> There was no classified information on Clinton's server.
This is absolutely false, or as the kids call it, "misinformation".
A 3 second Google search confirms:
100 emails contained information that should have been deemed classified at the time they were sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails were retroactively designated confidential by the State Department.
The whole issue with her emails is she purposely never labeled anything so as to have plausible deniability.
Nah, the whole outrage with her emails was performative outrage and hypocrisy. And no, they were not nearly comparable to what happened here nor to what DOGE does. Nor to what Trump did in the past.
"But here emails" was just republicans doing what they always do and pretending to be angry over mild stuff while giving own people pass over big stuff.
Not claiming that it is comparable, nor am I upset by it, but, one oughtn’t claim that there was nothing confidential there if there was, in fact, confidential stuff in there. I don’t care if this makes it easier for other people to make a narrative. If someone makes a false claim in these kinds of discussions, the false claim should be corrected.
The fact that nobody on the thread spoke up and said "we shouldn't be talking about this on Signal" worries me greatly.
One possible explanation is that it happens all the time.
I think that's the point.
Signal prevents what should be official government communications from being recorded. If it's recorded it can be investigated.
It likely does, this is one avenue they can converse without Elon or Trump interjecting
> There was no classified information on Clinton's server.
This is absolutely false, or as the kids call it, "misinformation".
A 3 second Google search confirms:
100 emails contained information that should have been deemed classified at the time they were sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails were retroactively designated confidential by the State Department.
The whole issue with her emails is she purposely never labeled anything so as to have plausible deniability.
Nah, the whole outrage with her emails was performative outrage and hypocrisy. And no, they were not nearly comparable to what happened here nor to what DOGE does. Nor to what Trump did in the past.
"But here emails" was just republicans doing what they always do and pretending to be angry over mild stuff while giving own people pass over big stuff.
Not claiming that it is comparable, nor am I upset by it, but, one oughtn’t claim that there was nothing confidential there if there was, in fact, confidential stuff in there. I don’t care if this makes it easier for other people to make a narrative. If someone makes a false claim in these kinds of discussions, the false claim should be corrected.
3 replies →
It is significantly more severe than the diplomatic cables and the other leaks that Assange and Manning each did a decade for.