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

[flacaltenn]

Up next: What a private server looks like.

We can teach her!

First -- you have to watch her lay out her "Cyber Security Plan" in Debate #2 for combating INtl. hacking !!!

 

[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.

Red:
Actually, I've looked at one of the so-called "heading removed" emails. I don't even see a heading, what I see is a "subject" field that has been blanked out.

Now, I'm not a techie, but I know enough to know that an email header (heading) isn't the subject line. This is what an email header/heading looks like:

Return-Path: <[email protected]>
X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X]
Received: from [136.167.40.119] (HELO dc.edu)
by fe3.dc.edu (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8)
with ESMTP-TLS id 61258719 for [email protected]; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:40:10 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2005 11:40:36 -0400
From: Taylor Evans <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jon Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: Business Development Meeting
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
​

Do you see something that looks like that? I don't.

I know about the interview Mrs. Clinton gave about the matter of the headings.

​

I know that the email in question was among those examined by the FBI and I know the FBI found no credible evidence of criminal intent on Mrs. Clinton's part. I know I'm not a former Deputy U.S. Attorney General (or anything comparable as goes having a very solid background in legal theory) as is the Republican FBI Director, so I must rely on his reading, the corroborating scholarly legal theory discussions, and the SCOTUs decision in Goren regarding whether credible evidence of intent exists or does not exist and the role of intent as goes 793(f).

I know that I don't know what specific content it is that Mrs. Clinton was seeking from Mr. Sullivan (or whomever), but I do know that the content wasn't sent via email. I can only assume the secure fax worked or she just got by without the information. Do you have any different facts in that regard?

I know I can conjecture as well as anyone about what may have happened, how often it may have happened, and so on; however, I also know the difference between speculate and demonstrate, and I'm not going to condemn someone, anyone, based solely on conjecture. I know that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I know too that the absence of credible evidence means that one cannot be declared guilty of that for which there is no credible evidence.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Red:
Actually, I've looked at one of the so-called "heading removed" emails. I don't even see a heading, what I see is a "subject" field that has been blanked out.

Now, I'm not a techie, but I know enough to know that an email header (heading) isn't the subject line. This is what an email header/heading looks like:

Return-Path: <[email protected]>
X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X]
Received: from [136.167.40.119] (HELO dc.edu)
by fe3.dc.edu (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8)
with ESMTP-TLS id 61258719 for [email protected]; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:40:10 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2005 11:40:36 -0400
From: Taylor Evans <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jon Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: Business Development Meeting
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
​

Do you see something that looks like that? I don't.

I know about the interview Mrs. Clinton gave about the matter of the headings.

​

I know that the email in question was among those examined by the FBI and I know the FBI found no credible evidence of criminal intent on Mrs. Clinton's part. I know I'm not a former Deputy U.S. Attorney General (or anything comparable as goes having a very solid background in legal theory) as is the Republican FBI Director, so I must rely on his reading, the corroborating scholarly legal theory discussions, and the SCOTUs decision in Goren regarding whether credible evidence of intent exists or does not exist and the role of intent as goes 793(f).

I know that I don't know what specific content it is that Mrs. Clinton was seeking from Mr. Sullivan (or whomever), but I do know that the content wasn't sent via email. I can only assume the secure fax worked or she just got by without the information. Do you have any different facts in that regard?

I know I can conjecture as well as anyone about what may have happened, how often it may have happened, and so on; however, I also know the difference between speculate and demonstrate, and I'm not going to condemn someone, anyone, based solely on conjecture. I know that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I know too that the absence of credible evidence means that one cannot be declared guilty of that for which there is no credible evidence.

It not for you Sherlock to sleuth out. It's all laid out in the FBI documentation. Even THEY didn't have proper clearances to handle some of the content. Which means that the Clinton team of lawyers and aides and server mechanics didn't either. Are you expecting to see a TS-SCI bomb in something you pull from the web?

Stop speculating and go to the primary source.

 

[Pete7469]

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..

Not to pick hairs here but we need to define something.

This is WEAPONS GRADE STUPIDITY. These "people" like rtard are DANGEROUS if left alone without supervision. They believe they know all the shit about everything and you can't convince them no matter what they're shown. Like little time bombs waiting to vote.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Red:
Actually, I've looked at one of the so-called "heading removed" emails. I don't even see a heading, what I see is a "subject" field that has been blanked out.

Now, I'm not a techie, but I know enough to know that an email header (heading) isn't the subject line. This is what an email header/heading looks like:

Return-Path: <[email protected]>
X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X]
Received: from [136.167.40.119] (HELO dc.edu)
by fe3.dc.edu (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8)
with ESMTP-TLS id 61258719 for [email protected]; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:40:10 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2005 11:40:36 -0400
From: Taylor Evans <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jon Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: Business Development Meeting
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
​

Do you see something that looks like that? I don't.

I know about the interview Mrs. Clinton gave about the matter of the headings.

​

I know that the email in question was among those examined by the FBI and I know the FBI found no credible evidence of criminal intent on Mrs. Clinton's part. I know I'm not a former Deputy U.S. Attorney General (or anything comparable as goes having a very solid background in legal theory) as is the Republican FBI Director, so I must rely on his reading, the corroborating scholarly legal theory discussions, and the SCOTUs decision in Goren regarding whether credible evidence of intent exists or does not exist and the role of intent as goes 793(f).

I know that I don't know what specific content it is that Mrs. Clinton was seeking from Mr. Sullivan (or whomever), but I do know that the content wasn't sent via email. I can only assume the secure fax worked or she just got by without the information. Do you have any different facts in that regard?

I know I can conjecture as well as anyone about what may have happened, how often it may have happened, and so on; however, I also know the difference between speculate and demonstrate, and I'm not going to condemn someone, anyone, based solely on conjecture. I know that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I know too that the absence of credible evidence means that one cannot be declared guilty of that for which there is no credible evidence.

It not for you Sherlock to sleuth out. It's all laid out in the FBI documentation. Even THEY didn't have proper clearances to handle some of the content. Which means that the Clinton team of lawyers and aides and server mechanics didn't either. Are you expecting to see a TS-SCI bomb in something you pull from the web?

Stop speculating and go to the primary source.

Pink:
What that I wrote (blue italics text) strikes you as being speculative?

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Red:
Actually, I've looked at one of the so-called "heading removed" emails. I don't even see a heading, what I see is a "subject" field that has been blanked out.

Now, I'm not a techie, but I know enough to know that an email header (heading) isn't the subject line. This is what an email header/heading looks like:

Return-Path: <[email protected]>
X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X]
Received: from [136.167.40.119] (HELO dc.edu)
by fe3.dc.edu (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8)
with ESMTP-TLS id 61258719 for [email protected]; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:40:10 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2005 11:40:36 -0400
From: Taylor Evans <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jon Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: Business Development Meeting
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
​

Do you see something that looks like that? I don't.

I know about the interview Mrs. Clinton gave about the matter of the headings.

​

I know that the email in question was among those examined by the FBI and I know the FBI found no credible evidence of criminal intent on Mrs. Clinton's part. I know I'm not a former Deputy U.S. Attorney General (or anything comparable as goes having a very solid background in legal theory) as is the Republican FBI Director, so I must rely on his reading, the corroborating scholarly legal theory discussions, and the SCOTUs decision in Goren regarding whether credible evidence of intent exists or does not exist and the role of intent as goes 793(f).

I know that I don't know what specific content it is that Mrs. Clinton was seeking from Mr. Sullivan (or whomever), but I do know that the content wasn't sent via email. I can only assume the secure fax worked or she just got by without the information. Do you have any different facts in that regard?

I know I can conjecture as well as anyone about what may have happened, how often it may have happened, and so on; however, I also know the difference between speculate and demonstrate, and I'm not going to condemn someone, anyone, based solely on conjecture. I know that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I know too that the absence of credible evidence means that one cannot be declared guilty of that for which there is no credible evidence.

It not for you Sherlock to sleuth out. It's all laid out in the FBI documentation. Even THEY didn't have proper clearances to handle some of the content. Which means that the Clinton team of lawyers and aides and server mechanics didn't either. Are you expecting to see a TS-SCI bomb in something you pull from the web?

Stop speculating and go to the primary source.

Pink:
What that I wrote (blue italics text) strikes you as being speculative?

Just observed you trying to make a big Megillah out of "headings". On an email where NO ONE outside of the investigation knows what kind of HEADING might be missing. A "heading" has a specific meaning when talking about classifying documents. Can mean a LOT of things. All we (you and I both) know is what the FBI has ALLOWED us to know. And from that -- I know the whole CONCEPT of having her PRIMARY contact with staff and associates on a totally NAKED piece of consumer gear over the Internet -- is SURELY "mishandling classified information". Especially when we ALSO KNOW -- she refused to carry or have installed in her SECURED office -- the PROPER equipment to do her job. That's arrogance. And major stupidity..

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Red:
Actually, I've looked at one of the so-called "heading removed" emails. I don't even see a heading, what I see is a "subject" field that has been blanked out.

Now, I'm not a techie, but I know enough to know that an email header (heading) isn't the subject line. This is what an email header/heading looks like:

Return-Path: <[email protected]>
X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X]
Received: from [136.167.40.119] (HELO dc.edu)
by fe3.dc.edu (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8)
with ESMTP-TLS id 61258719 for [email protected]; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:40:10 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2005 11:40:36 -0400
From: Taylor Evans <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jon Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: Business Development Meeting
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
​

Do you see something that looks like that? I don't.

I know about the interview Mrs. Clinton gave about the matter of the headings.

​

I know that the email in question was among those examined by the FBI and I know the FBI found no credible evidence of criminal intent on Mrs. Clinton's part. I know I'm not a former Deputy U.S. Attorney General (or anything comparable as goes having a very solid background in legal theory) as is the Republican FBI Director, so I must rely on his reading, the corroborating scholarly legal theory discussions, and the SCOTUs decision in Goren regarding whether credible evidence of intent exists or does not exist and the role of intent as goes 793(f).

I know that I don't know what specific content it is that Mrs. Clinton was seeking from Mr. Sullivan (or whomever), but I do know that the content wasn't sent via email. I can only assume the secure fax worked or she just got by without the information. Do you have any different facts in that regard?

I know I can conjecture as well as anyone about what may have happened, how often it may have happened, and so on; however, I also know the difference between speculate and demonstrate, and I'm not going to condemn someone, anyone, based solely on conjecture. I know that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I know too that the absence of credible evidence means that one cannot be declared guilty of that for which there is no credible evidence.

It not for you Sherlock to sleuth out. It's all laid out in the FBI documentation. Even THEY didn't have proper clearances to handle some of the content. Which means that the Clinton team of lawyers and aides and server mechanics didn't either. Are you expecting to see a TS-SCI bomb in something you pull from the web?

Stop speculating and go to the primary source.

Pink:
What that I wrote (blue italics text) strikes you as being speculative?

Just observed you trying to make a big Megillah out of "headings". On an email where NO ONE outside of the investigation knows what kind of HEADING might be missing. A "heading" has a specific meaning when talking about classifying documents. Can mean a LOT of things. All we (you and I both) know is what the FBI has ALLOWED us to know. And from that -- I know the whole CONCEPT of having her PRIMARY contact with staff and associates on a totally NAKED piece of consumer gear over the Internet -- is SURELY "mishandling classified information". Especially when we ALSO KNOW -- she refused to carry or have installed in her SECURED office -- the PROPER equipment to do her job. That's arrogance. And major stupidity..

Red:
Not so. I'm making a point of accurately describing what an email header/heading is, at least in an IT context and I know that users can sometimes access the headings and that other users who may not be able to access them do know about their existence. It's very clear to me, as it is to anyone who views the email pictured above, that there is no obviously visible field or area of an email called a heading or header.

Accordingly, it's unclear just what Mrs. Clinton was talking about seeing as there is nothing that is clearly marked as "heading" nor is it known whether Mr. Sullivan is among the folks who would have thought "heading" meant "email header." In short, I'm saying the context of the email message we can see is ambiguous at best.

Blue:
Would you complete that sentence, please?

Green:
Agreed because I'm taking your word for that.

I see the following image that also is purported to be the email in question. It appears to have a heading in the generic sense of the term, but that heading seems to have been placed in 2016, not 2011 when the email conversation happened. Perhaps something similar existed on the email at one point in time. I cannot say.

Pink and Green:
Please explain how, "A "heading" has a specific meaning when talking about classifying documents" is compatible with "can mean a lot of things." The meanings of "specific meaning" and "can mean a lot of things." are diametrically opposed. I pretty much anyone other than you would agree, but I can see clearly that you do not feel that way for wrote that crap.

Purple:
That is not at all what we know. In fact, that contradicts what the FBI has told us as far as the mens rea element of Mrs. Clinton's actions in connection with implementing her private email server. You will recall that Mrs. Clinton asserted that the email server she had installed in her home office was not intended to be used for the transmission and receipt of classified information. The FBI's investigation found no credible evidence that her assertion to that effect was inaccurate. Were the FBI to have found evidence that credibly proved her assertion to be inaccurate, the FBI would not have said that they could find no credible evidence that Mrs. Clinton intended to violate 793(f).

Given that Mrs. Clinton had no intent to use her private email server to transmit/receive classified information, just how what security features did that server need to have implemented on it? I don't know. Do you? Whatever security level was needed, it certainly wasn't up to the level of security concomitant with that required for discussing classified information.

P.S.
AFAIK, Mrs. Clinton also had a totally separate system from her private server. That system was for sending and receiving classified information.

Brown:
So you see, what I am doing is not at all speculating and instead is holding closely to the facts of what I truly do know and do not know.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wow. That's a shitload of work dude. The kinda header being discussed is a SECURITY HEADER. Got nothing to do with normal email routing headers. Not gonna discuss what any particular security header might look like. You might find some of them on Web. Might not..

Secondly -- I cannot tell you much about secure communications channels. I could -- but I won't. Wouldn't even matter. There is NO similarity between a commercial UNAUTHORIZED internet machine with a Gamer video slot and a secure comm link. So don't bust a gut worrying about that. Millions of Americans know this stuff. In FACT --- at a place like State, there are many different channels of secure networks for different types of classified convos and traffic. SOME of those can only be used from secure room to secure room.

It's not even funny anymore when guys like you and the OP try to Dick Tracy this out to protect a lying scummy political candidate. It just makes me mad lately..

You know that anyone with large resources can create their own internet -- right? One that never touches the public domain and is under armed guard at every node. You think there's only ONE?

 

[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.

Red:
Actually, I've looked at one of the so-called "heading removed" emails. I don't even see a heading, what I see is a "subject" field that has been blanked out.

Now, I'm not a techie, but I know enough to know that an email header (heading) isn't the subject line. This is what an email header/heading looks like:

Return-Path: <[email protected]>
X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X]
Received: from [136.167.40.119] (HELO dc.edu)
by fe3.dc.edu (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8)
with ESMTP-TLS id 61258719 for [email protected]; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:40:10 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2005 11:40:36 -0400
From: Taylor Evans <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jon Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: Business Development Meeting
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
​

Do you see something that looks like that? I don't.

I know about the interview Mrs. Clinton gave about the matter of the headings.

​

I know that the email in question was among those examined by the FBI and I know the FBI found no credible evidence of criminal intent on Mrs. Clinton's part. I know I'm not a former Deputy U.S. Attorney General (or anything comparable as goes having a very solid background in legal theory) as is the Republican FBI Director, so I must rely on his reading, the corroborating scholarly legal theory discussions, and the SCOTUs decision in Goren regarding whether credible evidence of intent exists or does not exist and the role of intent as goes 793(f).

I know that I don't know what specific content it is that Mrs. Clinton was seeking from Mr. Sullivan (or whomever), but I do know that the content wasn't sent via email. I can only assume the secure fax worked or she just got by without the information. Do you have any different facts in that regard?

I know I can conjecture as well as anyone about what may have happened, how often it may have happened, and so on; however, I also know the difference between speculate and demonstrate, and I'm not going to condemn someone, anyone, based solely on conjecture. I know that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I know too that the absence of credible evidence means that one cannot be declared guilty of that for which there is no credible evidence.

Damn, all that to say, DUHHHH I'm too stupid to believe what she wrote was clear intent to bypass the legal processes of transmitting clearly classified information, even though that is exactly what she told him to do. It's irrelevant if it actually happened, she said it, she intended for it to happen and it did happen in other instances. How do you think all that classified information got on her server with no headers? It's just another piece of evidence among many that the bitch didn't think the rules applied to her.

 

[rdean]

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.

We had a big Selectric Typewriter. No computers. No Internet. But the S2 Office I worked in was the only department in the battalion that received no infractions during the Annual General Inspection for the two years I worked there. We were inspected by both the Dept of the Army and the CIA.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

We had a big Selectric Typewriter. No computers. No Internet. But the S2 Office I worked in was the only department in the battalion that received no infractions during the Annual General Inspection for the two years I worked there. We were inspected by both the Dept of the Army and the CIA.

Why would the CIA inspect a BN level unit?

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Red:
Actually, I've looked at one of the so-called "heading removed" emails. I don't even see a heading, what I see is a "subject" field that has been blanked out.

Now, I'm not a techie, but I know enough to know that an email header (heading) isn't the subject line. This is what an email header/heading looks like:

Return-Path: <[email protected]>
X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X]
Received: from [136.167.40.119] (HELO dc.edu)
by fe3.dc.edu (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8)
with ESMTP-TLS id 61258719 for [email protected]; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:40:10 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2005 11:40:36 -0400
From: Taylor Evans <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jon Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: Business Development Meeting
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
​

Do you see something that looks like that? I don't.

I know about the interview Mrs. Clinton gave about the matter of the headings.

​

I know that the email in question was among those examined by the FBI and I know the FBI found no credible evidence of criminal intent on Mrs. Clinton's part. I know I'm not a former Deputy U.S. Attorney General (or anything comparable as goes having a very solid background in legal theory) as is the Republican FBI Director, so I must rely on his reading, the corroborating scholarly legal theory discussions, and the SCOTUs decision in Goren regarding whether credible evidence of intent exists or does not exist and the role of intent as goes 793(f).

I know that I don't know what specific content it is that Mrs. Clinton was seeking from Mr. Sullivan (or whomever), but I do know that the content wasn't sent via email. I can only assume the secure fax worked or she just got by without the information. Do you have any different facts in that regard?

I know I can conjecture as well as anyone about what may have happened, how often it may have happened, and so on; however, I also know the difference between speculate and demonstrate, and I'm not going to condemn someone, anyone, based solely on conjecture. I know that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I know too that the absence of credible evidence means that one cannot be declared guilty of that for which there is no credible evidence.

Damn, all that to say, DUHHHH I'm too stupid to believe what she wrote was clear intent to bypass the legal processes of transmitting clearly classified information, even though that is exactly what she told him to do. It's irrelevant if it actually happened, she said it, she intended for it to happen and it did happen in other instances. How do you think all that classified information got on her server with no headers? It's just another piece of evidence among many that the bitch didn't think the rules applied to her.

Of course, it is because Mrs. Clinton's naysayers don't really even need actus rea in order to condemn her. Thank goodness our system of laws does require something actually happen in order to charge someone with a crime.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Red:
Actually, I've looked at one of the so-called "heading removed" emails. I don't even see a heading, what I see is a "subject" field that has been blanked out.

Now, I'm not a techie, but I know enough to know that an email header (heading) isn't the subject line. This is what an email header/heading looks like:

Return-Path: <[email protected]>
X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X]
Received: from [136.167.40.119] (HELO dc.edu)
by fe3.dc.edu (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8)
with ESMTP-TLS id 61258719 for [email protected]; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:40:10 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2005 11:40:36 -0400
From: Taylor Evans <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jon Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: Business Development Meeting
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
​

Do you see something that looks like that? I don't.

I know about the interview Mrs. Clinton gave about the matter of the headings.

​

I know that the email in question was among those examined by the FBI and I know the FBI found no credible evidence of criminal intent on Mrs. Clinton's part. I know I'm not a former Deputy U.S. Attorney General (or anything comparable as goes having a very solid background in legal theory) as is the Republican FBI Director, so I must rely on his reading, the corroborating scholarly legal theory discussions, and the SCOTUs decision in Goren regarding whether credible evidence of intent exists or does not exist and the role of intent as goes 793(f).

I know that I don't know what specific content it is that Mrs. Clinton was seeking from Mr. Sullivan (or whomever), but I do know that the content wasn't sent via email. I can only assume the secure fax worked or she just got by without the information. Do you have any different facts in that regard?

I know I can conjecture as well as anyone about what may have happened, how often it may have happened, and so on; however, I also know the difference between speculate and demonstrate, and I'm not going to condemn someone, anyone, based solely on conjecture. I know that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I know too that the absence of credible evidence means that one cannot be declared guilty of that for which there is no credible evidence.

Damn, all that to say, DUHHHH I'm too stupid to believe what she wrote was clear intent to bypass the legal processes of transmitting clearly classified information, even though that is exactly what she told him to do. It's irrelevant if it actually happened, she said it, she intended for it to happen and it did happen in other instances. How do you think all that classified information got on her server with no headers? It's just another piece of evidence among many that the bitch didn't think the rules applied to her.

Of course, it is because Mrs. Clinton's naysayers don't really even need actus rea in order to condemn her. Thank goodness our system of laws does require something actually happen in order to charge someone with a crime.

I'm sorry you have lying eyes. Most of America can see that her setting up her server 2 moths before taking office was done to avoid federal records keep laws. Her hiding the existence of that server form congress for years proved she was trying to avoid legal scrutiny. He telling subordinates to remove classified headers from documents and send it non-secure and lying to congress all add up to INTENT to violate the law. You can believe your lying eyes and the 6 million dollar man and his predetermined outcome, or you can chose to believe the evidence that's out there for everyone to see. Either way, I think you're one pathetic little man, I'm done with you, you are dismissed.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Red:
Actually, I've looked at one of the so-called "heading removed" emails. I don't even see a heading, what I see is a "subject" field that has been blanked out.

Now, I'm not a techie, but I know enough to know that an email header (heading) isn't the subject line. This is what an email header/heading looks like:

Return-Path: <[email protected]>
X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X]
Received: from [136.167.40.119] (HELO dc.edu)
by fe3.dc.edu (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8)
with ESMTP-TLS id 61258719 for [email protected]; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:40:10 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2005 11:40:36 -0400
From: Taylor Evans <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jon Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: Business Development Meeting
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
​

Do you see something that looks like that? I don't.

I know about the interview Mrs. Clinton gave about the matter of the headings.

​

I know that the email in question was among those examined by the FBI and I know the FBI found no credible evidence of criminal intent on Mrs. Clinton's part. I know I'm not a former Deputy U.S. Attorney General (or anything comparable as goes having a very solid background in legal theory) as is the Republican FBI Director, so I must rely on his reading, the corroborating scholarly legal theory discussions, and the SCOTUs decision in Goren regarding whether credible evidence of intent exists or does not exist and the role of intent as goes 793(f).

I know that I don't know what specific content it is that Mrs. Clinton was seeking from Mr. Sullivan (or whomever), but I do know that the content wasn't sent via email. I can only assume the secure fax worked or she just got by without the information. Do you have any different facts in that regard?

I know I can conjecture as well as anyone about what may have happened, how often it may have happened, and so on; however, I also know the difference between speculate and demonstrate, and I'm not going to condemn someone, anyone, based solely on conjecture. I know that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I know too that the absence of credible evidence means that one cannot be declared guilty of that for which there is no credible evidence.

Damn, all that to say, DUHHHH I'm too stupid to believe what she wrote was clear intent to bypass the legal processes of transmitting clearly classified information, even though that is exactly what she told him to do. It's irrelevant if it actually happened, she said it, she intended for it to happen and it did happen in other instances. How do you think all that classified information got on her server with no headers? It's just another piece of evidence among many that the bitch didn't think the rules applied to her.

Of course, it is because Mrs. Clinton's naysayers don't really even need actus rea in order to condemn her. Thank goodness our system of laws does require something actually happen in order to charge someone with a crime.

I'm sorry you have lying eyes. Most of America can see that her setting up her server 2 moths before taking office was done to avoid federal records keep laws. Her hiding the existence of that server form congress for years proved she was trying to avoid legal scrutiny. He telling subordinates to remove classified headers from documents and send it non-secure and lying to congress all add up to INTENT to violate the law. You can believe your lying eyes and the 6 million dollar man and his predetermined outcome, or you can chose to believe the evidence that's out there for everyone to see. Either way, I think you're one pathetic little man, I'm done with you, you are dismissed.

Dude, let me just be blunt. You bore me.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

We had a big Selectric Typewriter. No computers. No Internet. But the S2 Office I worked in was the only department in the battalion that received no infractions during the Annual General Inspection for the two years I worked there. We were inspected by both the Dept of the Army and the CIA.

So -- the big "mishandling threat" was packing carbon copies of classified docs into your pants. No wonder you don't understand what your slimy candidate has done.. I understand now RDean. You're excused..

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

We had a big Selectric Typewriter. No computers. No Internet. But the S2 Office I worked in was the only department in the battalion that received no infractions during the Annual General Inspection for the two years I worked there. We were inspected by both the Dept of the Army and the CIA.

Why would the CIA inspect a BN level unit?

Was before the time of NSA and DIA.. Although DIA might have existed when RDean was in.