2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Hillary's Email Scandal for Non-Techy People [View all]IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)because I can only waste so much of my time "because someone on the Internet is wrong."
You currently BELIEVE that "nothing on the Server was classified AT THE TIME."
This is actually TWO separate "beliefs" -
1) "Nothing WAS Classified" (factually untrue)
And
2) "AT THE TIME" (again, factually untrue)
Now, if I waste my time giving you links to wiki leaks with obviously redacted documents, you can then respond "well, it is classified NOW" and then you can bolster your belief in Hillary because NEITHER OF US HAS THE SECURITY CLEARANCE OR SKILLS TO KNOW IF IT WAS CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME.
Then I can give you links to people who are experts on this stuff, whose career experience will cause them to say, "yup, TOTALLY CLASSIFIED" and even "Omg, who let that out of the secrets room?"
But you won't trust or believe those sources because you will automatically assume they are Not Credible (which you currently believe is the case with not only the New York Times but also The Wasington Post and The LA Times, or the lawyers from the State Department serving under John Kerry.
So, who do you believe? Not me, obviously. So let's stick to facts. You are fully capable of doing your own clicking, but I am going to get you started.
Wikipedia shows their sources. The link is ON EDIT: forgot link - doh! - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Official_statements
The IC inspector general issued another letter to Congress on January 14, 2016. In this letter he stated that an unnamed intelligence agency had made a sworn declaration that "several dozen emails (had been) determined by the IC element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels." Other intelligence officials added that the several dozen were not the two emails from the previous sample and that the clearance of the IC inspector general himself had to be upgraded before he could learn about the programs referenced by the emails.(64)(65)(66)
The numbers at the end reflect reporting sources from The New York Times, NBC News and The Washington Post. But we already know those sources are NOT adequate for you, so let's go one deeper. You won't like this one.
It's a PDF of the Inspector General's LETTER TO CONGRESS and the Faux Bots managed to get a copy of it. It says EXACTLY what the Wikipedia says it does:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/inspector-general-clinton-emails-had-intel-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html
So we know she lied because the server did have classified information on it, and it was classified at the time, and the people telling us that are not Republicans - they are the most trusted people in the country who deal with issues of national security because that is their JOB.
Does that help? Remember "Question 1" from my original post? "Is this a big deal?" The answer is YES. I don't tell lies. And you owe me an apology for implying that my knowledge of the facts of this matter was "shoddy, ill informed or outright dishonest" because I am not the one guilty of those crimes.