Classified went sent..Hillarys email drama

a reply to: introvert

I have looked at this entire debate.

The emails in question contained classified information from their origination date -- regardless of whether they were marked or not, the information was classified from the get-go.

The emails in question NEVER 'used to' contain 'unclassified' information. They ALWAYS contained 'classified' information.

For the sake of better protecting that classified information, Hillary should have marked them for what they were/are/always have been: CLASSIFIED.

a reply to: introvert

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

Big difference."


DING DING WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER

Of course they match the day they were created.... the day they were considered born classified by the US Government...

It's an audit trail......all that tells me or anyone else is that is the day an OCA put the correct markings on what had previously been an unmarked classified email sent by Hillary Clinton who failed to mark it as was her duty as the Original Classifying Authority.

Again, it is the information itself that is classified. NOT the classification markings.



No matter how hard you try to spin this one....won't ever work.

You got two OCA's differing on opinions 2,250+ times so far... I assume it will go higher if the deleted stuff is recovered.

Anyways...

Sit them down at a table with an impartial judge and let them debate.

You really think Hillary would win every debate? I bet she couldn't win 25% and that's being an extremely generous estimate.

So were does that leave her?

I am going to tell you something... regardless of your opinion of me, I do know a thing or two about classified information policies and procedures...

When an OCA classifies a document....they have to be prepared to defend their classification markings. They tell you that in OCA training, because classification challenges happen on a daily basis.

That block you see on those emails contains the date they viewed the material, the classification level they deemed it to be, the reasons for classification 1.4 (a)-(g) and the declassification date which is based 10-25 years from the date the classified material was originated.

If you had bothered to research into exactly what is entailed in being an OCA, you would have learned that the OCA who classifies a document can be called to court to defend their decision if that decision is challenged.

You should also know that the government loves for people to challenge a classification decision. They encourage it as a matter of fact, because they do not want material routinely being over classified. You can get a cash incentive award for pointing out and proving that something is indeed over/under classified as a government worker.

The government is no stranger to classification challenges....it happens every day in the government right now.

The Feds are extremely well prepared to destroy any defense Hillary puts forth.


It will go to court...at this point there is no other alternative and that is exactly where it is headed.

a reply to: introvert

If Hillary was running her mouth at a party about classified info where people could overhear, that's really no different than this situation.

Her conversations at the party would not be marked 'classified' but she is required to KNOW the info is classified and protect that info, anyway.

Suffice it to say that the FBI will not play these 'definition of is, is' word games.

The woman had unmarked top secret information and held it unmarked for years. She sent and received the same type of info to/from people that had no security clearance, much less a need to know.

When she was caught, she deleted a lot of info from the server with ZERO government oversight and decided what she would hand in to the government. Then she wiped the server and gave the emails to her lawyers... for 'safekeeping'.

There are a whole list of reasons for her to be charged..

originally posted by: introvert
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.

Because the emails were technically classified "the day they were created"! Born classified!

Just because an authority put a classification stamp on it after the fact doesn't change the fact that the information is classified immediately by its nature alone from the moment it is generated.

Is this really that hard to see? Or am I missing something?

a reply to: atomish

And I think Introvert might have a point if it was someone else at the State Department that received the emails FROM Hillary and then shared them because they weren't properly marked as 'Classified' BY Hillary.

It would be unreasonable to hold such a person responsible retroactively.

But Hillary has no excuse that someone else didn't mark her emails as 'classified.' That was her job to know they were classified and mark them as such.

a reply to: RickinVa

I think a lot of folks on the "over-classification / retroactive classification / other agencies out to get Hillary" argument side, forget that the OCA's who marked all of these emails once they saw them are indeed as you mentioned required if needed to stand by their decisions in court. That is a serious threshold that most career folks would not jeopardize their clearances / career for to pursue a "political witch hunt".

I do wonder - as an OCA were there ANY emails that Hillary marked during her tenure as SoS? An interesting comparison would be how many items did previous SoS's mark during their tenure?

Granted some of the data may be classified itself, but I'm sure plenty of these types of questions and resulting answers are helping the good folks at the FBI pursue this criminal investigation...

By the way - anyone notice the Hillarites have gone somewhat quiet on these forums lately?

originally posted by: SonOfThor
I do wonder - as an OCA were there ANY emails that Hillary marked during her tenure as SoS? An interesting comparison would be how many items did previous SoS's mark during their tenure?

Great questions.

a reply to: SonOfThor

By the way - anyone notice the Hillarites have gone somewhat quiet on these forums lately?

Many people around here seem to avoid the anti-Hillary dog pile that occurs in these threads. The "antis" don't debate points individually, they travel in packs and a lot of people do not want to deal with that. This thread is a great example. I'm not pro-Hillary and only disagreed with the premise of the thread and look how I was treated.

Me, I do it for the challenge. It is high risk, usually with no reward, but when it does work out, it's worth it. Like this thread. It's drug-on forever and it took 10 or so pages for someone to say that I was right, and I was saying it since page 1.

a reply to: SonOfThor

I have seen literally hundreds of Hillarys emails.

I have never seen a single one marked by Hillary herself.

I don't even think the State Department has ever offered any proof that she ever attended her OCA training.

I think she doe not have much of a real clue about how classification works at all... which is exactly where we are today.

If she bailed on her training, that is just another nail in the coffin.

a reply to: introvert

You're still wrong even if you think someone agreed with you.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SonOfThor

By the way - anyone notice the Hillarites have gone somewhat quiet on these forums lately?

Many people around here seem to avoid the anti-Hillary dog pile that occurs in these threads. The "antis" don't debate points individually, they travel in packs and a lot of people do not want to deal with that. This thread is a great example. I'm not pro-Hillary and only disagreed with the premise of the thread and look how I was treated.

Me, I do it for the challenge. It is high risk, usually with no reward, but when it does work out, it's worth it. Like this thread. It's drug-on forever and it took 10 or so pages for someone to say that I was right, and I was saying it since page 1.

I am glad you are right... care to point out where that occurred so we can all relish it?

Total BS... just like the location of the server is not a factor in this anymore.

Enjoy your debate party that just includes you.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

You're still wrong even if you think someone agreed with you.

I'm right because my premise was factually correct.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SonOfThor

By the way - anyone notice the Hillarites have gone somewhat quiet on these forums lately?

Many people around here seem to avoid the anti-Hillary dog pile that occurs in these threads. The "antis" don't debate points individually, they travel in packs and a lot of people do not want to deal with that. This thread is a great example. I'm not pro-Hillary and only disagreed with the premise of the thread and look how I was treated.

Me, I do it for the challenge. It is high risk, usually with no reward, but when it does work out, it's worth it. Like this thread. It's drug-on forever and it took 10 or so pages for someone to say that I was right, and I was saying it since page 1.

I am glad you are right... care to point out where that occurred so we can all relish it?

the declassification dates are based on the documents date of creation, not the date of classification.

Page 1.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

You're still wrong even if you think someone agreed with you.

I'm right because my premise was factually correct.

That information is born classified? That premise?

a reply to: introvert

oh yeah...

"but that is not indicative of it being classified on the date it was created."

I forgot all about that....

Mainly because it was followed by 12 pages of people showing you that you were dead wrong.

Funny how that works.

See you on Indictment recommendation day.

a reply to: introvert

No it wasn't and I demonstrated that thoroughly.

Are you claiming the recently marked as classified emails used to contain unclassified information?

If so, you are wrong. And I pointed out why the Blumenthal email you cited was marked classified:

(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

That particular email's content didn't suddenly just change. It originated as classified -- it was just unmarked and that was IMPROPER.

Improper on Hillary's part.

You are very confused about what causes info to be classified. It's not a person, it's the law.

If you see a pound of hamburger at the grocery with no markings on it, it's still hamburger. it doesn't become hamburger just because someone labels it.

So your premise is completely wrong.

The date these documents were classified do not coincide with the date of the documents origination, but the declassified date does, per the EO. So this is proof that these emails were, in fact, retroactively classified and the declassification dates are based on the documents date of creation, not the date of classification.

The material was classified even though Hillary was either too stupid (being kind) to mark it as such and treat it appropriately ,or a traitor and knew full well what she was doing.
Either way the material was classified and she will be indicted for her actions.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: SonOfThor
I do wonder - as an OCA were there ANY emails that Hillary marked during her tenure as SoS? An interesting comparison would be how many items did previous SoS's mark during their tenure?originally posted by: SonOfThor
I do wonder - as an OCA were there ANY emails that Hillary marked during her tenure as SoS? An interesting comparison would be how many items did previous SoS's mark during their tenure?

Great questions.

Especially in light of how Hillary supporters like to bring up how previous SOS's sent classified correspondences via personal email............ but they don't like to quote the numbers......... 2 emails for Colin Powell and 10 for Condeleeza Rice.

He is claiming that information is not considered classified until it is officially marked.

That is his whole basis for his argument.

Let him continue to believe that is a true statement. It just shows he is completely ignorant of how information is classified. That's all.


AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON AND THE UNITED STATES

1. Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive Order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government.

2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.