Wikileaks / Assange destroys Hillary's excuse of not understanding classified markings (c)

[Starbuck1975]

Have you ever had a clearance? Serious question. You don't need to hurry because I already know the answer.

For those of us who have held clearances, there is no such thing as a "no harm no foul" threshold, and all it takes is one instance of mishandling for there to be repercussions.

Extensive training and refresher training not to mention reminders on IDs or badges serve as constant reminders to those entrusted with clearances. Awareness is somewhat unavoidable.

Now, for an entry level or junior employee, the severity of what Clinton did would probably result in a reprimand and perhaps revocation of clearance at worst. Mistakes are inevitably made especially in the digital age.

But for the SoS to have no recollection or to plead ignorance? For a corporate executive or CEO, probably career ending.

Now we cant fire her because she is no longer SoS and what she did is not criminal. However, to say "well she learned her lesson and won't do it again" is conveniently forgiving.

Sanders was a fool not to bury her with this.

 

[Jhhnn]

Excellent series of honest articles-

http://arstechnica.com/information-...ce-delving-deep-into-the-clinton-e-mail-saga/

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-launches-its-own-probe-into-clinton-e-mails/

http://arstechnica.com/information-...ited-knowledge-of-classified-data-procedures/

I think their numbers are trustworthy. From the first link-

There is ample reason to believe that in the majority of cases, Clinton did not understand the information should not have been in unclassified e-mail. Of the more than 31,000 e-mails examined by State, Intelligence Community, and FBI investigators, a very small fraction—110 messages in 52 e-mail chains—contained classified information. The majority of that was sent to Clinton by her staff or other Foreign Service officials from within State using OpenNet's Internet mail gateway, and classification markings were not used properly on any of those e-mails.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Excellent series of honest articles-

http://arstechnica.com/information-...ce-delving-deep-into-the-clinton-e-mail-saga/

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-launches-its-own-probe-into-clinton-e-mails/

http://arstechnica.com/information-...ited-knowledge-of-classified-data-procedures/

I think their numbers are trustworthy. From the first link-

The first article is incredibly balanced, but in no way flattering to Clinton, especially this paragraph which I think summarizes the whole discussion:

This kind of culture absolutely pre-dates Clinton’s tenure at State. However, it failed during her watch on an entirely new level.

 

[werepossum]

without the headers or classified markings, how is she supposed to divine the status?

it's not like these emails were "FYI: John Smith, CIA spy in Pakistan, is scheduled to assassinate Yousaf Raza Gillani tomorrow." some of the "damning" classified emails contained nothing but links to publicly-available news articles.

For the sake of argument, let's forget for the moment that she is also arguing that she also does not know what classified markings mean and concentrate on her position as head of the State Department. How is she supposed to function without even the most basic understanding of what is classified and what is sensitive, and how such information must be handled? And assuming for the sake of argument that she really is so blatantly ignorant, why in the world would she set up her own private, unsecured email server (while admonishing mere mortals who dared use non-State email for anything official) knowing she is utterly ignorant of how to perform her duties?

This would be academic if she were retiring, but you guys made her your nominee and she is likely to be our next President. That raises the bar considerably. Whether you accept that she was merely stupid and utterly incompetent, or assume that she is sociopathic and does not accept that any rules apply to her, neither is any sane recommendation for even more power. Are we to employ an army of minders to slap her hands and keep her from such actions as President?

 

[Jhhnn]

For the sake of argument, let's forget for the moment that she is also arguing that she also does not know what classified markings mean and concentrate on her position as head of the State Department. How is she supposed to function without even the most basic understanding of what is classified and what is sensitive, and how such information must be handled? And assuming for the sake of argument that she really is so blatantly ignorant, why in the world would she set up her own private, unsecured email server (while admonishing mere mortals who dared use non-State email for anything official) knowing she is utterly ignorant of how to perform her duties?

This would be academic if she were retiring, but you guys made her your nominee and she is likely to be our next President. That raises the bar considerably. Whether you accept that she was merely stupid and utterly incompetent, or assume that she is sociopathic and does not accept that any rules apply to her, neither is any sane recommendation for even more power. Are we to employ an army of minders to slap her hands and keep her from such actions as President?

Great FUD. If you actually read links, you'd see that she acted like a lot of executives in trusting her staff to keep her out of trouble.

 

[nageov3t]

For the sake of argument, let's forget for the moment that she is also arguing that she also does not know what classified markings mean and concentrate on her position as head of the State Department. How is she supposed to function without even the most basic understanding of what is classified and what is sensitive, and how such information must be handled? And assuming for the sake of argument that she really is so blatantly ignorant, why in the world would she set up her own private, unsecured email server (while admonishing mere mortals who dared use non-State email for anything official) knowing she is utterly ignorant of how to perform her duties?

This would be academic if she were retiring, but you guys made her your nominee and she is likely to be our next President. That raises the bar considerably. Whether you accept that she was merely stupid and utterly incompetent, or assume that she is sociopathic and does not accept that any rules apply to her, neither is any sane recommendation for even more power. Are we to employ an army of minders to slap her hands and keep her from such actions as President?

would even someone with an understanding of what is classified and sensitive be able to divine that a link to nytimes.com was considered to be classified?

I'll concede that the email server itself was almost certainly meant to protect her conversations with non-.gov people from FOIA requests, but while morally shitty, doesn't disqualify her from the Presidency in my mind especially when the alternative is someone who wants to see a nuclear Saudi Arabia.

 

[fskimospy]

would even someone with an understanding of what is classified and sensitive be able to divine that a link to nytimes.com was considered to be classified?

I'll concede that the email server itself was almost certainly meant to protect her conversations with non-.gov people from FOIA requests, but while morally shitty, doesn't disqualify her from the Presidency in my mind especially when the alternative is someone who wants to see a nuclear Saudi Arabia.

Anyone who has ever handled classified information (i.e.: not werepossum) would know that while there is some information that is obviously classified by nature, there is absolutely huge amounts of stuff that you would have no way of knowing if it was classified or not unless marked. Sometimes while I was at sea it was so boring I would read the message traffic that was coming in and I was always amazed at the incredibly obvious and mundane shit that was considered classified.

It's almost certain that everyone on this board has sent and received classified information in their life without knowing it.

 

[hal2kilo]

Anyone who has ever handled classified information (i.e.: not werepossum) would know that while there is some information that is obviously classified by nature, there is absolutely huge amounts of stuff that you would have no way of knowing if it was classified or not unless marked. Sometimes while I was at sea it was so boring I would read the message traffic that was coming in and I was always amazed at the incredibly obvious and mundane shit that was considered classified.

It's almost certain that everyone on this board has sent and received classified information in their life without knowing it.

Hell, we had to have our email server scrubbed as well as several other contractors email servers scrubbed because a 3 star admiral put out a BRAVO ZULU gram reporting on our successful operation. Problem was he had some details in the email that were classified. In my business it's fairly straight forward (actually defined) as to what's classified and what is not classified. For the life of me, with regards to diplomacy, and the things that go along with it, it may be hard to tell what is classified and not classified. I think in some areas it would be rather vague.

 

[wetech]

Have you ever had a clearance? Serious question. You don't need to hurry because I already know the answer.

Serious question, do you dispute anything I said? Did Clinton and her staff handle the classified info on her server properly or improperly? Were there not 1000's of classified emails on the server? Did Comey not make that statement?

 

[Pens1566]

Serious question, do you dispute anything I said? Did Clinton and her staff handle the classified info on her server properly or improperly? Were there not 1000's of classified emails on the server? Did Comey not make that statement?

When what you said is based almost entirely on a misconception, yes, I dispute it. As has been pointed out numerous times, how should they have handled a link to a story in the NYT? How many of the "1000's" were classified after the fact?

You don't get it, and that's ok. Some of us deal with this on a daily basis and understand what is going on with this non-story.

 

[wetech]

When what you said is based almost entirely on a misconception, yes, I dispute it. As has been pointed out numerous times, how should they have handled a link to a story in the NYT? How many of the "1000's" were classified after the fact?

You don't get it, and that's ok. Some of us deal with this on a daily basis and understand what is going on with this non-story.

Over 100 emails were classified at the time of sending; 2000 were retroactively classified. You must take this seriously in your daily job; tell your boss you mishandled info the way she did and see if he thinks it's a non-story.

 

[Pens1566]

Over 100 emails were classified at the time of sending; 2000 were retroactively classified. You must take this seriously in your daily job; tell your boss you mishandled info the way she did and see if he thinks it's a non-story.

And again, if they weren't marked, recipients are not in jeopardy. To my knowledge, non of the "over 100" were marked. Period. Full stop. Unless they were specifically concerning something she was read into/aware of, she's fine. As it would seem from the FBI clearing her. The retroactive 2000 were all of the "NYT story" variety. Again, a non-issue.

You don't understand the system and how it works. That's ok.

 

[werepossum]

And again, if they weren't marked, recipients are not in jeopardy. To my knowledge, non of the "over 100" were marked. Period. Full stop. Unless they were specifically concerning something she was read into/aware of, she's fine. As it would seem from the FBI clearing her. The retroactive 2000 were all of the "NYT story" variety. Again, a non-issue.

You don't understand the system and how it works. That's ok.

There were some messages so classified that not even one single word could be released. If you wish to pretend those are links to New York Times articles, I am sure people have believed more stupid things, although none come to mind.

 

[Pens1566]

There were some messages so classified that not even one single word could be released. If you wish to pretend those are links to New York Times articles, I am sure people have believed more stupid things, although none come to mind.

If that were true, and if they were really classified, then whoever leaked that is in fact committing a crime as identifying a spillage is itself classified at the level of the data in question. Anyone being strung up over that? No? Ok then.

So next time you see Gowdy spouting off on camera about how her server had classified data on it, he's either lying or stupidly committing a crime. Remember that, and adjust your opinions on the matter however you see fit.

 

[wetech]

If that were true, and if they were really classified, then whoever leaked that is in fact committing a crime as identifying a spillage is itself classified at the level of the data in question. Anyone being strung up over that? No? Ok then.

So next time you see Gowdy spouting off on camera about how her server had classified data on it, he's either lying or stupidly committing a crime. Remember that, and adjust your opinions on the matter however you see fit.

You obviously haven't paid attention to this story at all, which is surprising considering how hard you're trying to defend Hillary. This isn't Gowdy saying that there was classified info on the server, it was the FBI director, under oath, in front of Congress. The fact that there was classified info present isn't under dispute by anyone but you.

 

[wetech]

And again, if they weren't marked, recipients are not in jeopardy. To my knowledge, non of the "over 100" were marked. Period. Full stop.

Again, you're incorrect. There were portion markings on 3 of the mails.

 

[ivwshane]

Again, you're incorrect. There were portion markings on 3 of the mails.

Yes and they were incorrectly marked. If an email comes to you and it isn't labeled classified, do you know before you open it, whether or not it contains classified info? No of course not. Now if you read that email and it contains no information that looks like it should be classified but you see a classified marking do you assume the email should have been classified, even though it wasn't marked classified? An honest person would say no and not assume the email is classified. What do you say?

 

[nageov3t]

Again, you're incorrect. There were portion markings on 3 of the mails.

3 emails, 2 of which were incorrectly marked.

so yes, 1/45,000 emails was marked classified and wrongfully received by Clinton.

the content of that damning confidential intel?

"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...claims-2012-email-had-classified-marking.html

 

[werepossum]

If that were true, and if they were really classified, then whoever leaked that is in fact committing a crime as identifying a spillage is itself classified at the level of the data in question. Anyone being strung up over that? No? Ok then.

So next time you see Gowdy spouting off on camera about how her server had classified data on it, he's either lying or stupidly committing a crime. Remember that, and adjust your opinions on the matter however you see fit.

As Wetech said, this came from Comey, under oath. It is also provable from official responses to FOIA requests. You are simply completely, inarguably wrong.

As far as no one being prosecuted for transmitting classified information, no one is being prosecuted at all. I am really disappointed at Comey for this. I can understand that Hillary cannot be prosecuted because the Bushies occasionally did the same thing, and perhaps Pagliona falls under her blanket, but even the computer techs who wiped and physically destroyed her server after a meeting with the FBI and being told it was under a federal court preservation order were not prosecuted. Regardless of whether there was classified information on the server, destroying evidence is a crime and should have been prosecuted.

 

[hal2kilo]

If that were true, and if they were really classified, then whoever leaked that is in fact committing a crime as identifying a spillage is itself classified at the level of the data in question. Anyone being strung up over that? No? Ok then.

So next time you see Gowdy spouting off on camera about how her server had classified data on it, he's either lying or stupidly committing a crime. Remember that, and adjust your opinions on the matter however you see fit.

This is what their not getting. Those hearings should have been classified due to the fact the reporting of spillage (I think it would have to be specific though) is in itself classified. Take some derived classification training sometimes. What I see as the main problem is that the technocrats (meaning the help that doesn't change between administrations) did an extremely poor job of informing Clinton about security, did not impose any security training, and did not say WTF when they knew of the servers existence. Seems to me that the State Department security was antiquated at best.

 

[Pens1566]

Again, you're incorrect. There were portion markings on 3 of the mails.

Again, they weren't appropriately marked. Having a (c) anywhere in a document without headers (and as you've been shown the actual text, it's ridiculous), doesn't automatically mean it's confidential.

(c) case in point

 

[Pens1566]

You obviously haven't paid attention to this story at all, which is surprising considering how hard you're trying to defend Hillary. This isn't Gowdy saying that there was classified info on the server, it was the FBI director, under oath, in front of Congress. The fact that there was classified info present isn't under dispute by anyone but you.

I've paid enough attention to hear/see enough details to come to the same conclusion that most of the rest of the world has. It's a non-story. Gowdy/Comey ... Comey may have some special coverage regarding his testimony to congress, I'm not aware of that level of detail. At the ground floor, if it happens, you can't even discuss the event unless you're in a closed area or on an STU.

 

[hal2kilo]

I've paid enough attention to hear/see enough details to come to the same conclusion that most of the rest of the world has. It's a non-story. Gowdy/Comey ... Comey may have some special coverage regarding his testimony to congress, I'm not aware of that level of detail. At the ground floor, if it happens, you can't even discuss the event unless you're in a closed area or on an STU.

I used to have a STU, now I have a STE.

 

[senseamp]

Assange is openly shilling for Trump because he is hoping for a deal that will let him finally leave that embassy he's been stuck in. Just like Putin is shilling for Trump because he is hoping for a weaker US policy on sanctions and NATO.

 

[Jhhnn]

As Wetech said, this came from Comey, under oath. It is also provable from official responses to FOIA requests. You are simply completely, inarguably wrong.

As far as no one being prosecuted for transmitting classified information, no one is being prosecuted at all. I am really disappointed at Comey for this. I can understand that Hillary cannot be prosecuted because the Bushies occasionally did the same thing, and perhaps Pagliona falls under her blanket, but even the computer techs who wiped and physically destroyed her server after a meeting with the FBI and being told it was under a federal court preservation order were not prosecuted. Regardless of whether there was classified information on the server, destroying evidence is a crime and should have been prosecuted.

Quote & link Comey.

Quote & link the assertion wrt the computer techs.

I realize you'll ignore that, as you always do, because your basic technique is massive exploitation of Brandolini's law. Throw out as much bullshit as possible, keep pretending it's true at face value even when challenged, then toss out more instead of providing any evidence at all.