"This is the biggest load of bull..." Clinton on the emails.

[Theowl32]

When Bill speaks, the left......touch themselves.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The problem has become that Republicans have nothing to counter the Obama Presidency, which has been successful by any reasonably person's measure, but for Republicans, it's not about what works, or what doesn't, and it isn't about what they're going to do for the country, other than the same tired things they tried the last two times and which didn't work out very well: Cut taxes, and go on a spending spree.

So instead, we have lies, conspiracies, investigations of the Clintons, and no viable platform, a party in total disarray, and a candidate who's a giant orange buffoon with diarrhea of the mouth.

Finally, after all these years, as for as Republicans are concerned, this is Hillary's "blow job". The one thing they can nail her on. Ain't gonna happen boys.

the Obama Presidency, which has been successful by any reasonably person's measure,

Weakest recovery ever and $9 trillion in added debt. Great job, not.

I'm just glad Obama was right about Russia, oops.

And how about that Arab Spring, DERP!

 

[toomuchtime_]

She was Secretary of State and it was part of her job to decide which documents should be classified. You are trying to defend her against charges of corruption by arguing she wasn't competent to do her job.

It was NOT part of her job to decide which documents were classified. They had people for that. As Secretary of State, she could order a document de-classified, if she wanted. But she didn't establish whether a document was deemed classified. That would have taken her all day. She was running the State Department, negotiating accords and treaties, and putting out fires on a daily basis.

As Secretary of State it was her responsibility to see that documents were properly classified, so you are effictively arguing that she was an incompetent administrator who couldn't appoint the right people to do the job. If she wasn't, as you argue, competent to run the State Department, it is impossible to imagine she would be competent to run the presidency.

 

[paperview]

Bill is saying this in the same spirit in which he once said, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Clinton first claimed that while some of the emails contained information that was later classified, they weren't classified at the time she sent them, but as you point out, since she had the power to classify them and subsequently did classify them, she knew at the time she sent them they would be classified, so Hillary didn't sent classified information in her emails in the same sense that Bill did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky.

No. It was not her who classified the unmarked ones. It was another intel agency as they were to be released as part of a FOIA request, years after she had left.

That's simply not true. The FOIA request was to the State Department and it was the State Department that classified the documents. If it is true that he Kerry State Department decided these emails contained information that should have been classified and the Clinton State Department didn't, then what you are claiming is that Hillary wasn't corrupt, just incompetent, however, there is abundant information that both are true.

It is true. Other agencies get involved w/ regard to FOIA requests.

Time to pull this one out again: Five myths about classified information - The Washington Post

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ R E A D I T ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

<SNIP>
"The categories of information listed in guides are sometimes so broad or vague that they leave officials to guess whether any given piece of information has been classified. In 2009, President Obama ordered agencies to review their guides and purge outdated material, but his directive did not address the lack of specificity.

...And while the number of original classification decisions is on the wane, there were still almost 50,000 new secrets created last year – on top of the 2 million created in the 10 previous years. "

"none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server." These were emails later upgraded by another agency.

She was Secretary of State and it was part of her job to decide which documents should be classified. You are trying to defend her against charges of corruption by arguing she wasn't competent to do her job.

Again. You know diddly and squat.

 

[paperview]

She was Secretary of State and it was part of her job to decide which documents should be classified. You are trying to defend her against charges of corruption by arguing she wasn't competent to do her job.

It was NOT part of her job to decide which documents were classified. They had people for that. As Secretary of State, she could order a document de-classified, if she wanted. But she didn't establish whether a document was deemed classified. That would have taken her all day. She was running the State Department, negotiating accords and treaties, and putting out fires on a daily basis.

As Secretary of State it was her responsibility to see that documents were properly classified, so you are effictively arguing that she was an incompetent administrator who couldn't appoint the right people to do the job. If she wasn't, as you argue, competent to run the State Department, it is impossible to imagine she would be competent to run the presidency.

Why do you remain stupid?


"none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server."

These were emails later upgraded by another agency.

 

[Auld Phart]

Bill is saying this in the same spirit in which he once said, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Clinton first claimed that while some of the emails contained information that was later classified, they weren't classified at the time she sent them, but as you point out, since she had the power to classify them and subsequently did classify them, she knew at the time she sent them they would be classified, so Hillary didn't sent classified information in her emails in the same sense that Bill did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky.

No. It was not her who classified the unmarked ones. It was another intel agency as they were to be released as part of a FOIA request, years after she had left.

That's simply not true. The FOIA request was to the State Department and it was the State Department that classified the documents. If it is true that he Kerry State Department decided these emails contained information that should have been classified and the Clinton State Department didn't, then what you are claiming is that Hillary wasn't corrupt, just incompetent, however, there is abundant information that both are true.

It is true. Other agencies get involved w/ regard to FOIA requests.

Time to pull this one out again: Five myths about classified information - The Washington Post

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ R E A D I T ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

<SNIP>
"The categories of information listed in guides are sometimes so broad or vague that they leave officials to guess whether any given piece of information has been classified. In 2009, President Obama ordered agencies to review their guides and purge outdated material, but his directive did not address the lack of specificity.

...And while the number of original classification decisions is on the wane, there were still almost 50,000 new secrets created last year – on top of the 2 million created in the 10 previous years. "

"none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server." These were emails later upgraded by another agency.

She was Secretary of State and it was part of her job to decide which documents should be classified. You are trying to defend her against charges of corruption by arguing she wasn't competent to do her job.

Again. You know diddly and squat.

You know diddly and squat.

We all do

diddly...and ... squat

and many of us have learned not to trust them

 

[paperview]

How did classified information get into those Hillary Clinton emails?

<snip>


"What information is classified in the first place and by whom?

How does that information get transmitted?

The answer to the first question partly lies in the way sensitive information is handled and classified at the State Department and other U.S. government agencies.

An important thing to understand is that the determination of what information is classified is subjective. This means reasonable people can disagree about the relative sensitivity of particular information.

Before coming to academia, I worked for many years as an analyst at both the State Department and the Department of Defense. I held a top secret clearance and worked on issues related to weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation. Debates and arguments about whether certain information should be classified were frequent. More often than not the debates centered on why something was classified in the first place. This is why determining whether Secretary Clinton was careless is not a cut and dried issue.


Classification levels and what gets classified
The U.S. government uses three levels of classification to designate how sensitive certain information is: confidential, secret and top secret.

The lowest level, confidential, designates information that if released could damage U.S. national security. The other designations refer to information the disclosure of which could cause “serious” (secret) or “exceptionally grave” (top secret) damage to national security.

At the top secret level, some information is “compartmented.” That means only certain people who have a top secret security clearance may view it. Sometimes this information is given a code word so that only those cleared for that particular code word can access the information. There are several other designators restricting access even to cleared personnel. For example, only those holding a secret or top secret clearance and the critical nuclear weapon design information designation are allowed to access information related to many aspects of the operation and design of nuclear weapons.

It is common for documents to contain information that is classified at different levels as well as unclassified information. Individual paragraphs are marked to indicate the level of classification. For example, a document’s title might be preceded with the marker (U) indicating the title and existence of the document is unclassified.

Within a document, paragraphs might carry the markers “S” for secret, “C” for confidential or “TS” for top secret. The highest classification of any portion of the document determines its overall classification. This approach allows for the easy identification and removal of classified portions of a document so that less sensitive sections can be shared in unclassified settings.

This is what Clinton was trying to do with the “nonpaper” that she instructed her aide Jake Sullivan to fix so that it could be sent over a nonsecure fax machine.

Not quite confidential
Below the confidential level, there are varying terms for information that is not classified but still sensitive.

Government agencies use different terms for this category of information. The State Department uses the phrase “sensitive but unclassified,” while the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security use “for official use only.” These markers are often seen in the headers and footers of documents just like classified designations.

Who decides what is classified?
Executive Order 13256 spells out who specifically may classify information.

Authority to take certain pieces of information, say the existence of a weapons program, and classify it top secret is given only to specific individuals including the president and vice president, agency heads and those specifically designated by authorities outlined in the executive order. Information that is being retransmitted or integrated into other documents retains its original classification level. Inserting one sentence that is classified secret into an otherwise unclassified document makes the entire document secret.

Some things clearly need to be kept secret, like the identity of covert operatives or battle plans. Other issues are not as obvious. Should the mere fact that the secretary of state had a conversation with a counterpart be classified? In fact, different agencies disagree about issues like this all the time. In the Clinton case, the State Department disagreed with the intelligence community about whether certain emails contained information that should be classified.

When Secretary Clinton began turning over emails as part of an investigation into the Benghazi, Libya attacks, the inspector general (IG) for the intelligence community assessed that information in several of them was classified and should not have been transmitted over an open email system.

But the State Department disagreed with the IG’s assessment.

Handling classified information
Media sometimes erroneously refer to Clinton as having shared classified documents. This is not something she is accused of. It is extremely difficult to share a classified document electronically over email. Most government agencies, including the State Department, maintain separate systems precisely to make it all but impossible to electronically pass information between classified and unclassified systems.

One cannot simply view a document on a classified network and email it to someone on an unclassified system even within the same agency. This is partly why Clinton and her aides say so assuredly that they did not knowingly email classified materials.

The issue is whether she and her aides should have known that matters discussed in emails were classified or sensitive. In fact, in several of the released emails she and aides take pains to avoid discussing classified matters.

In discussing normal business, it may not be evident that certain specific topics are classified. Is the entire conversation the secretary has with a foreign leader classified? Are parts of it? Is the fact that the conversation took place classified? It depends on subject matter and context, and the assessment is subjective. In the normal course of business, however, a government employee may decide that the subject matter is not sensitive and discuss the conversation over an unclassified system.

But other more complicated issues arise. For example, the U.S. government cannot acknowledge drone strikes carried out by the CIA. That information remains classified even if revealed in the media. Thus, discussing them over an unclassified system would not be allowed. However, drone strikes carried out by the Department of Defense are not subject to such restrictions. This distinction may be one of the key contentions the intelligence community has with some information in the Clinton emails.

The fact is government officials inadvertently send classified details over unclassified email systems all the time. Considering the amount of information dealt with on a daily basis, it is inevitable. Classified details are accidentally revealed in casual conversations and media interviews. We may not hear about it because it’s not in the interviewee’s interest to point that out after the fact.

A colleague and former CIA analyst tells his students he would never knowingly but almost certainly will inadvertently relate in the classroom a tidbit that is classified. The classic example is when Senator David Boren accidentally revealed the name of a clandestine CIA agent. Boren at the time was no less than chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

In that light, Clinton may have been careless, but she’s certainly not alone."

 

[toomuchtime_]

How did classified information get into those Hillary Clinton emails?

<snip>


"What information is classified in the first place and by whom?

How does that information get transmitted?

The answer to the first question partly lies in the way sensitive information is handled and classified at the State Department and other U.S. government agencies.

An important thing to understand is that the determination of what information is classified is subjective. This means reasonable people can disagree about the relative sensitivity of particular information.

Before coming to academia, I worked for many years as an analyst at both the State Department and the Department of Defense. I held a top secret clearance and worked on issues related to weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation. Debates and arguments about whether certain information should be classified were frequent. More often than not the debates centered on why something was classified in the first place. This is why determining whether Secretary Clinton was careless is not a cut and dried issue.


Classification levels and what gets classified
The U.S. government uses three levels of classification to designate how sensitive certain information is: confidential, secret and top secret.

The lowest level, confidential, designates information that if released could damage U.S. national security. The other designations refer to information the disclosure of which could cause “serious” (secret) or “exceptionally grave” (top secret) damage to national security.

At the top secret level, some information is “compartmented.” That means only certain people who have a top secret security clearance may view it. Sometimes this information is given a code word so that only those cleared for that particular code word can access the information. There are several other designators restricting access even to cleared personnel. For example, only those holding a secret or top secret clearance and the critical nuclear weapon design information designation are allowed to access information related to many aspects of the operation and design of nuclear weapons.

It is common for documents to contain information that is classified at different levels as well as unclassified information. Individual paragraphs are marked to indicate the level of classification. For example, a document’s title might be preceded with the marker (U) indicating the title and existence of the document is unclassified.

Within a document, paragraphs might carry the markers “S” for secret, “C” for confidential or “TS” for top secret. The highest classification of any portion of the document determines its overall classification. This approach allows for the easy identification and removal of classified portions of a document so that less sensitive sections can be shared in unclassified settings.

This is what Clinton was trying to do with the “nonpaper” that she instructed her aide Jake Sullivan to fix so that it could be sent over a nonsecure fax machine.

Not quite confidential
Below the confidential level, there are varying terms for information that is not classified but still sensitive.

Government agencies use different terms for this category of information. The State Department uses the phrase “sensitive but unclassified,” while the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security use “for official use only.” These markers are often seen in the headers and footers of documents just like classified designations.

Who decides what is classified?
Executive Order 13256 spells out who specifically may classify information.

Authority to take certain pieces of information, say the existence of a weapons program, and classify it top secret is given only to specific individuals including the president and vice president, agency heads and those specifically designated by authorities outlined in the executive order. Information that is being retransmitted or integrated into other documents retains its original classification level. Inserting one sentence that is classified secret into an otherwise unclassified document makes the entire document secret.

Some things clearly need to be kept secret, like the identity of covert operatives or battle plans. Other issues are not as obvious. Should the mere fact that the secretary of state had a conversation with a counterpart be classified? In fact, different agencies disagree about issues like this all the time. In the Clinton case, the State Department disagreed with the intelligence community about whether certain emails contained information that should be classified.

When Secretary Clinton began turning over emails as part of an investigation into the Benghazi, Libya attacks, the inspector general (IG) for the intelligence community assessed that information in several of them was classified and should not have been transmitted over an open email system.

But the State Department disagreed with the IG’s assessment.

Handling classified information
Media sometimes erroneously refer to Clinton as having shared classified documents. This is not something she is accused of. It is extremely difficult to share a classified document electronically over email. Most government agencies, including the State Department, maintain separate systems precisely to make it all but impossible to electronically pass information between classified and unclassified systems.

One cannot simply view a document on a classified network and email it to someone on an unclassified system even within the same agency. This is partly why Clinton and her aides say so assuredly that they did not knowingly email classified materials.

The issue is whether she and her aides should have known that matters discussed in emails were classified or sensitive. In fact, in several of the released emails she and aides take pains to avoid discussing classified matters.

In discussing normal business, it may not be evident that certain specific topics are classified. Is the entire conversation the secretary has with a foreign leader classified? Are parts of it? Is the fact that the conversation took place classified? It depends on subject matter and context, and the assessment is subjective. In the normal course of business, however, a government employee may decide that the subject matter is not sensitive and discuss the conversation over an unclassified system.

But other more complicated issues arise. For example, the U.S. government cannot acknowledge drone strikes carried out by the CIA. That information remains classified even if revealed in the media. Thus, discussing them over an unclassified system would not be allowed. However, drone strikes carried out by the Department of Defense are not subject to such restrictions. This distinction may be one of the key contentions the intelligence community has with some information in the Clinton emails.

The fact is government officials inadvertently send classified details over unclassified email systems all the time. Considering the amount of information dealt with on a daily basis, it is inevitable. Classified details are accidentally revealed in casual conversations and media interviews. We may not hear about it because it’s not in the interviewee’s interest to point that out after the fact.

A colleague and former CIA analyst tells his students he would never knowingly but almost certainly will inadvertently relate in the classroom a tidbit that is classified. The classic example is when Senator David Boren accidentally revealed the name of a clandestine CIA agent. Boren at the time was no less than chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

In that light, Clinton may have been careless, but she’s certainly not alone."

Your point now appears to be that Hillary is not the only corrupt incompetent person in government. I agree, but my point is no person who has proven himself or herself to be corrupt and incompetent should be president.

 

[Dragonlady]

the Obama Presidency, which has been successful by any reasonably person's measure,

Weakest recovery ever and $9 trillion in added debt. Great job, not.

I'm just glad Obama was right about Russia, oops.

And how about that Arab Spring, DERP!

It's hard to have a strong recovery when Congress won't pass your stimulus bills. Of course it's so much better than then contraction of the US economy under Bush. At least it's trending in the right direction after 8 years of Republican mismanagement, out of control spending, and endless wars.

Under Bush, the stock market had crash, the housing prices were dropping like a stone, and now the stock market is at record highs, and the housing market has recovered.

There are fewer wars being fought anywhere in the world than at any time in the last century. So although the Middle East is a mess, and ISIS is a problem, the entire Western Hemisphere is not at war, nor is any part of Europe at war. There's also a huge refugee crisis from Syria, but the earth is the closest it's ever been to peace.

Not that you would know any of this by talking to a Republican.

The Decline of War

 

[SmokeALib]

At a gathering of the Asian American Journalists Association Bill Clinton defended his wife regarding the email imbroglio:

"First of all, the FBI director said when he testified before Congress, he had to amend his previous day's statement that she had never received any emails that are classified. They saw two little notes with a 'C' on it," Clinton said.

"This is the biggest load of bull I've ever heard."

Clinton went on to say that while the classification system of sensitive emails was "too complicated to explain to people," what is clear is that Clinton and her colleagues were never being careless with national security.

"Do you really believe there are 300 career diplomats because that's how many people were on these emails, all of whom were careless with national security? Do you believe that?" he said. "Forget about Hillary, forget about her. Is that conceivable?"

Bill Clinton talks email controversy: 'Biggest load of bull' - CNNPolitics.com



He's right. Comey did have to amend his statements, those emails had been improperly marked.

Yet, what we hear played over and over again is sliced up CEC version of a tape that leaves out the only thing marked classified at the time carried "bore markings" (c) on .000001% of all the emails she sent or received. Later Comey states in his testimony they were not properly marked -- and it would have been easy for anyone with knowledge of handing classified documents to miss. The content of the emails were about her making a freakin' telephone call.

We found out later those "bore markings" were not even classified to begin with. [ Daily Press Briefing - July 6, 2016 ]

And even if they were, they originated at State, so she could have declassified them, as she has that power. But they weren't. AND, even if -- they were on such a level of "secrecy" those same two (c) emails could have been sent through the US mail with a simple No. 10 envelope and a First Class postage stamp.

The other part of this which Bill reminds us, is allllll the other career diplomats she exchanged emails would have been just as careless.

"Forget about Hillary, forget about her. Is that conceivable?"

What difference does it make?

 

[paperview]

How did classified information get into those Hillary Clinton emails?

<snip>


"What information is classified in the first place and by whom?

How does that information get transmitted?

The answer to the first question partly lies in the way sensitive information is handled and classified at the State Department and other U.S. government agencies.

An important thing to understand is that the determination of what information is classified is subjective. This means reasonable people can disagree about the relative sensitivity of particular information.

Before coming to academia, I worked for many years as an analyst at both the State Department and the Department of Defense. I held a top secret clearance and worked on issues related to weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation. Debates and arguments about whether certain information should be classified were frequent. More often than not the debates centered on why something was classified in the first place. This is why determining whether Secretary Clinton was careless is not a cut and dried issue.


Classification levels and what gets classified
The U.S. government uses three levels of classification to designate how sensitive certain information is: confidential, secret and top secret.

The lowest level, confidential, designates information that if released could damage U.S. national security. The other designations refer to information the disclosure of which could cause “serious” (secret) or “exceptionally grave” (top secret) damage to national security.

At the top secret level, some information is “compartmented.” That means only certain people who have a top secret security clearance may view it. Sometimes this information is given a code word so that only those cleared for that particular code word can access the information. There are several other designators restricting access even to cleared personnel. For example, only those holding a secret or top secret clearance and the critical nuclear weapon design information designation are allowed to access information related to many aspects of the operation and design of nuclear weapons.

It is common for documents to contain information that is classified at different levels as well as unclassified information. Individual paragraphs are marked to indicate the level of classification. For example, a document’s title might be preceded with the marker (U) indicating the title and existence of the document is unclassified.

Within a document, paragraphs might carry the markers “S” for secret, “C” for confidential or “TS” for top secret. The highest classification of any portion of the document determines its overall classification. This approach allows for the easy identification and removal of classified portions of a document so that less sensitive sections can be shared in unclassified settings.

This is what Clinton was trying to do with the “nonpaper” that she instructed her aide Jake Sullivan to fix so that it could be sent over a nonsecure fax machine.

Not quite confidential
Below the confidential level, there are varying terms for information that is not classified but still sensitive.

Government agencies use different terms for this category of information. The State Department uses the phrase “sensitive but unclassified,” while the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security use “for official use only.” These markers are often seen in the headers and footers of documents just like classified designations.

Who decides what is classified?
Executive Order 13256 spells out who specifically may classify information.

Authority to take certain pieces of information, say the existence of a weapons program, and classify it top secret is given only to specific individuals including the president and vice president, agency heads and those specifically designated by authorities outlined in the executive order. Information that is being retransmitted or integrated into other documents retains its original classification level. Inserting one sentence that is classified secret into an otherwise unclassified document makes the entire document secret.

Some things clearly need to be kept secret, like the identity of covert operatives or battle plans. Other issues are not as obvious. Should the mere fact that the secretary of state had a conversation with a counterpart be classified? In fact, different agencies disagree about issues like this all the time. In the Clinton case, the State Department disagreed with the intelligence community about whether certain emails contained information that should be classified.

When Secretary Clinton began turning over emails as part of an investigation into the Benghazi, Libya attacks, the inspector general (IG) for the intelligence community assessed that information in several of them was classified and should not have been transmitted over an open email system.

But the State Department disagreed with the IG’s assessment.

Handling classified information
Media sometimes erroneously refer to Clinton as having shared classified documents. This is not something she is accused of. It is extremely difficult to share a classified document electronically over email. Most government agencies, including the State Department, maintain separate systems precisely to make it all but impossible to electronically pass information between classified and unclassified systems.

One cannot simply view a document on a classified network and email it to someone on an unclassified system even within the same agency. This is partly why Clinton and her aides say so assuredly that they did not knowingly email classified materials.

The issue is whether she and her aides should have known that matters discussed in emails were classified or sensitive. In fact, in several of the released emails she and aides take pains to avoid discussing classified matters.

In discussing normal business, it may not be evident that certain specific topics are classified. Is the entire conversation the secretary has with a foreign leader classified? Are parts of it? Is the fact that the conversation took place classified? It depends on subject matter and context, and the assessment is subjective. In the normal course of business, however, a government employee may decide that the subject matter is not sensitive and discuss the conversation over an unclassified system.

But other more complicated issues arise. For example, the U.S. government cannot acknowledge drone strikes carried out by the CIA. That information remains classified even if revealed in the media. Thus, discussing them over an unclassified system would not be allowed. However, drone strikes carried out by the Department of Defense are not subject to such restrictions. This distinction may be one of the key contentions the intelligence community has with some information in the Clinton emails.

The fact is government officials inadvertently send classified details over unclassified email systems all the time. Considering the amount of information dealt with on a daily basis, it is inevitable. Classified details are accidentally revealed in casual conversations and media interviews. We may not hear about it because it’s not in the interviewee’s interest to point that out after the fact.

A colleague and former CIA analyst tells his students he would never knowingly but almost certainly will inadvertently relate in the classroom a tidbit that is classified. The classic example is when Senator David Boren accidentally revealed the name of a clandestine CIA agent. Boren at the time was no less than chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

In that light, Clinton may have been careless, but she’s certainly not alone."

Your point now appears to be that Hillary is not the only corrupt incompetent person in government. I agree, but my point is no person who has proven himself or herself to be corrupt and incompetent should be president.

Then don't vote for her. Vote for the fuckfaced lying every-other-sentence orange orangutan.

 

[Dragonlady]

As Secretary of State it was her responsibility to see that documents were properly classified, so you are effictively arguing that she was an incompetent administrator who couldn't appoint the right people to do the job. If she wasn't, as you argue, competent to run the State Department, it is impossible to imagine she would be competent to run the presidency.

The State Department does not classify documents. You keep repeating that Hillary was incompetent at classifying documents, but it was not her function nor was it the Department's function, so that line of reasoning isn't valid. She was a very competent and well-respected Secretary of State with a public approval rating of 66% when she left the job.

It was only when she announced that she was running for President that Republicans started painting her as the Wicked Witch of the Left, and calling her a criminal.

 

[buckeye45_73]

How did classified information get into those Hillary Clinton emails?

<snip>


"What information is classified in the first place and by whom?

How does that information get transmitted?

The answer to the first question partly lies in the way sensitive information is handled and classified at the State Department and other U.S. government agencies.

An important thing to understand is that the determination of what information is classified is subjective. This means reasonable people can disagree about the relative sensitivity of particular information.

Before coming to academia, I worked for many years as an analyst at both the State Department and the Department of Defense. I held a top secret clearance and worked on issues related to weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation. Debates and arguments about whether certain information should be classified were frequent. More often than not the debates centered on why something was classified in the first place. This is why determining whether Secretary Clinton was careless is not a cut and dried issue.


Classification levels and what gets classified
The U.S. government uses three levels of classification to designate how sensitive certain information is: confidential, secret and top secret.

The lowest level, confidential, designates information that if released could damage U.S. national security. The other designations refer to information the disclosure of which could cause “serious” (secret) or “exceptionally grave” (top secret) damage to national security.

At the top secret level, some information is “compartmented.” That means only certain people who have a top secret security clearance may view it. Sometimes this information is given a code word so that only those cleared for that particular code word can access the information. There are several other designators restricting access even to cleared personnel. For example, only those holding a secret or top secret clearance and the critical nuclear weapon design information designation are allowed to access information related to many aspects of the operation and design of nuclear weapons.

It is common for documents to contain information that is classified at different levels as well as unclassified information. Individual paragraphs are marked to indicate the level of classification. For example, a document’s title might be preceded with the marker (U) indicating the title and existence of the document is unclassified.

Within a document, paragraphs might carry the markers “S” for secret, “C” for confidential or “TS” for top secret. The highest classification of any portion of the document determines its overall classification. This approach allows for the easy identification and removal of classified portions of a document so that less sensitive sections can be shared in unclassified settings.

This is what Clinton was trying to do with the “nonpaper” that she instructed her aide Jake Sullivan to fix so that it could be sent over a nonsecure fax machine.

Not quite confidential
Below the confidential level, there are varying terms for information that is not classified but still sensitive.

Government agencies use different terms for this category of information. The State Department uses the phrase “sensitive but unclassified,” while the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security use “for official use only.” These markers are often seen in the headers and footers of documents just like classified designations.

Who decides what is classified?
Executive Order 13256 spells out who specifically may classify information.

Authority to take certain pieces of information, say the existence of a weapons program, and classify it top secret is given only to specific individuals including the president and vice president, agency heads and those specifically designated by authorities outlined in the executive order. Information that is being retransmitted or integrated into other documents retains its original classification level. Inserting one sentence that is classified secret into an otherwise unclassified document makes the entire document secret.

Some things clearly need to be kept secret, like the identity of covert operatives or battle plans. Other issues are not as obvious. Should the mere fact that the secretary of state had a conversation with a counterpart be classified? In fact, different agencies disagree about issues like this all the time. In the Clinton case, the State Department disagreed with the intelligence community about whether certain emails contained information that should be classified.

When Secretary Clinton began turning over emails as part of an investigation into the Benghazi, Libya attacks, the inspector general (IG) for the intelligence community assessed that information in several of them was classified and should not have been transmitted over an open email system.

But the State Department disagreed with the IG’s assessment.

Handling classified information
Media sometimes erroneously refer to Clinton as having shared classified documents. This is not something she is accused of. It is extremely difficult to share a classified document electronically over email. Most government agencies, including the State Department, maintain separate systems precisely to make it all but impossible to electronically pass information between classified and unclassified systems.

One cannot simply view a document on a classified network and email it to someone on an unclassified system even within the same agency. This is partly why Clinton and her aides say so assuredly that they did not knowingly email classified materials.

The issue is whether she and her aides should have known that matters discussed in emails were classified or sensitive. In fact, in several of the released emails she and aides take pains to avoid discussing classified matters.

In discussing normal business, it may not be evident that certain specific topics are classified. Is the entire conversation the secretary has with a foreign leader classified? Are parts of it? Is the fact that the conversation took place classified? It depends on subject matter and context, and the assessment is subjective. In the normal course of business, however, a government employee may decide that the subject matter is not sensitive and discuss the conversation over an unclassified system.

But other more complicated issues arise. For example, the U.S. government cannot acknowledge drone strikes carried out by the CIA. That information remains classified even if revealed in the media. Thus, discussing them over an unclassified system would not be allowed. However, drone strikes carried out by the Department of Defense are not subject to such restrictions. This distinction may be one of the key contentions the intelligence community has with some information in the Clinton emails.

The fact is government officials inadvertently send classified details over unclassified email systems all the time. Considering the amount of information dealt with on a daily basis, it is inevitable. Classified details are accidentally revealed in casual conversations and media interviews. We may not hear about it because it’s not in the interviewee’s interest to point that out after the fact.

A colleague and former CIA analyst tells his students he would never knowingly but almost certainly will inadvertently relate in the classroom a tidbit that is classified. The classic example is when Senator David Boren accidentally revealed the name of a clandestine CIA agent. Boren at the time was no less than chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

In that light, Clinton may have been careless, but she’s certainly not alone."

Your point now appears to be that Hillary is not the only corrupt incompetent person in government. I agree, but my point is no person who has proven himself or herself to be corrupt and incompetent should be president.

Then don't vote for her. Vote for the fuckfaced lying every-other-sentence orange orangutan.

Thank you I will.....I'll take cheeto jesus, over a carpet munching, rape loving, lawyer that lies everytime she opens her mouth....but atleast Bill Clinton contradicted her about Comey....so fucking funny.

 

[Ringel05]

Politics is so much fun!!!!

 

[paperview]

How did classified information get into those Hillary Clinton emails?

<snip>


"What information is classified in the first place and by whom?

How does that information get transmitted?

The answer to the first question partly lies in the way sensitive information is handled and classified at the State Department and other U.S. government agencies.

An important thing to understand is that the determination of what information is classified is subjective. This means reasonable people can disagree about the relative sensitivity of particular information.

Before coming to academia, I worked for many years as an analyst at both the State Department and the Department of Defense. I held a top secret clearance and worked on issues related to weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation. Debates and arguments about whether certain information should be classified were frequent. More often than not the debates centered on why something was classified in the first place. This is why determining whether Secretary Clinton was careless is not a cut and dried issue.


Classification levels and what gets classified
The U.S. government uses three levels of classification to designate how sensitive certain information is: confidential, secret and top secret.

The lowest level, confidential, designates information that if released could damage U.S. national security. The other designations refer to information the disclosure of which could cause “serious” (secret) or “exceptionally grave” (top secret) damage to national security.

At the top secret level, some information is “compartmented.” That means only certain people who have a top secret security clearance may view it. Sometimes this information is given a code word so that only those cleared for that particular code word can access the information. There are several other designators restricting access even to cleared personnel. For example, only those holding a secret or top secret clearance and the critical nuclear weapon design information designation are allowed to access information related to many aspects of the operation and design of nuclear weapons.

It is common for documents to contain information that is classified at different levels as well as unclassified information. Individual paragraphs are marked to indicate the level of classification. For example, a document’s title might be preceded with the marker (U) indicating the title and existence of the document is unclassified.

Within a document, paragraphs might carry the markers “S” for secret, “C” for confidential or “TS” for top secret. The highest classification of any portion of the document determines its overall classification. This approach allows for the easy identification and removal of classified portions of a document so that less sensitive sections can be shared in unclassified settings.

This is what Clinton was trying to do with the “nonpaper” that she instructed her aide Jake Sullivan to fix so that it could be sent over a nonsecure fax machine.

Not quite confidential
Below the confidential level, there are varying terms for information that is not classified but still sensitive.

Government agencies use different terms for this category of information. The State Department uses the phrase “sensitive but unclassified,” while the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security use “for official use only.” These markers are often seen in the headers and footers of documents just like classified designations.

Who decides what is classified?
Executive Order 13256 spells out who specifically may classify information.

Authority to take certain pieces of information, say the existence of a weapons program, and classify it top secret is given only to specific individuals including the president and vice president, agency heads and those specifically designated by authorities outlined in the executive order. Information that is being retransmitted or integrated into other documents retains its original classification level. Inserting one sentence that is classified secret into an otherwise unclassified document makes the entire document secret.

Some things clearly need to be kept secret, like the identity of covert operatives or battle plans. Other issues are not as obvious. Should the mere fact that the secretary of state had a conversation with a counterpart be classified? In fact, different agencies disagree about issues like this all the time. In the Clinton case, the State Department disagreed with the intelligence community about whether certain emails contained information that should be classified.

When Secretary Clinton began turning over emails as part of an investigation into the Benghazi, Libya attacks, the inspector general (IG) for the intelligence community assessed that information in several of them was classified and should not have been transmitted over an open email system.

But the State Department disagreed with the IG’s assessment.

Handling classified information
Media sometimes erroneously refer to Clinton as having shared classified documents. This is not something she is accused of. It is extremely difficult to share a classified document electronically over email. Most government agencies, including the State Department, maintain separate systems precisely to make it all but impossible to electronically pass information between classified and unclassified systems.

One cannot simply view a document on a classified network and email it to someone on an unclassified system even within the same agency. This is partly why Clinton and her aides say so assuredly that they did not knowingly email classified materials.

The issue is whether she and her aides should have known that matters discussed in emails were classified or sensitive. In fact, in several of the released emails she and aides take pains to avoid discussing classified matters.

In discussing normal business, it may not be evident that certain specific topics are classified. Is the entire conversation the secretary has with a foreign leader classified? Are parts of it? Is the fact that the conversation took place classified? It depends on subject matter and context, and the assessment is subjective. In the normal course of business, however, a government employee may decide that the subject matter is not sensitive and discuss the conversation over an unclassified system.

But other more complicated issues arise. For example, the U.S. government cannot acknowledge drone strikes carried out by the CIA. That information remains classified even if revealed in the media. Thus, discussing them over an unclassified system would not be allowed. However, drone strikes carried out by the Department of Defense are not subject to such restrictions. This distinction may be one of the key contentions the intelligence community has with some information in the Clinton emails.

The fact is government officials inadvertently send classified details over unclassified email systems all the time. Considering the amount of information dealt with on a daily basis, it is inevitable. Classified details are accidentally revealed in casual conversations and media interviews. We may not hear about it because it’s not in the interviewee’s interest to point that out after the fact.

A colleague and former CIA analyst tells his students he would never knowingly but almost certainly will inadvertently relate in the classroom a tidbit that is classified. The classic example is when Senator David Boren accidentally revealed the name of a clandestine CIA agent. Boren at the time was no less than chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

In that light, Clinton may have been careless, but she’s certainly not alone."

Your point now appears to be that Hillary is not the only corrupt incompetent person in government. I agree, but my point is no person who has proven himself or herself to be corrupt and incompetent should be president.

Then don't vote for her. Vote for the fuckfaced lying every-other-sentence orange orangutan.

Thank you I will.....I'll take cheeto jesus, over a carpet munching, rape loving, lawyer that lies everytime she opens her mouth....but atleast Bill Clinton contradicted her about Comey....so fucking funny.

No, he didn't. Idiot.

 

[paperview]

Politics is so much fun!!!!

Sorry about your small penis.

 

[Ringel05]

Politics is so much fun!!!!

Sorry about your small penis.

It's okay, it only shrinks like that around you.

 

[paperview]

Politics is so much fun!!!!

Sorry about your small penis.

It's okay, it only shrinks like that around you.

When you start with micro, you end up with micro.

Again, my condolences.

 

[Ringel05]

Politics is so much fun!!!!

Sorry about your small penis.

It's okay, it only shrinks like that around you.

When you start with micro, you end up with micro.

Again, my condolences.

Micro is relative........

 

[TooTall]

At a gathering of the Asian American Journalists Association Bill Clinton defended his wife regarding the email imbroglio:

"First of all, the FBI director said when he testified before Congress, he had to amend his previous day's statement that she had never received any emails that are classified. They saw two little notes with a 'C' on it," Clinton said.

"This is the biggest load of bull I've ever heard."

Clinton went on to say that while the classification system of sensitive emails was "too complicated to explain to people," what is clear is that Clinton and her colleagues were never being careless with national security.

"Do you really believe there are 300 career diplomats because that's how many people were on these emails, all of whom were careless with national security? Do you believe that?" he said. "Forget about Hillary, forget about her. Is that conceivable?"

Bill Clinton talks email controversy: 'Biggest load of bull' - CNNPolitics.com



He's right. Comey did have to amend his statements, those emails had been improperly marked.

Yet, what we hear played over and over again is sliced up CEC version of a tape that leaves out the only thing marked classified at the time carried "bore markings" (c) on .000001% of all the emails she sent or received. Later Comey states in his testimony they were not properly marked -- and it would have been easy for anyone with knowledge of handing classified documents to miss. The content of the emails were about her making a freakin' telephone call.

We found out later those "bore markings" were not even classified to begin with. [ Daily Press Briefing - July 6, 2016 ]

And even if they were, they originated at State, so she could have declassified them, as she has that power. But they weren't. AND, even if -- they were on such a level of "secrecy" those same two (c) emails could have been sent through the US mail with a simple No. 10 envelope and a First Class postage stamp.

The other part of this which Bill reminds us, is allllll the other career diplomats she exchanged emails would have been just as careless.

"Forget about Hillary, forget about her. Is that conceivable?"

Right after BJ Clinton said this is the biggest load of bull I've ever heard, he added where no one could hear, I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsk either.