This really explains a lot!

[bonnie]

4 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

. And it is distinctly  something real and serious.  As compared to the instantaneous and sustained coverage of nothing of any real substance in terms of wrong doing or scandal or corruption about the Clinton Foundation.  Continuing to beat on Clinton over nothing really does seem like persecution. 

For a Secretary of State and a former senator to claim she thought C on e-mails meant alphabetical order is something real and serious....."Sheer volume..."  Seems to be serious hyperbole, since in context of the thousands of e-mails, the extremely small number of allegedly problematic emails hardly justifies either word.

Really depends on what was in the emails that were in alphabetical order doesn't it?

As Trump so far has not been charged with a crime so is it persecution? 

You set the bar......

"Destruction of evidence" is a meaningless misstatement with no crime or even a criminal charge for which evidence would be relevant.    For example, burning my trash is not the destruction of evidence.  If I am charged with a crime and I burn my trash, there still has to be some evidence that what I burned included any evidence of the crime.  An annoying evidentiary rule requires some proof before you throw such legal terms around...

I doubt if you burned your trash in the same circumstances you would get by with pleading ignorance as an attorney.

Perhaps you need to remember that annoying evidentiary rule while blasting Trump.

Hillary Clinton's past and present behavior is what has caused so many to mistrust her.Not anything Trump has done or is accused of doing.

Trump isn't being almost canonized as this suffering innocent victim,on the other hand those in your circle or share your belief claim she is honest and trustworthy because she has not been found guilty

 

This is important and significant.  There are too many missteps for this to have been a simple honest mistake, or clerical error.  And the explanations really don't quite add up

Exactly the same can be said for Hillary Clinton. Claiming she thought the C stood for alphabetical order and "burning her trash" and claiming ignorance of a subpoena doesn't add up either

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Like this

•  
• Quote

 

 

 

 

 

[Tom Wetmore]

And yet after thousands of hours of investigations and hearings and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars...  Nothing.  Pretty much left with the innuendo and suspicion and empty accusations that they started with.  

And this is part of the whole point.  Some sorry excuse from Trump is excepted.  But for Clinton, we must turn over heaven and earth in search of the last crumb of evidence.

[bonnie]

14 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

And yet after thousands of hours of investigations and hearings and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars...  Nothing.  Pretty much left with the innuendo and suspicion and empty accusations that they started with.  

And this is part of the whole point.  Some sorry excuse from Trump is excepted.  But for Clinton, we must turn over heaven and earth in search of the last crumb of evidence.

I am not accepting anything for Trump.

As much as can be said against Trump,some absolutely correct,some not he should be held to the same standard and bar you set for Hillary Clinton., He has not been found guilty nor has Hillary Clinton. Perhaps as an attorney you would approve or condone "burning information/evidence" when a client is in question but most wouldn't. Clinton was not accused of taking out the kitchen trash

You may choose to believe a person in her position is telling the truth about not knowing what the C meant or that she forgot numerous security briefings or as an attorney she failed to understand she should not be destroying anything that pertained to the subject in question. Most people don't,at the very least it shows a level of incompetence that should really be of concern placing her as president.

[Tom Wetmore]

You keep talking about the same standard and bar I set for Hillary is what I should hold Trump to...  I do.  (Remember, in 2008 I was for Obama, not Hillary.  In this Democratic primary, I was for Bernie, not Hillary.)  That is indeed the whole point here!  I am demanding that they both be held to the same standard and subjected to the same scrutiny and the same intense grilling and hard questions and investigation and background checking and disclosure and transparency!   Just because the end result of what I have had to dig deep and claw through much garbage for to find out about them both ends up looking exceedingly lopsided does not mean that I am biased for Hillary or that I didn't hold them to the same standard.  It means that contrary to the persistent false men at they are both bad or that we have to choose between the lesser of the two evils, this is a very uneven contest between two candidates that are not even in the same league! They are not even close to equal on any standard or against any bar you want to set for them.  They are not even comparable on the most simplistic level.  

Comparing her accomplishments and record in public service with Trumps is very lopsided. She wins because he has nothing but running his business in his own personal interests.  Compare their character.  A little less lopsided perhaps, even on an objective level. She wins.  Compare their religious values and known evidence of matters of faith?  He barely shows on any scale.  Now look at the negatives.  Any negative that you can drag up about Hillary, Trump can go toe to toe with her and surpass her many times over.  Liar.  She has been untruthful or inaccurate less than any other politician in this political season. Not great by my standards.  A majority of the time she is truthful, mostly.  Trump scores the absolute worst of anyone.    Less than a third of what he says can be considered mostly true to truthful.  That is a trust issue.  So who is more trustworthy?  Really!!  

1 hour ago, bonnie said:

You may choose to believe a person in her position is telling the truth about not knowing what the C meant or that she forgot numerous security briefings or as an attorney she failed to understand she should not be destroying anything that pertained to the subject in question. Most people don't,at the very least it shows a level of incompetence that should really be of concern placing her as president.

As for this really nitpick bit... Is that the worst thing you can think of about Hillary?  Really!?!?  How many e-mails are you talking about that were marked with that "C"? Three. Yes, just 3.  And where was the marking in each of those 3 e-mails and how long were they? And what exactly was the email about and what was the marked paragraph actually about to make it "confidential"?  Do you even know?  Or care?  And how many e-mails total of hers have come under this intense scrutiny to discover these few? Thousands.  Talk about a needle in a haystack...  And making a mountain out of a molehill...

Here, read this. You might find it confusingly informative - https://still4hill.com/2016/07/08/clarification-on-classification-it-was-all-about-the-cs/   And here is the Executive Order it mentions several times - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information 

I think that a lot of all the current media frenzy of a parenthetical "C" to mark something classified came as a surprise to a lot of people that that alone was enough to classify an e-mail.  You have heard what is officially required to mark a document as classified, haven't you?  What is generally understood is that it should have A CONSPICUOUS HEADER OR BANNER.  At the top.  On the cover.  On the Sealed Envelope. Where you can't miss it.  For an e-mail, in the Subject Line.  The words  <CONFIDENTIAL> or <SECRET> or <TOP SECRET>.

A good example of the detailed requirements for marking classified materials is the Department of Defense.  (Not sure that the Secretary of State is expected to keep up with DoD rules.)  Here is an excerpt from the 117 page Department of Defense Manual for "Information Security Program: Marking of Classified Information" (Emphasis added):

Quote

 

MARKING REQUIREMENT. All classified information shall be identified clearly by marking, designation, or electronic labeling. If physical marking of the medium containing classified information is not possible, then identification must be accomplished by other means. The term “marking” includes other concepts of identifying the classification of the information. Markings, designations, and electronic labeling shall be conspicuous and immediately apparent and shall:

a. Alert holders to the presence of classified information.

b. Identify, as specifically as possible, the exact information needing protection and the level of protection required.

c. Give information on the source(s) of and reasons for classification of the information.

d. Identify the office of origin and document originator applying the classification markings.

e. Provide guidance on information sharing, and warn holders of special access, dissemination control, or safeguarding requirements.

f. Provide guidance on downgrading and declassification for classified information. 

 

Yes, it does have a section of about one page explaining the parenthetical letter marking to mark a portion of an otherwise unclassified document to mark that portion which is classified.  But without a banner or header is that really "conspicuous" as required?

Bottom line is that this is way more complicated than the simplistic reactionary media will actually fully report. And when it is fully known and understood, in context, what Clinton did was not as terrible as some would like to make it out to be.  A mistake.  Yes.  Risking national security.  No.  Disqualifying for a presidential candidate. No.

[Tom Wetmore]

And this is what I am talking about  - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/14/dont-let-donald-trump-take-the-fifth/?utm_term=.dbfbc2cb4453 

[bonnie]

40 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

And this is what I am talking about  - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/14/dont-let-donald-trump-take-the-fifth/?utm_term=.dbfbc2cb4453 

I was fairly young when I learned that trying to show how bad the other guy was didn't seem to be very effective in convincing my mother to overlook my wrong doings. Unless I have missed it I haven't seen a post praising the virture's of Donald Trump,yet you keep throwing stuff like this out there to prove the trustworthiness of Hillary Clinton. I don't care if Trump is the devil himself,that has what to do with Hillary Clinton and the reason many people don't trust her?She did not enjoy a high level of trust before Trump became prominent.

At this point there hasn't been any reason to question Trumps health. There has been more than one incident to question Hillary Clinton's.

[bonnie]

Quote

You keep talking about the same standard and bar I set for Hillary is what I should hold Trump to...  I do.  (Remember, in 2008 I was for Obama, not Hillary.  In this Democratic primary, I was for Bernie, not Hillary.)  That is indeed the whole point here!  I am demanding that they both be held to the same standard and subjected to the same scrutiny and the same intense grilling and hard questions and investigation and background checking and disclosure and transparency!   Just because the end result of what I have had to dig deep and claw through much garbage for to find out about them both ends up looking exceedingly lopsided does not mean that I am biased for Hillary or that I didn't hold them to the same standard.  It means that contrary to the persistent false men at they are both bad or that we have to choose between the lesser of the two evils, this is a very uneven contest between two candidates that are not even in the same league! They are not even close to equal on any standard or against any bar you want to set for them.  They are not even comparable on the most simplistic level.  

 

This may be your opinion but that is all it is. You are no more qualified to "render a verdict" than I am. Your "impressive" credentials might be impressive and convincing to you and some others but many others have valid reasons for their viewpoint and mistrust of Hilary Clinton.

Classified information in emails  wikapedia

In various interviews, Clinton has said that "I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified."^[87]However, in June and July 2016, a number of news outlets reported that Clinton's emails did include messages with classification "portion markings".^[88][89] The FBI investigation found that 110 messages contained information that was classified at the time it was sent. Sixty-five of those emails were found to contain information classified as "Secret"; more than 20 contained "Top-Secret" information

If I were a supporter of Hillary Clinton and discounting anything I considered slander or unsubstantiated from years past the FBI saying she was extremely careless in her position,and as you say with her "accomplishments",not being able to remember numerous security briefings and as an attorney not understanding that it really wasn't a ethical choice to destroy anything relating to the investigation would give me very serious doubts.

That doesn't have anything to do with Trump. Regardless of what he may have done it doesn't cover Hillary's behavior

 

 

[bonnie]

As for this really nitpick bit... Is that the worst thing you can think of about Hillary?  Really!?!?  How many e-mails are you talking about that were marked with that "C"? Three. Yes, just 3.  And where was the marking in each of those 3 e-mails and how long were they? And what exactly was the email about and what was the marked paragraph actually about to make it "confidential"?  Do you even know?  Or care?  And how many e-mails total of hers have come under this intense scrutiny to discover these few? Thousands.  Talk about a needle in a haystack...  And making a mountain out of a molehill...

The real issue for many is not what you call a nit picking issue. A former senator and Secretary of State claiming to be so 

ignorant that she believes C means alphabetical order. How long as president would it take her to understand what classified was. I do not believe her and countless others don't as well. Gives a new meaning to the FBI's extremely careless.

[CoAspen]

Cool...we all choose what we believe....accuracy/truth does not always come into those beliefs.

beliefopinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion.

[bonnie]

Not a view point,conviction or way of thinking. Hillary Clinton claimed ignorance of the mark C meaning classified.  All her years  holding the positions she did she would have to truly be to ignorant to hold the office of president if true. FBI said she was extremely careless. Fact,Hillary Clinton claimed to not remember numerous security briefings.As an attorney destroying information pertaining to an investigation .