It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who announced in December he would "actively explore" a presidential bid in 2016, has resigned from all of his corporate and nonprofit board memberships, an aide confirmed to CNN.
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: butcherguy
And of course Hillary was careful not to claim the SS was "guarding" against internet intrusions.
originally posted by: queenofswords
Could someone in the know please answer this question for me. (It's important to me for a reason.)
Does an ex-president of the US continue forever to have top secret clearance or ready access to Department of State and foreign intelligence information? Or, does that stop after he is out of office?
But if the information was produced FOR the United States Government, it doesn't matter who produced it.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa
We are done, Rick. I've tried to converse with you on the issue by being polite, using official sources and building intelligent arguments based on those official sources. You refuse to address my assertions and will only comment on the little things that fit your agenda.
When you can reciprocate in kind and address the issues I highlighted, we can move forward. Until then, I refuse to play your childish games.
originally posted by: introvert
Her server was also used for CF business.
(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government
(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;
(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.
originally posted by: introvert
Also, it has to be classified by an OCA.
And she can not declassify information that was previously "classified" and done so by another agency.
So, as an example, when she was emailing the SI/TK information, or when she received it, even if it was not marked, it still belonged to the CIA, and remained highly classified. As soon as she saw it, it was her obligation to get it into a SCIF, and report it.
originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: burntheships
You can actually determine the severity of the information based on the amount of years after declassification date:
Out of the 10 samples:
1 @ 10 years
5 @ 15 years
3 @ 20 years
1 @ 25 years
It appears most fall in the 15 or 20 year range... out of a possible 10-25... mid to higher end of the scale. Pretty damning evidence.
EDIT: I may be wrong... and I love statistics..always have..... but with a large enough sample of emails... out of 2000, how many would it take to establish a solid baseline for:
Taking the total number of years above and dividing it by the number of emails....170 / 10 = 17 years on average, but that's an extremely small sample...and then apply that number to a rating?
10 Years = sensitive
15 Years = moderately sensitive
17 Years = Hillary Clinton's email average
20 years = very sensitive
25 years = extremely sensitive.
(that obviously isn't a an official classification rating, only for purposes of the question, if I can find an official one I would substitute it of course)
25% for a solid baseline?
I think you see where I am going with this I hope. Bear in mind that the lowest possible average, 10, will put you in jail. She is already screwed..but I think with enough numbers... you can get an honest feel for how severe the Government has assessed this to be... the numbers are out there Mulder!
Found this:
www.fas.org... a copy of the 2005 Department of State Classification Guide:
(U) 3. Picking a Date. While a significant amount of State Department information will be adequately protected by assigning a classification duration of ten years or less, that duration of classification could,. be grossly inadequate for many classes of information. This latter is particularly true for information derived from foreign governments and confidential sources and, as discussed below under several individual categories, it applies to other types of information as well. Often there are multiple considerations in determining the duration of classification. While the information provided by a source may be of lessened sensitivity in ten years, the fact that the source provided the information could be sensitive for as long as the source lives. Similarly, the signing of an agreement generally means that much of the related information loses its sensitivity, but a negotiating history of the agreement describing the diplomatic details and discussions could well remain sensitive for many years. It is therefore incumbent upon the user of this guide, as for OCAs, carefully to consider each duration decision.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye
But if the information was produced FOR the United States Government, it doesn't matter who produced it.
It's an act of desperation and a complete assumption to claim I did it to suit my argument.
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye
But if the information was produced FOR the United States Government, it doesn't matter who produced it.
It's an act of desperation and a complete assumption to claim I did it to suit my argument.
No, you used your *ahem* "typo" to prop up your argument. I didn't assume it, you put it on display and I simply noticed it.
PART 1 -- ORIGINAL 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