OK, let's finally explain what a classified document looks like.

[rdean]

Anyone who has been sent a hundred page report may not have read every single page from top to bottom.

I don't know how many people are senior principals in organizations having tens of thousands of employees. I do know that anyone who is or has been is well aware of the volume of emails that come one's way and that one never reads, or never reads in their entirety. In my own case, the various partners who work for me include me on all sorts of email chains for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:

• Because I need to know what's being discussed.
• Because they want a response from me about something having to do with the topic.
• So that I have a copy of what they are discussing with someone else in case at some point prior to the matter being resolved they need to discuss it with me.
• To "cover their asses."

Out of all the emails that come my way, the only one's for which I'm aware of the entirety of the "back and forth" are the ones that come from my bosses or clients, the ones I initiated, and the ones on which my subordinates note in the subject line "RRPRC" or "RRPRF" (response requested, please read - Client-related; response requested, please read - Firm-related). That's just for the stuff that comes into my inbox that is given only to my superiors and people whom I want to have it. There's also the email that comes to my firm-publicized email address. I don't read any of that email unless my assistant calls it to my attention as being something I need to read.

I get about 500-600 emails a day between both my firm email accounts and I read or peruse about 50 to 100 of them. I can't begin to image the quantity of emails that a government department secretary receives and I have no way to speculate with any credibility on how many or few s/he may actually look at, let alone look at in their entirety (especially those that are part of a chain).

The thread is about classified emails, not about the volume of emails a manager or high ranking official might see in a day.

How do you know? 50,000 emails is an awful lot. I suspect many are long reports that only members of the staff actually read.

Then there were all the communications on the encrypted system. Who knows how much that is?

 

[OKTexas]

Notice the "SECRET" in red at the top and the bottom. In classified documentation, there are typically three markings:
(TS) Top Secret

(S) Secret

(C) Confidential

(U) Unclassified

Notice I said three. (U) is rarely used. If the document doesn't have the "TOP SECRET", "SECRET" or "CONFIDENTIAL" marking at the top and the bottom, it is typically understood to be (U) Unclassified.
And if portions of the document are SECRET, then the document is considered to be SECRET even if there are CONFIDENTIAL and Unclassified material within the document. (C) is always "Confidential", not "classified". You may get a folder that says classified on the jacket, but on the document itself, C always means confidential.

There is some material occasionally labeled "Sensitive", but that could be anything from the name of something classified or something slightly embarrassing.

Why the different classifications? You can go look that up on your own.

If you have a TOP SECRET clearance, can you look at every classified document under that level? The answer is yes and no. Legally, you are qualified to look at all classified material with a rating less than what you have been granted, but they also have something called "A Need to Know".

So what is the difference:

Confidential - damage to national security. (on the level of "embarrassing")

Secret - serious damage to National Security. (on the level of "very embarrassing enough to affect relationships" to "a distant risk to lives")

Top Secret - GRAVE damage to National Security. (immediate threat to safety and lives)

Is the process the same for getting the three different levels of classification? No.

I was in S2 at the Battalion level. The unit was nuclear capable, so there were a couple of Top Secret's within the Battalion, but only a couple.

A Confidential clearance is handled at the Battalion level. A check of the person's 201 file and a review of their records and a check of their citizenship is enough. The Clearance is granted by the S2 Officer and Battery Captain.

To obtain a secret clearance, you have to start off with multiple copies of:

DD 398 a Statement of Personal History:

Loading...

DD 1584 Check Request:

A fingerprint card.

And a couple of other minor forms that have been so long ago, I've forgotten what they are. Then the investigation is approved at the Division and sent by them to the FBI and/or CIA.

Receiving the clearance itself once the investigation is complete.

Like I said, Confidential is approved at the Battalion level.

But Secret has to be approved by one level higher. In this case, at the Division level.

The Top Secret were approved and assigned to the Battalion from before, so I never handled the paperwork for that classification.

Now, if you are working at the State Department and you are Secretary of State or a high official, you may or may not have two systems. One will be for classified material. Encrypted and sent over secure lines. Or, you can have regular email, or not. It's not a requirement. You can always use a telephone or have an aid send a message. But these days, most people have email.

Now in Hillary's case and in Colin Powell's case, they had both. She had a private server and he had an AOL account. The private server can be more secure than the AOL account, since AOL is so public.

It has been said some Hillary emails contained classified material. But none of the documents had the TS, S or C stamps at the top and the bottom of the document. We can assume if she received some classified material, then we can assume so did Colin and Condi. But neither Colin nor Condi turned over a single email even though both were requested. But for some reason, unknown to us, the GOP never followed up and just let the matter go for Colin and Condi.

The GOP head of the FBI said only three of the documents had any classified markings. And that was a (C) for Confidential. The lowest level of classification. I've seen documents also marked "C" or just a plain C. But the requirement is supposed to be (C). We don't know what it was in this case. According to the FBI, the documents with classified material were sent TO Hillary. She didn't forward any of those documents to anyone else. And none of the documents had the required markings at the top or bottom of the page. Anyone who has been sent a hundred page report may not have read every single page from top to bottom.

Anyway, that's how classifications work and how Classified documents look. And if I'm wrong, please correct me. I haven't worked in S2 for 40 years.

Well you forgot at least two.

Top Secret SAP (special access programs)
and FOUO (for official use only)

Like I said, I never worked Top secret.
And "Official use only" isn't classified. It generally refers to a "form" and they are just telling you to not waste the form. Don't use it for note paper or something similar.

----------------

(SAP) which are phrases used by media. It is not truly "above" Top Secret, since there is no civilian clearance higher than Top Secret.

List of U.S. security clearance terms - Wikipedia

Perhaps I should write to Wikipedia to correct them. They give basically the same definition to Secret and Top Secret.. But "grave" is part of the definition of Top Secret for anyone who actually attended a security class. A requirement to work in S2.

Actually no, FOUO it's also a classification on rosters or list, that contain personal or semi-sensitive information intended for internal use, that are not for release to the public. A company personnel or alert roster is a good example.

I believe you. I was in the Service in the 70's. I think the Internet showed up some years later.

Political misquotes: The 10 most famous things never actually said

Everybody knows that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. But like many things that everyone knows, it's not actually true.

-----------------

Oops, sorry, I thought you said "Internet" use.

Actually I initially entered the Army in 1969 till 1972. I went back in to the reserves in 1981 and went back on active duty in Oct, 1982. I retired in 1 Sep, 2000. And yes, we had typewriters, but we also had computers, with internet, printers and everything.

 

[320 Years of History]

Anyone who has been sent a hundred page report may not have read every single page from top to bottom.

I don't know how many people are senior principals in organizations having tens of thousands of employees. I do know that anyone who is or has been is well aware of the volume of emails that come one's way and that one never reads, or never reads in their entirety. In my own case, the various partners who work for me include me on all sorts of email chains for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:

• Because I need to know what's being discussed.
• Because they want a response from me about something having to do with the topic.
• So that I have a copy of what they are discussing with someone else in case at some point prior to the matter being resolved they need to discuss it with me.
• To "cover their asses."

Out of all the emails that come my way, the only one's for which I'm aware of the entirety of the "back and forth" are the ones that come from my bosses or clients, the ones I initiated, and the ones on which my subordinates note in the subject line "RRPRC" or "RRPRF" (response requested, please read - Client-related; response requested, please read - Firm-related). That's just for the stuff that comes into my inbox that is given only to my superiors and people whom I want to have it. There's also the email that comes to my firm-publicized email address. I don't read any of that email unless my assistant calls it to my attention as being something I need to read.

I get about 500-600 emails a day between both my firm email accounts and I read or peruse about 50 to 100 of them. I can't begin to image the quantity of emails that a government department secretary receives and I have no way to speculate with any credibility on how many or few s/he may actually look at, let alone look at in their entirety (especially those that are part of a chain).

The thread is about classified emails, not about the volume of emails a manager or high ranking official might see in a day.

How do you know? 50,000 emails is an awful lot. I suspect many are long reports that only members of the staff actually read.

Then there were all the communications on the encrypted system. Who knows how much that is?

That was very kind of you to respond to him. Truly, I determined that since the other member could not or would not "connect the dots" between the nature and extent of emails senior executives receive and the intent aspect that the SCOTUS has said must be present to be criminally guilty of a 793(f) violation, I didn't care to keep up the conversation.

It's one thing to "connect the dots," accept the connection exists and is legit and germane, and then proceed to make a case for why one believes the strength of the connection to the topic at hand is insufficient or inapplicable. That I can understand; it's what attorneys do every day in court and in the briefs they file. It's wholly another of any number of things to simply not "connect" them (ignore the presence of related "dots," if you will) or to deny that they even can be connected.

 

[OKTexas]

Notice the "SECRET" in red at the top and the bottom. In classified documentation, there are typically three markings:
(TS) Top Secret

(S) Secret

(C) Confidential

(U) Unclassified

Notice I said three. (U) is rarely used. If the document doesn't have the "TOP SECRET", "SECRET" or "CONFIDENTIAL" marking at the top and the bottom, it is typically understood to be (U) Unclassified.
And if portions of the document are SECRET, then the document is considered to be SECRET even if there are CONFIDENTIAL and Unclassified material within the document. (C) is always "Confidential", not "classified". You may get a folder that says classified on the jacket, but on the document itself, C always means confidential.

There is some material occasionally labeled "Sensitive", but that could be anything from the name of something classified or something slightly embarrassing.

Why the different classifications? You can go look that up on your own.

If you have a TOP SECRET clearance, can you look at every classified document under that level? The answer is yes and no. Legally, you are qualified to look at all classified material with a rating less than what you have been granted, but they also have something called "A Need to Know".

So what is the difference:

Confidential - damage to national security. (on the level of "embarrassing")

Secret - serious damage to National Security. (on the level of "very embarrassing enough to affect relationships" to "a distant risk to lives")

Top Secret - GRAVE damage to National Security. (immediate threat to safety and lives)

Is the process the same for getting the three different levels of classification? No.

I was in S2 at the Battalion level. The unit was nuclear capable, so there were a couple of Top Secret's within the Battalion, but only a couple.

A Confidential clearance is handled at the Battalion level. A check of the person's 201 file and a review of their records and a check of their citizenship is enough. The Clearance is granted by the S2 Officer and Battery Captain.

To obtain a secret clearance, you have to start off with multiple copies of:

DD 398 a Statement of Personal History:

Loading...

DD 1584 Check Request:

A fingerprint card.

And a couple of other minor forms that have been so long ago, I've forgotten what they are. Then the investigation is approved at the Division and sent by them to the FBI and/or CIA.

Receiving the clearance itself once the investigation is complete.

Like I said, Confidential is approved at the Battalion level.

But Secret has to be approved by one level higher. In this case, at the Division level.

The Top Secret were approved and assigned to the Battalion from before, so I never handled the paperwork for that classification.

Now, if you are working at the State Department and you are Secretary of State or a high official, you may or may not have two systems. One will be for classified material. Encrypted and sent over secure lines. Or, you can have regular email, or not. It's not a requirement. You can always use a telephone or have an aid send a message. But these days, most people have email.

Now in Hillary's case and in Colin Powell's case, they had both. She had a private server and he had an AOL account. The private server can be more secure than the AOL account, since AOL is so public.

It has been said some Hillary emails contained classified material. But none of the documents had the TS, S or C stamps at the top and the bottom of the document. We can assume if she received some classified material, then we can assume so did Colin and Condi. But neither Colin nor Condi turned over a single email even though both were requested. But for some reason, unknown to us, the GOP never followed up and just let the matter go for Colin and Condi.

The GOP head of the FBI said only three of the documents had any classified markings. And that was a (C) for Confidential. The lowest level of classification. I've seen documents also marked "C" or just a plain C. But the requirement is supposed to be (C). We don't know what it was in this case. According to the FBI, the documents with classified material were sent TO Hillary. She didn't forward any of those documents to anyone else. And none of the documents had the required markings at the top or bottom of the page. Anyone who has been sent a hundred page report may not have read every single page from top to bottom.

Anyway, that's how classifications work and how Classified documents look. And if I'm wrong, please correct me. I haven't worked in S2 for 40 years.

Well you forgot at least two.

Top Secret SAP (special access programs)
and FOUO (for official use only)

Like I said, I never worked Top secret.
And "Official use only" isn't classified. It generally refers to a "form" and they are just telling you to not waste the form. Don't use it for note paper or something similar.

----------------

(SAP) which are phrases used by media. It is not truly "above" Top Secret, since there is no civilian clearance higher than Top Secret.

List of U.S. security clearance terms - Wikipedia

Perhaps I should write to Wikipedia to correct them. They give basically the same definition to Secret and Top Secret.. But "grave" is part of the definition of Top Secret for anyone who actually attended a security class. A requirement to work in S2.

Actually no, FOUO it's also a classification on rosters or list, that contain personal or semi-sensitive information intended for internal use, that are not for release to the public. A company personnel or alert roster is a good example.

I never had a roster. The government forms I sent to initiate a clearance didn't have that marking. Here is one example:

Loading...

5 ea of DD 398 and 5 ea of DD 1584 were included in each investigation.

I'm only talking from my own experience which includes a month long security class.

I was a BN and Company levels training and operations NCO. I had to print company, platoon and squad personnel and alert rosters monthly so the information could be verified and updated when needed, all had a FOUO classification. I was also a purchasing office for an overseas construction project in Belize, all related paper work was FOUO and controlled out of Panama.

 

[OKTexas]

Anyone who has been sent a hundred page report may not have read every single page from top to bottom.

I don't know how many people are senior principals in organizations having tens of thousands of employees. I do know that anyone who is or has been is well aware of the volume of emails that come one's way and that one never reads, or never reads in their entirety. In my own case, the various partners who work for me include me on all sorts of email chains for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:

• Because I need to know what's being discussed.
• Because they want a response from me about something having to do with the topic.
• So that I have a copy of what they are discussing with someone else in case at some point prior to the matter being resolved they need to discuss it with me.
• To "cover their asses."

Out of all the emails that come my way, the only one's for which I'm aware of the entirety of the "back and forth" are the ones that come from my bosses or clients, the ones I initiated, and the ones on which my subordinates note in the subject line "RRPRC" or "RRPRF" (response requested, please read - Client-related; response requested, please read - Firm-related). That's just for the stuff that comes into my inbox that is given only to my superiors and people whom I want to have it. There's also the email that comes to my firm-publicized email address. I don't read any of that email unless my assistant calls it to my attention as being something I need to read.

I get about 500-600 emails a day between both my firm email accounts and I read or peruse about 50 to 100 of them. I can't begin to image the quantity of emails that a government department secretary receives and I have no way to speculate with any credibility on how many or few s/he may actually look at, let alone look at in their entirety (especially those that are part of a chain).

The thread is about classified emails, not about the volume of emails a manager or high ranking official might see in a day.

How do you know? 50,000 emails is an awful lot. I suspect many are long reports that only members of the staff actually read.

Then there were all the communications on the encrypted system. Who knows how much that is?

That was very kind of you to respond to him. Truly, I determined that since the other member could not or would not "connect the dots" between the nature and extent of emails senior executives receive and the intent aspect that the SCOTUS has said must be present to be criminally guilty of a 793(f) violation, I didn't care to keep up the conversation.

It's one thing to "connect the dots," accept the connection exists and is legit and germane, and then proceed to make a case for why one believes the strength of the connection to the topic at hand is insufficient or inapplicable. That I can understand; it's what attorneys do every day in court and in the briefs they file. It's wholly another of any number of things to simply not "connect" them (ignore the presence of related "dots," if you will) or to deny that they even can be connected.

Of course her actually telling an aid "remove heading and send nonsecure" was no indication of intent, right? Give me a freaking break..

 

[320 Years of History]

Anyone who has been sent a hundred page report may not have read every single page from top to bottom.

I don't know how many people are senior principals in organizations having tens of thousands of employees. I do know that anyone who is or has been is well aware of the volume of emails that come one's way and that one never reads, or never reads in their entirety. In my own case, the various partners who work for me include me on all sorts of email chains for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:

• Because I need to know what's being discussed.
• Because they want a response from me about something having to do with the topic.
• So that I have a copy of what they are discussing with someone else in case at some point prior to the matter being resolved they need to discuss it with me.
• To "cover their asses."

Out of all the emails that come my way, the only one's for which I'm aware of the entirety of the "back and forth" are the ones that come from my bosses or clients, the ones I initiated, and the ones on which my subordinates note in the subject line "RRPRC" or "RRPRF" (response requested, please read - Client-related; response requested, please read - Firm-related). That's just for the stuff that comes into my inbox that is given only to my superiors and people whom I want to have it. There's also the email that comes to my firm-publicized email address. I don't read any of that email unless my assistant calls it to my attention as being something I need to read.

I get about 500-600 emails a day between both my firm email accounts and I read or peruse about 50 to 100 of them. I can't begin to image the quantity of emails that a government department secretary receives and I have no way to speculate with any credibility on how many or few s/he may actually look at, let alone look at in their entirety (especially those that are part of a chain).

The thread is about classified emails, not about the volume of emails a manager or high ranking official might see in a day.

How do you know? 50,000 emails is an awful lot. I suspect many are long reports that only members of the staff actually read.

Then there were all the communications on the encrypted system. Who knows how much that is?

That was very kind of you to respond to him. Truly, I determined that since the other member could not or would not "connect the dots" between the nature and extent of emails senior executives receive and the intent aspect that the SCOTUS has said must be present to be criminally guilty of a 793(f) violation, I didn't care to keep up the conversation.

It's one thing to "connect the dots," accept the connection exists and is legit and germane, and then proceed to make a case for why one believes the strength of the connection to the topic at hand is insufficient or inapplicable. That I can understand; it's what attorneys do every day in court and in the briefs they file. It's wholly another of any number of things to simply not "connect" them (ignore the presence of related "dots," if you will) or to deny that they even can be connected.

Of course her actually telling an aid "remove heading and send nonsecure" was no indication of intent, right? Give me a freaking break..

Go check your details. When did she say that? With regard to what email was it said? Was that statement given as a blanket instruction for recurring use?

 

[flacaltenn]

Notice the "SECRET" in red at the top and the bottom. In classified documentation, there are typically three markings:
(TS) Top Secret

(S) Secret

(C) Confidential

(U) Unclassified

Notice I said three. (U) is rarely used. If the document doesn't have the "TOP SECRET", "SECRET" or "CONFIDENTIAL" marking at the top and the bottom, it is typically understood to be (U) Unclassified.
And if portions of the document are SECRET, then the document is considered to be SECRET even if there are CONFIDENTIAL and Unclassified material within the document. (C) is always "Confidential", not "classified". You may get a folder that says classified on the jacket, but on the document itself, C always means confidential.

There is some material occasionally labeled "Sensitive", but that could be anything from the name of something classified or something slightly embarrassing.

Why the different classifications? You can go look that up on your own.

If you have a TOP SECRET clearance, can you look at every classified document under that level? The answer is yes and no. Legally, you are qualified to look at all classified material with a rating less than what you have been granted, but they also have something called "A Need to Know".

So what is the difference:

Confidential - damage to national security. (on the level of "embarrassing")

Secret - serious damage to National Security. (on the level of "very embarrassing enough to affect relationships" to "a distant risk to lives")

Top Secret - GRAVE damage to National Security. (immediate threat to safety and lives)

Is the process the same for getting the three different levels of classification? No.

I was in S2 at the Battalion level. The unit was nuclear capable, so there were a couple of Top Secret's within the Battalion, but only a couple.

A Confidential clearance is handled at the Battalion level. A check of the person's 201 file and a review of their records and a check of their citizenship is enough. The Clearance is granted by the S2 Officer and Battery Captain.

To obtain a secret clearance, you have to start off with multiple copies of:

DD 398 a Statement of Personal History:

Loading...

DD 1584 Check Request:

A fingerprint card.

And a couple of other minor forms that have been so long ago, I've forgotten what they are. Then the investigation is approved at the Division and sent by them to the FBI and/or CIA.

Receiving the clearance itself once the investigation is complete.

Like I said, Confidential is approved at the Battalion level.

But Secret has to be approved by one level higher. In this case, at the Division level.

The Top Secret were approved and assigned to the Battalion from before, so I never handled the paperwork for that classification.

Now, if you are working at the State Department and you are Secretary of State or a high official, you may or may not have two systems. One will be for classified material. Encrypted and sent over secure lines. Or, you can have regular email, or not. It's not a requirement. You can always use a telephone or have an aid send a message. But these days, most people have email.

Now in Hillary's case and in Colin Powell's case, they had both. She had a private server and he had an AOL account. The private server can be more secure than the AOL account, since AOL is so public.

It has been said some Hillary emails contained classified material. But none of the documents had the TS, S or C stamps at the top and the bottom of the document. We can assume if she received some classified material, then we can assume so did Colin and Condi. But neither Colin nor Condi turned over a single email even though both were requested. But for some reason, unknown to us, the GOP never followed up and just let the matter go for Colin and Condi.

The GOP head of the FBI said only three of the documents had any classified markings. And that was a (C) for Confidential. The lowest level of classification. I've seen documents also marked "C" or just a plain C. But the requirement is supposed to be (C). We don't know what it was in this case. According to the FBI, the documents with classified material were sent TO Hillary. She didn't forward any of those documents to anyone else. And none of the documents had the required markings at the top or bottom of the page. Anyone who has been sent a hundred page report may not have read every single page from top to bottom.

Anyway, that's how classifications work and how Classified documents look. And if I'm wrong, please correct me. I haven't worked in S2 for 40 years.

You are so wrong and deluded -- it ain't really funny.. You need to engage your brain. Because BRAINS are where secret information are stored. It's IN PEOPLE'S HEADS. And if they have a need to communicate about classified information, there are MANY OPTIONS and MOST of those never go on a sheet of paper..

There are approved communication channels for EVERY LEVEL of classification. And there are protocols for WHERE and HOW meetings, conversations occur. She violated ALL OF THAT..

I don't know how stupid you want me to make you look with your TV/Movie concept of classified information handling. But I will. You know NOTHING about classified channels or protocols. And that example is juvenile stupidity..

OMG. A ridiculous tard is telling me I'm wrong.

I love this part:

BRAINS are where secret information are stored. It's IN PEOPLE'S HEADS.

And then you made it worse with this:

And there are protocols for WHERE and HOW meetings

Where and how meetings? Where did you get such nonsense and how can you be so ignorant?

Our government and our military is slightly more flexible than what you suggest. But keep it coming, I love the laughs.

You have no FUCKING IDEA -- do you? Meetings -- as in designing weapons systems, classified Science conferences, and general discussion and planning. Not MUCH goes on paper actually. You VET and ASSURE that the conversations and the PEOPLE are entitled to be there and you do all that by APPROVED SECURED COMMUNICATIONS channels and venues.

It's in PEOPLE'S HEADS. And they don't NEED to format a document to say anything if they follow the rules and protocols..

MOFact -- the higher the compartment clearance, the less folks involved -- much LESS EVER goes on paper docs or e-docs.. Just fucking quit this nonsense,, before your last ounce of cred and dignity get flushed...

 

[flacaltenn]

Speaking from the perspective of a mere NCO in an engineer unit, what infinitesimal quantity of sensitive items/information we worked with were under lock/vault and signed for and kept under the physical security of the dude whose life was signed for.

If you didn't know better and plugged a personal laptop onto a government wire phones would start ringing and pissed off people will be working their way towards that wire.

The government email we had was screened constantly. You couldn't send copies of your own record if YOUR social security number was in it. Considering the stringent scrutiny us nobody's we under, you'd think the highest branch in the country would have at least similar standards.

Then they're indignant they've been exposed and try blaming and old "enemy" from their cold war Era programing. Bed wetters lap up the piles and we're stuck smelling their breath.

Which is why two systems. One was encrypted and across secure lines. Anyone who listened to Hillary's testimony should remember when she said the little tents were set up where they had classified meetings overseas. And a secure system was set up. Why the little tent? A couple of reasons. You could have bugs in buildings and no one would know they are there. You could have professional lip readers writing down what you are saying. Someone could see what you are typing on your keyboard. Of course she used such a system.

The other was your regular work system. But even private companies don't like employees using their system for anything other then company business.

No one could possibly believe the Secretary of State only dealt with three classified documents in four years. And remember, the three that were marked, were sent TO her. She didn't send them to someone else. And they were only a measly confidential.

Not true. At least 7 threads that the FBI didn't even have clearance to handle. And there's still 30,000 that got wiped. And she TOSSED OUT of her office -- the secure comm equipment that she SHOULD HAVE USED and would go down a floor to a place where she could toy with her Blackberry.

It was total arrogance and disregard for methods and practices.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Anyone who has been sent a hundred page report may not have read every single page from top to bottom.

I don't know how many people are senior principals in organizations having tens of thousands of employees. I do know that anyone who is or has been is well aware of the volume of emails that come one's way and that one never reads, or never reads in their entirety. In my own case, the various partners who work for me include me on all sorts of email chains for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:

• Because I need to know what's being discussed.
• Because they want a response from me about something having to do with the topic.
• So that I have a copy of what they are discussing with someone else in case at some point prior to the matter being resolved they need to discuss it with me.
• To "cover their asses."

Out of all the emails that come my way, the only one's for which I'm aware of the entirety of the "back and forth" are the ones that come from my bosses or clients, the ones I initiated, and the ones on which my subordinates note in the subject line "RRPRC" or "RRPRF" (response requested, please read - Client-related; response requested, please read - Firm-related). That's just for the stuff that comes into my inbox that is given only to my superiors and people whom I want to have it. There's also the email that comes to my firm-publicized email address. I don't read any of that email unless my assistant calls it to my attention as being something I need to read.

I get about 500-600 emails a day between both my firm email accounts and I read or peruse about 50 to 100 of them. I can't begin to image the quantity of emails that a government department secretary receives and I have no way to speculate with any credibility on how many or few s/he may actually look at, let alone look at in their entirety (especially those that are part of a chain).

Great reason for Hillary having her own private email server and exposing EVERYTHING to ANYONE.

 

[the_human_being]

Putin BLOWS UP Over Obama Blaming Him For Emails, Releases Proof Obama Is Head Of ISIS -

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Anyone who has been sent a hundred page report may not have read every single page from top to bottom.

I don't know how many people are senior principals in organizations having tens of thousands of employees. I do know that anyone who is or has been is well aware of the volume of emails that come one's way and that one never reads, or never reads in their entirety. In my own case, the various partners who work for me include me on all sorts of email chains for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:

• Because I need to know what's being discussed.
• Because they want a response from me about something having to do with the topic.
• So that I have a copy of what they are discussing with someone else in case at some point prior to the matter being resolved they need to discuss it with me.
• To "cover their asses."

Out of all the emails that come my way, the only one's for which I'm aware of the entirety of the "back and forth" are the ones that come from my bosses or clients, the ones I initiated, and the ones on which my subordinates note in the subject line "RRPRC" or "RRPRF" (response requested, please read - Client-related; response requested, please read - Firm-related). That's just for the stuff that comes into my inbox that is given only to my superiors and people whom I want to have it. There's also the email that comes to my firm-publicized email address. I don't read any of that email unless my assistant calls it to my attention as being something I need to read.

I get about 500-600 emails a day between both my firm email accounts and I read or peruse about 50 to 100 of them. I can't begin to image the quantity of emails that a government department secretary receives and I have no way to speculate with any credibility on how many or few s/he may actually look at, let alone look at in their entirety (especially those that are part of a chain).

The thread is about classified emails, not about the volume of emails a manager or high ranking official might see in a day.

How do you know? 50,000 emails is an awful lot. I suspect many are long reports that only members of the staff actually read.

Then there were all the communications on the encrypted system. Who knows how much that is?

That was very kind of you to respond to him. Truly, I determined that since the other member could not or would not "connect the dots" between the nature and extent of emails senior executives receive and the intent aspect that the SCOTUS has said must be present to be criminally guilty of a 793(f) violation, I didn't care to keep up the conversation.

It's one thing to "connect the dots," accept the connection exists and is legit and germane, and then proceed to make a case for why one believes the strength of the connection to the topic at hand is insufficient or inapplicable. That I can understand; it's what attorneys do every day in court and in the briefs they file. It's wholly another of any number of things to simply not "connect" them (ignore the presence of related "dots," if you will) or to deny that they even can be connected.

Of course her actually telling an aid "remove heading and send nonsecure" was no indication of intent, right? Give me a freaking break..

Then there's those pesky wikileaks where they showed the DNC tried to bribe agents into changing the classification.

 

[Pete7469]

Speaking from the perspective of a mere NCO in an engineer unit, what infinitesimal quantity of sensitive items/information we worked with were under lock/vault and signed for and kept under the physical security of the dude whose life was signed for.

If you didn't know better and plugged a personal laptop onto a government wire phones would start ringing and pissed off people will be working their way towards that wire.

The government email we had was screened constantly. You couldn't send copies of your own record if YOUR social security number was in it. Considering the stringent scrutiny us nobody's we under, you'd think the highest branch in the country would have at least similar standards.

Then they're indignant they've been exposed and try blaming and old "enemy" from their cold war Era programing. Bed wetters lap up the piles and we're stuck smelling their breath.

Which is why two systems. One was encrypted and across secure lines. Anyone who listened to Hillary's testimony should remember when she said the little tents were set up where they had classified meetings overseas. And a secure system was set up. Why the little tent? A couple of reasons. You could have bugs in buildings and no one would know they are there. You could have professional lip readers writing down what you are saying. Someone could see what you are typing on your keyboard. Of course she used such a system.

The other was your regular work system. But even private companies don't like employees using their system for anything other then company business.

No one could possibly believe the Secretary of State only dealt with three classified documents in four years. And remember, the three that were marked, were sent TO her. She didn't send them to someone else. And they were only a measly confidential.

Not true. At least 7 threads that the FBI didn't even have clearance to handle. And there's still 30,000 that got wiped. And she TOSSED OUT of her office -- the secure comm equipment that she SHOULD HAVE USED and would go down a floor to a place where she could toy with her Blackberry.

It was total arrogance and disregard for methods and practices.

What no one could possibly believe is the Sec State could so deliberately undermine national security protocol for her own convenience. I'll bet everything wikileaks has came off her server. I hope there's something coming that gets her indicted.

Common soldiers are more careful with shit that's marked FOUO and can't use a thumb drive without an O6 hacking off on it. If you can't conclude that what Hitlery has done should have her at the very least under house arrest you're a drone. She is obviously in rapidly declining health.

 

[Pete7469]

Plus if she's in house arrest it will punish Bill.

He'll move in with the energizer.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't know how many people are senior principals in organizations having tens of thousands of employees. I do know that anyone who is or has been is well aware of the volume of emails that come one's way and that one never reads, or never reads in their entirety. In my own case, the various partners who work for me include me on all sorts of email chains for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:

• Because I need to know what's being discussed.
• Because they want a response from me about something having to do with the topic.
• So that I have a copy of what they are discussing with someone else in case at some point prior to the matter being resolved they need to discuss it with me.
• To "cover their asses."

Out of all the emails that come my way, the only one's for which I'm aware of the entirety of the "back and forth" are the ones that come from my bosses or clients, the ones I initiated, and the ones on which my subordinates note in the subject line "RRPRC" or "RRPRF" (response requested, please read - Client-related; response requested, please read - Firm-related). That's just for the stuff that comes into my inbox that is given only to my superiors and people whom I want to have it. There's also the email that comes to my firm-publicized email address. I don't read any of that email unless my assistant calls it to my attention as being something I need to read.

I get about 500-600 emails a day between both my firm email accounts and I read or peruse about 50 to 100 of them. I can't begin to image the quantity of emails that a government department secretary receives and I have no way to speculate with any credibility on how many or few s/he may actually look at, let alone look at in their entirety (especially those that are part of a chain).

The thread is about classified emails, not about the volume of emails a manager or high ranking official might see in a day.

How do you know? 50,000 emails is an awful lot. I suspect many are long reports that only members of the staff actually read.

Then there were all the communications on the encrypted system. Who knows how much that is?

That was very kind of you to respond to him. Truly, I determined that since the other member could not or would not "connect the dots" between the nature and extent of emails senior executives receive and the intent aspect that the SCOTUS has said must be present to be criminally guilty of a 793(f) violation, I didn't care to keep up the conversation.

It's one thing to "connect the dots," accept the connection exists and is legit and germane, and then proceed to make a case for why one believes the strength of the connection to the topic at hand is insufficient or inapplicable. That I can understand; it's what attorneys do every day in court and in the briefs they file. It's wholly another of any number of things to simply not "connect" them (ignore the presence of related "dots," if you will) or to deny that they even can be connected.

Of course her actually telling an aid "remove heading and send nonsecure" was no indication of intent, right? Give me a freaking break..

Go check your details. When did she say that? With regard to what email was it said? Was that statement given as a blanket instruction for recurring use?

What's wrong child, not as informed as you thought? Are you incapable of googling a quote? Feel free to look it up and minimize away. Oh and feel free to tell yourself she never gave those same instructions verbally, even though it would fully explain how so much classified information got on her illegal system without the appropriate headers.

 

[flacaltenn]

Speaking from the perspective of a mere NCO in an engineer unit, what infinitesimal quantity of sensitive items/information we worked with were under lock/vault and signed for and kept under the physical security of the dude whose life was signed for.

If you didn't know better and plugged a personal laptop onto a government wire phones would start ringing and pissed off people will be working their way towards that wire.

The government email we had was screened constantly. You couldn't send copies of your own record if YOUR social security number was in it. Considering the stringent scrutiny us nobody's we under, you'd think the highest branch in the country would have at least similar standards.

Then they're indignant they've been exposed and try blaming and old "enemy" from their cold war Era programing. Bed wetters lap up the piles and we're stuck smelling their breath.

Which is why two systems. One was encrypted and across secure lines. Anyone who listened to Hillary's testimony should remember when she said the little tents were set up where they had classified meetings overseas. And a secure system was set up. Why the little tent? A couple of reasons. You could have bugs in buildings and no one would know they are there. You could have professional lip readers writing down what you are saying. Someone could see what you are typing on your keyboard. Of course she used such a system.

The other was your regular work system. But even private companies don't like employees using their system for anything other then company business.

No one could possibly believe the Secretary of State only dealt with three classified documents in four years. And remember, the three that were marked, were sent TO her. She didn't send them to someone else. And they were only a measly confidential.

Not true. At least 7 threads that the FBI didn't even have clearance to handle. And there's still 30,000 that got wiped. And she TOSSED OUT of her office -- the secure comm equipment that she SHOULD HAVE USED and would go down a floor to a place where she could toy with her Blackberry.

It was total arrogance and disregard for methods and practices.

What no one could possibly believe is the Sec State could so deliberately undermine national security protocol for her own convenience. I'll bet everything wikileaks has came off her server. I hope there's something coming that gets her indicted.

Common soldiers are more careful with shit that's marked FOUO and can't use a thumb drive without an O6 hacking off on it. If you can't conclude that what Hitlery has done should have her at the very least under house arrest you're a drone. She is obviously in rapidly declining health.

When Comey said cases like this normally get handled "in house" -- in the Agency where they occur -- he was correct. That's done to minimize leaks during trial and because of the sensitive nature of convening a PUBLIC trial on such matters.

The outrage is -- that this is not gonna happen to a Cabinet Member. And because she was the BOSS in charge of security at State -- it was unprecedented. And that's the EXACT reason why she should NOT HAVE clearances right now. Why she should have been reprimanded by the FBI and the State Dept. Did you see her hypocrisy in the 2010 State training dept video on document handling? Or her cluelessly suggesting her plan to combat Intl Cyber attacks in debate #2? LOL..

Needs to be resolved. Without all the political pandering and strategy of putting favorable shills at State, DOJ and at the FBI.. THAT'S how it gets excused. The tops of the Agencies were stacked and bribed. Look at the $600K Clinton donation to the wife of the 2nd in charge at FBI. The same guy who attempted to "cut a deal" on changing classifications with Kennedy at State. The 2nd in charge there. It's all Kabuki theater. It's all pre-ordained.

This is the end of accountability if it doesn't ... And that's what the Clinton's do when they are "innocent". They constantly define down the morals and ethics and accountability that the American people SHOULD expect.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's a fairly accurate albeit dated description of how one obtains a clearance and also accurate about how classified documents are marked.

The FBI stated that there were at least 20 emails on Hillary's server that CONTAINED Top Secret information. The markings or lack thereof on those emails is meaningless since the CONTENT is what made the emails Top Secret, not the markings on the emails.

Hillary is using the lack of markings excuse to lawyer her way out of clear and undeniable violations of National Security. Especially since there was evidence that she instructed her staff to "carve out" the content of marked classified documents and email it unclassified, another serious violation of National Security.

You are wrong. A document is not a classified document unless it's properly marked as a classified document. The material in the document does not in and of itself make the document classified.

If a newspaper publishes classified material, that does not make the newspaper a classified document.

 

[320 Years of History]

The thread is about classified emails, not about the volume of emails a manager or high ranking official might see in a day.

How do you know? 50,000 emails is an awful lot. I suspect many are long reports that only members of the staff actually read.

Then there were all the communications on the encrypted system. Who knows how much that is?

That was very kind of you to respond to him. Truly, I determined that since the other member could not or would not "connect the dots" between the nature and extent of emails senior executives receive and the intent aspect that the SCOTUS has said must be present to be criminally guilty of a 793(f) violation, I didn't care to keep up the conversation.

It's one thing to "connect the dots," accept the connection exists and is legit and germane, and then proceed to make a case for why one believes the strength of the connection to the topic at hand is insufficient or inapplicable. That I can understand; it's what attorneys do every day in court and in the briefs they file. It's wholly another of any number of things to simply not "connect" them (ignore the presence of related "dots," if you will) or to deny that they even can be connected.

Of course her actually telling an aid "remove heading and send nonsecure" was no indication of intent, right? Give me a freaking break..

Go check your details. When did she say that? With regard to what email was it said? Was that statement given as a blanket instruction for recurring use?

What's wrong child, not as informed as you thought? Are you incapable of googling a quote? Feel free to look it up and minimize away. Oh and feel free to tell yourself she never gave those same instructions verbally, even though it would fully explain how so much classified information got on her illegal system without the appropriate headers.

ROTFL...You figure out why....

 

[OKTexas]

How do you know? 50,000 emails is an awful lot. I suspect many are long reports that only members of the staff actually read.

Then there were all the communications on the encrypted system. Who knows how much that is?

That was very kind of you to respond to him. Truly, I determined that since the other member could not or would not "connect the dots" between the nature and extent of emails senior executives receive and the intent aspect that the SCOTUS has said must be present to be criminally guilty of a 793(f) violation, I didn't care to keep up the conversation.

It's one thing to "connect the dots," accept the connection exists and is legit and germane, and then proceed to make a case for why one believes the strength of the connection to the topic at hand is insufficient or inapplicable. That I can understand; it's what attorneys do every day in court and in the briefs they file. It's wholly another of any number of things to simply not "connect" them (ignore the presence of related "dots," if you will) or to deny that they even can be connected.

Of course her actually telling an aid "remove heading and send nonsecure" was no indication of intent, right? Give me a freaking break..

Go check your details. When did she say that? With regard to what email was it said? Was that statement given as a blanket instruction for recurring use?

What's wrong child, not as informed as you thought? Are you incapable of googling a quote? Feel free to look it up and minimize away. Oh and feel free to tell yourself she never gave those same instructions verbally, even though it would fully explain how so much classified information got on her illegal system without the appropriate headers.

ROTFL...You figure out why....

Oh I know why, you're just another lying regressive POS hack. Most likely a paid hack at that.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's a fairly accurate albeit dated description of how one obtains a clearance and also accurate about how classified documents are marked.

The FBI stated that there were at least 20 emails on Hillary's server that CONTAINED Top Secret information. The markings or lack thereof on those emails is meaningless since the CONTENT is what made the emails Top Secret, not the markings on the emails.

Hillary is using the lack of markings excuse to lawyer her way out of clear and undeniable violations of National Security. Especially since there was evidence that she instructed her staff to "carve out" the content of marked classified documents and email it unclassified, another serious violation of National Security.

You are wrong. A document is not a classified document unless it's properly marked as a classified document. The material in the document does not in and of itself make the document classified.

If a newspaper publishes classified material, that does not make the newspaper a classified document.

Wrong. There are APPROVED communications channels and protocols for conversations and planning. When you follow the rules, EVERY party to those convos are ENTITLED to be there and everyone KNOWS EXACTLY what material is classified. Teleconferences, electronic links, etc are provided. No marking required unless a REAL paper document is passed.

The public is woefully misinformed about "handling classified info". When these high level folks go on the Sunday Talking head shows, they RECOGNIZE every detail of classified knowledge they possess in their heads. They are not "spilling the beans" in front of cameras every week. That's because EVERYONE is given the rules and protocols for each clearance they possess. And they are AWARE of how to handle the need to communicate and work under that burden.

Clinton did the "i didn't know, I don't remember the briefings" wimpy excuse. She was lying.. Lying about most EVERYTHING pertaining to this affair. And MILLIONS of Americans who know how this stuff works are mightily pissed...

If this stuff DOES breach into the public domain -- it's a fucking disaster. Can't keep a leaked secret -- secret anymore. But what you DO IS -- you find the leakers and the folks that COMPROMISED THE SECURE LINKS and prosecute them.. If it made the NY Times and it came from her home-brewed email system -- we should "lock her up"...

 

[Norman]

Up next: What a private server looks like.

We can teach her!