman even said so.

tsk tsk intro sweety..... you know that the State Department classifying something after Hillary turned it in does not over ride any previous classification that was placed on the material by a previous agency...

Or do you not understand even that simple concept?

CIA says they were.... the SD admits they did not dispute the CIA's findings.

2 Inspector Generals says emails were classified at the time of transmission..


All of this will be settled in a court of law.... after Hillary is indicted of course, assuming she isn't pardoned.


You can not have classified information on an unclassified server... if you want to cling to that faint hope and Hillarys excuse that every single 2200+ classified email was classified later, you go right on believing that fallacy.

a reply to: RickinVa

I have not seen anything from the CIA stating they were classified at the time. The CIA and the SD agreed that they should not be released as part of the FOIA request.

a reply to: RickinVa

You can not have classified information on an unclassified server... if you want to cling to that faint hope and Hillarys excuse that every single 2200+ classified email was classified later, you go right on believing that fallacy.

I did not say that. I do not have the proper information to come to any conclusion.

Neither do you. It appears, as has always been the case, that you are clinging on to shoddy information to come to a conclusion.

a reply to: introvert

QUESTION: Right. So are you challenging sworn declarations from the CIA that they were top secret at the time of transmission?

MR KIRBY: As I said last week, it was at the request of the intelligence community that we specifically upgraded that traffic to top secret.

QUESTION: Okay, so you don’t dispute that.

MR KIRBY: If we had disputed it, we wouldn’t have upgraded it --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- to TS at the request of the intel community.

QUESTION: Okay.

You make what you want out of that,,, I see the SD saying they did not dispute the CIA's statement that the emails were classified prior.

Are you saying that there was no CIA statement or involvement and that is all made up?

Are you saying the letter from the 2 Inspector Generals that clearly states that emails were classified at the time of transmission and should have never been sent over an unclassified system is also made up?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

You can not have classified information on an unclassified server... if you want to cling to that faint hope and Hillarys excuse that every single 2200+ classified email was classified later, you go right on believing that fallacy.

I did not say that. I do not have the proper information to come to any conclusion.

Neither do you. It appears, as has always been the case, that you are clinging on to shoddy information to come to a conclusion.

You don't have the proper information? That is a load of nothing but pure BS and you know it...


You can't go to the reading room at the SD and read the emails released and see for yourself they were redacted because they were classified?

You can't read the letter from the 2 IG's that emails were classified prior to transmission? Is that not what you consider proper information?


Lordy I can not wait until the recommendation for indictment comes down to shut you pro Hillary people up.

Almost every email Hillary wrote to any foreign official, or one of her aides discussing foreign official, would have been considered classified as soon as they were written. Hillary failed to properly classify 104 of her own emails.


The proof is out there Mulder.

a reply to: RickinVa

You make what you want out of that,,, I see the SD saying they did not dispute the CIA's statement that the emails were classified prior.

Of course you interpret it that way. I take things literally. The SD did not address that issue whatsoever with their answer.

Are you saying that there was no CIA statement or involvement and that is all made up?

No. I didn't even say anything that would give you a reason to ask that question. Quite silly.

Are you saying the letter from the 2 Inspector Generals that clearly states that emails were classified at the time of transmission and should have never been sent over an unclassified system is also made up?

I don;t believe that is what their letter stated. Actually, if I am not mistaken it was a letter from one IG that quoted 2 sources from within the intelligence community. That letter stated those emails should be classified and not allowed to be released as part of the FOIA request.

You can't go to the reading room at the SD and read the emails released and see for yourself they were redacted because they were classified? You can't read the letter from the 2 IG's that emails were classified prior to transmission? Is that not what you consider proper information?

Were they classified before she sent them or retroactively? That's important.

Lordy I can not wait until the recommendation for indictment comes down to shut you pro Hillary people up.

I'm not pro-Hillary. I'm anti-misinformation. You're spreading misinformation.

originally posted by: RickinVa


tsk tsk intro sweety..... you know that the State Department classifying something after Hillary turned it in does not over ride any previous classification that was placed on the material by a previous agency...

Or do you not understand even that simple concept?

(A) Each department....State, CIA, FBI, NSA is responsible for and the authority over classifying there own material.


(B) No one has claimed that any material that Hillary Clinton sent or received was marked Classified at that time.


(C) The CIA has retroactively classified content from the emails.

The FBI can decide that State "should have" classified material...They can conclude that the CIA considered certain information classified at the time State did not..>Example: New York Times article on the existence of Drone Program..

But at the end of the day State classifies it's own materials and the material shared was not classified by state nor marked classified by CIA...Just stuff the CIA wanted classified..some then...some now..

There is no route to an indictment...as the FBI already knows since they were not tasked with prosecution in this investigation, but rather to determine if any classified information leaked.

What you have going is a whole lot of twist, fudge and reality disconnect...Like I said, Reality will sort you out here...and then I imagine you will have reconcile your obsession.

1. Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information.

2. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications

3. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information

4. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation

5. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it

6. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b], title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

7. I understand that all classified information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement is now and will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law.

8. I agree that I shall return all classified materials which or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible.


She signed the SF 312. Its her problem now. See ya on indictment recommendation day.

Response below...

originally posted by: RickinVa

2. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications

At no time did Hillary Clinton send or receive classified material via her private email..marked or unmarked. Whether the CIA would deem unmarked content or subjects classified then or now retroactively is irrelevant as the State Department is the authority of classifications in their own communications unless otherwise marked by another agency...and the State Department did not classify either the emails or content at the time.

5. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it

She was not uncertain about the status of any of the content she communicated via email. The content was not classified by the State Department at the time.

6. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws.

Sure...and at no time did she disclose material classified at the time..

CIA can say they thought the material classified...and State can rake over CIA un-marked non-classified communications and mark those communications classified by State Department classification authorities....NSA, FBI ad infinium...everybody break out the red pen and shout...But at the end of the day (unless clearly marked CIA-Classified) etc. State decides for itself what is classified and what is not...CIA decides for itself what is classified...ditto NSA and FBI.

Turn the agencies loose on each other with prosecutorial authority...each deciding whether the other agencies classified material as they thought it should be classified and then 95% of the intelligence community goes to jail.

No classified (by State) material was shared..

I know it takes a little bit of thinking...and it is inconvenient to do so for you...but that is really not so complicated.

If State did not classify it at the time and it wasn't marked classified by CIA in whatever was communicated...then she did not share classified material.

originally posted by: Indigo5
Response below...

originally posted by: RickinVa

2. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications

At no time did Hillary Clinton send or receive classified material via her private email..marked or unmarked. Whether the CIA would deem unmarked content or subjects classified then or now retroactively is irrelevant as the State Department is the authority of classifications in their own communications unless otherwise marked by another agency...and the State Department did not classify either the emails or content at the time.

5. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it

She was not uncertain about the status of any of the content she communicated via email. The content was not classified by the State Department at the time.

6. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws.

Sure...and at no time did she disclose material classified at the time..

CIA can say they thought the material classified...and State can rake over CIA un-marked non-classified communications and mark those communications classified by State Department classification authorities....NSA, FBI ad infinium...everybody break out the red pen and shout...But at the end of the day (unless clearly marked CIA-Classified) etc. State decides for itself what is classified and what is not...CIA decides for itself what is classified...ditto NSA and FBI.

Turn the agencies loose on each other with prosecutorial authority...each deciding whether the other agencies classified material as they thought it should be classified and then 95% of the intelligence community goes to jail.

No classified (by State) material was shared..

I know it takes a little bit of thinking...and it is inconvenient to do so for you...but that is really not so complicated.

If State did not classify it at the time and it wasn't marked classified by CIA in whatever was communicated...then she did not share classified material.

"At no time did Hillary Clinton send or receive classified material via her private email..marked or unmarked"

All I had to read to understand you do not know what you are talking about.

You and several others clearly have no understanding at all of what is entailed in handling classified information.

THE STATE DEPARTMENTS RETROACTIVE CLASSIFICATION CAN NOT OVER RIDE A PREVIOUS CLASSIFICATION BY ANOTHER AGENCY.

They do not have that power. If the SD received emails that were not properly marked when they received them, then by law they have to properly mark them when they come into their possession. Just because emails are/were not marked with any classification headers does not make them any less classified in the eyes of the law.


Your whole case is based on 2200+ classified emails all being magically classified at any point after they left Hillarys possession so that she is innocent in your eyes.


What a load of malarky.


Got other important things to do... see you on indictment recommendation day.

Tick Tock goes the FBI criminal investigation clock.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Indigo5
Response below...

originally posted by: RickinVa

2. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications

At no time did Hillary Clinton send or receive classified material via her private email..marked or unmarked. Whether the CIA would deem unmarked content or subjects classified then or now retroactively is irrelevant as the State Department is the authority of classifications in their own communications unless otherwise marked by another agency...and the State Department did not classify either the emails or content at the time.

5. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it

She was not uncertain about the status of any of the content she communicated via email. The content was not classified by the State Department at the time.

6. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws.

Sure...and at no time did she disclose material classified at the time..

CIA can say they thought the material classified...and State can rake over CIA un-marked non-classified communications and mark those communications classified by State Department classification authorities....NSA, FBI ad infinium...everybody break out the red pen and shout...But at the end of the day (unless clearly marked CIA-Classified) etc. State decides for itself what is classified and what is not...CIA decides for itself what is classified...ditto NSA and FBI.

Turn the agencies loose on each other with prosecutorial authority...each deciding whether the other agencies classified material as they thought it should be classified and then 95% of the intelligence community goes to jail.

No classified (by State) material was shared..

I know it takes a little bit of thinking...and it is inconvenient to do so for you...but that is really not so complicated.

If State did not classify it at the time and it wasn't marked classified by CIA in whatever was communicated...then she did not share classified material.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT CAN NOT RETROACTIVELY CLASSIFY INFORMATION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY CLASSIFIED BY ANOTHER AGENCY.

They do not have that power.

Not sure what that means, but you seem really confused.

Again..EACH AGENCY is their own Classification authority.

Example...The leader of North Korea passes gas...

CIA decides to classify that information as Secret..

State decides not to classify it.

Someone in the State Department emails their buddy on an open system explaining the Leader of North Korea passed gas (Verdict...No Classified information was leaked)

Someone in CIA emails their buddy on an open system that the leader of North Korea passed gas..
(Verdict...Classified Material leaked)

Someone in CIA forwards state a report marked "Secret" explaining how the leader of NK passed gas and the State department share it on an open system.
(Verdict...Classified Material leaked)

What you have here is CIA going back a few years and reviewing old State communications and saying....hey..that information is/was classified by us...so no, don't release it in a FOIA request.