3 ms·

I apparently used the wrong word in my comment (Clasified vs Confidential), but regardless, she claimed that she didn't know what it meant. I'm not the former

I apparently used the wrong word in my comment (Clasified vs Confidential), but regardless, she claimed that she didn't know what it meant. I'm not the former Secretary of State, so my gaff is understandable. Hillary Clinton, however, is the former Secretary of State, and undoubtedly received extensive training in these matters. That means she either lied or has some kind of mental defect that made her unable to remember some of the most critical training that she received during her tenure. Either of those are disqualifiers for the Presidency in my opinion.

dragonwriter 10y ago
No, she said she didn't know what it was intended to mean in the email in question, which had neither classification banners nor a portion marker on the subject line. It's perfectly reasonable to not know that a lone parenthetical letter at the start of a paragraph in an email that is not itself marked as classified is intended as a classification portion marker. Because parenthetical letters have many uses in general written communication, and there special use as portion markers is specific to documents that are classified as a whole, which there are standard ways of marking.
- downandout 10y ago
  Once again, we are talking about the former Secretary of State and government emails. In that context, it is not reasonable for her to claim that she wouldn't have applied her intimate knowledge of the indicators of classified/confidential materials to the email in question. We won't agree on this, at least until after the election when perhaps many Clinton supporters like yourself will be free to acknowledge simple, unassailable facts about your candidate.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Most government emails are not classified. Outside of a classified context, parenthetical letters have the full take off uses they have in general English communication, especially the use that Clinton suggested was the only one that came to mind in the context of the email in question. Without any of the indications that should have been present indicating that the email itself was classified, there's little radon to think a stay parenthetical (C) is intended as a portion marker. Clinton didn't say she didn't know what (C) meant as a portion marker (which would be worthy of mockery) , she said she didn't know that the (C) in an email lacking any indication that it was a classified document was intended to have the special meaning that (C) has within a classified document.
    - downandout 10y ago
      >Most government emails are not classified. I would guess that a significant percentage of State Department emails to and from the Secretary of State are at least confidential. Again, we won't agree on this until after the election when Clinton supporters like yourself are able to undertake an honest assessment of their new President without Trump in the picture. She lied, she will very likely continue lying, and given the history of the Clinton family, the odds are overwhelmingly high that this will be far from the most significant scandal overshadowing her candidacy/Presidency.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > I would guess that a significant percentage of State Department emails to and from the Secretary of State are at least confidential Probably, so? The fact that it's a mixed environment means that it's a code switching situation, which means that the indicators that a particular context is in play are critical. There's a reason that classified documents have banners (and though it's not the purpose of portion marking email subject lines to serve as a "this document is classified" flag, it probably in practice schedule at least as useful as a code switching trigger as proper banners. > Again, we won't agree on this until after the election when Clinton supporters like yourself are able to undertake an honest assessment of their new President We won't agree on this question even then. I mean, my position on the emails in general or this particular point hasn't changed since I was a vociferous opponent of Clinton in the primary, I don't see why it would even if I became entirely disenchanted with her performance in office. I suspect you're projecting from the fact that your reaction is based on your prefered electoral outcome to assume the same must be true of anyone who disagrees with you as well.
        downandout 10y ago
        I would prefer that neither of them win. Certainly we can do better than this.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]

dragonwriter 10y ago

No, she said she didn't know what it was intended to mean in the email in question, which had neither classification banners nor a portion marker on the subject line. It's perfectly reasonable to not know that a lone parenthetical letter at the start of a paragraph in an email that is not itself marked as classified is intended as a classification portion marker. Because parenthetical letters have many uses in general written communication, and there special use as portion markers is specific to documents that are classified as a whole, which there are standard ways of marking.

downandout 10y ago
Once again, we are talking about the former Secretary of State and government emails. In that context, it is not reasonable for her to claim that she wouldn't have applied her intimate knowledge of the indicators of classified/confidential materials to the email in question. We won't agree on this, at least until after the election when perhaps many Clinton supporters like yourself will be free to acknowledge simple, unassailable facts about your candidate.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Most government emails are not classified. Outside of a classified context, parenthetical letters have the full take off uses they have in general English communication, especially the use that Clinton suggested was the only one that came to mind in the context of the email in question. Without any of the indications that should have been present indicating that the email itself was classified, there's little radon to think a stay parenthetical (C) is intended as a portion marker. Clinton didn't say she didn't know what (C) meant as a portion marker (which would be worthy of mockery) , she said she didn't know that the (C) in an email lacking any indication that it was a classified document was intended to have the special meaning that (C) has within a classified document.
  - downandout 10y ago
    >Most government emails are not classified. I would guess that a significant percentage of State Department emails to and from the Secretary of State are at least confidential. Again, we won't agree on this until after the election when Clinton supporters like yourself are able to undertake an honest assessment of their new President without Trump in the picture. She lied, she will very likely continue lying, and given the history of the Clinton family, the odds are overwhelmingly high that this will be far from the most significant scandal overshadowing her candidacy/Presidency.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > I would guess that a significant percentage of State Department emails to and from the Secretary of State are at least confidential Probably, so? The fact that it's a mixed environment means that it's a code switching situation, which means that the indicators that a particular context is in play are critical. There's a reason that classified documents have banners (and though it's not the purpose of portion marking email subject lines to serve as a "this document is classified" flag, it probably in practice schedule at least as useful as a code switching trigger as proper banners. > Again, we won't agree on this until after the election when Clinton supporters like yourself are able to undertake an honest assessment of their new President We won't agree on this question even then. I mean, my position on the emails in general or this particular point hasn't changed since I was a vociferous opponent of Clinton in the primary, I don't see why it would even if I became entirely disenchanted with her performance in office. I suspect you're projecting from the fact that your reaction is based on your prefered electoral outcome to assume the same must be true of anyone who disagrees with you as well.
      - downandout 10y ago
        I would prefer that neither of them win. Certainly we can do better than this.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]