Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy

[pbrower2a]

Indeed, the best defense is non-detection. Are the federal computers secure enough? I'd more likely trust the servers that Amazon.com uses. So transmit the secret or potentially-secret stuff fast and destroy the secret stuff quickly so that the hard copies of the secret stuff can never end up in the wrong hands.

[radind]

(05-29-2016, 10:14 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Indeed, the best defense is non-detection. Are the federal computers secure enough? I'd more likely trust the servers that Amazon.com uses. So transmit the secret or potentially-secret stuff fast and destroy the secret stuff quickly so that the hard copies of the secret stuff can never end up in the wrong hands.

The primary basis for protection of classified information is the integrity, judgment and trust of everyone who has access to sensitive information.

[Ragnarök_62]

playwrite Wrote:Oh, I'm sure if they wanted to they can add my IP address as an authorized destination and I'd be glad to have HIllary's sysadmin set me up.

Quote:Imagine what you would learn about 9/11, the role of the Saudis, Iraq WMD, the invasion, bin Laden at Tora Bora, ect., ect from just Colin Powell's and Condi Rice's emails!

That wouldn't be much different than general Betrayus's whore who got state secrets.  Btw, I think general Betrayus should be locked up in the brig for life since he's more senior ranking than say Chelsea Manning. What's good for the gander (Manning) should be handed down in spades to the [should have been a cooked goose] Betrayus.  Right there , since Betryus just got a wrist slap means something is really fucked up and rotten in the *Deep State.

Quote:I'd might suggest with such knowledge you would soon be found 6 feet under the ground.  However, you would first be so far buried under billions of emails, you would never be found.

OK, I'll trade.  I'll withdraw my humble request in exchange for know too much Betrayus's whore getting droned to death.

 

playwrite Wrote:I suggest you start with this readily-available chain of Clinton server emails -

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMEN...780317.pdf
[/url]

[url=https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_SeptemberWeb/O-2015-08632-170/DOC_0C05780317/C05780317.pdf]

1. OK, she had concerns about the State Department's lax computer security.  So who was in charge when she expressed said concerns?
2. What would playwrite like to do with Betrayus's whore? That's sort of a social engineering hack. Mind you, I'm not sure who was in charge when Betrayus was acting like Manning. I've stated what sentence I would have handed down.

Quote:- and/or this summary -

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/hillary...logy-woes/


- it might save you a lot of time because here is the meat of it -

Quote:"It it would be a great time for someone inside or outside to make a statement [or] write an op-ed that points out that State's technology is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop," Slaughter wrote, "and even high officials routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively."

Clinton agreed with the idea, writing, "I think this makes sense. How should we follow up?"

Cheryl Mills, Clinton's counselor and chief of staff, then replied that it would be better for a former employee to raise awareness of the issue. "I am not sure we want to telegraph how much folks do or don't do off [S]tate mail [because] it may encourage others who are out there," she told the secretary.
Slaughter then agreed and suggested that Clinton instead "make the point more quietly to legislators."

 - and remind yourself, this was real-time, back in 2011, not some retrospective horseshXt.

Quote:You see, Rags, it's not all James Bond-y or Al Capone-y, it's just the same old shXt of *Repugs not actually giving a shXt and not providing the funds to a critical government function because, well, they're clueless a-holes who want to drown your government in a bathtub.

shXt = shit, playwrite.  You're among friends, feel free to say how you fieel with passion. Passion is good thing. I use cuss words to convey passion.

Well, again, who is supposed to authorize and fix this mess?  If I had authority, I'd be jumping up and down and lots of heads would roll. Hell, I've locked down my laptop better than that clown show. I'm pretty sure some folks would get lots of cussing as well.

Quote:And, Rags, you can burn down the village to save it, but the a-holes are always going to come back.

That's the intent, playwrite. After forest fires roar through, you get the green shoots and some pretty awesome stuff like this:



Awwwww, ain't he cute?   Nature's little wetland builder and water quality expert.

After the virtual fire I'm thinking about wrt "establishment", like below
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/fl...n-the-run/

Let's all consecrate to rebuilding America's infrastructure instead of droning brown people and stealing their oil.

Death to Neocons, long live autarky!

Speaking of which and birds of a feather
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/25/ne...y-clinton/
http://original.antiwar.com/branko_marce...acked-her/

Don't worry none. I'm with Jill Stein. She's the candidate who's closest to my values regime.

[pbrower2a]

(05-29-2016, 10:25 PM)radind Wrote:

(05-29-2016, 10:14 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Indeed, the best defense is non-detection. Are the federal computers secure enough? I'd more likely trust the servers that Amazon.com uses. So transmit the secret or potentially-secret stuff fast and destroy the secret stuff quickly so that the hard copies of the secret stuff can never end up in the wrong hands.

The primary basis for protection of classified information is the integrity, judgment and trust of everyone who has access to sensitive information.

True. If one is the SoS, then even the decision to keep possession of potentially-classified information is a judgment of the potential harm that discovery of such information can create. So is the material truly secret? Not if it isn't already proprietary. This is very different from the situation with a federal employee who has access to classified information and the potential for brokering it to those (like the Russian FSB) for personal gain or other considerations.

[Eric the Green]

What I have heard from Hillary is that she disagrees with the SOS IG, and says that a personal email account "was allowed." She also says that the State Dept.'s email system was not working, and people were not getting her emails. They got it working later, but she had set up an account by then. She also echoed my statement that no-one complained after she set it up, as other Secretaries had done; that her account was not and could not be a secret from the IG or anyone else at State. And the fact that it is the State Dept.'s email, not hers, that was hacked, certainly begs the question of who was putting classified info at risk.

She can still be faulted for not setting up adequate security for her system, if such is the case.

[Eric the Green]

Erica Jong: Why I trust Hillary Clinton
By Erica Jong
Updated 7:13 PM ET, Thu May 26, 2016
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/opinions/h...index.html

Erica Jong: Two older white men running for president over-promise, can't get over the crowds they're drawing.
But it's the woman, Hillary Clinton, she'd trust to keep her promises--for women, children, people of color, she says
Jong: America, it's time to vote for the woman, who has proven herself over and over again in public service
Erica Jong is a poet, novelist and nonfiction writer with more than 24 books published. Her novel "Fear of Flying" celebrated its 40th anniversary in 2013, and has sold over 27 million copies in 42 languages. Her latest novel is "Fear of Dying." The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author.

There are two men running for president and one lone woman.

Both men have been carried away by the madness of crowds. The truth is we don't know what either of them can or will do. One of the men is a carny barker who is busy proving H.L. Mencken's dictum: "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." The other is an avowed socialist who wants "a revolution" but who has only been tried in a white, low population state.

Then there is the woman. All her life she has fought for civil rights, children's rights and women's rights. We know what she stands for because she has been standing for those things forever: as first lady, senator and secretary of state. And she is standing for them now.

True, she has been around too long to be a "new face." But the men are not new either. One is a real estate guy who boasts that he pays no taxes and the other is a senator whose favorite word is "revolution." Both are old faces, but male. And both have gotten the biggest crowds of their lives and they can't get over it.

So who do you think is more likely to keep promises? The woman warrior or the two guys? For me it's utterly obvious: The woman is more likely to keep her promises to support children, women and people of color.

Why then are people so confused? Well, we don't how a female president should sound. We've never had one before. We had Eleanor Roosevelt, but she wasn't president and she sounded funny despite her brilliance.

And men's voices are so much more familiar. One of our two male candidates blathers on about how great he is, the other promises the blue moon. We are all familiar with that. But a woman who has been consistent in her beliefs? That's new, and to me very reassuring.

When people complain that Hillary Clinton is "shrill" I think they're worried about their mothers. I'm not. When they call her a hawk, I'm also not worried. Grandmothers don't go to war unnecessarily. That's why Native Americans often used a council of grandmothers to decide on war and peace.

I'm totally comfortable with Hillary Rodham Clinton. She understands the nuclear threat. She fought against proliferation when she was secretary of state. She understands the Supreme Court and why we need more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs sitting on it.

She understands why education is important both in early childhood and adolescence. She understands why Black Lives Matter. She understands why black and white women's lives matter. She understands why men's lives matter. She understands climate change and why solutions are urgent and this is not only because she is a grandmother.

When people worry that she got paid a lot for her speeches, I shout hurrah. Good for her. In a world where women are paid less, she understands her value.

When people blame her for the deaths of ambassadors, I point out all the GOP budget cuts that exposed our diplomats to danger all over the world. When people blame her for her husband's adulteries, I think "duh, are you kidding?" She wasn't the one with the out-of-control testosterone. We might after all praise her for holding her marriage together. What about that? What about loyalty?

I can totally support the woman who said women's rights are human rights. Can't you?

I do think there are many people in our great country who agree with me, who see attacks on Hillary Clinton for what they are: discomfort with powerful, smart women who are born to lead. I do think that after 25 years in the public eye, few women would be left standing.

Today, we women are subject to many double standards — as experienced women and male feminists know. We are the gender that grows more radical with age — as Gloria Steinem pointed out. And the men who love us often grow more radical, too. The late Marty Ginsburg grew more and more proud of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

So let's gather round and get used to the voice of a woman leader. Many countries have flourished under female presidents and prime ministers. Our time is now. The USA will be left behind until we have a woman leader.

Our P.T. Barnum candidate is not the future. And Bernie Sanders is a thing of the Brooklyn socialists' past. Only the very young would believe that his utopian vision could come true anytime soon. It's time for a woman leader with a consistent vision. What's wrong with having a diamond sharp vision of the future and the strength to carry it out? What's wrong with experience? What's wrong with forceful beliefs that don't change with the wind? Whom do you trust if you don't trust your grandmother?

I trust Hillary Rodham Clinton's long-held beliefs and the prodigious work she has put behind them. Bernie is a beautiful dreamer. Trump is a fake and a fraud. Of the three candidates I know whom to trust.
In your heart of hearts you do, too.

[radind]

(05-30-2016, 11:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: What I have heard from Hillary is that she disagrees with the SOS IG, and says that a personal email account "was allowed." She also says that the State Dept.'s email system was not working, and people were not getting her emails. They got it working later, but she had set up an account by then. She also echoed my statement that no-one complained after she set it up, as other Secretaries had done; that her account was not and could not be a secret from the IG or anyone else at State. And the fact that it is the State Dept.'s email, not hers, that was hacked, certainly begs the question of who was putting classified info at risk.

She can still be faulted for not setting up adequate security for her system, if such is the case.

The protection of classified information remains a personal responsibility. Whatever someone else does or does not do is irrelevant. 
The issue is whether or not there was a failure to safeguard  sensitive information. The only way we will know will be the contents of the FBI report.

[Cynic Hero '86]

Whats with the beltway boomer elites and following the law? When are they going to start following the strictures of the constitution. When are they going to realize they need permission from the people first before they go to "help" people outside our borders.

[Marypoza]

[quote pid='1899' dateline='1464627098']

I trust Hillary Rodham Clinton's long-held beliefs and the prodigious work she has put behind them. Bernie is a beautiful dreamer. Trump is a fake and a fraud. Of the three candidates I know whom to trust.
In your heart of hearts you do, too.

--yup. Bernie
[/quote]

[Eric the Green]

No Scandal Over Hillary's Email
Image: No Scandal Over Hillary's Email (AP)

By Lanny Davis
Wednesday, 01 Jun 2016 09:20 AM

With all the hours of punditry and tens of thousands of words written about Hillary Clinton’s emails by the political press corps, it is amazing that the whole episode can be boiled down to five undisputed facts.

First, the former secretary of state did nothing illegal by having a private email system. The department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) pointed to “policies” that were violated but cited no laws that were violated, and said these policies were inconsistently applied and need to be further clarified in the future.

Second, Clinton was not trying to hide her use of her private own email address. In fact, 90 percent of all the emails she sent went to State Department employees with a state.gov email address, which she thought — mistakenly — would be automatically preserved on the department’s email server.

How could she be seeking to hide her use of a private email address if she sent her private email to so many people at State?

Third, no email received or sent by Clinton was labeled at any level of classification.

Multiple references in the media and in the rightwing blogosphere to Clinton emails containing “classified” information all refer to post-facto opinions — what could be accurately called classification by hindsight.

State Department experts disagreed with many of those opinions.

Fourth, according to the OIG, there is no evidence that Clinton’s private server handling her emails was ever successfully hacked. In other words, all the dire and dark warnings from partisan Republicans about the secretary of state risking the nation’s security by using a private server are, in fact, all speculation — based on no facts whatsoever.

Fifth, as pointed out by the inspector general, there was ample precedent for the use of private emails for official and private business, from Colin Powell to senior aides for Condoleezza Rice.

But oh, say Clinton’s critics, Powell didn’t have a private server. True. But, as my favorite law school professor, Guido Calabresi, used to say, “that is a distinction without a difference.” Powell did depend on AOL’s server — outside of the State Department — for all his official and personal emails. And there is no evidence that the AOL server was more secure than Clinton’s.

So isn’t Hillary Clinton being held to a double standard? I’m shocked, shocked.

Meanwhile, had Clinton used the State Department server rather than her private one, as her critics say she should have done, is there evidence that her emails would have been more secure? To the contrary: We know that Russian hackers raided the State Department server files.

And we know that the server of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was hacked, compromising the sensitive personal data of millions of federal employees, as were servers of other federal facilities, including those used by the White House.

Finally, what about the FBI investigation into the “mishandling” of classified information?

I have nothing but respect for the FBI and its director, James Comey. They will investigate the facts free from political influence or interference and make recommendations to the professional prosecutors in the Justice Department.

Only the latter have the authority to determine whether any prosecutions should occur.

I have no doubt, as an attorney who has read many expert legal analyses in the area of handling classified information, that neither Clinton nor Powell violated any criminal laws when they sent and received both official and personal business emails through a non-governmental server. Period.

As you watch Republican partisans and Donald Trump engaging in wishful thinking and speculating on TV that Clinton may have committed a crime when she passed along her emails to others, you know what they are up to: pure, naked partisan politics.

But what is the mainstream media’s excuse?

Since last year, Clinton has said her use of a personal email server was a mistake and she has taken responsibility for that mistake. As her campaign chairman, John Podesta, wrote on May 28, “What she thought would be a convenient way to communicate with family, friends and colleagues — by using one email account for both her work related and personal emails — has turned out to be anything but convenient. If she could go back, she’d do it differently.”

Given the undisputed facts we know about her use of private emails — nothing was illegal, nothing was hidden, nothing was labeled classified, there was no evidence of hacking and there’s ample precedent — we can see why most people polled and about eight of 10 Democrats agree with Bernie Sanders when he said: “People are sick of hearing about Clinton’s damn emails.”

This column appears first and weekly in The Hill and theHill.com.

Lanny Davis is the principal in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Lanny J. Davis & Associates, which specializes in strategic crisis management. He served as President Clinton’s Special Counsel in 1996-98.

Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/LannyDavis/email-...z4AOKRPfiQ

[radind]

(06-01-2016, 11:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: No Scandal Over Hillary's Email
Image: No Scandal Over Hillary's Email (AP)

By Lanny Davis
Wednesday, 01 Jun 2016 09:20 AM

With all the hours of punditry and tens of thousands of words written about Hillary Clinton’s emails by the political press corps, it is amazing that the whole episode can be boiled down to five undisputed facts.

First, the former secretary of state did nothing illegal by having a private email system. The department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) pointed to “policies” that were violated but cited no laws that were violated, and said these policies were inconsistently applied and need to be further clarified in the future.

Second, Clinton was not trying to hide her use of her private own email address. In fact, 90 percent of all the emails she sent went to State Department employees with a state.gov email address, which she thought — mistakenly — would be automatically preserved on the department’s email server.

How could she be seeking to hide her use of a private email address if she sent her private email to so many people at State?

Third, no email received or sent by Clinton was labeled at any level of classification.

Multiple references in the media and in the rightwing blogosphere to Clinton emails containing “classified” information all refer to post-facto opinions — what could be accurately called classification by hindsight.

State Department experts disagreed with many of those opinions.

Fourth, according to the OIG, there is no evidence that Clinton’s private server handling her emails was ever successfully hacked. In other words, all the dire and dark warnings from partisan Republicans about the secretary of state risking the nation’s security by using a private server are, in fact, all speculation — based on no facts whatsoever.

Fifth, as pointed out by the inspector general, there was ample precedent for the use of private emails for official and private business, from Colin Powell to senior aides for Condoleezza Rice.

But oh, say Clinton’s critics, Powell didn’t have a private server. True. But, as my favorite law school professor, Guido Calabresi, used to say, “that is a distinction without a difference.” Powell did depend on AOL’s server — outside of the State Department — for all his official and personal emails. And there is no evidence that the AOL server was more secure than Clinton’s.

So isn’t Hillary Clinton being held to a double standard? I’m shocked, shocked.

Meanwhile, had Clinton used the State Department server rather than her private one, as her critics say she should have done, is there evidence that her emails would have been more secure? To the contrary: We know that Russian hackers raided the State Department server files.

And we know that the server of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was hacked, compromising the sensitive personal data of millions of federal employees, as were servers of other federal facilities, including those used by the White House.

Finally, what about the FBI investigation into the “mishandling” of classified information?

I have nothing but respect for the FBI and its director, James Comey. They will investigate the facts free from political influence or interference and make recommendations to the professional prosecutors in the Justice Department.

Only the latter have the authority to determine whether any prosecutions should occur.

I have no doubt, as an attorney who has read many expert legal analyses in the area of handling classified information, that neither Clinton nor Powell violated any criminal laws when they sent and received both official and personal business emails through a non-governmental server. Period.

As you watch Republican partisans and Donald Trump engaging in wishful thinking and speculating on TV that Clinton may have committed a crime when she passed along her emails to others, you know what they are up to: pure, naked partisan politics.

But what is the mainstream media’s excuse?

Since last year, Clinton has said her use of a personal email server was a mistake and she has taken responsibility for that mistake. As her campaign chairman, John Podesta, wrote on May 28, “What she thought would be a convenient way to communicate with family, friends and colleagues — by using one email account for both her work related and personal emails — has turned out to be anything but convenient. If she could go back, she’d do it differently.”

Given the undisputed facts we know about her use of private emails — nothing was illegal, nothing was hidden, nothing was labeled classified, there was no evidence of hacking and there’s ample precedent — we can see why most people polled and about eight of 10 Democrats agree with Bernie Sanders when he said: “People are sick of hearing about Clinton’s damn emails.”

This column appears first and weekly in The Hill and theHill.com.

Lanny Davis is the principal in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Lanny J. Davis & Associates, which specializes in strategic crisis management. He served as President Clinton’s Special Counsel in 1996-98.

Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/LannyDavis/email-...z4AOKRPfiQ

One fact is omitted: Information is marked because it is classified, it is not classified because it is marked.
The best thing to do is to stop all speculation and wait for the FBI report.

[pbrower2a]

The FBI will vindicate her or skewer her. Even a finding of "no harm, no foul" will be definitive.

The rigid laws are meant for people who mishandle classified information deliberately (and any mishandling is deliberate), as by selling the data to the KGB in the past -- for which Aldrich Ames rots in a federal penitentiary, and rightly so.

[playwrite]

(06-02-2016, 07:28 AM)radind Wrote: One fact is omitted: Information is marked because it is classified, it is not classified because it is marked.
The best thing to do is to stop all speculation and wait for the FBI report.

And if one tries to go down that rabbit hole, one also has to note that the unmarked, debatable, retrospectively classified information was sent TO her NOT FROM her.


Whether people sent classified information to Collin Powell's or Condi Rice's Hotmail accounts or to any one using the leaks-like-a-strainer state.gov account, or to Clinton's private server, you can't stop people from sending you shXt - again, "the distinction without a difference."

Move along folks, nothing here to see but the typical Clinton Hate Derangement Syndrome folks hoping for the Santa Claus Easter Bunny to swoop in on a magical flying unicorn and melt the wicked Bwitch before she snatches their gonads.  It might be more profitable for them to invest in a high quality athletic cup; - she's a coming for your pair, boys!

[Eric the Green]

(06-02-2016, 07:28 AM)radind Wrote: One fact is omitted: Information is marked because it is classified, it is not classified because it is marked.
The best thing to do is to stop all speculation and wait for the FBI report.

I have no idea what that means. Classified but not marked? Who's to blame for letting classified documents unmarked? How do you blame that on HRC?

[Cynic Hero '86]

(06-02-2016, 10:00 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-02-2016, 07:28 AM)radind Wrote: One fact is omitted: Information is marked because it is classified, it is not classified because it is marked.
The best thing to do is to stop all speculation and wait for the FBI report.

I have no idea what that means. Classified but not marked? Who's to blame for letting classified documents unmarked? How do you blame that on HRC?

The fact of the matter is clear; Hillary broke the law. Hillary's behavior illustrates the boomer globalist contempt of our laws and our constitution.

[Marypoza]

(06-02-2016, 10:00 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-02-2016, 07:28 AM)radind Wrote: One fact is omitted: Information is marked because it is classified, it is not classified because it is marked.
The best thing to do is to stop all speculation and wait for the FBI report.

I have no idea what that means. Classified but not marked? Who's to blame for letting classified documents unmarked? How do you blame that on HRC?

---- if she told her staffers to remove the word "classified" from the emails, then yeah, you can blame her

[radind]

(06-02-2016, 08:01 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The FBI will vindicate her or skewer her. Even a finding of "no harm, no foul" will be definitive.

The rigid laws are meant for people who mishandle classified information deliberately (and any mishandling is deliberate), as by selling the data to the KGB in the past -- for which Aldrich Ames rots in a federal penitentiary, and rightly so.

Having worked for years with classified information, I never saw any hint of  "no harm, no foul". It is much more than rigid laws, it is a system based on trust and negligence is not tolerated.

You are correct that the FBI report will settle this one way or another( at least for me).

[radind]

(06-02-2016, 12:32 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(06-02-2016, 10:00 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-02-2016, 07:28 AM)radind Wrote: One fact is omitted: Information is marked because it is classified, it is not classified because it is marked.
The best thing to do is to stop all speculation and wait for the FBI report.

I have no idea what that means. Classified but not marked? Who's to blame for letting classified documents unmarked? How do you blame that on HRC?

The fact of the matter is clear; Hillary broke the law. Hillary's behavior illustrates the boomer globalist contempt of our laws and our constitution.

The basic premise of US security system is based on the sensitivity of the information itself. The information is either classified or not. Markings are added to classified information to alert everyone on how to handle the material. If information is classified , but not marked, people are expected to understand what to do.
I realize that this may not make sense to anyone who has not worked in the classified world, but the expectations are drilled into you constantly and formally in annual briefings.

This is applicable to anyone having access to classified information. In the Clinton case, only she and the FBI know the facts. Back to same position: wait for the FBI report.

[radind]

Posted for background information.This a one section of a typical government document on handling classified information.

Quote:https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/sf312.pdf

3. 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. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted.

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, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

[Galen]

(06-02-2016, 01:16 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(06-02-2016, 10:00 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(06-02-2016, 07:28 AM)radind Wrote: One fact is omitted: Information is marked because it is classified, it is not classified because it is marked.
The best thing to do is to stop all speculation and wait for the FBI report.

I have no idea what that means. Classified but not marked? Who's to blame for letting classified documents unmarked? How do you blame that on HRC?

---- if she told her staffers to remove the word "classified" from the emails, then yeah, you can blame her

It would seem that Clinton has in fact done [/URL="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-31/wikileaks-asks-if-smoking-gun-email-will-bring-down-hillary"]exactly that[/URL].  No doubt Eric the Obtuse will still say that Clinton didn't do anything wrong.