Washington Post asked readers to submit ideas for an editorial - here's a link if anybody is
interested in commenting and asking WaPo why they haven't reported on the fact (for example)
... that FBI director Comey, when questioned by Rep Cartwright, had to admit that NOT ONE of the Clinton emails that are purported to contain Classified Info - NOT ONE had a Classified Header on it .. as required by the governing reg/manual. Thus, Comey confirmed that Clinton did NOT LIE about not sending or receiving anything marked Classified. (BTW: WaPo allows url's to be included in reader comments)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/08/24/vote-on-the-topic-for-a-future-washington-post-editorial/?utm_term=.be8b6547d1f8#comments
here's a Daily KOS article on this:
Comey tanks key GOP talking point, admits classified materials were not 'properly marked'
MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?
JAMES COMEY: No. [...]
MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?
JAMES COMEY: Correct.
MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?
JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.
MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.
(more)
and the video:
