hi tehy, im not sure in which universe my post didn't address at least a few of those concerns, but i highly recommend you stop reading from that one. now im not sure how to simplify this enough for you, sadly smogon doesnt have the option to use a crayola-style font but let me try:
see, in this beautifully ignorant metaphor you seem to operate under the assumption that i didn't address this in quite literally the next few sentences after the sentence where you drew upon the "104 instances" bit. Yes, she did email classified information but was the information classified at the time. now im not sure how time works in your current universe but in this one time operates in a roughly progressive fashion and things which occur at time x typically occur before time z, for example, i send an email containing information at time x, but that information becomes classified at time y, i cant get charged for sending classified for sending out classified information at time z because of the emails i sent out at time x because it wasnt illegal to do so since said information wasnt classified at the time.
i'm unsure how 'names of spies' could possibly not be 'classified at the time'. In fact, how on earth could a piece of information be classified after it was generated? Can you even provide a single example of how that could work at all? If something is not OK for the public to know, then there's no reason for that to happen after the fact.
So maybe what you're referring to is that it wasn't stamped with the word 'classified' at the time? If so, please say so, that way I can really go in on you. Seriously, if that's what you meant, say the word and it will be on like Donkey Kong.
shaian said:
same law, literally right underneath the specific section b which is concerned with private emails and servers:
(c) Agencies may elect to manage electronic mail records with very short-term NARA-approved retention periods (transitory records with a very short-term retention period of 180 days or less as provided by GRS 23, Item 7, or by a NARA-approved agency records schedule) on the electronic mail system itself, without the need to copy the record to a paper or electronic recordkeeping system, provided that:
(1) Users do not delete the messages before the expiration of the NARA-approved retention period, and
(2) The system's automatic deletion rules ensure preservation of the records until the expiration of the NARA-approved retention period.
now you might say she deleted them without proper record, but they were recorded in a technical sense since emails sent within us government institutions used @state.gov format which automatically archive themselves. and you might say, but what about emails that weren't sent to those .gov emails? well the thing is that there are quite a few scenarios that the secretary of state might have to use a private email, something that is accepted by literally everyone including the
national archives, and it wasnt until
2014 that
private account emails had to be copied to official accounts in order to be recorded.
do note that other people who used the e-mail systems apparently only sent them to government e-mails (edit: colin powell, not the attorney business, my b /edit), whereas Hillary didn't, unless you have evidence otherwise? But again, classified info
shaian said:
big. if. true. but that was first reported by fox, who if you should recall were a big part of that whole "make this email thing bigger than it is" effort, and those names were actually more like "references about" and
didn't contain names of operatives or sources. i recommend looking at the 2nd paragraph under the header "security designations" since i understand that reading the entirety of things isn't your strong-suit. and for the record, the new york post, fox, and breitbart arent reliable and they were the bulk of the sources i came across trying to find out more about this since most reliable institutions literally had nothing outside of what i found at the ny times...
i'm curious - if you can declare the New York Post to be 'not reliable' on the basis of...anyways, can I declare the New York Times to be 'not reliable', on the basis of...
anyways
here's a good bit from the washington times, first link i clicked:
'One of the messages is an extensive missive from David Satterfield, a top U.S. diplomat to Egypt, who told top officials in the White House and the State Department about negotiations in the Sinai. The entire contents of the messages are now deemed “secret,” though there is no indication they were marked as such at the time. The message was forwarded to Mrs. Clinton by top aide Jacob Sullivan.'
washington post:
The emails often were sent in response to another State Department official whose original note has also been redacted in the publicly released version.
...
For example, Clinton wrote an
email in July 2012 to Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and other top department officials with the subject line “Agrement [sic] for Egypt.” The email includes a short paragraph that has been entirely redacted by the State Department followed by one line from Clinton: “What’s the status?”
your best-case argument is that this is just the government agencies being ornery, and it's not that this couldn't be the case, but there's a long way to go until you get there. Even if it is them being ornery, that doesn't necessarily exclude criminality from the conversation.
shaian said:
i recommend you read more about this because no, it's not suspicions.
disagree
shaian said:
did you somehow miss the point i was trying to make which is he got indicted for something similiar, and all he got was... if clinton got indicted, she would most likely get hit under the same law as petraeus
did you somehow miss the point I - key point,
I, not you - was trying to make, is that he got indicted for something
much less serious, and what he got was...
shaian said:
2. this part i found particularly irritating since you literally dont know anything about a major us political scandal but you somehow still try to pretend like you know something about it: "a user of the 'GW43' server, wikipedia says that's some us attorney or w/e but he sure ain't bush" like what the fuck is this? it was a whole group of white house upper staff, including karl rove which may have prompted him to resign, and was tied in to a controversial dismissal of a group of federal prosecutors.
i think i pretty clearly acted like i had googled it and clicked a wikipedia link, which apparently was more homework than you did so
shaian said:
3. 2 parts: 1) it was the bush administration using it, including as i already said, several upper staff members including the deputy chief of staff so if he didnt use it personally he was well aware of it and 2) pedanticism doesnt make you intelligent, you're still a moron
edit:
2 parts: 1) at best, you miscommunicated pretty badly here by linking to an article via the words George Bush when the article doesn't clarify your point at all, 2) given that this wouldn't necessarily cause George Bush to be put in a fucking prison cell, that's not pedantry. Seriously, jail time and impeachment are not details, and neither is a lack of active involvement in crimes that cause these things.