It's what he does.

but nothing on the content of his timely message in rebuttal to Obama's poorly thought out and inappropriate defense of Clinton?

"What I've also said is that -- and she has acknowledged -- that there's a carelessness, in terms of managing emails, that she ... recognizes,"


http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-obama-clinton-20160410-story.html

hinder it all the way.

but that's what good lawyers do.

He was acting as a defense lawyer there
defending his client artfully even if his defendant might be guilty.

My point was he slammed a democrat too and acknowledged his defendant's limitations.

I still enjoyed Snowden's simple but poignant snark

In WWII US soldiers were severely punished for breaches in national security.

Is literally undermining national security to help Hillary. That's not hyperbole.

He's telling people in the security services that "classified" can be ignored.

Lame.

Even if you think there is an overclassification epidemic, this is not a presidential way to deal with it.

Unimpressed.

caused by the fact that there is no downside to classifying a document that doesn't need it; but there are penalties for mishandling classified information.

The head of the national archives, who is charged with the storage of all these documents, says that more than half of the documents don't need the classified designation.

It's truly bizarre, for example, to classify information drawn from newspaper accounts -- or information from official government websites, available to the public for years.

about things we need to know.

Imagine if Obama (or Bush or Trump) went on TV said:

There's gun violence and then there's gun violence.

There's breaking the law and then there's breaking the law.

There's whistle blower and then there's whistle blower.


It's a great conversation to have, overclassification, but talking about it in such a flip way, to help a political ally... Let's just say this, if a Republican said it while another Republican was being investigated for mishandling classified info, no one here would defend it. People would be be making allllll sorts of statements about that President just playing politics... And they'd be right... And Obama is doing just that... Playing politics with national security. And it's wrong.

I do agree with you.

The rule of law means that the law is the same for everyone. Snowden was very careful about what he released and allowed to be published.

Hillary Clinton????? I saw something that made me uneasy, and I am opposed to the overclassification by our government. If something made me uneasy, then it probably should not have been sent by unsecured e-mail.

The second we make this ad hoc for political reasons the whole system is useless...

'Sorry I put that HUMINT on my blackberry; I thought it was simply "classified"'

That's BS.

He's not talking about it in a meaningful way, or offering any solutions, or even discussing what intelligence people should do... Instead he's providing political cover while completely undermining the term classified. Because what if start being casual with classified material, because I think I know better, and sure even the president knows that there's "classified" and then there's classified.

It sends the message that people get to just make a hoc decisions about state security, and it does it to help a political ally.

about whether any state department document needed to be classified or declassified.

Most "people" don't get to make those decisions -- but as an agency head, it was part of her job.

The only person who legally could overrule her State Department decisions was the President.

or unintended sharing with hackers or others who may get access to your e-mails.

And, of course, that is what happened in Hillary's case. Because she was communicating with an old friend whose e-mail was hacked, her private e-mail system became public knowledge.

I can't believe that as Secretary of State she did not have communications on her e-mail that contained truly classified information of the highest importance. If she didn't then what was she doing as Secretary of State?

that her personal server was.

What was she doing as Secretary of State? She was using the government's separate classified system for classified documents, and anyone sending her classified documents had to use it, too.

So she used the classified system for classified documents.

But for UNCLASSIFIED documents, instead of using the clunky, antiquated .gov system -- the system we know was widely hacked -- she used the private server, which was much more modern with more modern security.

But she never used that system for classified documents. For that she used the government's classified system.

And each and every time she had to send a message, she had to decide first whether she should send it over her personal account or the classified system. This is the exact decision every other person with classified clearance has to make every day -- the only difference being that they use the .gov accounts for their non-classified email, and she was using her personal server.

the e-mail of a friend of hers. Of course, Hillary's e-mail address was then known to the hacker of her friend.

So, I don't think it can be said if we are to be precise that Hillary's e-mail was not hacked.

It was very hackable and may have been hacked. The FBI has extradited the hacker of the e-mail of Hillary's friend from Roumania. Maybe we will find out more about what happened if the questioning and answers of this hacker are made public. I kind of doubt that they will be made public.

I don't think Hillary will face prison or a trial for this, but that doesn't mean that it was OK.

She has been a very harsh critic of Snowden. And then we find out that she had this server that, if it wasn't hacked, certainly could have been. What hypocrisy.

that it had been hacked?

And are you aware that the Chinese and others DID hack the State Dept. .gov server?

Unknown unknowns.

If it was hacked, and done so professionally, there's no way that months later we should believe that "no evidence" is equivalent to "we can definitely prove it was never hacked".

Crimes frequently leave no discernible evidence, even cybercrimes. Pretending otherwise is meaningless.

And of course making the assumption that the investigation was thorough and competent is also a bit silly.

So it's pretty silly to worry that there may have been hacking of her more modern system with more modern security, even though no evidence was found of such hacking.

Neither .gov nor her personal server were used for classified documents.

You are wrong. She never even had a .gov email account.

EVERYTHING went through her personal account and server.

Hillary doesn't get to declassify things as SOS just because she wants to. No single person except the president can declassify things at whim...

The only way people other than the president cn declassify things is via the ISOO.

Agency heads are responsible for overseeing the declassification of documents that those agencies classified, after a certain number of year (25) or if a classification is appealed to the ISOO and they allow it, or if the President directs it.

But that's not important anyway, as it's not germane to the discussion. No one is claiming Hillary decided to declassify all the data on her private server... That's nonsense.

Hilary herself has never claimed that, nor has the President. It's just a distraction.

and snark towards us pea eaters, not to mention the lip service he barely pays us that's most unimpressive about him.

You're 100% correct, but his statement only applies to people high up on the food chain which is, at the risk of sounding jingoistic, un-American.

definition of is, is"

The standard to judge by, always.

"It depends on what the definition of is, is."

If I had left for Secret (not TS just plain old secret) info on a CD on my desk in an unlocked office, or walked away from a logged on SIPR computer, or swapped Secret (not TS just secret) emails or reports to my regular email to make them easier to send out or worm with and I said "there is classiefied and there is classified" to my supervisor or security manager when caught I would have been fired from my job, had my security clearnace revoked on the spot and kicked out of the Army- if I wasn't criminally prosecuted for being slack with security.

To see the Commander in Chief display an attitude that is anything less than as serious as what is required of everyone who works for him on the matter leaves me the most disappointed in him as a leader I have ever been.

Sure, there is an issue with over classification in some circles. That answer didn't address that as all but just was a slap in the face to everyone who has ever taken the job of handling classified information seriously or who has been punished for mishandling it. If you have a problem with over classification speak to the source of the problem where things are classified, don't act like that means you don't have to take the responsibility of handling all classified information seriously.

What is going on with our President? I really have to wonder why he is so desperate to say such a foolish remark on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

weapons program during WWII.

When he spoke of his experiences in the war it was always about the girls he met in Paris or Marienbad after the liberation, no details about his training or combat missions.

The program remained classified until the mid 90s, for some strange reason, and he along with his old tank buddies then spoke freely of it. It was no big deal, just a night-fighting system designed to confused the Panzers. They were ordered to remain silent and they did, for 50 years.

My wife served on a grand jury seven years ago. She still won't tell me a word about what went on.

I too believe that there's way too much over classification, but that's no reason give the SOS a pass for sloppy handling of information.