Classified went sent..Hillarys email drama

Nevermind

originally posted by: introvert
So I was correct this entire time. Classification periods are dependent upon the date the document was created, not when it was classified.

Cool.

Don't forget that Hillary Clinton was the first Original Classification Authority... not the people at the State Department


Blam baby....unmarked classified email when sent..................cha ching.

Absolutely amazing concept... mind boggling that not only did Hillary not ever send or receive a single classified email.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
So I was correct this entire time. Classification periods are dependent upon the date the document was created, not when it was classified.

Cool.

Don't forget that Hillary Clinton was the first Original Classification Authority... not the people at the State Department


Blam baby....unmarked classified email when sent..................cha ching.

Irrelevant to my point. You said this in the OP:

That is 100% positive proof that the US Government will take the position that these emails were indeed considered classified when sent, not at some “retroactive” date as Hillary and her supporters claim. They have already done it.

You tried to use the declassification dates as proof that these documents would be considered classified at the time. It is now clear, thanks to Jaded and info I have posted, that the declassification date is not indicative of when a document was classified. It only shows when the document was created. You even posted proof of that.

1. C05780110 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 - Class: CONFIDENTIAL - Reason: 1.4(D) - Declassify on: 03/08/2026…. 15 years after email sent on 3/8/2011.

This document was "Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016" with a declassification date 15 years after the email was created... not classified.

Therefore, it appears that your assertion in the OP was incorrect and I was right all along.

a reply to: introvert

Yes sir absolutely clear that the government says it was classified when born, thank you for making that very crucial distinction.

The declassification date is 10-25 years from the day the classified data originated.

If the information was only classifed as of the date the State Department says... the declassification dates would be 10-25 years from that date.


You really struggle with the concpet of born classified don't you? Hard to work an excuse around that. Impossible in this case.

Third day in a row of you flooding a thread that you believe is nothing but pure nonsense.

a reply to: RickinVa

Admit you were wrong Rick.

Declassification dates are not indicative of when something was considered classified. It only shows when a document was created.

You're OP was wrong.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Admit you were wrong Rick.

Declassification dates are not indicative of when something was considered classified. It only shows when a document was created.

You're OP was wrong.

Born classified... admit you were wrong.


It is the information that is classified.... not some stamp placed upon it.... that is what you fail to grasp.

It is all nonsense to you.

Sorry but Hillary was an Original Classification Authority for the State Department... every classified email she sent was simply unmarked classified information.

a reply to: introvert

It is now clear, thanks to Jaded and info I have posted, that the declassification date is not indicative of when a document was classified.

Methinks you're confused:

Classification duration may be defined (1) in terms of a time period measured from the origination date of a d0cument...

"From the origination date" means it's classification period began when it was originated and ends at the date specified.



unless you want to try and argue that 'classification duration' does not mean the time period in which the item in question is to be considered classified.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Yes, origination date. The date the document was created, not classified.

That would explain why the declassification dates match the day the emails were sent, not the date they classified it.

The emails were retroactively classified and while the period of classification lasts from the time the document was originated, the argument cannot be made that the documents were classified at that time.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Yes, origination date. The date the document was created, not classified.

That would explain why the declassification dates match the day the emails were sent, not the date they classified it.

So hard.... He can not grasp that if the government says information is born classified, then it is classified at origination and the declassification is based on the date the classified material originated.

He desperately needs to convince people that data is not considered classified until it receives a marking from an OCA. Which is a completely ignorant argument based on the fact Hillary was an OCA herself.

It has to be this way for him to be able to hop on the retroactively classified soapbox.

He is dead wrong and either just doesn't know it, or just doesn't care....it is all nonsense to him anyways.



It remains unmarked classified restricted data until it is properly marked by an OCA.

Hillary Clinton was the first OCA to view this material.

a reply to: introvert

The emails were retroactively classified and while the period of classification lasts from the time the document was originated, the argument cannot be made that the documents were classified at that time.

And that's the fallacious argument 'retroactive classification,' it's not that items become classified after they are marked as such, it's that items deserving classification markings may or may not receive them when the item is generated; whether or not it is marked is irrelevant to it's actually being classified.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Admit you were wrong Rick.

Declassification dates are not indicative of when something was considered classified. It only shows when a document was created.

You're OP was wrong.

Are you asserting that Top Secret information in an email is not Top Secret until the person that repairs the error that Hillary made (by not marking Top Secret information as Top Secret) marks it Top Secret?

You do realize that the information itself is what is guarded and not a header saying that it is guarded, right?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The point is that the OP tried to say that the declassification dates indicate that the documents were considered classified at that time. It does not.

The declassification dates only indicate when the documents were created.

It's that simple.

The documents were retroactively classified, as can be seen in the OP:

1. C05780110 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 - Class: CONFIDENTIAL - Reason: 1.4(D) - Declassify on: 03/08/2026

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

The emails were retroactively classified and while the period of classification lasts from the time the document was originated, the argument cannot be made that the documents were classified at that time.

And that's the fallacious argument 'retroactive classification,' it's not that items become classified after they are marked as such, it's that items deserving classification markings may or may not receive them when the item is generated; whether or not it is marked is irrelevant to it's actually being classified.

Yes!

In other words, it's the content that is classified and it's the law that classifies the content -- not a person.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The point is that the OP tried to say that the declassification dates indicate that the documents were considered classified at that time. It does not.

The declassification dates only indicate when the documents were created.

It's that simple.

The documents were retroactively classified, as can be seen in the OP:

1. C05780110 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 - Class: CONFIDENTIAL - Reason: 1.4(D) - Declassify on: 03/08/2026

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016

Whatever man.... make sure you tell Hillary that you can be an expert witness in her defense now... I hope she takes you up on that offer.


"The documents were retroactively classified, as can be seen in the OP:"

Blam there he goes....... he is running to the end zone......could it be a touchdown???? He is at the 10... the 20........ ohhhhhhhhh crushed by a brutal hit from #67 Born Classified on the 21 yard line. FUMBLE!!!!!!!

a reply to: RickinVa

I'm not arguing about whether or not she is guilty of anything. I am only saying that the OP was incorrect and the declassification date is not indicative of when something is classified, only when it was created.

Can we be reasonable and at least admit that?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The point is that the OP tried to say that the declassification dates indicate that the documents were considered classified at that time. It does not.

Yes, it does.

For example, the Blumenthal email you cited yesterday was considered classified from the date of origination for the following reasons:

(b)(1) Information specifically authorized by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy. Executive Order 13526 includes the following classification categories:

1.4 (b) Foreign government information
1.4 (d) Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources

It was just not PROPERLY marked as such.

In other words, it was IMPROPERLY unmarked before being properly marked 'classified.'

a reply to: introvert

Technically you are correct, the items listed did not receive their classifications at the time they were generated or had their marking stripped; either of which is a major criminal violation, btw.

But that does not mean that the information was not classified in ad of itself simply by nature of it's existence.



I really shouldn't have reopened this can of worms, apologies to the thread.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Look at what was posted in the OP:

1. C05780110 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 - Class: CONFIDENTIAL - Reason: 1.4(D) - Declassify on: 03/08/2026…. 15 years after email sent on 3/8/2011. 2. C05782907 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 09/30/2015 - Class: CONFIDENTIAL - Reason: 1.4(D) - Declassify on: 10/10/2026…. 15 years after email sent on 10/11/2011. 3. C05780602 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: SECRET — Reason: 1.4(C) — Declassify on: 03/12/2031….20 years after email sent on 3/12/2011. 4. C05764490 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 07/30/2015 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(D), 1.4(H), B1 — Declassify on: 09/05/2024…. 15 years after email sent on 09/06/2009. 5. C05764642 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 10/30/2015 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(B), 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 09/20/2019…. 10 years after email sent on 9/20/2009. 6. C05785530 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: SECRET — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 05/16/2026…. 15 years after email sent on 5/16/2011. 7. C05782235 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: SECRET — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 08/24/2031…. 20 years after email sent on 08/24/2011. 8. C05789767 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 – Class: SECRET – Reason: 1.4(B), 1.4(D) – Declassify on: 03/24/2027…. 15 years after email sent on 03/25/2012. 9. C05791291 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: SECRET — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 02/24/2037…. 25 years after email sent on 02/25/2012. 10. C05790513 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(B), 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 03/09/2032…. 20 years after email sent on 03/10/2012.

None of those "classified on" dates match the declassification dates. They match the day they were created.

Big difference.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

I'm not arguing about whether or not she is guilty of anything. I am only saying that the OP was incorrect and the declassification date is not indicative of when something is classified, only when it was created.

Can we be reasonable and at least admit that?

That's not true so why would I agree to something I know to be false?

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Technically you are correct, the items listed did not receive their classifications at the time they were generated or had their marking stripped; either of which is a major criminal violation, btw.

But that does not mean that the information was not classified in ad of itself simply by nature of it's existence.

 

I really shouldn't have reopened this can of worms, apologies to the thread.

Thank you. That's all I was debating in this thread because that was the topic of the OP.

I will leave you guys to do whatever you like from here on out.