DONE - GOING TO JAIL! -- Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release'
- Thread starter easyt65
- Start date
leftwinger
Diamond Member
This I do not understand? She is/was the HEAD of the Agency? How can you say somebody "authorized" her to do this? Some IT nerd said it was OK? enough already.
Redfish
Diamond Member
Let me tell you this one more time. Now listen closely. Some documents were Top Secret "at Birth", which means that Hillary actually initiated some of those TS memos herself but neglected to mark the TOP Secret, or SAP. That is a big problem for her.Absolutely
So you're saying the woman placed in charge of the state dept, people's lives, and entrusted with our national security was so incompetent, so stupid, she couldn't identitfy information so classified that none of it can be released publicly without causing serious damage to our national security?
...and you / liberals argue that she competent enough to serve as President...
There is no way for a Sec of State to know the potential security implications of the thousands of documents that cross your desk
That is why they need to be properly labeled. Why aren't Republicans pursuing the senders of those documents?
Then of course there were other TS documents that were so secret she allowed Huma Abedin read them and told Jake Sullivan to take of the TS heading so they could send it in an unsecured server. Both actions illegal.
Your statement:
"There is no way for a Sec of State to know the potential security implications of the thousands of documents that cross your desk" Are you going to go with the "Incompetent" angle? What in the hell was her job if it was not to read the thousands of documents that crossed her desk over the years.
Come to think about it, I believe Hillary should leave the country and hide. She's not getting out of this one. The WH is coming down on her as we speak.
But keep defending her. It's what you do, not well, mind you , but...you try.
What part of NOT marked Classified don't you republicans get?
The emails were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but were "were upgraded at the request of the intelligence community," State Department spokesman John Kirby said.
what part of "it doesn't matter if they were marked" don't you dem/libs get? The content makes it classified, not the markings.
paperview
Life is Good
paperview
Life is Good
Redfish
Diamond Member
both if you had a security clearance. me if you did not.
oreo
Gold Member
What part of the above do the resident extremist rw hacks don't unnerstand
Agreed--Hillary wants these 22 emails released--which is a very good indication that she's not worried about them. The Reich wing of the party has always had a reading comprehension problem.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,615
- 263,942
- 3,615
Interesting .....please provide the testimony
paperview
Life is Good
I'll get you started:
1. Information can be “classified,” even if no one has classified it.
Many news reports and commentators have suggested that “information is classified by (its) nature” (as Sean Davis writes in The Federalist), even if no agency or official has classified it yet. These accounts treat “classified” as a quality rather than an action — one that is inherent, immutable and self-evident. If information is sensitive enough, it’s classified, no matter what.
When it comes to “original classification” — the initial decision to classify information — that portrayal is simply wrong. Under the executive order that governs classification, the 2,000-plus officials who have this authority “may” classify information if its disclosure reasonably could be expected to damage national security. The determination of harm is often highly subjective, and even if an official decides that disclosure would be harmful, he or she is not required to classify.
Information provided by foreign governments in confidence is different. The executive order cautions that the release of such information is “presumed” to harm national security; agency rules provide that such information “must be classified.” There is a difference, however, between “must be classified” and “is classified.” After all, when an official receives information, its source and the circumstances of its disclosure may not be apparent. This category of information is not self-identifying, let alone self-classifying.
An official who transmits that information without classifying it has violated agency rules. But the recipient now possesses information that someone else should have classified — not classified information. (Of course, classifying the information, then sending it through unclassified channels to a private email account also would be impermissible. Emails released by the State Department show that some of Clinton's correspondents dealt with this by asking to set up conversations over secure telephone lines.)
2. It’s easy to figure out whether information has been classified.
There is a common refrain that Clinton “should have known” there was classified information in emails she got, even if it wasn't marked. As commentator Andrew McCarthy put it, “Classified information ... is well known to national security officials to be classified — regardless of whether it is marked as such or even written down.”
The classification rules treat this myth as if it were true. Once information has been classified by an authorized official, anyone who retransmits it must mark it as classified, even if it was not marked when received. This is called “derivative classification,” and it can be performed by any of the 4.5 million individuals who are eligible to access classified information. They rely on “classification guides” — a kind of index of original classification decisions, mostly kept on secure Web sites — to determine what information has been classified and therefore must be marked.
Derivative classification is intended to be a straightforward, ministerial task. But the system breaks down in practice. 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.
3. Anything classified is sensitive.
Many discussions of Clinton’s email assume that all classified information deserves to be classified, often using the terms “classified” and “sensitive” interchangeably, and that every leak of classified information is dangerous. Officials frequently make blanket statements that “unauthorized disclosure of classified information jeopardizes national security.”
In fact, the classification system is marked by discretion (intended) on the front end and uncertainty (unintended) on the back end. This lack of clear boundaries opens the door to a huge amount of unnecessary classification.
There are multiple incentives, unrelated to national security, to classify. It is easier and safer for busy officials to classify by rote rather than to pause for thought. Classification is a way for officials to enhance their status or protect agencies' turf. It can hide embarrassing facts or evidence of misconduct. There are no countervailing disincentives, as classification decisions normally go unreviewed, and agencies do not punish overclassifying. The result is massive overclassification.
4. Any mishandling of classified information is illegal.
5. Our classification system protects us from harm.
Rest at link:
5 myths about classified information
1. Information can be “classified,” even if no one has classified it.
Many news reports and commentators have suggested that “information is classified by (its) nature” (as Sean Davis writes in The Federalist), even if no agency or official has classified it yet. These accounts treat “classified” as a quality rather than an action — one that is inherent, immutable and self-evident. If information is sensitive enough, it’s classified, no matter what.
When it comes to “original classification” — the initial decision to classify information — that portrayal is simply wrong. Under the executive order that governs classification, the 2,000-plus officials who have this authority “may” classify information if its disclosure reasonably could be expected to damage national security. The determination of harm is often highly subjective, and even if an official decides that disclosure would be harmful, he or she is not required to classify.
Information provided by foreign governments in confidence is different. The executive order cautions that the release of such information is “presumed” to harm national security; agency rules provide that such information “must be classified.” There is a difference, however, between “must be classified” and “is classified.” After all, when an official receives information, its source and the circumstances of its disclosure may not be apparent. This category of information is not self-identifying, let alone self-classifying.
An official who transmits that information without classifying it has violated agency rules. But the recipient now possesses information that someone else should have classified — not classified information. (Of course, classifying the information, then sending it through unclassified channels to a private email account also would be impermissible. Emails released by the State Department show that some of Clinton's correspondents dealt with this by asking to set up conversations over secure telephone lines.)
2. It’s easy to figure out whether information has been classified.
There is a common refrain that Clinton “should have known” there was classified information in emails she got, even if it wasn't marked. As commentator Andrew McCarthy put it, “Classified information ... is well known to national security officials to be classified — regardless of whether it is marked as such or even written down.”
The classification rules treat this myth as if it were true. Once information has been classified by an authorized official, anyone who retransmits it must mark it as classified, even if it was not marked when received. This is called “derivative classification,” and it can be performed by any of the 4.5 million individuals who are eligible to access classified information. They rely on “classification guides” — a kind of index of original classification decisions, mostly kept on secure Web sites — to determine what information has been classified and therefore must be marked.
Derivative classification is intended to be a straightforward, ministerial task. But the system breaks down in practice. 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.
3. Anything classified is sensitive.
Many discussions of Clinton’s email assume that all classified information deserves to be classified, often using the terms “classified” and “sensitive” interchangeably, and that every leak of classified information is dangerous. Officials frequently make blanket statements that “unauthorized disclosure of classified information jeopardizes national security.”
In fact, the classification system is marked by discretion (intended) on the front end and uncertainty (unintended) on the back end. This lack of clear boundaries opens the door to a huge amount of unnecessary classification.
There are multiple incentives, unrelated to national security, to classify. It is easier and safer for busy officials to classify by rote rather than to pause for thought. Classification is a way for officials to enhance their status or protect agencies' turf. It can hide embarrassing facts or evidence of misconduct. There are no countervailing disincentives, as classification decisions normally go unreviewed, and agencies do not punish overclassifying. The result is massive overclassification.
4. Any mishandling of classified information is illegal.
5. Our classification system protects us from harm.
Rest at link:
5 myths about classified information
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,615
- 263,942
- 3,615
Again, what crime are you guilty of if I sent you classified material that is not marked as such
D
Deleted member 53821
Guest
I really think that this is kind of pointless because neither republicans or democrats want to deal with this issue. You are right that this should be a slam dunk but because of political alliances neither party is going to let Hillary go down but if this happen to be Trump they would both go after him with a vengence. It is a real sad thing in our country when political power has superceded any sense of justice in this country.
leftwinger
Diamond Member
She was new in the job, would have been getting new stuff daily. Much of it would be sensitive. What the heck would they need with two year old stuff on WikiLeaks?
OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,616
- 2,220
But YOU know that the State Department said none of the 22 e-mails were classified at the time she received them, right? I understand your excitement, but so far, there is no evidence she did anything illegal.
Siete
Platinum Member
- May 19, 2014
- 34,325
- 3,993
- 1,130
What part of the above do the resident extremist rw hacks don't unnerstand
Agreed--Hillary wants these 22 emails released--which is a very good indication that she's not worried about them. The Reich wing of the party has always had a reading comprehension problem.
calls for a new thread ,,
lol
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,615
- 263,942
- 3,615
The sad thing is that someone like Trump would start to receive classified information
Scary, freakn scary
leftwinger
Diamond Member
uh-huh. the IT geeks at the server farm all had SAP clearence to view any and all. They were not snooping around the internal network at the server farm up late nights partying right? you folks is so close-minded it is stunning. a Disk drive sitting off in private company is hardly military grade security.
That is why they have internal GOVT IT departments. so they can keep some sort of control over who has access to what.
leftwinger
Diamond Member
oreo
Gold Member
Let me tell you this one more time. Now listen closely. Some documents were Top Secret "at Birth", which means that Hillary actually initiated some of those TS memos herself but neglected to mark the TOP Secret, or SAP. That is a big problem for her.Absolutely
So you're saying the woman placed in charge of the state dept, people's lives, and entrusted with our national security was so incompetent, so stupid, she couldn't identitfy information so classified that none of it can be released publicly without causing serious damage to our national security?
...and you / liberals argue that she competent enough to serve as President...
There is no way for a Sec of State to know the potential security implications of the thousands of documents that cross your desk
That is why they need to be properly labeled. Why aren't Republicans pursuing the senders of those documents?
Then of course there were other TS documents that were so secret she allowed Huma Abedin read them and told Jake Sullivan to take of the TS heading so they could send it in an unsecured server. Both actions illegal.
Your statement:
"There is no way for a Sec of State to know the potential security implications of the thousands of documents that cross your desk" Are you going to go with the "Incompetent" angle? What in the hell was her job if it was not to read the thousands of documents that crossed her desk over the years.
Come to think about it, I believe Hillary should leave the country and hide. She's not getting out of this one. The WH is coming down on her as we speak.
But keep defending her. It's what you do, not well, mind you , but...you try.
What part of NOT marked Classified don't you republicans get?
The emails were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but were "were upgraded at the request of the intelligence community," State Department spokesman John Kirby said.
what part of "it doesn't matter if they were marked" don't you dem/libs get? The content makes it classified, not the markings.
If a document was NOT classified as Classified when it was sent--then there is no charges applicable. A document can always be reclassified as Classified (later on) or after the fact.
This is what Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated. Hillary Clinton wants these 22 emails released--so obviously they were NOT shown as CLASSIFIED documents when she had them. That's the point.
paperview
Life is Good
Ah. He writes like a premenstrual teenage chick.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Zohran Mamdani's wife appears to have used the N-word and celebrated Palestinian terrorists- Started by TroglocratsRdumb
- Replies: 2
-
Looking at Women Differently as I Get Old- Started by Captain Creeper
- Replies: 8
-
-
-
Russia offers to quit providing intel to Iran if US stops helping Ukraine- Started by ElmerMudd
- Replies: 16
