Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would assume that any incoming cabinet level member that might encounter classified information would at least be given a copy of "Keeping Secrets for Dummies", and made to attest they read it cover to cover.
Hecks, no. A department secretary might come right out of academia or big business. There certainly is no "made to attest they read" anything. There is only nomination and Senate confirmation. Believe it or not, being careful of classified information is not the major thing on any department secretary's agenda.
Quote:
As to your second point, if something is worthy of being classified by those in the know, yet Hillary decides it does not meet such a classification, does that mean it is not worthy to be classified?
Yes. That is the extent of a department secretary's authority.
Quote:
Heck by that definition, her comment that she never sent anything classified might be correct, if to no one else, but her.
However I do not believe the American public is stupid enough to buy into the old saying of "if a tree falls in the forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound".
In some cases there are certainly judgment calls, but to think someone not schooled in what should be considered classified is then appointed to a position to where their lack of knowledge/judgment is all that matters, then why even have those designations.
`
I don't know what kind of "schooling" in basic matters you think a department secretary gets, but it doesn't happen.
The OCA decides what "damage to the nation" means. If an OCA decides to declassify something, for sure his staff will given him the pros and cons...and then the secretary will do what he wants to do.
There was quite a bit of information released during my years in the business that, if I'd had a vote, would never have seen the light of day.
But the secretary did not call for a vote of the minions, it was released anyway, and well, dang, the nation still stands. But there was one thing that did cause some red faces in 1998, when a couple of Third World nations pulled a stunt that we would have known about...if our methods had not been compromised to them by the State Department in 1995.
For that matter, if it had been up to me nobody would know yet why the world hasn't heard from Osama bin Laden lately.
It is mildly funny. I in fact heard it told elsewhere a couple of weeks ago. It hits a raw nerve only on the extreme right.
Those who will vote for Hillary are a large and varied crew. They will not in general pay much attention to the whole email thing...in general it will be passed off as more right wing political noise not a serious problem.
At this point I am not even completely sure who the Dem will be though I think Hillary is way out in front.
And if the right continues as it is going not only do we get Hillary but likely a Dem Senate. So continue the good work
Clearly you are a hopeless koolaid drinker even though you admit you would treat someone on the (R) side with more scrutiny. So at least you have a little integrity despite your partisan brainwashing.
Frankly the continued parroting of her lies should be getting old for her apologists. It started even before she gave the press conference. But all her apologist went into full defense mode trying to rationalize her excuses. Then when one after another fell to scrutiny, the same groups just parrots on hoping to stop the bleeding.
Unlike Jon Stewart though, you'll are not intellectually honest enough to say "can you ever not disappoint us" as Stewart said in one of his skits to Nancy Pelosi when she was caught in a bold faced lie.
So keep drinking the koolaid, and maybe after she drops out, loses or leaves office you will be honest enough to admit your partisan zealotry trumps everything when it came to her obvious lies and deception.
`
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
Hecks, no. A department secretary might come right out of academia or big business. There certainly is no "made to attest they read" anything. There is only nomination and Senate confirmation. Believe it or not, being careful of classified information is not the major thing on any department secretary's agenda.
Yes. That is the extent of a department secretary's authority.
I don't know what kind of "schooling" in basic matters you think a department secretary gets, but it doesn't happen.
The OCA decides what "damage to the nation" means. If an OCA decides to declassify something, for sure his staff will given him the pros and cons...and then the secretary will do what he wants to do.
There was quite a bit of information released during my years in the business that, if I'd had a vote, would never have seen the light of day.
But the secretary did not call for a vote of the minions, it was released anyway, and well, dang, the nation still stands. But there was one thing that did cause some red faces in 1998, when a couple of Third World nations pulled a stunt that we would have known about...if our methods had not been compromised to them by the State Department in 1995.
For that matter, if it had been up to me nobody would know yet why the world hasn't heard from Osama bin Laden lately.
Well taking Hillary out of the picture for the moment, don't you think this should be a wakeup call to everyone how cavalierly we treat government classified info and those with whom we trust to know what should be classified?
I don't think the average person has any clue, and assumes measures are taken to insure our secrets are safe.
Making people that high up go throw a security 101 course should be mandatory, much less those who will actually decide what is classified and what isn't.
Wow, truly amazes me how if this were your average joe they'd be in prison for decades faster than a new york minute yet because she has money, influence, being the wife of an ex president and being a woman she is very likely to get off scot free! There is no justice in this world!
I sure wish I was rich, a politician and had friends in the highest of places, then I could steal loads of money from people and cover up information that got people killed and never have to worry about being caught!
And who will vote for her? Stupid voters elected Obama to two terms in office. Unless the Republicans can put up a really great candidate Hillary will be the next POTUS. I just hope Bernie Sanders can be savvy enough to make it as the Democrats choice but I don't see that happening. I totally disagree with Sanders on most all issues but I think he is an honorable Man and will do what he thinks is best for the country and is not so arrogant to NOT correct a policy that he knows is bad.
Clearly you are a hopeless koolaid drinker even though you admit you would treat someone on the (R) side with more scrutiny. So at least you have a little integrity despite your partisan brainwashing.
Frankly the continued parroting of her lies should be getting old for her apologists. It started even before she gave the press conference. But all her apologist went into full defense mode trying to rationalize her excuses. Then when one after another fell to scrutiny, the same groups just parrots on hoping to stop the bleeding.
Unlike Jon Stewart though, you'll are not intellectually honest enough to say "can you ever not disappoint us" as Stewart said in one of his skits to Nancy Pelosi when she was caught in a bold faced lie.
So keep drinking the koolaid, and maybe after she drops out, loses or leaves office you will be honest enough to admit your partisan zealotry trumps everything when it came to her obvious lies and deception.
`
Well taking Hillary out of the picture for the moment, don't you think this should be a wakeup call to everyone how cavalierly we treat government classified info and those with whom we trust to know what should be classified?
I don't think the average person has any clue, and assumes measures are taken to insure our secrets are safe.
Making people that high up go throw a security 101 course should be mandatory, much less those who will actually decide what is classified and what isn't.
`
You are just whaling away at that dead horse. You have no refutation for the fact that Hillary was simply doing her job with the rights of the position.
And no we do not want to change how security works. Security guys by their nature are quite untrustworthy in matters requiring judgement and tradeoff. Leave them in charges and in 4 years you would have a government completely opaque...not a streak of transparency left. Security guys are brain washed by the system into a belief that everything must be secret. Thast is actually a good thing...but not if you let them get in charge.
Well taking Hillary out of the picture for the moment, don't you think this should be a wakeup call to everyone how cavalierly we treat government classified info and those with whom we trust to know what should be classified?
I don't think the average person has any clue, and assumes measures are taken to insure our secrets are safe.
Making people that high up go throw a security 101 course should be mandatory, much less those who will actually decide what is classified and what isn't.
Snowden should have been a "wake up call."
I don't know what you think "security 101" ought to be for policymakers. I assure you, there is no such course. Security for senior policymakers is kind of like traffic lights for EMT personnel--smart guidelines set up for very good reasons in most cases, but only guidelines. As I said before, they will have staffers explain pros and cons and then do what they think they need to do.
I learned pretty early as a military intelligence wienie that commanders fight wars and that I was support; when a combat commander has a need to fight his war, I make it possible, I don't say "No." I'll tell him why I think it's problematical, but I don't say, "No."
There should never be any security wonks in any department able to tell a department secretary, "No."
"What is classified" is a matter of what the senior policymaker thinks is helpful or damaging to the nation. He defines "damage" and "serious damage" and "grave damage." That's not for security wonks to decide. Their job is to protect it appropriately after the senior policymaker has made his decision.
Unless you find the lost billing records on a table in the third floor of the WH ... then it's called TOTAL INNOCENCE.
El Nox
Actually, although I'm no legal expert, I believe that your example would be considered to be more or less circumstantial evidence, and therefore not particularly conclusive.
C'mon folks, any politician is a step away from going to prison. For example, Michael Grimm, Denis Hastert, Larry Craig, Trey Radel, Rick Renzi, Duke Cunningham . . . you get the point.
Besides, no one needs to watch a news station to know that Hillary is corrupt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, she was wearing an orange suit...