Republicans Just Leaked Classified FBI Intelligence In Attempt to Smear Hillary

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

So what was leaked?

originally posted by: jjkenobi
So to recap:

Hillary careless with the classified data: oh well. No crime. she's sorry

Republicans careless with the same data: now it's a big deal

You can't make this stuff up!

It's not the same data. Again, the FBI provided the committee with the FBI's internal notes and memos.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jjkenobi
So to recap:

Hillary careless with the classified data: oh well. No crime. she's sorry

Republicans careless with the same data: now it's a big deal

You can't make this stuff up!

It's not the same data. Again, the FBI provided the committee with the FBI's internal notes and memos.

No, it's not the same data, however, it is the same concept that contains some of the same data.

a reply to: introvert
So you are OK with the fact that Hillary left everything exposed. BUT when it comes to the "notes" going over the material THEN it becomes a problem?

You can't write this stuff for Hollywood because they would tell you it is too unbelievable!!!!!

a reply to: coffeetalk

It may, yes.

a reply to: Martin75

So you are OK with the fact that Hillary left everything exposed. BUT when it comes to the "notes" going over the material THEN it becomes a problem?

Where did I say I was ok with anything or thought this was a "problem"? I've not said anything that would indicate I am taking any particular stance on the issue.

All I have said is that it appears to be rumors coming from Hillary staff and that it is not necessarily the same data as her emails.

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
So, this looks interesting. I can hardly wait to see how this plays out, if it's for real.
Smear

Come on Johnny, we know you can do better than this.

You're right. Done!

Hillary smears herself without any outside help.

a reply to: introvert

Same concept though right?

Doesn't seem like anything has been leaked by the republicans. This only seems to show that Democrats seem to be worried that there is really something there to be leaked that would give Republicans an advantage. Right?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

Same concept though right?

Not really.

a reply to: introvert

Correct. The "302s" in the OP link refer to FBI interview summaries, and the concern seems to be if there is classified info in the interviewees statements, which might show up in 302s.

The unintended consequence of asking for and obtaining the FBI closed case files is that this sets a precedence for any members of Congress to try to dig up political dirt or hold witch hunts, not "fact finding" to conduct their own investigation, by making such requests.

a reply to: introvert

Isn't the concept the leaking of classified info?

Can anyone show what was actually leaked?

If anyone takes even a little bit of time to look at Hillary s history....She is smeared without any FBI leaks. She has done enough on her own through the years which casts a true image of her nature, an is the worst choice for president. It would be easy to make a list, but so many lists are out there, just open your eyes. Which of course is the problem, her supporters are walking around with blinders on. a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

a reply to: desert

Yes, but in trying to find that dirt they have to be careful not to disclose info that may get themselves in trouble.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

Isn't the concept the leaking of classified info?

Can anyone show what was actually leaked?

I don't know if anything has been leaked. But if there was a leak, it would not be in a manner comparable to the Hillary email issue.

This sort of leak would be a direct act with the intent to subvert security protocols.

a reply to: introvert

Yes. I suspect nothing of that high level here, but the Valerie Plame leak and aftermath comes to mind. Pissing out classified info to the press is not usually advised for members of Congress.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
So, this looks interesting. I can hardly wait to see how this plays out, if it's for real.
Smear

Come on Johnny, we know you can do better than this.

You're right. Done!

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

My understanding of this:

1. Republican's request Classified info regarding Hillary's FBI interviews.
2. FBI gives it to them and reminds them it is Classified
3. Someone or several someones involved contact reporters to share info from the Classified interviews
4. Reporters contact John Podesta to tell him what happened
5. John Podesta tweets that they have done this
6. FBI responds with a "reminder" tweet that the information is Classified saying that they have leaked it.

"What's the difference?"

Here's the difference: Hillary's email server (Powell did the same thing btw) was not intentionally set up with the purpose of leaking Classified information. While her email server was not secure enough, and she was taken to task for being irresponsible with the security of her server, she did not meet the criteria of criminality under US Code.

The Republican's directly called reporters and offered them classified information from the FBI interviews they received in trust from the FBI. This DOES meet the standard of criminality under US Code. The reporters haven't published anything from the FBI interviews that was given to them.

"While the law is broad in its scope, covering the disclosure of intelligence cryptography and ciphers, the law also explicitly states under section 3:

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information.
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government;
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." (from OP link)


This isn't even apples and oranges. This is "someone may have gotten access to a server that was not adequately protected" verses "Mr. X called a reporter and spilled classified secrets to the press." One is considered non-criminal negligence and the other is considered, well, criminal.

- AB

1. Information may only be classified if it is considered a threat to national security or cause harm to national security.

2. Information may not be classified to cover up a crime or criminal activity.


I doubt very seriously if anything in her 302 file contains classified information, if it does, then it better have the proper headers and classification markings..... or maybe they just went full blown "Hillary" and will claim they had no idea that the stuff in the 302 file was classified... seems like not knowing things are classified is a good excuse these days.

a reply to: AboveBoard

" Hillary's email server (Powell did the same thing btw) "

Your entire post in invalid after that line, after proving you have no clue what you are talking about.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: AboveBoard

" Hillary's email server (Powell did the same thing btw) "

Your entire post in invalid after that line, after proving you have no clue what you are talking about.

It's actually in the OIG report.

OIG identified many examples of staff using personal email accounts to conduct official business; however, OIG could only identify three cases where officials used non-Departmental systems on an exclusive basis for day-to-day operations. These include former Secretaries Powell and Clinton, as well as Jonathan Scott Gration, a former Ambassador to Kenya

oig.state.gov...