Classified went sent..Hillarys email drama

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Unless one were to attempt the arguement that somehow she was not representative of the Government while she held that office.

It would be absurd to argue that, but it's easy to argue that she was not only SoS, but also part of the Clinton Foundation. Two separate entities.

Therefore, her having information created for and by the CF is not unreasonable to suggest.

Wrong....Hillary Clinton is not a split personality........she was a representative of the US Government 24 hours a day 7 days a week while serving as Secretary of State.

You have no argument what so ever.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Secretary of State is fourth in line in the order of presidential succession. I don't think one gets to 'clock out' of their position unless and until they are relieved of duty. Even when he's on vacation, Obama is still the President of the United States of America; likewise for Hillary.

Any and everything one does while holding such a high level of public office is official business, you literally take a vacation from your private life when you become the embodiment of our governing system.

I didn't claim anything of the sort.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Unless one were to attempt the arguement that somehow she was not representative of the Government while she held that office.

It would be absurd to argue that, but it's easy to argue that she was not only SoS, but also part of the Clinton Foundation. Two separate entities.

Therefore, her having information created for and by the CF is not unreasonable to suggest.

Wrong....Hillary Clinton is not a split personality........she was a representative of the US Government 24 hours a day 7 days a week while serving as Secretary of State.

You have no argument what so ever.

Was she not also involved at the CF?

Also, can you address the previous claims and questions I have raised in regards to declassification? You have still yet to address that.

a reply to: introvert

Ok, then as a result of Hillary being SecState, even when she was doing stuff for the Clinton Foundation, it became official business simply by the nature of her holding the position she did. Had she been some lower level functionary or someone who punched a clock it might be able to be argued that she can separate her work and private life, but she was one of the cogs in the machinery of government. By choice, mind you.

What she should have done was refrain from any activity for the Clinton Foundation while she held public office in order to avoid to appearance of impropriety. But she didn't did she?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Unless one were to attempt the arguement that somehow she was not representative of the Government while she held that office.

It would be absurd to argue that, but it's easy to argue that she was not only SoS, but also part of the Clinton Foundation. Two separate entities.

Therefore, her having information created for and by the CF is not unreasonable to suggest.

Wrong....Hillary Clinton is not a split personality........she was a representative of the US Government 24 hours a day 7 days a week while serving as Secretary of State.

You have no argument what so ever.

Was she not also involved at the CF?

Also, can you address the previous claims and questions I have raised in regards to declassification? You have still yet to address that.

Told you I will not play chase the tail. Make of that what you will sir.

There is no point in try to argue a point that is mute...Hillary was the Original Classification Authority for those emails,,, they were her responsibility and there are 2200+ questions concerning her decisions in how she carried out those responsibilities.

Nothing you can do or say is going to change that simple fact.

As a matter of fact, I am done with you now..


It's all just a bunch of nonsense to you isn't it?

Laters

I bet the Clinton Foundation server(s) became classified too.

Theirs and Hillary's were on the same network.

This could be stickier than some people think.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

What she should have done was refrain from any activity for the Clinton Foundation while she held public office in order to avoid to appearance of impropriety. But she didn't did she?

I agree, but that does not reconcile the fact that the information she received was not created by or for the government. Therefore the information did not fall under criteria for classification.

originally posted by: introvert
Pay close attention to number 2. The information must be owned by, produced by AND for, or is under the control of the United States Government.

The fact that you intentionally changed "or" to "and" tells me that you know you are wrong about this and are intentionally twisting the debate into something that favors your argument.

But you don't get to rewrite the rules & regulations.

"(2) the information is owned by, produced by OR for, or is under the control of the United States Government; "

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Will this suffice:

Classification is the process of identifying that information which requires protection in the interests of preserving national security. Examples of classification abound in history, both ancient and modern.

...

Any information which fits into the definition of RD is considered to be classified by the Act upon its generation. This is generally referred to as being "born classified." No specific action is required to classify this type of information.

OFFICE OF DECLASSIFICATION
HISTORY OF CLASSIFICATION AND DECLASSIFICATION
July 22, 1996

You are 100% correct.... it falls under restricted data and is considered classified at origination or born classified. This has been shown numerous times on these threads already.

Some people refuse to see that though.

But here you go.... Hillary Clinton signed a SF- 312 for access to classified information. Along with that form came a booklet.... it would have behooved her to have read that booklet because that booklet has a session of questions and answers.... you know like:

Question 23:

Are Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data, classified under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, included in the definition for "classified information," as used in the SF 312?

Answer: Yes.

www.archives.gov...

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Unless one were to attempt the arguement that somehow she was not representative of the Government while she held that office.

It would be absurd to argue that, but it's easy to argue that she was not only SoS, but also part of the Clinton Foundation. Two separate entities.

Therefore, her having information created for and by the CF is not unreasonable to suggest.

Wrong....Hillary Clinton is not a split personality........she was a representative of the US Government 24 hours a day 7 days a week while serving as Secretary of State.

You have no argument what so ever.

Was she not also involved at the CF?

Also, can you address the previous claims and questions I have raised in regards to declassification? You have still yet to address that.

Told you I will not play chase the tail. Make of that what you will sir.

There is no point in try to argue a point that is mute...Hillary was the Original Classification Authority for those emails,,, they were her responsibility and there are 2200+ questions concerning her decisions in how she carried out those responsibilities.

Nothing you can do or say is going to change that simple fact.

As a matter of fact, I am done with you now..


It's all just a bunch of nonsense to you isn't it?

Laters

I believe I have brought-up reasonable questions, derived from government sources, specifically the EO, and have been unable to get you to reply specifically to my questions. I don't know why it is so hard to address those questions, if I am wrong.

In fact, you appear to be avoiding it and even changed the subject to other areas, when it is your own OP and you brought-up declassification dates.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that you cannot answer those questions and would explain why you have deflected this entire time.

Have a great afternoon Rick.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
Pay close attention to number 2. The information must be owned by, produced by AND for, or is under the control of the United States Government.

The fact that you intentionally changed "or" to "and" tells me that you know you are wrong about this and are intentionally twisting the debate into something that favors your argument.

But you don't get to rewrite the rules & regulations.

"(2) the information is owned by, produced by OR for, or is under the control of the United States Government; "

Jesus, it was a typo.

My position still stands. The Blumenthal emails did not contain information produced by OR for the US government. It was for the Clinton Foundation.

I apologize for the error, but it really changes nothing. It's funny that I make one error in a post and you make the leap in logic to say that it proves I am wrong and I was twisting the debate.

Honestly, this wreaks of desperation. No one has been able to address my simple questions.

a reply to: introvert

But it does fall under the criteria of being "under the control of the United States Government."



a reply to: xuenchen

Not just the same network, the same machine, here is proof they were on the same network:

DNS records and FOIA emails released by the US State Department suggest that Clinton's private server was used for Clinton Foundation business during and after her term as Secretary of State.
presidentclinton.com was the official website for The Clinton Foundation
[ 2009 , 2011 ] - presidentclinton.com
mail.clintonemail.com and mail.presidentclinton.com shared the IP address 24.187.234.187 in 2010 and 64.94.172.146 after 2013. Both had NS records pointing to nameservers hosted by worldnic.com
[ 2010 ] - mail.clintonemail.com
[ 2010 ] - mail.presidentclinton.com
From September 8, 2009 until June 24, 2011, Bill Clinton’s Foundation-run mail.presidentclinton.com server had an IP address of 24.187.234.187, according to DNS records.
Hillary’s mail.clintonemail.com server had the same exact IP address, 24.187.234.187, from the dates May 21, 2010 until October 21, 2010, according to DNS records.

And here Hillary is telling us it is the same machine:

Clinton's unusual email system was originally set up by a staffer during Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, replacing a server used by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

"It was already there," she told Meet the Press. "It had been there for years. It is the system that my husband's personal office used when he got out of the White House. And so it was sitting there in the basement. It was not any trouble at all."

Source

The 'staffer' who set it up is Pagliano. He was a sysadmin, not a security expert, and he was appointed to his position at the State Department rather than going through any sort of formal interview process.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

But it does fall under the criteria of being "under the control of the United States Government."

I respectfully disagree. The information was created by and for the Clinton Foundation.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Unless one were to attempt the arguement that somehow she was not representative of the Government while she held that office.

It would be absurd to argue that, but it's easy to argue that she was not only SoS, but also part of the Clinton Foundation. Two separate entities.

Therefore, her having information created for and by the CF is not unreasonable to suggest.

Wrong....Hillary Clinton is not a split personality........she was a representative of the US Government 24 hours a day 7 days a week while serving as Secretary of State.

You have no argument what so ever.

Actually she does have a multiple personality.

Hillary Clinton's Multiple Personality Disorder

Hillary Clinton has capitalized on identity politics throughout her political career. The irony of her practice is that she has shifted and changed her own “identity” throughout her political career -- a career that began during her years at Wellesley, if not before

Clinton has long suffered from what politicos have called a “personality deficit.” In an early 2008 debate with Barack Obama this weakness was highlighted when the issue arose and Barack Obama gallantly (not) told her she was likeable “enough.” But that has been the crux of her political problems; none of her personalities have been likeable enough. She keeps trying to find a new one that fits and none have because she has been on the stage too long for the public not to notice all the costume changes. The serial reboots just are not taking.

www.americanthinker.com...

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
Pay close attention to number 2. The information must be owned by, produced by AND for, or is under the control of the United States Government.

The fact that you intentionally changed "or" to "and" tells me that you know you are wrong about this and are intentionally twisting the debate into something that favors your argument.

But you don't get to rewrite the rules & regulations.

"(2) the information is owned by, produced by OR for, or is under the control of the United States Government; "

Jesus, it was a typo.

No, it wasn't.

You either copied and pasted the portion of the sentence or were so careful when you typed it that you managed to capitalize "United States Government" exactly as it appears in the official version and get every other word and comma exactly right.

Yet, somehow you confused "or" for "and?"

No, I don't think so. You intentionally changed that key word. And I think you are the one desperate to drop it because you know that the word "or" destroys your argument.

I think we should discuss it further. Much further.

Why did you really change that key word?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You either copied and pasted the portion of the sentence or were so careful when you typed it that you managed to capitalize "United States Government" exactly as it appears in the official version and get every other word and comma exactly right

"United States Government" should be capitalized. Are you trying hold proper grammar against me? Is this the new tactic of grammar Nazis? How dare I capitalize something that should be capitalized.

What a ridiculous assertion.

Yet, somehow you confused "or" for "and?"

My apologies. I type fast.

No, I don't think so. You intentionally changed that key word. And I think you are the one desperate to drop it because you know that the word "or" destroys your argument.

It doesn't destroy my argument. I apologized for the mistake and still maintained my position.

I think we should discuss it further. Much further. Why did you really change that key word?

Again, it was a mistake. I stand by my assertion after I admitted to my mistake.

If you are going to hang on one simple mistake and not address the overall premise, that says quite a bit. You believe you have caught me in a 'gotcha" moment, but honestly it's not. It shows that you are concentrating on one single aspect because you cannot refute anything else I have said.

Focus on that single mistake, by all means. But don't miss the bigger picture.

a reply to: introvert

If it's on the server in Hillary's possession, how can it not be under Government control?

Here are the restrictions on what cannot be classified:

Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.
(a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;

(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

(3) restrain competition; or

(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.

(b) Basic scientific research information not clearly related to the national security shall not be classified.

(c) Information may not be reclassified after declassification and release to the public under proper authority unless:

Source is everyone's favorite EO. Other than the above restrictions, anything can be classified.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
Pay close attention to number 2. The information must be owned by, produced by AND for, or is under the control of the United States Government.

The fact that you intentionally changed "or" to "and" tells me that you know you are wrong about this and are intentionally twisting the debate into something that favors your argument.

But you don't get to rewrite the rules & regulations.

"(2) the information is owned by, produced by OR for, or is under the control of the United States Government; "

Jesus, it was a typo.

No, it wasn't.

You either copied and pasted the portion of the sentence or were so careful when you typed it that you managed to capitalize "United States Government" exactly as it appears in the official version and get every other word and comma exactly right.

Yet, somehow you confused "or" for "and?"

No, I don't think so. You intentionally changed that key word. And I think you are the one desperate to drop it because you know that the word "or" destroys your argument.

I think we should discuss it further. Much further.

Why did you really change that key word?

Nabbed.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Source is everyone's favorite EO. Other than the above restrictions, anything can be classified.

Incorrect. The EO is specific about what criteria has to be met for classification.

Section 1.1. Classification Standards. (a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;

(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;

(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage

All of those criteria have to be met for it to be deemed classifiable. But when in doubt, the EO states to not classify.

(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.

www.whitehouse.gov...

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
Pay close attention to number 2. The information must be owned by, produced by AND for, or is under the control of the United States Government.

The fact that you intentionally changed "or" to "and" tells me that you know you are wrong about this and are intentionally twisting the debate into something that favors your argument.

But you don't get to rewrite the rules & regulations.

"(2) the information is owned by, produced by OR for, or is under the control of the United States Government; "

Jesus, it was a typo.

No, it wasn't.

You either copied and pasted the portion of the sentence or were so careful when you typed it that you managed to capitalize "United States Government" exactly as it appears in the official version and get every other word and comma exactly right.

Yet, somehow you confused "or" for "and?"

No, I don't think so. You intentionally changed that key word. And I think you are the one desperate to drop it because you know that the word "or" destroys your argument.

I think we should discuss it further. Much further.

Why did you really change that key word?

Nabbed.

Caught doing what? Making a mistake? I apologized for it and it doesn't change my assertions. If I was like a certain individual in this thread, I would just go back and edit the post, but I like to be honest and now you are holding my honesty against me.

You guys are just so desperate to catch me on anything that a simple error is justification for a dog pile. Hell, Mother is trying to use proper grammar against me. That shows the desperation.

Pretty immature and petty if you ask me, but that is par for the course around here.