A little bit of sarcasm in my title

...direct references to "pressure" from anyone specific.

Bottom of the article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/state-department-emails-fbi.html?_r=0

It will weigh heavily in the State Department's actions...NOT!

the conclusion of the FBI's investigation. We know pretty well what was done and what was not done. Nothing rose to the level of criminal liability. State will independently determine whether any punitive actions are to occur, such as loss of clearance, "pressure" notwithstanding. I'll defer to state on this.

This business is just one scab on a festering wound.

Looking back at the "scandals" involved over the last few years it's obvious that not enough seriousness is placed on the issue of security clearances or the enforcement of the rules.

The navy shooter. Manning. Snowden. And the list goes on and on.

As long as the people at the very top treat security like a political issue and fail to do due diligence, these problems will continue to occur. How about some accountability?

When private contractors have more access to gov't secrets than the people responsible to the people, it's just going to get worse.

Hel, even private contractors do the vetting for security clearances.

Sorry, this is just another case of the Republican Lie Maschine in action

As you know, Comey told Republican at the hearing that Clinton did not lie nor did she break the law.

FBI director says Clinton did not lie, break law in email handling

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-fbi-idUSKCN0ZN1LS

They've been trying to take Clinton down for 25 years with half-truths, lies, spurious investigations that always clear her.

Yes there is a festering wound here: Grassley, Gowdy, McConnell and every deceptive liar in the GOP.

It is a matter of security.

If you worked for a private company and you were entrusted with company trade secrets and passed them on at a conference, you really didn't break any laws.

You will get fired. You will have a very difficult time finding a similar job.

Whether the disclosure of your actions was being done by an unbiased auditor or your most hated enemy,

the result is the same. Your behavior was the problem, not who disclosed it.

Quit focusing on personalities and recognize process and principles.

Your post would have been much better if you had left off the last sentence.

It was pointing out that you are ignoring the issue.

What is the issue?

Might it be the security clearances themselves? And that many times actions are done which may be legal but may not be ethical.

Like being entrusted with information which may, if it is disclosed, cause damage to the reputation or security of the nation.

Again your post would have been much more convincing/compelling w/o that.

Have a great Monday.

You are reading that into the post. You are accusing someone of a personal attack where there was none.

Of course I could be wrong about that.

You are not wrong. Nothing read like a smear. The accusation of a smear just looks like an attempt to frame a legitimate post as a personal attack for one of those petty hides.

With the first suggestion that there was I assumed it might be a misunderstanding.

With the second I figured it would be a good time to walk away.

Here’s some information that seems to go unseen by nearly everyone that might make you feel better about the State Department’s security under Secretary Clinton.

The information in the two emails that bore markings of being classified wasn’t classified any longer. It was talking points from a list that were only classified before they were given to Secretary Clinton. By design, after this information was delivered to her, it was no longer classified. The classified text markings were not removed, and that was human error made by one of her aids.

See here:

Some classified markings in Clinton emails were 'human error'

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/hillary-clinton-classified-emails-error-225194

My own take on the situation is that I don't think this type of error should get someone hung (metaphorically or otherwise), but I know some republicans who do.

The fact is that if they were, the actions of the people handling it should have been to assume that the classification was true and taken steps accordingly.

They are also handling information that may have required a classification but the classification wasn't assigned and that was an error. They are supposed to be at a level where they should recognize that situation. It was incumbent upon them to verify with a designated security expert.

Some people take security very, very seriously. In some cases a small innocent error could cause people to die.

BTW, the people involved should have had training in the handling of classified material. And the more sensitive the material, the more intense the training.

This information was classified before it reached the Secretary, and then after it was in her hands it was no longer classified. There's no allegation that the information was being wrongly passed around while it was classified, or that it was classified wrongly before it reached Clinton.

Last edited Mon Jul 11, 2016, 04:02 PM - Edit history (1)

(reference deleted)

My position deals with policies and procedures.

It appears that the people in question didn't follow those procedures.

I'm assuming the Secretary's Aide's were the people responsible for sending her these emails, and they were responsible for declassifying the talking point list too. It was their error when they forgot to remove the classified marking, and the emails went from them directly to her.

But, perhaps you're assuming the line of communication had many other levels before it got to the Secretary? So that would mean the marking of this specific classified material, and how it was handled, would be much more codified. Yes, I can see your point, if that's true.

However, I think the emails were sent directly from her aides to Clinton.

And heavens to betsy, I've never been accused of being Nancy Grace like in anyway before.

It's a show I have never seen except as I was surfing by.

The point I was trying to make is that the handling of classified material is covered by very specific procedures. One doesn't just add or delete classifications. There are specific steps that need to be taken. Most especially on the declassification side.

Oh good, I'm glad you came back because I do respect the thought you've put into this, and I DO see your point of view. I think you're coming at this from a different perspective than me, though, because you seem to have experience with security and I don't.

I do have experience with people who 'run the show' though, and Clinton's aides were 'those' people. They were the people who decided what was classified and what was not. They were the direct link to Hillary too, so it's awfully hard to say that they must be held accountable for a classification blunder if they were the people in charge of determining what was classified and what was not. See what I mean?

So, I think that's what the State Department has to do now. They have to decide if there will be any consequence for not removing those classified markings from two emails. I think not removing those markings would be within the range of a normal human failure rate. Maybe you think differently, and if you do, I respect your opinion, but humbly disagree.

It's all good, my dear seabeckind.

I think we've already seen changes made in the way classified is handled in the State dept. If I remember there was some stuff put in place towards the end of Hillary's tenure that was prompted by actions of the earlier admins.

Times change and it takes a while for the systems to catch up.

Funny thing is that even the people who "run the show" can be taken to the woodshed. Surprising how fast a guy who embarrasses the boss can find himself in a basement office. Without a telephone or PC.

What a bullshit headline. Should read "Republican whiners don't like Hillary, abuse political power to play politics."