"ORCON" - IGO Nat. Intelligence Refuses in Congress To Mention The Name of An Unknown Agency.

I just happened to have C-SPAN on while I was working in my office when I caught this nice little piece of gold for ATS to mull over.... Not really my forte, but I'm sure there are many here who'll jump all over this... Video Below.

Near the end of today's hearing on the Hillary Clinton Email Investigation, House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz begins questioning Inspector General to the Department of State Steve Linick about digital records falling under the jurisdiction of the Federal Records Act and leads into the subject of 8 minutes of video that were deleted from I'm assuming Clinton's emails.

Linick then claims to not have answers to wheather or not video is treated differently than text in regaurds to violating the Federal Records Act.

Chairman Chafftez responds by giving a pretty good reason why we need to have this info and why we have the Freedom of information Act in the first place, being that we are the USA, "we do allow the public to access this information because they paid for it, it's their government".

Chafftez then asks if the house could be provided with the claissified emails that were apart of the investigation. Linick responds that "We didn't look at the classified emails. That wasn't part of our review..." Linick then passes the question off to the Inspector General Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Charles McCullough...

Chafftez - "Can you provided this committee, in a secure format, the classified emails?"

McCullough - "I can to a certain extent, I cannot provide a certain segment of them because the agency... uhhh... that owns the information for those emails has limited the distribution on those, so... They're uh... characterizing them as ORCON."

Chafftez - "Explain what ORCON is."

McCullough - "Originator Control." "...uh, so I can't... I can't give them to, even Congress, without getting the agency's permission to provide them..."

Chafftez - "Which agency?"

McCullough - "I can't say that here in an open hearing sir."

Chafftez - "So you can't even tell me which agency won't allow, us as members of Congress to see something that Hillary Clinton allowed somebody without a security clearance in a non-protected format to see, that's correct?"

...The conversation then slowly digresses out.

EDIT : Something odd happening with this Youtube link when viewing from ATS, you may get the 4 hour version or the 6 hour...

4 hour version :
For a better perspective, start the video at 3:37:43 .
The McCullough statement begins at 3:41:37

6 hour version :
For a better perspective, start the video at 5:52:10 .
The McCullough statement begins at 5:56:12

He may have been referring to this:

Secretary of State John Kerry has ordered a review of deleted footage from a 2013 press briefing, a reverse of the department's vow last week not to further investigate the matter. The Hill reports that Kerry has asked his employees to take a closer look at the edited video and try to determine who cut footage that contained a question about the Obama administration's negotiations with Iran. Roughly eight minutes of the briefing were originally missing from an official version of the video uploaded to YouTube.

The deleted video includes an exchange between Fox News reporter James Rosen and State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki regarding whether or not the Obama administration lied about conducting secret talks with Iran over its nuclear program.

www.newsmax.com...

Chairman Chafftez - "So you can't even tell me which agency won't allow, us as members of Congress to see something that Hillary Clinton allowed somebody without a security clearance in a non-protected format to see, that's correct?"

That speaks volumes!! Remember, the House of Representatives is The People's House. They do OUR business when they question these secret dealings.

I’m getting the strong impression that there is a particular piece of material which is of concern. On the one hand it’s about the fact of the matter - potential gross negligence amounting to malfeasance. On the other hand I suspect that the investigation was either initiated because of certain material which Hillary was believed to or known to have stored, or by coincidence the investigation happened upon something in particular. It’s almost as if they’re trying to prevent disclosure of something, possibly something which foreign actors have tried or indeed managed to gain access to. They were even trying to establish whether these emails may have been printed, so they clearly have distinct concerns.

originally posted by: IllegalName
I’m getting the strong impression that there is a particular piece of material which is of concern. On the one hand it’s about the fact of the matter - potential gross negligence amounting to malfeasance. On the other hand I suspect that the investigation was either initiated because of certain material which Hillary was believed to or known to have stored, or by coincidence the investigation happened upon something of concern. It’s almost as if they’re trying to prevent disclosure of something, possibly something which foreign actors have tried or indeed manage to gain access to such material. They were even trying to establish whether these emails have been printed, so they clearly have distinct concerns.

The investigation was a ruse. I mean the last time we had a democrat for 3 terms was 1940 and under "unusual" circumstances. These guys are strategists and hire the best mathematicians money can buy.

History shows the favor is in the hands of republicans. To ensure this, this time around we have the sideshow that is all ATS can talk about.

Here's the rub. Trump isn't the outsider you all think he is. It's a theatrical dance everyone is falling fo.

Macbeth:
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

The heck does the election have to do with this? Not like it’s my thread or anything but since you tagged me then I guess I can comment on that. This is about matters of intelligence and how classified material might have been handled internally (or mishandled as it were), not about the impact it might have upon either of the presidential candidates.

a reply to: rexsblues

Oh, interesting!!

I remember when the NSA was claimed to "not exist", and was a shadow organization. Always wondered, when that changed, who took that position after them! The sort that would want to remain out of sight wouldn't just quit, after all. bet this is part of the reason she's not being charged!!

a reply to: rexsblues
Perhaps I'm misreading you but did you think ORCON was the name of the group in question? It sounds like they're referring to the CIA and ORCON is their statute for withholding information.

Regardless, it is very telling when Chafftez says that the information was so secret even the recipient can't be named.

a reply to: SargonThrall

Yeah, I thought folks might misinterpret that based on the title, I originally had "Originator Control" but the rest of the title wouldn't fit the subject line.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: IllegalName
I’m getting the strong impression that there is a particular piece of material which is of concern. On the one hand it’s about the fact of the matter - potential gross negligence amounting to malfeasance. On the other hand I suspect that the investigation was either initiated because of certain material which Hillary was believed to or known to have stored, or by coincidence the investigation happened upon something of concern. It’s almost as if they’re trying to prevent disclosure of something, possibly something which foreign actors have tried or indeed manage to gain access to such material. They were even trying to establish whether these emails have been printed, so they clearly have distinct concerns.

The investigation was a ruse. I mean the last time we had a democrat for 3 terms was 1940 and under "unusual" circumstances. These guys are strategists and hire the best mathematicians money can buy.

History shows the favor is in the hands of republicans. To ensure this, this time around we have the sideshow that is all ATS can talk about.

Here's the rub. Trump isn't the outsider you all think he is. It's a theatrical dance everyone is falling fo.

Not sure exactly what you're saying. It's happened twice since 1828, so it's been 76 years since it happened last. It's possible, verrrry possible. We're in a climate of 'firsts'. It's a new world. What does Trump being and insider/outsider have to do with topic?

Here's another interesting fact:

Since 1860 the Democrats have never put more than two consecutive presidents into the White House. The only times the Democrats have had two presidents in a row were when Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman served between 1933 and 1953, and when John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were in office from 1961 to 1969.

The Republicans have had better luck than their rivals. They hold the record for the most consecutive presidents, with four in a row: Ulysses Grant, Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield and Chester Arthur. Twice the GOP has had three consecutive presidents: William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft; and Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover.

www.lkfshow.com...

On topic, I've never seen such an environment where the interrogated/accused have assumptions of shielding, against answering questions from authorities. I mean, no fear, no respect, no forthcoming.

originally posted by: IllegalName
I’m getting the strong impression that there is a particular piece of material which is of concern. On the one hand it’s about the fact of the matter - potential gross negligence amounting to malfeasance. On the other hand I suspect that the investigation was either initiated because of certain material which Hillary was believed to or known to have stored, or by coincidence the investigation happened upon something in particular. It’s almost as if they’re trying to prevent disclosure of something, possibly something which foreign actors have tried or indeed managed to gain access to. They were even trying to establish whether these emails may have been printed, so they clearly have distinct concerns.

So the Russians are allowed to know about something we aren't???