E-mail 'scandal' spreads- Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice

Continued investigation has uncovered that Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have done much same thing as Hillary Clinton-

Namely, sent no classified e-mails, and received none, but received e-mails that were at the time unclassified but become so after the fact! Different servers, but still passing around future-to-be-classified stuff in e-mail.

Which, in truth, should be a non-story, but you know how it goes. Mountains out of molehills, not only is nothing likely to come from it, it's not like anything should come from it.

In all the cases, however -- as well as Clinton's -- the information was not marked "classified" at the time the emails were sent, according to State Department investigators.

Powell noted that point in a statement on Thursday.

"The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't," Powell said. "If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."

Trolling TI thread then yeah?

Originally posted by jaden101
Trolling TI thread then yeah?

Well, he's not the only one who follows the non-scandal.

Really, I can't wait for the news to shut up about it. We still got zero data breaches, and now it's revealed to be bi-partisan, so that should hopefully cut into the political hackery on the subject.

Wasn't Hillary cleared of wrongdoing a few days ago?

Originally posted by Q99
Well, he's not the only one who follows the non-scandal.

Really, I can't wait for the news to shut up about it. We still got zero data breaches, and now it's revealed to be bi-partisan, so that should hopefully cut into the political hackery on the subject.

Maybe except one of the other things thats flogged hillary in this debacle is that she used her own server. Thats not something either Powell or Rice has done.

However I'm an equal opportunity type of guy. If they did anything to break the law, prosecute them.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Maybe except one of the other things thats flogged hillary in this debacle is that she used her own server. Thats not something either Powell or Rice has done.

Sure, but that doesn't really matter much if there was nothing classified sent.

However I'm an equal opportunity type of guy. If they did anything to break the law, prosecute them.

That's the real thing: None of them have broken the law.

Unless we want the law to be really stupid and start throwing generals and *multiple* secretaries of state in jail for not knowing whether something *will* become classified in the future.

Originally posted by Q99
Sure, but that doesn't really matter much if there was nothing classified sent.

Here is a an article from reuters that would make things easier to digest in regards to information Hillary had:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...or-should-know/

With the last release and the top secret information realize this. That is the highest classification of information our govt uses. There is no way what so ever that said information was not sensitive prior to that label.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class...e_United_States

Fully explains all the levels of classification and the type of information in each.

The only thing more hillarious about this particular incident is the support she still receives.

That's the real thing: None of them have broken the law.

Unless we want the law to be really stupid and start throwing generals and *multiple* secretaries of state in jail for not knowing whether something *will* become classified in the future.

I said IF they did. Also its been shown time and again Hillary supporters don't care about this email debacle. You are clearly a Hillary fan, hence no matter what I provided to you it doesn't matter you justify past facts.

Hillary is the only SoS to date that had her own server, realistically all she had to do was have all her emails forwarded (totally automated.) It would have taken an adiministrator less then a minute to create that function. Then all of her emails would have been backed up.

The reality is the "classified in the future" is simply a red herring for Hillary. Since literally ALL 60k (not all those are work but we'll never know) were sent to her private server. She even had labels taken off (in her own words in an email) to make sure it wouldnt cause problems.

Bernie is coming on strong and one of the HUGE reasons is Hillary was deceptive with her emails and blamed dumb about it.

I'd like to point out that, from the beginning, I've stated that this shady and dishonest bullshit is not isolated to just Hillary.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, please, enough with the apologetic bullshit regarding Hilary's dishonesty. Let's also not pretend that Hilary is the only person to be a slimey, shadey, lying, politician, who purposefully leaked and/or mishandled government information.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why was she even allowed a personal e-mail server to conduct State business? Can you explain that?

I mean, the reason is obvious...so she could do things that would be illegal for any other person. It's one of those..."everyone else has to follow the law but not special politician x" situations. Like I said, Hilary is not the only one like that..

I could have sworn I posted somewhere else that any person who does this should be barred from ever being able to hold a public office for the rest of their life. 😐

Dishonest and slimey practices are not limited to the Democratic party (that much should be obvious).

Originally posted by snowdragon

I said IF they did. Also its been shown time and again Hillary supporters don't care about this email debacle. You are clearly a Hillary fan, hence no matter what I provided to you it doesn't matter you justify past facts.

Now that doesn't follow.

'Being a Hillary fan' doesn't translate into ignoring evidence- and by that logic, anything you provided could be disregarded because you don't like her.

"You can't provide evidence for someone unless you're against them, you can't provide evidence against them unless they're for them," is ultimately a very pointless standard to hold to- especially for people who have not shown a history of disregarding evidence.

It's convenient to assume bias (factual bias, not just what side they prefer) of everyone who disagrees with you, but it's not the same as proving factual bias, and ultimately leads to no-one being able to prove anything.

With the last release and the top secret information realize this. That is the highest classification of information our govt uses. There is no way what so ever that said information was not sensitive prior to that label.

It is your opinion that is the case, but even so, the actual investigators have yet to say that is the case and the factual information released so far does seem to solidly indicate that it was not classified at the time.

The only thing more hillarious about this particular incident is the support she still receives.

But, the thing is, you're still relying on your assumption of what will happen, not what has actually happened or been released by investigators.

Assuming evidence that proves your point will be released is not the same as having said evidence- and also points out a problem with your 'don't accept argument from defenders,' thing, namely, most defenders are saying the situation as it currently is, and you're still talking about the situation as you think it will develop.

Remember, the Department of Justice already went over things and declared they don't care. So those saying it's not anything important aren't simply holding their hands over their ears, they're looking what the actual Department of Justice has already said.

Let's also draw attention to something else going on, here:

Hillary and her staffers deleted the shit out of her activities. On purpose.

Let's look at these other two:

"Based on the department's responses and findings to date, additional potential classified material and/or highly sensitive information not intended for distribution may reside in the Department's unclassified paper and electronic archives associated with Secretaries Powell and Rice and their respective staff...

Additionally, Powell said he never kept the emails in his possession when he left the State Department. Unlike Clinton, Powell's emails remained in government computer servers.

Hmm...something seems odd. Their e-mail history, while they were serving as Secretary of State, is archived and review-able? Where's Hillary's archives? Oh, right, she had it deleted.

I'd say that Powell and Rice's situation is a level 2 or 3. Hillary's is a level 9 (out of 10).

IMAO, this "news" article is just to take pressure of the bullshit Hillary did. It is a distraction tactic. It is not honest. And it is not a good parallel to Hillary's situation, either. If Powell or Rice deleted tons and tons of e-mails in a very suspicious fashion while attempting to run for public office, their asses would be held to the fire, too...probably 10x more so because the Libtards in America go apeshit over this stuff.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd like to point out that, from the beginning, I've stated that this shady and dishonest bullshit is not isolated to just Hillary.

I could have sworn I posted somewhere else that any person who does this should be barred from ever being able to hold a public office for the rest of their life. 😐

Dishonest and slimey practices are not limited to the Democratic party (that much should be obvious).

Personally, I don't think it's dishonest or slimey- and Colin Powell especially has been a stand-up guy for most of his career.

This is still information being passed between cleared personal who have a reason to have that information, information that at-the-time is cleared to be passed, only risen to 'don't send via e-mail' level later.

Oh, and in all cases, even *that* information is generally going to, not coming from, the important persons in question.

In the end, in all cases, there was no leak, and rules have changed since then.

Who's being deceived? Who's being hurt? What's leaked? Why should we care if Colin Powell got information-that-will-be-classified-years-later via e-mail using a method he and current people no longer use? Why should we care if Hillary did?

Why's this a 3 with these two and a 9 with Hillary if there's no damage to anyone? What's a 10, if a 9 still involves no information leaking or any uncleared personal coming into contact with classified information?

Isn't that just a '1 to 10 on a scale of scandals that still involve no damage or broken laws or, in fact, anyone being mislead'? Because I'd think anything involving damage or information broken or something that's actually illegal? still outranks the lot of 'em.

Originally posted by Q99
Now that doesn't follow.

'Being a Hillary fan' doesn't translate into ignoring evidence- and by that logic, anything you provided could be disregarded because you don't like her.

Except I didn't write those articles, you can choose to disregard (you already have) because you simply want her to get elected and are naive apparently in regards to email servers and circumventing systems to prevent her emails being captured and stored.

But, the thing is, you're still relying on your assumption of what will happen, not what has actually happened or been released by investigators.

I look at a chain of events and communication that occurs and then build up to a judgement, it is assumptive however that doesn't make it incorrect. Which is really no different then making assumptions about the type of president she would be based on what she is presenting now.................

Hillary hid her email server then lied about.

She wiped her server and even gave said contents to her attorney on a thumbdrive to hold.

During her time as SoS her foundation more then thrived it was immensely prosperous and she ran her money through canada to protect it (and look she hid emails and her server too) nothing suspicious to see here.

Like I said this email bit means very little to hillary supporters (ie you.) Just let the FBI do their work, since they have been doing this for awhile now.

Assuming evidence that proves your point will be released is not the same as having said evidence- and also points out a problem with your 'don't accept argument from defenders,' thing, namely, most defenders are saying the situation as it currently is, and you're still talking about the situation as you think it will develop.

I simply took the time to educate you on what others have done with top secret clearance(reuters article) and gave you the link to understand the types of clearance and the information involved.

I highlighted up above the big points for me, she lied about something that realistically didn't need to be covered up if there was nothing to hide. The only reason to use a private server and circumvent the govt email is to hide information and to control whats released.

Remember, the Department of Justice already went over things and declared they don't care. So those saying it's not anything important aren't simply holding their hands over their ears, they're looking what the actual Department of Justice has already said. [/B]

I've never read that article nor have you shared it with me when I've asked.

At the end of the day you don't care about this issue other then to defend Hillary who has shown a serious character flaw and judgement.

Or to put it another way, comparing me vs Dadudemon, I take a much more pragmatic view-

"Did anything bad happen? Was anything bad *likely* to happen? If no, then friend or foe, I don't care that much."

(View also my opinion on Cruz's Canadian birth stuff- Is there any harm in allowing him? No? Then I don't care, he can run just fine, and oppose trying to press him on a technicality which may-or-may-not exist.)

Thus, on my scale, Hillary's like, a 2, and Colin and Rice are like a 1.

Dadudemon (and sorry if I get stuff wrong, this is admittedly speculation, just an impression) has more of an opinion on what he'd like the activity to be like, and if someone doesn't fit his image of a properly security-minded high ranking person, even when it doesn't actually involve a leak or breaking the rules-of-the-time, he holds it against it more. And the thing is, there's nothing wrong with that image and wanting people to follow it! I'd admit it's a plus, I just don't find it as important as what they do policy and decision wise.

Does that sound accurate/fair?

So once again it seems it boils down to: it's not so bad, other politicians are shady too. Just like hey..at least Hilary lies less then the other guys. It'd sure be something if she didn't lie at all, but we take what we can get.

If there was legit wrong doing, go after these people as well. If there wasn't? Then meh.

Nobody has ever painted Hilary as the first politician to lie or be shady or be a flip flopper. She is all of those things, but yes definitely not the first.

Originally posted by Surtur
So once again it seems it boils down to: it's not so bad, other politicians are shady too. Just like hey..at least Hilary lies less then the other guys. It'd sure be something if she didn't lie at all, but we take what we can get.

If there was legit wrong doing, go after these people as well. If there wasn't? Then meh.

Nobody has ever painted Hilary as the first politician to lie or be shady or be a flip flopper. She is all of those things, but yes definitely not the first.

Pretty much my thoughts, yea.

Originally posted by jaden101
Trolling TI thread then yeah?

What the baiter forgot to mention was there was a law change after Rice and Powell that made what they did legal and what Hilary did illegal.

Originally posted by Q99
Really, I can't wait for the news to shut up about it.

The general public never really gave a shit about "emailgate" to begin with. Now that she's been cleared in the various investigations on the matter, the chances of it ever becoming front-line news again strikes me as being fairly low.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
It's not even really news anymore. News entities still toss out the occasional article on it, sure, but those articles really aren't anything other than just click-bait for their republican demographics.

The general public never really gave a shit about "emailgate" to begin with. Now that she's been cleared in the various investigations on the matter, the chances of it ever becoming front-line news again strikes me as being fairly low.

And of course, the 24 hour news channels automatically cover it (how I noticed it).

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What the baiter forgot to mention was there was a law change after Rice and Powell that made what they did legal and what Hilary did illegal.

Dodging Dodger Q9..