APNewsBreak: Gov't finds 'top secret' info in Clinton emails

[Credo]

Some of us are are not so "blindly committed to "their" party and its representatives, that they don't realise that it's exactly their blindness, which enables the state (including its bureaucrats and state approved politicians) to always get away with their crimes;"

Some of us are just so very frightened of the alternative presented by the other side.

[lostboy]

It's actually very frightening to read some posts of people who are so blindly committed to "their" party and its representatives, that they don't realise that it's exactly their blindness, which enables the state (including its bureaucrats and state approved politicians) to always get away with their crimes; Again and again and again. They hardly ever argue based on moral principles, and if they do so once in a while, sooner or later they are back in their favourite, one-dimensional game, where they feel so much more comfortable:

- The ignorant, stupid, <fill in whatever offences come to mind> fanboys of the other team, Left vs. Right that is, are responsible and enablers of all the evil that counts, or

- The information comes from the wrong channel / mouth piece, so it must be a lie - of half-lie at least, or

- Politicians and bureaucrats from the other team do and did it too, so... bla, bla, bla.

And yes, they are absolutely right. What they just don't see, is, that they, with their unconditional party allegiance, are also part of the problem as they are themselves the tools and enablers of exactly this inherently corrupt system. They identify themselves so much with a party, that they are even defending the worst deeds of the state, if, and only if, one of "their own" team players was responsible for or even committed it.

If the things they enable with their blind loyalty weren't so bad and evil, their arguments would have at least a certain entertainment value. But, unfortunately, they aren't.

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation equally or in a self serving fashion. it is judging others more critically than oneself.

Any real discussion on corruption, governance, checks and balances, abuses of power cannot be seriously entertained in an intellectually dishonest environment. It will become a never ending kindergarten tit-for-tat of Yes It Is! and No It Isn't!

There is nothing in the post above that cannot be applied to each end of the political divide. It is merely polemic and does not rise to the level of dialectic. As such, no allegations or observations can really be taken seriously. There is a need, however for rational discussion on the corrupting influences of power and its affect on the behaviour of the people who want to run the World's remaining super power. This clearly is not the venue for such discussion.

You may continue in your fear and outrage of polemic. The rest of the World will go about its business.

[Publicus]

The video is from MSNBC and it is a liberal TV network. No one on the video has anything to do with Fox News. Find something else to whine about!

Hillary is in deep doo-doo and it is not just conservatives reporting it.

Morning Joe Scarborough on his weekday show had been daily obsessed with the emails stuff and wailed and howled on about it every day for the longest time.

The former and defeated Republican Congressman now television talk and wail show host thought attacking HR Clinton daily might improve his in-the- tank ratings. Morning Joe, which the clip is from, beats only CNN in its time slot.

Fact is his ratings have improved slightly and only since he stopped whining on daily about it. Now however he's back at it again because Joe Scarborough is obsessive compulsive against Hillary Rodham Clinton. He is among the few who continue to carry on about it.

Here's an apt comment from Diane Ravitch at New York University....

“You can set your clock by this: turn on MSNBC any morning of the week and you’ll immediately be served a big, rancid dose of Hillary hate

“No male candidate is ever treated with the same disdain and disrespect. No self-respecting network would ever stand for it. Hillary Clinton is the sole exception; the rules of decency and dignity do not apply to her when it comes to Morning Joe.

“Named for former Florida congressman Joe Scarborough, a reliably radical right-wing member of Newt Gingrich’s infamous Contract with America crew, Morning Joe is Opie and Anthony for the Beltway political set. In the 2016 cycle, MSNBC’s “morning zoo for politics” has devolved into a daily frat boy fest of grins, sneers, giggles and endless sexist dog whistles.

“All that’s missing is Baba Booey.

http://dianeravitch.net/2015/09/30/how-low-can-morning-joe-go-the-hate-hillary-obsession/comment-page-1/

[Andreas2]

It's actually very frightening to read some posts of people who are so blindly committed to "their" party and its representatives, that they don't realise that it's exactly their blindness, which enables the state (including its bureaucrats and state approved politicians) to always get away with their crimes; Again and again and again. They hardly ever argue based on moral principles, and if they do so once in a while, sooner or later they are back in their favourite, one-dimensional game, where they feel so much more comfortable:

- The ignorant, stupid, <fill in whatever offences come to mind> fanboys of the other team, Left vs. Right that is, are responsible and enablers of all the evil that counts, or

- The information comes from the wrong channel / mouth piece, so it must be a lie - of half-lie at least, or

- Politicians and bureaucrats from the other team do and did it too, so... bla, bla, bla.

And yes, they are absolutely right. What they just don't see, is, that they, with their unconditional party allegiance, are also part of the problem as they are themselves the tools and enablers of exactly this inherently corrupt system. They identify themselves so much with a party, that they are even defending the worst deeds of the state, if, and only if, one of "their own" team players was responsible for or even committed it.

If the things they enable with their blind loyalty weren't so bad and evil, their arguments would have at least a certain entertainment value. But, unfortunately, they aren't.

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation equally or in a self serving fashion. it is judging others more critically than oneself.

Any real discussion on corruption, governance, checks and balances, abuses of power cannot be seriously entertained in an intellectually dishonest environment. It will become a never ending kindergarten tit-for-tat of Yes It Is! and No It Isn't!

There is nothing in the post above that cannot be applied to each end of the political divide. It is merely polemic and does not rise to the level of dialectic. As such, no allegations or observations can really be taken seriously. There is a need, however for rational discussion on the corrupting influences of power and its affect on the behaviour of the people who want to run the World's remaining super power. This clearly is not the venue for such discussion.

You may continue in your fear and outrage of polemic. The rest of the World will go about its business.

I absolutely agree with you.

Yes, the thread is about Mrs. Clinton, but my post wasn't.

My bad, seriously, if I wasn't able to make it clear, that I didn't take any side in it.

[Richard W]

Being marked or unmarked is not a defense.

1. Hillary signed a security form SF-312 when she was first provided access to her office. That form clearly states...

"As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12356, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in Sections 1.1© and 1.2(e) of Executive Order 12356, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security."

Notice the operative words here, "marked or unmarked". She has no defense for this reason.

I believe your argument only works if she is assessed to be competent to estimate the protective marking of incoming unmarked material.

I'm curious as to the implications on the handling of material of undetermined classification. Are you saying that if it is not known whether something is SECRET or TOP SECRET, it should be unmarked? Surely not! I am however alarmed at the idea that material that someone thought at the time of sending was TOP SECRET should have made it onto her server.

It is possible, though very unusual, that someone may think that raw information is UNCLASSIFIED when in fact it is TOP SECRET. Another serious issue is that aggregations of data may have much higher classification than each item considered in isolation. For example, the length of a TOP SECRET file (without its name or purpose) and the value of each byte on its own is unclassified.

[chuckd]

Being marked or unmarked is not a defense.

1. Hillary signed a security form SF-312 when she was first provided access to her office. That form clearly states...

"As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12356, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in Sections 1.1© and 1.2(e) of Executive Order 12356, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security."

Notice the operative words here, "marked or unmarked". She has no defense for this reason.

I believe your argument only works if she is assessed to be competent to estimate the protective marking of incoming unmarked material.

I'm curious as to the implications on the handling of material of undetermined classification. Are you saying that if it is not known whether something is SECRET or TOP SECRET, it should be unmarked? Surely not! I am however alarmed at the idea that material that someone thought at the time of sending was TOP SECRET should have made it onto her server.

It is possible, though very unusual, that someone may think that raw information is UNCLASSIFIED when in fact it is TOP SECRET. Another serious issue is that aggregations of data may have much higher classification than each item considered in isolation. For example, the length of a TOP SECRET file (without its name or purpose) and the value of each byte on its own is unclassified.

As Secretary of State she had specific powers to classify, or not, any document within the State Department. This specific power was duly provided to her by the State Department Security section along with a tutorial on the application of these powers when she assumed office in 2009.

Unless she slept trough the instructional sessions, she was deemed to be competent.

Check out this post from earlier: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/890824-apnewsbreak-govt-finds-top-secret-info-in-clinton-emails/page-2#entry10369656

[boomerangutang]

I still think Hillary would be a good POTUS. Oh well, if her enemies are successful at sinking her boat, then I guess they'll have to find a way to accept a Sanders Presidency.

[Pinot]

The video is from MSNBC and it is a liberal TV network. No one on the video has anything to do with Fox News. Find something else to whine about!

Hillary is in deep doo-doo and it is not just conservatives reporting it.

No one but the right cares about HRC's email. You can't acknowledge that, I understand. You're deeply invested in this wingnut talking point, I expect you guys are just going to continue with this bullshit forever. It's the continuation of the Benghazi bullshit.

The Republican candidates are a disaster. There is no chance of winning with these awful people. All you have to hold onto is...Hillary is going to jail.

Democrats lump the absurdity of that happening into the compost pile of everything else the Republican say. The climate change denial, the harvesting of fetal tissue, the opposition to gun laws, the attacks on feminism, equal rights, fair taxation, the xenophobia, the...mountain of bullshit.

The Republican party has embraced miserabilism.

I love to troll the craziness the wingnuts are writing on Twitter. Fox News and the rest of the right wing echo chamber are so far out there, crazy stuff. But really interesting part is how they right has turned on itself. Ann Coulter has viciously attacked everyone not all in on Trump. She's turned on a big majority of everyone who use to buy her nasty books! The windbags at Fox are in atttack mode on Trump (in between bullshit about Hillary's email).

Best election ever! I feel like I'm routing for the 1927 Yankees against the 1962 Mets in the upcoming World Series. HRC is Babe Ruth.

[arjunadawn]

Being marked or unmarked is not a defense.

1. Hillary signed a security form SF-312 when she was first provided access to her office. That form clearly states...

"As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12356, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in Sections 1.1© and 1.2(e) of Executive Order 12356, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security."

Notice the operative words here, "marked or unmarked". She has no defense for this reason.

I believe your argument only works if she is assessed to be competent to estimate the protective marking of incoming unmarked material.

I'm curious as to the implications on the handling of material of undetermined classification. Are you saying that if it is not known whether something is SECRET or TOP SECRET, it should be unmarked? Surely not! I am however alarmed at the idea that material that someone thought at the time of sending was TOP SECRET should have made it onto her server.

It is possible, though very unusual, that someone may think that raw information is UNCLASSIFIED when in fact it is TOP SECRET. Another serious issue is that aggregations of data may have much higher classification than each item considered in isolation. For example, the length of a TOP SECRET file (without its name or purpose) and the value of each byte on its own is unclassified.

Actually she is a "classifying authority" as SecState. She is finally responsible. I would also disagree with your example regarding each individual "byte" being unclassified. In fact, every single thing that "byte" touches becomes or must be classified. If that byte makes it to a personal computer through any mechanism, that PC becomes classified as government property. Period! Thus, having this "byte" on a government computer in a bathroom, in a home, on the internet and not secure net, are violations of law. It is not necessary that one intentionally do this or not. She is guilty. The entire dog and pony show is politics. Of course she is guilty.

I bet you it is. It does not matter whether information is labeled or not. Also, it does not matter in some cases whether she labels it or not. Some information cannot even be made unclassified by her. It is highest classification when "born."

[arjunadawn]

What our ever present Hillary defenders are overlooking is, as Secretary of State, she was one of the few people in the government that had the power to classify or declassify documents, relating to the State Department alone.She had no authority to alter the classification or any other departments findings. She could dispute them but not overrule them.

As an approving agent she would also have received many hours of additional security training. My guess is she spent most of thos hours of training sending text messages to Chelsea or trying to find out who Bill was doing that day.

As far as the poster that said only a court could declare somebody a criminal, let me pose this question. If a bank robber shoots somebody during the robbery and flees the scene, did he commit a crime?

One of the recently released emails was instructing one of her aides to "scrub" the header and send her a classified message unsecured.

Cry, moan and make feeble attempts to clear her all you want, if a normal person pulled some of these stunts they would already be in Leavenworth.

Despite all the left field stances some have taken here in her defense, nobody has responded to the SF-312 issue. I know its importance since I lived with administering it to my employees for around 20 years.

What say you security experts out there?

@ Arjunadawn:

The term "born classified" isn't common knowledge among the left whiners.

I am not an expert but I have a lifetime of experience with this stuff; I was among other things a Special Forces Operations and Intelligence guy (we are cross trained to hold multiple 18 Series skill sets (MOS) simultaneously. In my case three).

I worked with such things often. "Born classified" is information, corroborated or not (even rumor), that originates in certain circumstances. The common example with HRC is information from overseas regarding leaders, etc. There are other circumstances. With HRC consistent denials of wrong doing she sets up the formula now that even the question of whether other governments accessed this information demands she be excluded from any office. She is running for the Oval Office, the "button." If there is even a 1% chance others compromised HRC she must be excluded if not imprisoned. If its even 22 classified emails (Jeez, people go to prison for 1) she must be excluded from office.

If the actions of HRC were from Ronald Reagan, Trump, or any other I would equally recommend trial and prison. There is no thing as sacred as our national secrets. Among all things in the government this one sacrosanct issue- the handling of classified information- has transcended politics and time. The slow and steady degradation of the meaning of what "is" "is" with regard to our nations secrets is a harbinger of what we can expect from "We came, we saw, he died."

"Must have a current TS-SCI clearance with read-ons to all of the following caveats SI/TK/G/H, and have PKI emailed to your SOCRATES account"

http://www.soc.mil/swcs/SWCS%20Courses/COURSE%20PDF/6th%20Bn/Special%20Forces%20Intelligence%20Sergeants%20Course%20011-18F40.pdf

https://militaryyearbookproject.com/references/military-occupation-codes/us-army/career-management-field-18-special-forces/special-forces-assistant-operations-and-intelligence-sergeant

Edit: For the left the degradation of meaning is everything. A "criminal" is someone who commits a crime. In this case an "alleged criminal," but still a criminal. It has little relationship to the adjudication of law. If convicted a criminal then becomes a "convicted criminal." This is why convicted criminals are referred to as... convicted criminals.

Edited January 31, 2016 by arjunadawn

[NeverSure]

I'm guessing that Hillary's defense would essentially be claiming that the conditions within her house meet the standards of a SCIF more so or at least as much as her office does. That is actually possible. It would have to cut off electrical access from outside her home and include serious physical access. Bill still gets full time Secret Service detail, etc. This would be a stretch but it is possible. It is not possible to have "read on" her staff to SAPs, Special Access Programs.

Everybody at the WH will be doing every thing they can to give her a pass.

An email server by definition is connected to the internet, meaning everyone. The danger isn't only within her house but on the internet. If the server had been domiciled at the State Department it would have been managed by a team of security experts. Without boring you with details, that level of security isn't available in her house.

These classified emails were traveling on the internet to an unsecured server in her house. I don't mean it wasn't physically secure in her house which is also a question, but it wasn't secure when interfacing with everyone on the internet. This is a violation of law. There's a lot more that's violation of law.

[NeverSure]

I never claimed she had been indicted. I never claimed she had been charged with a crime.

I merely claimed she has committed criminal acts, is therefore a criminal and needs to be indicted and go to jail.

Remember these famous words uttered by her on 17 January 2016. We may be hearing them more often in coming days.

"CLINTON: There’s no daylight on the basic premise that there should be no bank too big to fail, and no individual too powerful to jail. We agree on that. "

President Hillary Clinton....say it to get used to it.

Yes of course. Hillary's new campaign theme is "I have not yet been indicted".

[arjunadawn]

Nah, it's all being co-ordinated to try and wreck her presidential campaign.

It's the only way the GOP can see themselves winning.

The problem is that, other than drooling Focks News viewers, I suspect people are sick of listening to their perpetual carping.

You may be correct... about coordination, but it is not primarily the GOP. There is simply no recent examples suggesting the GOP has this level of sophistication, ability, or even intelligence. Nearly everything the GOP has touched in many years has been compromised or halfhearted; they lack will on every effort. If an design to wreck HRC exists it comes from within her party, IMO. However, this does not change the fact that she placed or allowed herself to be placed in this situation. Which raises a question for me.

I do not like HRC one bit but would not accuse her of being stupid. Any person who could have finessed the constant train of scandals surrounding them for decades and not be sent to prison is clearly not stupid. Why then would she have decided that personal email use is a good idea? She had to have known that the absence of FOIA data from any State query would reveal she was not on .gov email. Of course she knew this. Why? The only thing I can guess is that the reason not to be on .gov was greater than the penalty for being on private server. So, what would have mitigated her choice? I think collusion with the Obama administration. Its only a theory but someone would have had to offer her "cover for action" to do this. Only higher could have done this.

She is now 'out there on a limb' and it seems only tentative support is being offered by her "handler." Valerie Jarret is the muscle up top and she does not like HRC one bit! Its just my theory: HRC was given State to control her. HRC served two purposes in this role and stepped into this setup likely thinking her doing their bidding would later yield fruit such as endorsement.

1. Obama was able to run black guns through third parties and wash them/source them in Libya under State, route them through Eastern Europe and Turkey, and deliver them to "moderate" rebels in Syria who were earlier trained at the King Abdullah Training Center in Jordan. Later this same IranContra-like game was sanitized with white congressional authorization.

2. HRC could later be "outted" to finally pay back Clinton or jettison her in such a way that she would run out the clock on the primary in time to have Uncle Joe appear as a savior to the party.

HRC is not stupid. Cui bono?

[Richard W]

As Secretary of State she had specific powers to classify, or not, any document within the State Department. This specific power was duly provided to her by the State Department Security section along with a tutorial on the application of these powers when she assumed office in 2009.

Unless she slept trough the instructional sessions, she was deemed to be competent.

Check out this post from earlier: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/890824-apnewsbreak-govt-finds-top-secret-info-in-clinton-emails/page-2#entry10369656

That must be quite a difference from the Department of Defense. I wouldn't expect the Secretary of Defence to be able to determine the classification of each document, even if he has the authority to decree it.

[Richard W]

Actually she is a "classifying authority" as SecState. She is finally responsible.

That doesn't necessarily make her competent to judge. Most authorities need advice so as to make sensible decisions. In this respect, complete documents are easiest to assess. Short documents, such as many emails, can be a tough call.

I would also disagree with your example regarding each individual "byte" being unclassified. In fact, every single thing that "byte" touches becomes or must be classified. If that byte makes it to a personal computer through any mechanism, that PC becomes classified as government property. Period! Thus, having this "byte" on a government computer in a bathroom, in a home, on the internet and not secure net, are violations of law. It is not necessary that one intentionally do this or not.

I have a copy of every byte of Top Secret data on most US computers on my PC. No way does that make my PC government property.

In the UK, the principle is that each item is graded according to what it reveals in isolation. An unlabelled byte reveals nothing. Are you claiming that each shred of a properly shredded document retains the classification of the entire document?

Edited January 31, 2016 by Richard W

[Publicus]

What our ever present Hillary defenders are overlooking is, as Secretary of State, she was one of the few people in the government that had the power to classify or declassify documents, relating to the State Department alone.She had no authority to alter the classification or any other departments findings. She could dispute them but not overrule them.

As an approving agent she would also have received many hours of additional security training. My guess is she spent most of thos hours of training sending text messages to Chelsea or trying to find out who Bill was doing that day.

As far as the poster that said only a court could declare somebody a criminal, let me pose this question. If a bank robber shoots somebody during the robbery and flees the scene, did he commit a crime?

One of the recently released emails was instructing one of her aides to "scrub" the header and send her a classified message unsecured.

Cry, moan and make feeble attempts to clear her all you want, if a normal person pulled some of these stunts they would already be in Leavenworth.

Despite all the left field stances some have taken here in her defense, nobody has responded to the SF-312 issue. I know its importance since I lived with administering it to my employees for around 20 years.

What say you security experts out there?

@ Arjunadawn:

The term "born classified" isn't common knowledge among the left whiners.

I am not an expert but I have a lifetime of experience with this stuff; I was among other things a Special Forces Operations and Intelligence guy (we are cross trained to hold multiple 18 Series skill sets (MOS) simultaneously. In my case three).

I worked with such things often. "Born classified" is information, corroborated or not (even rumor), that originates in certain circumstances. The common example with HRC is information from overseas regarding leaders, etc. There are other circumstances. With HRC consistent denials of wrong doing she sets up the formula now that even the question of whether other governments accessed this information demands she be excluded from any office. She is running for the Oval Office, the "button." If there is even a 1% chance others compromised HRC she must be excluded if not imprisoned. If its even 22 classified emails (Jeez, people go to prison for 1) she must be excluded from office.

If the actions of HRC were from Ronald Reagan, Trump, or any other I would equally recommend trial and prison. There is no thing as sacred as our national secrets. Among all things in the government this one sacrosanct issue- the handling of classified information- has transcended politics and time. The slow and steady degradation of the meaning of what "is" "is" with regard to our nations secrets is a harbinger of what we can expect from "We came, we saw, he died."

"Must have a current TS-SCI clearance with read-ons to all of the following caveats SI/TK/G/H, and have PKI emailed to your SOCRATES account"

Edit: For the left the degradation of meaning is everything. A "criminal" is someone who commits a crime. In this case an "alleged criminal," but still a criminal. It has little relationship to the adjudication of law. If convicted a criminal then becomes a "convicted criminal." This is why convicted criminals are referred to as... convicted criminals.

If there is even a 1% chance others compromised HRC she must be excluded if not imprisoned.

Now it looks like every Democratic party president or viable candidate for the office is the Manchurian Candidate.

First it wuz Obama and now it's HR Clinton.

The right has become so desperate it's gone from making its own fiction and myths to citing and transmogrifying actual fiction.

The carnival show could cause one to wonder if Edward Snowden might suddenly descend on the campaign to show everyone's emails.

(Putin and Xi Jinping excepted of course).

[NeverSure]

The right has become so desperate it's gone from making its own fiction and myths to citing and transmogrifying actual fiction.

Uh, the Executive Branch works directly for Obama. It is Obama's people who are investigating Hillary and they are coming up with mountains of criminal evidence. The FBI reports to Obama as do all executive depts. such as the CIA, the State Department, etc. etc.

It would appear that it is Obama and his minions who are after Hillary. Those of us who are anti-Hillary are just the messenger who you are shooting. We are only reporting what Obama's people are doing to Hillary and how bad Hillary looks as a result.

Now, you were saying?

[NeverSure]

^^^ Hillary needs no help from Republicans to look bad. She already looks bad from every angle and her pals in the Executive Branch are taking her on for reasons you may speculate for yourself if you wish.

I have my own theory about what's happening but it isn't the Republicans who are chewing Hillary up over emails. It's Obama's people.

You're welcome.

Cheers.

[Publicus]

The right has become so desperate it's gone from making its own fiction and myths to citing and transmogrifying actual fiction.

Uh, the Executive Branch works directly for Obama. It is Obama's people who are investigating Hillary and they are coming up with mountains of criminal evidence. The FBI reports to Obama as do all executive depts. such as the CIA, the State Department, etc. etc.

It would appear that it is Obama and his minions who are after Hillary. Those of us who are anti-Hillary are just the messenger who you are shooting. We are only reporting what Obama's people are doing to Hillary and how bad Hillary looks as a result.

Now, you were saying?

I see.....

The vast right wing conspiracy during its 25 years has morphed into the conspiracy of the rightwing politicians, mass of highly financed media and teabaggers, the intelligence agencies dominated by rightwing superpatriots (which they are), and the Obama White House. And it all goes in a straight line to Joe Biden.

That's brilliance and it is simply unparalleled.

Trouble is it fails the test of whether Machiavelli would say it. That's because ol' Nicolo was predicated in the real world. Machiavelli proscribed, he did not concoct marginal theories or fantasies dazzled up by sorcery.

[NeverSure]

Uh, the Executive Branch works directly for Obama. It is Obama's people who are investigating Hillary and they are coming up with mountains of criminal evidence. The FBI reports to Obama as do all executive depts. such as the CIA, the State Department, etc. etc.

It would appear that it is Obama and his minions who are after Hillary. Those of us who are anti-Hillary are just the messenger who you are shooting. We are only reporting what Obama's people are doing to Hillary and how bad Hillary looks as a result.

Now, you were saying?

I see.....

The vast right wing conspiracy during its 25 years has morphed into the conspiracy of the rightwing politicians, mass of highly financed media and teabaggers, the intelligence agencies dominated by rightwing superpatriots (which they are), and the Obama White House. And it all goes in a straight line to Joe Biden.

That's brilliance and it is simply unparalleled.

Trouble is it fails the test of whether Machiavelli would say it. That's because ol' Nicolo was predicated in the real world. Machiavelli proscribed, he did not concoct marginal theories or fantasies dazzled up by sorcery.

I see. In your (private) world the clear fact that the FBI (which is part of The Justice Department and all of whom work directly for Obama) is investigating Hillary is a vast right wing conspiracy. Or something like that.

Here, have some more of this.

[Ulysses G.]

I see. In your (private) world the clear fact that the FBI (which is part of The Justice Department and all of whom work directly for Obama) is investigating Hillary is a vast right wing conspiracy. Or something like that.

It's called dishonest partisan spin. Does it really fool anybody?

[sirineou]

Two questions in my mind

one , HRC says they were not classified as top secret when she emailed them, but were later on classified. If that's true then she did not commit a crime.

Second, why did she need a private server? A government one was available to her at no cost, yet she chose to spend cash and time to create and maintain one, Why?

If some one can address these two questions I would appreciate it

[Publicus]

Uh, the Executive Branch works directly for Obama. It is Obama's people who are investigating Hillary and they are coming up with mountains of criminal evidence. The FBI reports to Obama as do all executive depts. such as the CIA, the State Department, etc. etc.

It would appear that it is Obama and his minions who are after Hillary. Those of us who are anti-Hillary are just the messenger who you are shooting. We are only reporting what Obama's people are doing to Hillary and how bad Hillary looks as a result.

Now, you were saying?

I see.....

The vast right wing conspiracy during its 25 years has morphed into the conspiracy of the rightwing politicians, mass of highly financed media and teabaggers, the intelligence agencies dominated by rightwing superpatriots (which they are), and the Obama White House. And it all goes in a straight line to Joe Biden.

That's brilliance and it is simply unparalleled.

Trouble is it fails the test of whether Machiavelli would say it. That's because ol' Nicolo was predicated in the real world. Machiavelli proscribed, he did not concoct marginal theories or fantasies dazzled up by sorcery.

I see. In your (private) world the clear fact that the FBI (which is part of The Justice Department and all of whom work directly for Obama) is investigating Hillary is a vast right wing conspiracy. Or something like that.

Here, have some more of this.

The entire intelligence community as it is called is dominated by rightwing superpatriots. From top to bottom. Always has been.

The organisation Correct The Record has, as I'd pointed out, filed a FOIA request to probe the clandestine contacts between DepState IG and Republican Senators and staff. There is also the IG of the whole of the IC who was a GW Bush donor and appointed to his first government job in the administration of GHW Bush in 1991.

Correct The Record wants the longtime anti-Clinton 3rd ranking guy in the DepState IG office to recuse himself from the emails stuff.

These intelligence community (and all IG officers) are by law highly protected in their jobs. They are right wingers in their jobs doing their jobs as right wingers do. The rightwingers involved in this are now getting the spotlight put on them after having hid behind their positions to carry out their political purposes.

The Clinton response has now entered into a new dimension as it turns public attention and focus on the rightwingers that dominate the intelligence community and their contacts with Republican Senators especially.

The rightwing schemes in the Republican dominated House have gone bust, as in the instance of Ben Ghazi and people are tired of the emails nonsense. Now it's the turn of the Senate Republicans and their guyz in the intelligence community to get shut down if not outright busted, right on up to the clatch of IG's that are running this newest scam.

[Ulysses G.]

The Clintons covered up Benghazi and the emails for all this time, but it is time to pay the piper. The cover up always gets them in the end.

The State Department released the latest batch of emails from Clinton's time as secretary of state on Friday evening. But seven email chains are being withheld in full because they contain information deemed to be "top secret." The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called "special access programs" - a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping.http://www.cbsnews.com/news/22-top-secret-hillary-clinton-emails-wont-be-released/

Edited January 31, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[sirineou]

The Clintons covered up Benghazi and the emails for all this time, but it is time to pay the piper. The cover up always gets them in the end.

The Clintons did not covered up Benghazi and the emails for all this time, and it it's not time to pay the piper. The cover up never gets them in the end.

[Publicus]

[chuckd]

As Secretary of State she had specific powers to classify, or not, any document within the State Department. This specific power was duly provided to her by the State Department Security section along with a tutorial on the application of these powers when she assumed office in 2009.

Unless she slept trough the instructional sessions, she was deemed to be competent.

Check out this post from earlier: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/890824-apnewsbreak-govt-finds-top-secret-info-in-clinton-emails/page-2#entry10369656

That must be quite a difference from the Department of Defense. I wouldn't expect the Secretary of Defence to be able to determine the classification of each document, even if he has the authority to decree it.

The following link will take you to Obama's Executive Order 13526 labeled "Original Classification Authority"

This EO specifies which officials are able to classify government data to either a "Secret" or "Top Secret" level.

As a Classifying Authority she would have received extensive training and briefings on what should be considered classified materials and what might not be.

She can certainly be blamed for being incompetent but that won't hold up in a court of law.

Both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense are so designated.

For Top Secret only the following designees are appointed:

TOP SECRET

Executive Office of the President:

The Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff

The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (National Security Advisor)

The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

The Director of National Drug Control Policy

The Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy

The Chair or Co-Chairs, President's Intelligence Advisory Board

Departments and Agencies:

The Secretary of State

The Secretary of the Treasury

The Secretary of Defense

The Attorney General

The Secretary of Energy

The Secretary of Homeland Security

The Director of National Intelligence

The Secretary of the Army

The Secretary of the Navy

The Secretary of the Air Force

The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The Director, Information Security Oversight Office

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-original-classification-authority

[chuckd]

Actually she is a "classifying authority" as SecState. She is finally responsible.

That doesn't necessarily make her competent to judge. Most authorities need advice so as to make sensible decisions. In this respect, complete documents are easiest to assess. Short documents, such as many emails, can be a tough call.

I would also disagree with your example regarding each individual "byte" being unclassified. In fact, every single thing that "byte" touches becomes or must be classified. If that byte makes it to a personal computer through any mechanism, that PC becomes classified as government property. Period! Thus, having this "byte" on a government computer in a bathroom, in a home, on the internet and not secure net, are violations of law. It is not necessary that one intentionally do this or not.

I have a copy of every byte of Top Secret data on most US computers on my PC. No way does that make my PC government property.

In the UK, the principle is that each item is graded according to what it reveals in isolation. An unlabelled byte reveals nothing. Are you claiming that each shred of a properly shredded document retains the classification of the entire document?

Richard:

I appreciate your interest but please do us all a favor.

This problem is within the jurisdiction of the US government and has nothing whatsoever to do with how the UK handles their classified documents.

You can't compare the two.

Thanks.

[chuckd]

Two questions in my mind

one , HRC says they were not classified as top secret when she emailed them, but were later on classified. If that's true then she did not commit a crime.

Second, why did she need a private server? A government one was available to her at no cost, yet she chose to spend cash and time to create and maintain one, Why?

If some one can address these two questions I would appreciate itI can only answer the first question.

As a classifying authority she had the knowledge and training to know what is classified and what is not classified. And let's not forget that mysterious form SF-312 which said she was in violation of transmitting any information, WHETHER MARKED OR UNMARKED.

This is no defense, even though she thinks it is.

To be quite frank, my guess is the SF-312 originally signed by Hillary has long disappeared and is back in her personal possession. That's the Clinton way. I expect Kerry or some minion of his to come out soon and announce the State Department has been unable to locate a signed copy of SF-312.

As far as the second part of your question, see the first part above.

That's the Clinton way. Laws and rules only apply to the commoners. Wannabe political dynasties are not chained by such triviliaties.

[chuckd]

The Clintons covered up Benghazi and the emails for all this time, but it is time to pay the piper. The cover up always gets them in the end.

The Clintons did not covered up Benghazi and the emails for all this time, and it it's not time to pay the piper. The cover up never gets them in the end.

I hate to be so disagreeable but, in reality, Clinton did cover up her Benghazi emails,

The Select Committee on Benghazi had supoened her emails froM the State Department, not knowing the Department did not have them.

The Select Committee discovered in April 2014 she had used a private server and that's when this all began.

She has still refused to turn over some 30,000 emails she is calling personal in nature. I expect that is where most of her email traffic on Benghazi will appear.