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.
These discussions really do get silly.. Classification is done by an EO. Everyone know what an EO is?
Everyone knows who signs an EO? Everyone know whose authority it is that allows any document or information to be classified?
So we hold the ones whose authority allows anything to be classified has no say in the matter?
Sheeesh.
What? Who gives you this information? I can literally write classified information on a sticky note, and that sticky note is now classified and must either be burned or shredded if I need to dispose of it. Stop trying to deflect responsibility for her actions, it's getting silly. How many people that actually have clearances have to tell you you're wrong before you listen?
From your source: "It would be illegal for anyone to store classified information in an unauthorized way, like, say, on an unauthorized personal email server."
Your source is over a month old and was arguing that it hasn't been proven that she sent or received classified emails...are you as confident today as you were over a month ago that there was no classified information on her server?
Again it is the derivative thing. From the NY Times article cited...
“It appears that this may still revolve around a State Department employee forwarding a published news article about the drone program,” he said. “If so, it would further reinforce how absurd it is to suggest that Secretary Clinton did anything wrong.”
This again is a State Dept employee commenting on something he may know that is highly classified but with respect to what has been published in a newspaper. If he confirms it is true or false he is providing what the spooks will consider TS or better information. However in the State Dept context it is not.
What? Who gives you this information? I can literally write classified information on a sticky note, and that sticky note is now classified and must either be burned or shredded if I need to dispose of it. Stop trying to deflect responsibility for her actions, it's getting silly. How many people that actually have clearances have to tell you you're wrong before you listen?
The authority to classify documents is much different than you think. There are in fact well stated procedures to classify information. That authority is specifically delegated by the President through the heads of Depts to various operatives. Only those people can classify. If, for instance, you work in a secure field and are setting at home and have a fabulous inspiration of something new it is not classified because you do not have the authority to do so. Now the information that provided the background leading to the new thought may well be classified...but the new idea is not. Once someone with the right authority is shown the idea it may be immediately classified. But merely thinking it up or writing it down does not do so. Again precursors that lead to the idea may well be classified...but the new idea requires an authority to do it.
Pieces of paper that you wrote on while dealing with aspects of a classified project may well be instantly classified. That is because you are using classified stuff to start. But if you had a fully independent though it would not be.
And don't kid yourself this happens and is very difficult to handle. If, for instance, an individual not working for the government or a government contractor should develop a new algorithm to bust standard encryption it is not classified. And how the government handles it may be stuff that never sees the light of day.
Again it is the derivative thing. From the NY Times article cited...
“It appears that this may still revolve around a State Department employee forwarding a published news article about the drone program,” he said. “If so, it would further reinforce how absurd it is to suggest that Secretary Clinton did anything wrong.”
This again is a State Dept employee commenting on something he may know that is highly classified but with respect to what has been published in a newspaper. If he confirms it is true or false he is providing what the spooks will consider TS or better information. However in the State Dept context it is not.
No, you are lying or misreading.
You are not quoting a state department employee on the new information, you are quoting "Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign."
"Two American intelligence officials tell NBC News these are not the same two emails from Clinton's server that have long been reported as containing information deemed Top Secret.....
Charles McCulllough (an Obama appointee), the intelligence community's inspector general, said in a letter to the chairmen of the Senate intelligence and foreign affairs committees that he has received sworn declarations from an intelligence agency he declined to name.
The declarations cover "several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET/SAP information."
An intelligence official familiar with the matter told NBC News that the special access program in question was so sensitive that McCullough and some of his aides had to receive clearance to be read in on it before viewing the sworn declaration about the Clinton emails."
I ask the liberals again, how confident are you that Hillary is telling the truth "that none of the information she sent or received while secretary of state was marked classified?"
Again it is the derivative thing. From the NY Times article cited...
“It appears that this may still revolve around a State Department employee forwarding a published news article about the drone program,” he said. “If so, it would further reinforce how absurd it is to suggest that Secretary Clinton did anything wrong.”
This again is a State Dept employee commenting on something he may know that is highly classified but with respect to what has been published in a newspaper. If he confirms it is true or false he is providing what the spooks will consider TS or better information. However in the State Dept context it is not.
Here is the thing, her spokesman is the only one claiming the TS/SAP data referred to in the Intelligence Community IG's letter was a forwarded article. Making the leap from forwarding an article to considered the content of the email to be TS/SAP is a huge leap. So, that leaves either the IC/IG being wrong, or Clinton's spokesman being wrong. Based on the the track record of Team Clinton so far on this issue, with the established history of patently false statements, deletion of emails, wiping a server, use of pseudonyms, and all other efforts to delay, subvert, and obstruct, I am considering her spokesman's comments as dubious at best.
People can blather on all day about classification authority, derivative classification, inherited classification, etc, however, some data, by it's very nature, is "born classified". Nothing changes this fact, be it the absence of classification markings, or removal of same.
No, I don't expect Obama to allow the DOJ to press charges against Hillary ? Do you ? Does anyone ?
I am unsure. There is no love between Obama and Clinton. I suspect when the administration sees the results of the FBI investigation, a decision will be made. Most likely, that decision will hinge on how much collateral damage the findings could have Obama's legacy. If the FBI determines there was significant negligence, deliberate disregard for current laws, efforts to impede the investigation, or proof of a cover up within the State Department, he would likely have no other recourse but to allow the DOJ to pursue an indictment.
Since winning congress in 1994, the Pubs have been working nonstop on trying to indict the Clintons.
So far, they have nothing but bold talk about all kinds of horrible schemes they suspect the Clintons of.
Travelgate, Vince Foster, Whitewater, Monicagate, foreign donors, Benghazi, and now emails. All with no results.
Maybe it's just me, but if they can't dig up something in 22 years, it can only mean one of two things:
1. Hill and Bill really have done all those nasty things, but they're just SO much smarter than the Pubs that they have them totally baffled. The Pubs are like small children in an adult game.
The authority to classify documents is much different than you think. There are in fact well stated procedures to classify information. That authority is specifically delegated by the President through the heads of Depts to various operatives. Only those people can classify. If, for instance, you work in a secure field and are setting at home and have a fabulous inspiration of something new it is not classified because you do not have the authority to do so. Now the information that provided the background leading to the new thought may well be classified...but the new idea is not. Once someone with the right authority is shown the idea it may be immediately classified. But merely thinking it up or writing it down does not do so. Again precursors that lead to the idea may well be classified...but the new idea requires an authority to do it.
Pieces of paper that you wrote on while dealing with aspects of a classified project may well be instantly classified. That is because you are using classified stuff to start. But if you had a fully independent though it would not be.
And don't kid yourself this happens and is very difficult to handle. If, for instance, an individual not working for the government or a government contractor should develop a new algorithm to bust standard encryption it is not classified. And how the government handles it may be stuff that never sees the light of day.
Wow. Thank you for opening my eyes!
I'm curious...who do you work for? CIA? Pentagon? NGA? Any similar agency?
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.
gain it
