tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post2989169515412492784..comments2024-03-28T09:56:06.298-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: State Department Cuts Sling LoadGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-69730919353896620792016-02-01T09:52:23.736-05:002016-02-01T09:52:23.736-05:00Until today, though, State has held that there was...<i>Until today, though, State has held that there was no genuinely Top Secret information included. State's position has been that the IC was overclassifying the information it found in her emails, and that the worst she was guilty of exposing was Secret information.</i><br /><br />/epic eyeroll<br /><br />Yes, because releasing information that has the potential to "greatly harm national security" (the definition of "Secret") isn't a crime. Somehow. Actually, the real claim is that there was nothing sent or received "with classified markings", and every time one of her spokesjackals said that over the weekend, I had to refrain from yelling "that's just admission of an additional crime, you moron!" at the TV. No data, email, or document is classified because of the words at the top and bottom of the page. The only people who could ever believe that a document lacking those markings is unclassified are people who have never worked with classified materials and who never stopped for a moment to rub two brain cells together to figure that out. Because it is the information that makes something classified, not a stamp.MikeDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08116809134355184859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-61072775176153279952016-01-30T17:24:39.514-05:002016-01-30T17:24:39.514-05:00I seriously doubt anything will come of it, and no...I seriously doubt anything will come of it, and normally I'd say scarcely any voters will ever hear of it--and yet her plunging poll numbers are interesting.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-894496823299082682016-01-29T22:06:24.520-05:002016-01-29T22:06:24.520-05:00So Iran's Huma gets to read the intel, but cit...So Iran's Huma gets to read the intel, but citizens and semi patriots aren't disallowed... that's a nice way to setup the system.<br /><br />ALmost worry of John Fing Kerry and Jane Fonda.Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-10296894104645519422016-01-29T21:29:08.501-05:002016-01-29T21:29:08.501-05:00WRT Kerry, there is plenty of partisanship that ha...WRT Kerry, there is plenty of partisanship that has nothing to do with the two branches of the political party.jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01792036361407527304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-12577999908371273462016-01-29T20:44:08.930-05:002016-01-29T20:44:08.930-05:00He doesn't have to know anything about law. H...He doesn't have to know anything about law. He does know he owns DoJ. And, Obama's statement today postdates McCarthy's source by several days.<br /><br />Republicans will just have to win the White House. The statute of limitations won't have expired.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-81060486337610675892016-01-29T20:31:11.688-05:002016-01-29T20:31:11.688-05:00Meh. What does he know about the law?Meh. What does <i>he</i> know about the law?Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-82365777517528384012016-01-29T19:26:07.877-05:002016-01-29T19:26:07.877-05:00He's wrong: what they said was that she wasn&...He's wrong: what they said was that she <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430211/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-department-justice-obama?target=author&tid=900151" rel="nofollow">wasn't a subject</a>. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-85450291880337150092016-01-29T19:10:11.433-05:002016-01-29T19:10:11.433-05:00Obama has already announced, through his Press Sec...Obama has already announced, through his Press Secretary Josh Earnest, that there won't be any indictment. <i><a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/wh-clinton-wont-be-indicted-based-on-what-we-know/article/2000828" rel="nofollow"> What I know</a> that some officials over there have said is that she is not a target of the investigation. So that does not seem to be the direction that it's trending.</i><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.com