He seems like a likely guy to take it on the chin in all this.

What he needs is an immunity agreement.

Not that they do the government much good.

See transcripts of testimony of Oliver North and Monica Goodling

He could be the fall guy for this.

She's probably trying to help keep this guy from being the Republican's fall guy.

there's a document that proves Hillary ordered him to delete "identifying headers" and to send it "unsecured."

Because it is not labeled to her liking, doesn't negate it is classified.

Here is a good legal analysis as to why Hillary Clinton will not be indicted http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

As it stands in terms of what has been revealed to the public so far, from my distant perch and apart from the internet, she's easily in the clear of any of the charges the reich wing are attempting to assert.

I appreciate this excerpt, it pretty much makes it clear in terms of legal consequences of any of Hillary's actions or her staff as regards her "stupid emails" as Bernie put it so succinctly in one of the early debates.

Having said that, I don't trust her to state the time of day with a shred of honesty.

There's far worse, factually based history of dishonesty, and with that corruption directly tied to the foundation that may not make the headlines, or be deemed important enough in the eyes of the justice department to pursue, will most assuredly poison the general elections, potentially well into the first term in the oval office. .

But again, she will not be indicted on THIS matter. she will not have to face a Grand Jury, and at this point I might be surprised to learn of an actual interview.

"Fitz-mas" all over again, which was quite a demoralizing period, one we should take an important lesson from.

This info is later. That being said I would leary saying otherwise. As more info comes out, it is pointing in a direction which isn't favorable for Hillary or any Democrats

It is sad that the Sanders supporters know that he can not beat Clinton and so they are hoping for an indictment. That indictment is not going to happen but I am really enjoying the sad posts of right wingers and sanders supporters who so hoping for such an indictment

If the DOJ was going to indict, Biden would be in the race already. Clinton's delegates and the super delegates would flip to Biden.

Nobody knew until Politico broke the story that this stuff was happening. Literally, this info has changed. It's "evolved". This is how criminal cases work, the rule of evidence comes into play here.

What I'm sad is seeing so called "Democrats" who give Hillary a pass on everything despite there being some huge flags with things like Saudi weapon deals, Haiti, comments about AIDS, Honduras, every week it's something new and that isn't RW spin, it's her own words and actions which are being called into play.

As far as Biden, look at it this way. If there was nothing there why hasn't Obama called off the FBI which falls under his jurisdiction being that they are under the DOJ umbrella? If there was nothing there, the FBI would have cleared and closed the case already and no, the FBI isn't RW spin or Republicans.

That is so cute and adorable. You are wrong but you did provide me with a laugh

Can you show us where it was all said before Politico who broke the story as was referenced in the op?
We'll wait.

I'm correct and you know it

The sender and recipient are instructed to recognize material that will certainly end up being classified.

But not all that material is covered under the law.

...

Staff under the bus. Hillary off the hook.

Cue the statement from Herself expressing her deep disappointment in this person and sadness that he violated the law behind her back.

Would it be customary for SOS staff to have a Top Secret clearance?

I had it and I was just a common Navy person so someone working as Aide to 4th person in Line of Succession to the United States would need to have it.

My Mos as well.

As far as I know, Mills is the only one with a TS. Sullivan was the one who pulled TS docs off the classified system, so one would think he does too. Others may have more information about this. But, if it were shown that HRC shared TS/SAP, or TS with someone with a lesser Classified clearance, that in itself would be a felony violation of 18 USC Sec. 793.

You really can't do anything at State (or DoD, or Energy) without it.

She's a cabinet official, an "agency head"--in fact, the most senior cabinet official. She can declassify a document based on need to know. Her successor can reclassify it. And his successor can declassify it again.

There are enough loopholes in this document to drive a truck through--if you've got enough rank, that is.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

She has to handle that material as if she were a lowly aide.

She's first chair. There is a pecking order. And you'd be hard put to prove the origin of any given item, particularly if it were shared material. It would have to be a word-for-word quote from a document that originated elsewhere for any issue to arise, and--more to the point--it is unreasonable to expect her to recognize the origin of a sentence or paragraph absent any markings to identify it.

If she were in any hot water, Obama would make it go away with a wave of his executive hand. Since he has pretty much indicated that he wants her to follow him into the Oval, he would have directed that this be swept up if there were any issues that could impact her.

The GOP and a few oddball haters are just so determined to try to pull her down; it says more about them than her. I think they're letting this play out so that, when no There is found to be There, it'll be just one more example of the unreasonable amount of bullshit she's had to put up with as a consequence of breaking paradigms.

and she hung herself. His team VERY QUICKLY denied the Hillary Team leak that he wanted Sanders out. I suspect he gave Sanders the marching orders - no obligations or ties to the DNC and owes nothing to the Clinton fundraising/financing racket. (Good luck finding a Democrat in Washington who has those credentials!) I suspect that part of Obama's egacy is going to be taking some of the corruption out of the system....pure speculation and intuition, from a "keyboard commando" so, take it for what it's worth.

at all. He came out of the Senate, he still talks to people--he knows how BS is received in that body. Even if you pretend that super delegate endorsements don't matter, that guy has been on the Hill for a quarter century--and he isn't feeling much if ANY love from his co-workers, his peers. That--quite frankly, bluntly and simply--says SO much about his ability to work and play well with others. They don't have his back...likely because he never had theirs.

He's QUOTED in these pieces, as are his surrogates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/17/obamas-almost-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton/

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-26/obama-insiders-clinton-not-sanders-is-his-natural-heir

subject to the same provisions, even as head of agency. It does'nt matter if she's first violin, she has to play by the same sheet music, or else pay the consequences. It's not unreasonable to expect her to recognize classified material, particularly info reporting conversations with high foreign officials. Having that sort of information sent to her by someone without a clearance presented her with a duty to safeguard according to her oath, which she failed. Miserably. In fact, her response, "Keep 'em coming" shows cavalier disregard for the law, if not active conspiracy. Perhaps more seriously, she instructed her aide Sullivan to "send unsecured." That's clearly over the line into 793(g) conspiracy. She did this to herself, and will now be held accountable - even if she is pardoned before indictment, she's not going to sleep in the White House again.

There is a level of government where the rules are MADE and she was at that level.

That authoritarian stuff is for the civil and uniformed service types, for purposes of management and good order/discipline, but it does not apply to the "principals." And she was most definitely one of those. One of the upper echelon, in fact.

We'll find out in November where she lays her head at the end of the day. I suspect it'll be in the same public housing where she was crashing in the nineties.

Even the Director of National Intelligence has to go back to the originating agency and request declassification before doing so. There are procedures for everything, even for Cabinet officers, when it comes to handling classified materials. She violated the law by mishandling classified materials in the ways I've described to you - that is clear. This was a gross and systematic violation of law, apparently with the intent of evading normal security procedures, not an isolated mistake or misreading of regulations.

The only reason she might not be sleeping on a federally-issued cot is that Obama, if he follows the precedent created by a predecessor in handling the security breach of CIA Director Deutch, may allow the AG to run out the clock on FBI and IG recommendations, and pardon her before an indictment. The other possibility is a indictment, and a plea deal down to a Misdemeanor as allowed CIA Director Petraeus. Either way, she's not going to be the candidate.

and I would not expect any indictment, any "sleeping on a federally issued cot' (good grief, could you possibly be more dramatic?), any plea deal, or anything of that nature.

I'll come back to you when she's nominated.

FWIW, she can declassify that information if she originated it. And I hate to tell you this, but where do you think most NSA/CIA assets have their offices? In State Department embassies, that's where. And she's senior to DOD--when shit goes down abroad, ambassadors REALLY earn their pay. That whole "civilian control of the military" thing applies, and State gets cut in before anything happens. State acts as the diplomatic arm of the POTUS, and DOD, which is subordinate to State in that pecking order, doesn't "go rogue" on any matter--State is always cut in BEFORE anything goes down.

the originating agency. And, no, the first agency to stamp is the originator, not the senior Cabinet Officer in the line of Succession. Don't get that confused, too.

As for Diplomatic Cover, the CIA officer can stamp the document either way, but the State Department can't declassify any CIA document. The documents stamped with /SAP have all been identified by the CIA IG -- and held classified as TS/SAP -- not released by the State Dept declassification office.

The NSA source documents, similarly, have been withheld. I believe there was one document in the last batch that was recently reclassified from TS to Secret by State, but that was a DOS document.

Not the plans to the nuke reactor?

Not just that one. Believe that particular instance was to turn part of a classified document into talking points, not visa versa. The thing that really matters is she instructed him on at least one occasion to email her a document that was classified, and we now learn he sent her a number of Secret documents over the uncertified system.

Everyone else is saying he sent media talking points that resided on a secure server. TALKING POINTS--those aren't classified (unless there's a whole super secret cadre of reporters who work for a Top Secret Newspaper or a top secret TV station that none of us are allowed to watch...).

That's like saying if you live in the neighborhood of a nunnery, you have to be a nun. Just because the document was on the secure server does not mean the document was classified. Given that it was media talking points, that's probably a guarantee that it wasn't.

smh!

Here's how it was originally reported by CBSNews. See bolded section, below. A copy of the email in its original form was also posted by the NYT. The rest is the spin put on it by others. The document was classified, or there would be no "identifying heading". The meaning of "send nonsecure" is plain. Whether it was actually sent is almost beside the point, she instructed him to take a classified document, strip its identifying header, and send it by email. We know now that Sullivan actually did send numerous classified documents to her. Why do you continue to cling to the fiction that Clinton didn't have others send classified materials to her?

Also, don't overlook another fact - the State Dept. determined that HRC, herself, sent 104 emails that contained classified information.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/

It's not rocket science.

I had a computer that was rated up to SECRET on my desk. Do you think EVERYTHING--including that chocolate chip cookie recipe with the pecans instead of the walnuts--was marked classified? The solitaire game? The talking points I wrote for Congressional testimony?

smh.

No where does it say "strip out the classification markings." You WANT that to be the case, but it ain't.

Typically, talking points are used for unclassified purposes (e.g. speaking with the media)

"It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," Fallon told CBS News' Nancy Cordes.

science, as you say. What's the reason for that?

Still waiting.

had classified material in it.

Even Hillary hasn't denied it.

Are you actually arguing that Hillary was above the law because she was too important?

According to one source: http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/

Why in the name of all that is reasonable would you expect anyone to recognize something as classified without headers or markings?

And "As Hillary instructed?" You were a fly on the wall?

Come on. That sounds as stupid as "24 business hours."

pursuant to Presidential Order 13526. Go back and read it, I first explained that aspect of the case in August of last year. Please see, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

Also, HRC did instruct Sullivan to strip the classification headers and send the body of a classified document "unsecure" because she grew impatient one day. That's been widely reported. Do you deny ever reading about that?

And turning something into a "nonpaper" isn't sending classifed information.

Those right wing blogs (don't get your news from them) really try to make something out of it. The news media, wisely, was more careful.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/

They were not classified. They resided on a secure server.

And they were faxed. On a secure fax.

Oh well.

emails that derived from classified documents were withheld. That document is still classified and hasn't appeared in the public domain because it is classified.

It doesn't actually matter if any particular e-mail was not “marked classified.” The fact is General Petraeus’s journals were not marked classified either, but they still contained classified materials, and the CIA Director should have known that when he retained and disclosed them. And, by the way, Paula Broadwell also had a security clearance, but had no "need to know." So, he was charged and convicted after pleading down.

If Gen. Petraeus kept his journals secured, and only gave his girlfriend his chocolate chip cookie recipe, he wouldn't have had a problem with classified material, even if he copied it directly from his classified journals and sent it to her email address.

Clearance and access aren't the same thing. She had a clearance, she did not have access. And he wasn't sending her a Response to Queries for a Press Availability or a Chocolate Chip Cookie recipe, either. He was sharing with her very specific warfighting information she didn't need to do a puff piece on the guy (while she was having a fling with him).

smh!

This is why paragraphs--even sentences--can have differing levels of classification.

Doesn't matter what "the source document" says. If the source document is secret this/secret that, and then the final paragraph is "What to tell the media-RTQ (Response to Queries) (U)," then that paragraph can be transmitted in the clear. By email, phone or fax.

Why is that the specific information hasn't been disclosed, if the paragraph as you claim was unclassified, and there was no wrongdoing involved with that instruction?

Last edited Sat Apr 2, 2016, 10:37 AM - Edit history (1)

Really doesn't matter if the bank was actually robbed, or not, if anyone involved did something to prepare for it. The situation in this case is analogous to that.

I didn't write the Section 793 statute or make up the law of Conspiracy. I agree, it's awfully draconion.

because you haven't seen it.

smh!

Your logic is both circular and twisted. You won't be convinced otherwise, though-- you are determined to find fault where none has been shown, and you rather gleefully, and I'll assume (because I don't think ill of people without cause) unintentionally, carry GOP water in the attempt. Makes no sense.

order was unlawful. If the material wasn't classified, no need to strip off the headers and send "unsecure". Sullivan would have just sent it without a six hour wait. When someone with a security clearance instructs a subordinate to place classified material on an unsecure system, that was an unlawful order, regardless of whether it was carried out.

Dead wrong, in fact.

No work would ever get done at a military port or airfield if that were the case.

With every post you write, you're convincing me that you just don't know what you're talking about.

Can't really have it both ways.

Presidents trying to openly stand in the way of the justice system can at the very least have their legacies badly tarnished.

If it were, it would have been solved with an administrative action eons ago.

This is going to play out, in prolonged and ultimately pointless fashion, to make the GOP look like petty, carping assholes.

And anyone who takes their side? They'll look like assholes, too.

He'd have been absolutely slaughtered for it in the media and rightly so. As for 'assholes' let's wait and see what the FBI say before we start deciding who is the asshole. Because if a crime has been commited, in my mind the assholes are the ones defending it.

He can downgrade anything by opening his mouth and speaking it. He doesn't need a process. He's the Ultimate Authority.

The point is, if there'd been an issue there, this could have been accomplished very early in the process.

Your definition of "crime" is a bit overwrought, to put it as plainly as I can manage.

The president is not a wizard who can just wave a wand and make bad things go away for his friends for goodness sake.

If you read the newspaper, and listen to the State Department spokesperson, you'll learn otherwise.

And yes, he CAN retroactively declassify something--he can pretty much do anything he wants in that regard. He can't appropriate funds, but he can say "Naaah, that wasn't classified." He does it all the time, when he releases "classified" material "on deep background" to reporters. G W Bush used to do it routinely with Bob Woodward. The second Shrub opened his mouth and told Woodward a secret, it was, in effect, declassfied.

She had the authority to declassify her own talking points, even if they were classified, which they weren't.

All of this wishing-and-hoping is just not going to work out in the way that her detractors hope. It's as stupid as "Karl Rove to be frogmarched! Film at 11~!"

Otherwise, she would have done so, and this wouldn't now be an issue.

If she wanted to declassify another agency's classified materials, she would need permission from the classifying officer, a supervisor, or the originating agency's Director of the Information Security Oversight Office. If that agency refused, she could appeal to the DNI or the President.

If it were State Dept. classified info, she wouldn't have to wait hours for declassification permission. It's as simple as that.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

If the original source document that Hillary instructed Sullivan to remove headers and send "unsecure" had been of State Department origin, it should have been declassified. If declassified by the Secretary's authority, the original classification stamp would be lined through and a notation made by the declassifying designee. That document or section of a document could then be released. But, it wasn't. Why? There are only 2 possible answers: 1) the document wasn't of DOS origin, and couldn't be declassified by HRC or a State Dept. designee in an expeditious way; 2) the classified source document was of DOS origin but it's contents were deemed of sufficient importance that the document wasn't declassified, but HRC nonetheless ordered that it be stripped of its classification markings and sent "nonsecure".

There is no evidence in the email exchange between Clinton and Sullivan that she tried to have it properly declassified, in whole or part.

Either way, it was illegal for her to instruct Sullivan to send a classified document "nonsecure." That illegality doesn't change even if he eventually ended up sending it by secure fax.

Here's the specific State Dept. regulation at 5 FAM Sec. 480:

5 FAM 483.2 Marking Changes in Classification Level
(CT:IM-117; 06-16-2011)
Documents whose classification level has been changed, such as by upgrading or downgrading, must be marked accordingly. Any previous markings that do not apply must be crossed through and new markings applied. Portion markings must also be changed as required, and the “Classified by” line revised to show the date of the action and the authority for change.
EXAMPLE OF UPGRADING/DOWNGRADING MARKING Classified by June Smith, Chief, Programs and Policies Division, A/RPS/IPS/PP Reason: 1.4(b) and (d) Declassify on 05/03/16 Downgraded to [e.g., CONFIDENTIAL] by John Jones, DAS, A/GIS, January 1, 2010 DECL: 20210503

were an unclassified paragraph attached to a classified document, then stripped out of that document, and forwarded.

There's just no "there" there. You are spinning a story that has no legs, save the ones the people from places like "America Rising PAC" are trying rather desperately to craft.

Kapish? She wouldn't have had to wait for hours if it was her own document. She could have authorized Sullivan to declassify the parts she wanted or the whole thing. Got it? But, she didn't.

supported by anything more than your overactive imagination.

You apparently don't also understand that everything created under her umbrella is 'her own document.' Even if it's a classified brief prepared by one state shop that has been melded to an unclassifed RTQ prepared by her public affairs staff and presented as a single document. Surely you've heard of collaborative documents? The budget of the United States is one such--many hands go into preparing that thing, from all corners of government, but it is regarded as "one" document.

For your edification, it's capisce, from the Italian.

Stop skating around the facts and the issues. Why didn't she simply tell Sullivan to declassify? Why instruct him to strip off the headers and send nonsecure? Something doesn't add up in her story. Since the Talking Points aren't classified, as is claimed, those could have been produced as well, but haven't been. Why is that? You're not answering the questions or reaching the issues.

It's getting pretty old. You don't have your facts in order.

I've explained this to you already--you keep refusing to take the point. You don't have to "declassify" something that is not classified in the first place, but is being migrated from a secure to a nonsecure platform. You simply pull off the headers/footers, excise the classified material, and send ONLY the unclassified portion.

smh.

This isn't all that difficult. And you do not know if the material HAS been produced, or not, and/or if it has been reclassified because it reveals methods, if not sources (gratuitous classification is not outside the realm of possibility either) --and this is NOT something HRC can't do herself--because She Does Not Work There Anymore.

Look--it's obvious that you harbor an ire that makes continued discussion unproductive. You're just "convinced" -- like those fellows at America Rising Pac -- and you will not be dissuaded from what, to my eye, is an irrational POV.

If the material that was sent by Sullivan by "unsecure" email was unclassified it would be obtainable by FOIA. But it hasn't appeared.

It seems obvious to me that her campaign would want to produce those "taking points," if they are as innocuous as claimed. But, they apparently haven't been obtained or released to the public. It's either because the "talking points" material is too highly classified to release, or her campaign hasn't sought it because it doesn't want it made public, or these alleged "talking points" never existed to begin with and the material was sent for some other reason, and the public is simply being lied to again by Clinton. Just like, "I never sent classified material in my email." We learn later, she sent 104.

Look, it's obvious that you don't want to address the questions being raised here and would rather divert. You can continue to pretend that everything she did was "allowed" and commonplace. But, it wasn't. So, let's just agree that this conversation is at an end.

The Secretary of State assigns by writing the power to classify or declassify any classified Department document. As Deputy Chief of Staff, and Director of Policy Planning, Jacob ("Jake&quot Sullivan, a trusted aide who had been deputy policy director on Hillary Clinton's 2008 Campaign staff, would almost certainly have been assigned those powers by Clinton. (source Wiki bio)

As for classification and declassification at State, the primary source of Departmental rules is sections of the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM). This has been summarized, as follows:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/21/everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-state-department-classifies-information/

Who can classify information?

In the State Department, original classification authority for top secret info goes to the secretary of state or anyone the secretary has said -- in writing -- can do the job. Past examples include: "Deputy Secretaries, the Under Secretaries, the Counselor, Assistant Secretaries and equivalents; Chiefs of Mission and U.S. representatives to international organizations."

Secret or classified information is decided on by the secretary and/or a senior agency official, who can give classification power to others in writing as well.
How long does information stay classified?

"For as long as is required by national security considerations," according to the State Department manual, or up to 10 years from the date it was classified.

Some particularly sensitive information can stay classified for up to 25 years.After an item's classification time has expired, it is automatically declassified because, the State Department rules say, no information can stay classified forever.

There are plenty of exceptions. Top officials can intervene to keep something classified, especially when it falls under these categories Obama laid out:

(1) reveal the identity of a confidential human source, a human intelligence source, a relationship with an intelligence or security service of a foreign government or international organization, or a nonhuman intelligence source; or impair the effectiveness of an intelligence method currently in use, available for use, or under development;

(2) reveal information that would assist in the development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction;

(3) reveal information that would impair U.S. cryptologic systems or activities;

(4) reveal information that would impair the application of state-of-the-art technology within a U.S. weapon system;

(5) reveal formally named or numbered U.S. military war plans that remain in effect, or reveal operational or tactical elements of prior plans that are contained in such active plans;

(6) reveal information, including foreign government information, that would cause serious harm to relations between the United States and a foreign government, or to ongoing diplomatic activities of the United States;

(7) reveal information that would impair the current ability of United States Government officials to protect the President, Vice President, and other protectees for whom protection services, in the interest of the national security, are authorized;

(8) reveal information that would seriously impair current national security emergency preparedness plans or reveal current vulnerabilities of systems, installations, or infrastructures relating to the national security;

(9) violate a statute, treaty, or international agreement that does not permit the automatic or unilateral declassification of information at 25 years.
Is there anything you can't classify?

Yup. There are some rules in place to prevent abuse of the classification system, such as making something secret to avoid embarrassment or conceal breaking the law. From the State Department handbook, here's what you most definitely cannot classify:

(1) In no case shall information be classified in order to conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error, or to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency, to restrain competition, or to prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.

(2) A reference to classified documents that does not directly or indirectly disclose classified information may not be classified or used as a basis for classification.

(3) Only information owned by, produced by or for, or under the control of the U.S. Government may be originally classified.
Can the public request something be declassified?

Yes. So can government officials: In the State Department, an official who believe something is wrongly classified can challenge its status.

A court subpoena is also reason to declassify information before its time.

The public can file a Freedom of Information Act to see certain classified information. (From the manual: Send your requests for a mandatory declassification review the State Department at: Office of Information Programs and Services, U.S. Department of State, SA-2, 515 22nd St. NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100.)

But the handbook notes that declassification does not necessarily mean something can be released to the public.

The State Department has a few reasons to deny giving the public information, including:

(d) Refusal to confirm or deny existence of information. The Department may refuse to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of requested information whenever the fact of existence or nonexistence is itself classified.

(f) Other agency information. When the Department receives a request for information in its possession that was originally classified by another agency, it shall refer the request and the pertinent information to the other agency unless that agency has agreed that the Department may review such information for declassification on behalf of that agency. In any case, the Department is responsible for responding to the requester with regard to any responsive information, including other-agency information, unless a prior arrangement has been made with the originating agency.

(g) Foreign government information. In the case of a request for material containing foreign government information, the Department shall determine whether the information may be declassified and may, if appropriate, consult with the relevant foreign government on that issue. If the Department is not the agency that initially received the foreign government information, it may consult with the original receiving agency.

Foreign government information. There's that term again! It seems that's the one to watch as the FBI looks at all these rules and decides what, if anything, on Hillary Clinton's email server shouldn't have crossed it.

classified, when it isn't. That's why sentences and paragraphs have markings on them--to distinguish what is and what is not protected.

If you are only sending the unclassified piece of a document, you don't need "SECRET" at the top and bottom of the thing.

But you keep ignoring that, and gish-galloping with unrelated cuttin-and-pastin'. It just makes your argument look like a KITCHEN SINK effort and diminishes it.

Apparently, this was not the first instance of this kind. I can't understand why you cling to the tale that the material (paragraphs) in question wasn't classified. That is a fundamental weakness in your argument that this was a routine nonclassified transmission.

(I'm cutting and pasting in places because I'm using this thread to archive material. Let me worry about appearances. Thnx)

See, (as posted at greater length near the top of thread)

They ended up using a perfectly acceptable work around.

But hey, keep spinning. Now you know how the guy was feeling...!

Gee, now the information is "sensitive." According to "sources."

You know what information is sensitive? Stuff people don't want other people gossiping about.


SENSITIVE is not a classification. Nor is JUICY, DISH THE DIRT or GOSSIP.

And if you bother to actually read the links you provide, you'll see that the collars of that headline don't match the cuffs of the text at all.

Keep giving us links that don't prove your point, if you must.

The previous instance cited with information gleaned from Tony Blair was clearly classified foreign government info.

Answer that one, please. You've been bobbing and weaving all afternoon. Really, I do want to hear your side of this.

The unclassified material was a public statement by the PM of the UK.

smh!

Do you know what PUBLIC STATEMENT means?

Good grief, you're working this overtime, aren't you? She wanted the PUBLIC statement--not the intra-agency stuff. Read your own links why don't you?

Was that material classified (regardless of the merits of classification)? Why would you conclude otherwise?

- not views of the security level, would that be itself a violation of the intent every person with clearance is supposed to have to protect things that should be classified?

I understand your point that, for things generated by the State Department, the Secretary of State could declassify them. However, let's assume that Secretary Powell, Rice or Kerry, wanted to more easily pass some justifiably classified information between their subordinates to facilitate a healthy discussion on an issue, opted to declassify something even just for a few weeks while they were making those discussions. Note that I have ASSUMED that the info really should be classified. In this case, could the Secretary's (note not HRC) action if observed and the motivations are seen to be as described, be in trouble -- even though he/she had the ability to declassify information?

Not to mention, there is the issue that not all the classified information was generated by the Department of State.

Without getting too specific, I have been granted access without filling out paperwork to stuff I wasn't normally authorized to see, because we had an operational (and damned good) reason for me seeing it.

Someone with many stars on the collar made that call--not me.

If you need the material to do your job, you need the material. I mean, that's what it's FOR, after all.

Also, we had a period of time under Clinton, Bill, where things that were just stupidly classified stopped being classified. All that was reversed under Bush, and stupid things got classified again.

I've seen "classified" material written in newspapers. I know that the reporters who acquired the information didn't get it by reading classified documents. They just did their jobs and reported on a story. In many cases our nation has classified stupid stuff--you get some idiot who likes typing (C) or (TS) after certain paragraphs; it's their way of feeling powerful, like they know stuff that other people don't know, but it's all bullshit. You could also, back in the day, read a bunch of cough-classified-cough stuff in the Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) documents of radio and television transcripts from around the world--but that shit wasn't really "classified" -- it was just some jerk who got over-eager with the paragraph markings. It ain't a secret if it ends up on TV/Radio/newspapers!