Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Right-Wing Media are Destroying Our Country
- This topic has 503 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 9 months ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 17, 2017 at 8:39 PM #807212July 17, 2017 at 9:08 PM #807213
SK in CV
ParticipantYeah, Gowdy is a former prosecutor. He knows how to frame a question. “Clinton said blah blah blah, is that true?”, when in fact, Clinton never said blah blah blah. Example: Clinton said she didn’t use more than 1 device at a time. She didn’t say she only used 1 device. I think she went through about 5 different cell phones. But never two at the same time.
There’s another clip out there with Comey acknowledging that the emails were not properly marked classified.
July 17, 2017 at 9:22 PM #807214ucodegen
Participant[quote=SK in CV]Yeah, Gowdy is a former prosecutor. He knows how to frame a question. “Clinton said blah blah blah, is that true?”, when in fact, Clinton never said blah blah blah. Example: Clinton said she didn’t use more than 1 device at a time. She didn’t say she only used 1 device. I think she went through about 5 different cell phones. But never two at the same time.
There’s another clip out there with Comey acknowledging that the emails were not properly marked classified.[/quote]
1) Most of the ‘answers’ were ‘not true’. So you are saying that FBI Director James Comey was lying – and if I am not mistaken, this recording was of him on the record under oath.
2) Find it or it doesn’t exist – Comey saying that they did not mark properly.
3) Classification marks can be as simple as “(C)” or “(S)” at the top of the page – the question would also be as to what standard.
4) Comey did state that they were marked classified – I can get you the time index if you want.. At that point, whether it is ‘proper marking’ or not is no longer the question. Comey said they were marked as opposed to your statement. With classified info, if there is doubt as to proper marking as classified (ie. says classified but not according to how it was supposed to be marked per DD 254 – you treat it as classified – period.)
5) When you are read into a classified project – you are notified as to the markings and responsibility.The unspoken problem again, is how did this classified data get on an unclassified system – given MLS. Someone had to construct a bypass.
NOTE: Gowdy also knows when someone is being evasive on the answer and not answering directly – that is why the specific yes/no that he was looking for. He was also trying to frame the question as to be able to compare with legal statute.
July 17, 2017 at 10:05 PM #807215Participant[quote=ucodegen]1) Most of the ‘answers’ were ‘not true’. So you are saying that FBI Director James Comey was lying – and if I am not mistaken, this recording was of him on the record under oath.
[/quote]No, I’m saying Gowdy is lying.
July 17, 2017 at 10:10 PM #807217Participant[quote=ucodegen]2) Find it or it doesn’t exist – Comey saying that they did not mark properly.
[/quote]Not really. It exists whether I can find it or not. That might be the most stupid argument I’ve ever seen posted here.
FBI Director Admits Hillary Clinton Emails Were Not Properly Marked Classified
July 17, 2017 at 10:10 PM #807216Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]1) Most of the ‘answers’ were ‘not true’. So you are saying that FBI Director James Comey was lying – and if I am not mistaken, this recording was of him on the record under oath.
[/quote]No, I’m saying Gowdy is lying.[/quote]
Umm.. Gowdy was not making statements of fact. He was posing questions… to which Comey answered. One of these questions was whether the items were marked classified – Comey affirming that they were.How is that Gowdy lying? Again, Comey was making statements of fact however Gowdy was asking questions of the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ type to be answered by Comey. ie. is this true or not.
July 17, 2017 at 10:13 PM #807218Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]2) Find it or it doesn’t exist – Comey saying that they did not mark properly.
[/quote]Not really. It exists whether I can find it or not. That might be the most stupid argument I’ve ever seen posted here.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/fbi-director-admits-hillary-clinton-emails-were-not-properly-marked-classified/%5B/quote%5D
And I could call that ‘false news’…
Video is a better truth.. no translations, re-wording etc. I noticed that you omitted part of the requirements on handling classified info including the fact that mis-marking as per DD 254 does not make them unclassified.July 17, 2017 at 10:14 PM #807219Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]1) Most of the ‘answers’ were ‘not true’. So you are saying that FBI Director James Comey was lying – and if I am not mistaken, this recording was of him on the record under oath.
[/quote]No, I’m saying Gowdy is lying.[/quote]
Umm.. Gowdy was not making statements of fact. He was posing questions… to which Comey answered. One of these questions was whether the items were marked classified – Comey affirming that they were.How is that Gowdy lying? Again, Comey was making statements of fact however Gowdy was asking questions of the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ type to be answered by Comey. ie. is this true or not.[/quote]
Ok, then. Then nothing in that piece of the clip is evidence of Clinton lying. Gowdy claimed Clinton said something. Comey said “that would be false”. That’s not evidence Clinton lied. Because the things that Gowdy claimed Clinton said, were lies. She had never said those things.
They were marked classified. Incorrectly. Which is the same as if they weren’t marked classified at all.
July 17, 2017 at 10:30 PM #807220Participant[quote=SK in CV]
Ok, then. Then nothing in that piece of the clip is evidence of Clinton lying. Gowdy claimed Clinton said something. Comey said “that would be false”. That’s not evidence Clinton lied. Because the things that Gowdy claimed Clinton said, were lies. She had never said those things.[/quote]
Humm so this time index about her claiming Emails being on the State Department server does not exist? and that all here Emails were available?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOFENuFHwTk&t=7m54s
I can find a lot more.. all in her words, recorded.
You also bring into context that 3 (from your link) were not properly marked — leaving approx 2997 marked.
Another note: Per your link;
FBI Director James Comey: no…There were three e-mails. Yhe “c” was in the body, in the text but there was no header on the e-mail or the text.
Rep. Matt Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified, and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
FBI Director James Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.
That one I would like to see(video).. because if you see the (C) at the top of an email – you may consider that it was cut-pasted, and to ask questions. Markings are not limited to the header. There are top of page requirements, for every page. See your second section
• Conspicuously place the overall classification at the top and bottom of the page.
• Mark other internal pages either with the overall classification or with a marking
indicating the highest classification level of information contained on that page.NOTE: The per page marking is required in the even the body gets separated from the header or ‘cover page’ on printed versions of the document. It is to also cause the printed to have the markings (not complete markings) should someone print the Email.
Per your quote, it was marked at the top of the page – should have been marked on the header as well. This did not make it unclassisfied.
[quote=SK in CV]They were marked classified. Incorrectly. Which is the same as if they weren’t marked classified at all.[/quote]
You have never handled classified info – that last sentence is incorrect. They were marked, but may have not been marked as per the standard – location on the text, coloring, background. That does NOT make them unclassified.July 17, 2017 at 11:06 PM #807221Anonymous
GuestTell us ucodegen, why are you so tolerant of Trump’s lies about his direct collusion with agents of one of our most dangerous adversaries?
He’s a goddamn disgrace to our country, but you you still stand by him, unwavering, all the while chanting….
BUTTERY MALES!
July 17, 2017 at 11:42 PM #807222Participant[quote=harvey]Tell us ucodegen, why are you so tolerant of Trump’s lies about his direct collusion with agents of one of our most dangerous adversaries?
He’s a goddamn disgrace to our country, but you you still stand by him, unwavering, all the while chanting….
BUTTERY MALES![/quote]
Wow – name calling through innuendo, assuming facts not in evidence, red herring. – trying to change a subject.If you have been paying attention (probably not), you would have seen me state multiple times that this was an election between multiple undesirables. Trump was included on that list.
Looks like you are channeling the Sith – absolutist, either;
hating Trump, loving Hillary or
hating Hillary, loving Trump.Sorry neither. That said, it has not been shown that Trump has colluded with Russia. However I do think that Russia was in Hillary’s Email server – for a long time, probably set up automated forwarding of all Emails sent and received, going through several proxies. I don’t think they did this for the Election, I think it was in place for some time. However I don’t think they were the ones that released them – how could Russia profit from that? But it is something that could be subject to blackmail, releasing them and it can no longer be used for blackmail.
Comey made a very interesting remark with respect to Russia’s involvement in trying to influence the election. He said they were surprisingly overt. I suspect the real truth is that Russia knows all that was in Hillary’s Email server – including the stuff that was professionally erased. They expected her to win and then blackmail her. That is how Russia works – not by making friends. Friends are unpredictable, people under blackmail are easier to control. This is why I think Russia was so overt in trying to ‘court’ Trump. Remember McCarthyism and peoples response to any taint of Communism and Russia? Put out some innuendo that someone is working with Communism and everyone avoids them.
Normally Russia is not overt in their ‘black arts’ – they want to get in without anyone seeing, and they don’t want those that they have ‘under control’ able to refuse requests. When getting into computers, they break in carefully making sure that they don’t raise flags or break things – either plant a RAT or get what they want and then leave locking the doors on the way out.
China is very overt. They will crash something to get in, they don’t care if it gets traced back to them because in their eyes – the US does not have the ‘balls’ to do anything. The only thing I have seen that is not overt is China compromising ethernet chips that go onto PCs (latent compromise).
July 18, 2017 at 6:27 AM #807223GuestLol, weren’t you the one that was suddenly an expert on airplane seats from the 1970s?
Such attention to detail, and yet no comment about our president’s behavior for the past six months.
And still going on about her emails!
July 18, 2017 at 7:11 AM #807224FlyerInHi
GuestSeems to me like bringing up Hillary is another version of “they are all the same” to justify Trump.
First, they are not the same. And second, Hillary is not president. Hillary s emails are irrelevant at this point.
July 18, 2017 at 7:27 AM #807225Participant[quote=ucodegen]
You have never handled classified info – that last sentence is incorrect. They were marked, but may have not been marked as per the standard – location on the text, coloring, background. That does NOT make them unclassified.[/quote]What makes them unclassified is that the information wasn’t classified.
What makes Clinton’s assertion accurate is that if they weren’t correctly marked classified, then they weren’t marked classified.
July 18, 2017 at 9:16 AM #807227Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Sorry neither. That said, it has not been shown that Trump has colluded with Russia. However I do think that Russia was in Hillary’s Email server – for a long time, probably set up automated forwarding of all Emails sent and received, going through several proxies. I don’t think they did this for the Election, I think it was in place for some time. However I don’t think they were the ones that released them – how could Russia profit from that? But it is something that could be subject to blackmail, releasing them and it can no longer be used for blackmail.[/quote]
Not a single email from Clinton’s server was ever released surreptitiously. Not a single one. There was no evidence that it was ever successfully hacked. Interesting that you think there was. Did fake news help form your impressions of the candidate?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.