Should Hillary talk to the FBI??

a reply to: RickinVa

You can shout all you like Rick throw a tantrum for all I care. The emails were N O T classified before they were sent.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Go get the info you claim is so true. Stop procrastinating.

a reply to: RickinVa

So what does "Specifically upgraded that traffic to top secret" mean. That is always was or was upgraded? It means it was upgraded. Not that it always was as you keep erroneously stating.
You dance right ill dance left. Maybe we won't have to pass on this dance floor together.
I'm tired of trying to convince the blind to see.
Don't look for me in any of your threads again and expect a big fat TOLD YOU SO from me when it's over.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

So what does "Specifically upgraded that traffic to top secret" mean. That is always was or was upgraded? It means it was upgraded. Not that it always was as you keep erroneously stating.
You dance right ill dance left. Maybe we won't have to pass on this dance floor together.
I'm tired of trying to convince the blind to see.
Don't look for me in any of your threads again and expect a big fat TOLD YOU SO from me when it's over.

you severely lack reading comprehension don't you?

It says the STATE DEPARTMENT does not DISPUTE the SWORN CIA STATEMENT THAT THE EMAILS WERE CLASSIFIED WHEN TRANSMITTED. The SD had to properly classify them because someone A.) removed the prior markings or B.) simply copied the information from the TS network to the unclassified network.

Keep right on talking oh silly one...... you just make yourself live up to your user name every time you do.

Would you like to come to the indictment party we are having?

It's looking more and more like a charge of espionage may be forthcoming,,,, I think there is now ample proof of knowledge before hand and attempts at bypassing current laws and regulations in the name of convenience.

You forget Hillary has a signed (legally binding) document that states she was aware that classified information may be marked, unmarked or oral.... that same document clearly states the legal ramifications should she violate it (which she has done 100's of times) and she basically agreed that she could be fined and jailed for doing so.

Sucks to be her right now.

Tick tock goes the FBI investigation clock....soon you can change your user name from sillyolme to woeisme.

I almost forgot I wasn't playing this stupid game anymore.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
I almost forgot I wasn't playing this stupid game anymore.

It is not a game to me.

You have a cabinet level official who committed several felonies along with a dozen or so of her closest aides under a criminal investigation by the FBI. The ongoing security review has been suspended due to the law enforcement investigation.

Not a game at all to me.... I can see why you see it the way you do now.... have fun playing your "game".

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

You can shout all you like Rick throw a tantrum for all I care. The emails were N O T classified before they were sent.

Wrong.

Clinton’s emails “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,”Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the intelligence community’s inspector general, told The Journal.

dailycaller.com...

abcnews.go.com...



The e mails were deemed top secret at the request of intelligence officials state department spokesperson John Kirby said.
Adding that they were NOT classified at the time they were sent.
From the state department. They were not classified when sent. Is the state dept lying?

a reply to: UnBreakable

A spokesperson from the State Department said no they were not. That's right from the state dept not outside it.

a reply to: UnBreakable

It says none of the e mail we reviewed had classification or dissemination marks
But should have been handled as classified.
It goes on to say it found e mails that should have been marked as secret. Should have been.
It says it all over this article that they were not marked that they should have been marked.

This is your source . Maybe you should have read it huh?

a reply to: RickinVa

No.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

No.

Why are you on a site that has a motto of Deny Ignorance, when you are full of it.


Again, THE CIA gave a sworn statement to the State Department that the 22 Top Secret emails were classified before they were ever transmitted to Hillarys server. The State DOES NOT dispute the claim that the 22 Top Secret emails were classified prior to being on her server...

You post all the news sites you want,,,

I will go right to the source every single time you do.... you claim conspiracy, and in the same breathe are willing to believe what you read on a news site rather than get the information straight from the horses mouth, the state department.

www.state.gov...

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.

The ONLY reason they upgraded it is because of A.) Somebody removed the classification markings that were present on it when it was originally sent from the source. (You do know they have went back to the originators of the emails to get sworn depositions that the emails in question were indeed classified when originated, don't you?) or B.) Somebody copied it verbatim off the Top Secret network in order to mail it to Hillary on her unclassified server. Either way is a crime and somebody is in deep doo doo.

If you want to try and find on the state department website something that supports your demented version of events, knock yourself out, and no the above conversation does not imply that something was classified retroactively, it states that the information was classified prior to transmission and the SD does not dispute that,,, you are the one disputing that.

Just like you say the state department is wrong.

The CIA is wrong and obviously forged a sworn statement that the emails were classified when sent.

Various former Attorney Generals are wrong.

Various Inspector Generals are wrong.

Everybody is wrong but Hillary. How do you sleep at night?


You are just digging a deeper hole and throwing any little remaining credibility in there.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
abcnews.go.com...



The e mails were deemed top secret at the request of intelligence officials state department spokesperson John Kirby said.
Adding that they were NOT classified at the time they were sent.
From the state department. They were not classified when sent. Is the state dept lying?

The emails were deemed "top secret" at the request of intelligence officials, State Department Spokesperson John Kirby said, adding that they were not marked classified at the time they were sent. But, Kirby said, the State Department is now conducting a separate investigation into whether or not those emails should have been marked classified at the time.

That's because nobody doing any "reviewing" even saw the info on an email until those emails were released years later

originally posted by: Sillyolme
abcnews.go.com...
Is the state dept lying?

Yes. The whole Obama admin lies to protect Hillary. I'll wait for the FBI's final dtermination.

a reply to: Sillyolme
The FBI interviewed Pagliano under immunity, they know all they need to know about the server setup. Then in March the FBI asks the State Department to halt its investigation until theirs is done. Maybe they see a conflict of interest in the State Department's 'investigation'.

The FBI doesn't use over 100 agents to investigate server security while giving the architect of the server immunity. The FBI isn't a computer consulting firm. They are a criminal investigation agency.

a reply to: RickinVa

When you can't grasp the simplest notion like she's not under a criminal investigation how can you pretend to get the rest of it Rick. She is not under criminal investigation. You know it and your being deliberately stubborn on that fact. You say this means this and that means that but there has been no direct statement from anyone that it's a criminal investigation. None anywhere.

a reply to: RickinVa

Because I'm not ignorant Rick. I'm actually above average in intelligence. The fact that I keep linking sources should at least show I have decent research ability even if you don't agree with what I've said or the information I've provided.
I don't call you names or insult you . Do me the courtesy of like behaviour.
Twice now I've almost quit the discussion because of you being rude.
Which is sad because over all I'm enjoying the banter but when you start calling me ignorant you're hitting below the belt. Just because I don't agree with you...shakes head.

a reply to: RickinVa

Yeah the information was but the emails themselves were not . Get it. They were not marked.
The can may have peas in it but without a label...

a reply to: xuenchen

So? Does that somehow change something in your mind?

a reply to: UnBreakable

I can't fight that. You don't trust any of them I can't change that. So from now on your opinions on these matters are always going to wear that color. At least your honest..